Abstract
The notion of efficient trade-offs is frequently used in functional linguistics in order to explain language use and structure. In this paper I argue that this notion is more confusing than enlightening. Not every negative correlation between parameters represents a real trade-off. Moreover, trade-offs are usually reported between pairs of variables, without taking into account the role of other factors. These and other theoretical issues are illustrated in a case study of linguistic cues used in expressing “who did what to whom”: case marking, rigid word order and medial verb position. The data are taken from the Universal Dependencies corpora in 30 languages and annotated corpora of online news from the Leipzig Corpora collection. We find that not all cues are correlated negatively, which questions the assumption of language as a zero-sum game. Moreover, the correlations between pairs of variables change when we incorporate the third variable. Finally, the relationships between the variables are not always bidirectional. The study also presents a causal model, which can serve as a more appropriate alternative to trade-offs.
Highlights
The present paper argues that such an interpretation is justified if and only if the following conditions are met: 1) the variables participating in the negative correlation can be clearly defined as costs or benefits; 2) there are only two correlated variables, and no other factors involved; 3) the correlated variables are functionally related, representing one type of linguistic task; 4) The relationships between the variables are bidirectional, not one-directional
Following previous research (e.g. SINNEMÄKI, 2008) and the tradition in typology, the analyses presented below were performed on subjects and objects expressed by common nouns (Universal Part of Speech tag “NOUN”)
The quantitative analyses have revealed a negative correlation between rigid word order and distinct forms of subject and object
Summary
Efficiency can be defined as minimization of a ratio of costs to benefits. To put it a person behaves efficiently when they do not spend more effort than necessary in order to achieve their goals. System pressure (analogy), which forces human language users to organize linguistic forms into systems, in which classes of forms behave can be in conflict with economic motivation (HASPELMATH, 2014). It would be less costly for articulation if English had a singulative form for “pea” (something like “pea-one”) and have an unmarked plural form instead of “peas”, like in Welsh, because we seldom speak about one pea only (Andersen’s fairy tale The Princess and the Pea is a famous exception).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
