 At present there are about 7200 living languages ranging from regional types to the dominant languages of the Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan families. This e-lecture discusses and exemplifies the main linguistic parameters with which languages can be classified. We will proceed as follows. First, we will provide an overview of the parameters with which languages can be classified. And then we will discuss each of these parameters in detail. In principle, one could choose any linguistically relevant parameter to classify languages. For example, the use of color terms, the number of vowels of a language, the numerical system a language uses, or the complexity of syllables to name a few. However, in looking at a vast number of languages, it has turned out that there are some linguistic parameters along which languages can best be classified. For example, there is the morphological or structural parameter. Another one concerns the classification of languages in terms of its basic word order pattern. Whereas the first parameter, the morphological or structural one, classifies languages on the basis of their word structure, in particular in terms of its inflectional properties. The second uses the sequence of the basic functional elements of clause structure, that is subject, verb and object. A third parameter can be used to classify languages on the basis of their phonological structure. Let us start with structural aspects. Languages can be morphologically classified on the basis of the inflectional structure of their words, thus in terms of a continuum. Now, this continuum is symbolized by this vertical line here. At one extreme of this continuum, we find so-called analytic or isolating languages, whose words have little or no internal structure. At the other extreme, we have synthetic languages, which do allow the analysis of their words into smaller parts or morphs. Let us look at these two extremes in more detail. Analytic languages, also referred to as isolating, generally do not allow the segmentation of their words. That is, the words of an analytic language cannot or hardly be split into smaller units. Thus, a typical analytic language is the language where there is a one-to-one correspondence between words and morphemes. Well-known examples of analytic languages are Chinese and Vietnamese. Synthetic languages, by contrast, do allow a segmentation of their words into morphs. Here are two examples. The first is an example from Turkish. Adam Larin, which means men in the genitive case, consists of three morphs. A second example has been taken from German. Mention humans consists of two morphs. So both languages allow the segmentation of their words into morphs. In other words, they are synthetic. The degree of synthesis is different. One could argue that German is less synthetic than Turkish because there are fewer inflectional possibilities in German. Let us now look at the function of the morphs in German and Turkish in more detail. Now in Turkish, we have a clear-cut correspondence between morphs and their grammatical function. Adam, which means man, is the stem. Lar stands for the plural and in stands for the genitive. In German, the same holds for mensch, which is the stem. But what about the affix? Well, in Turkish, we can say the two bound morphs, plural and genitive, lar and in, are functionally unambiguous. But in German, by contrast, well, we have a problem. The affix can denote the plural in its nominative case, the plural in its genitive case, in the dative and in the accusative case. It can even denote the singular genitive as in desmention gesicht, the human's face. In other words, whereas in Turkish, the bound morphs are functionally unambiguous. In German, the bound morphs exhibit several grammatical functions. Thus, depending on the function of these morphs, we can define two types of synthetic languages. On the one hand, we can define so-called agglutinating languages. And this is the case for Turkish, whose morphs are by and large functionally unambiguous. In such a language, which is sometimes also called agglutinative, a word may consist of more than one morph, but the boundaries between the morphs are always clear-cut. Moreover, a given morph has mostly a reasonably invariant shape, so that its identification is also straightforward. Another example of an agglutinating language is Japanese, so let's you move Japanese over here into a position close to Turkish. On the other hand, we have synthetic, fusional languages, like German, where the dependent morphs often have several grammatical functions associated with them. In fusional or inflecting or inflective languages, there are no clear-cut boundaries between the morphs. Also, several grammatical properties are often fused together to give a single, unsegmentable morph. Most Indo-European languages are fusional. For example, Latin, which is fairly synthetic and fusional. Russian, which is also fairly synthetic and fusional, but perhaps less synthetic than Latin, but more synthetic than German. So these Indo-European languages are synthetic and fusional. And what about present-day English? Well, English has traditionally been classified as a synthetic, fusional language. But it also has a large number of indivisible, that is, analytic words, that is, conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, etc. So English perhaps should be placed somewhere over here. It involves a high degree of analysis, but also has synthetic elements, which are of course fusional rather than agglutinating. Note that it is often difficult to assign a language to the agglutinating or fusional type. Many languages have properties of both. Let us now look at the second parameter, the syntactic parameter of word order. The order of the functional constituents of clause structure, that is subject, verb and object, has been made into the second, or maybe even the first, the most important typological parameter along which languages can be classified. This provides us with six theoretically possible word order types. For example, languages could exhibit the SVO structure. Then languages could be organized in terms of SOV. Another possibility is to have the verb in the first position, then the subject and then the object, or to have the verb in the first position, then the object and then the subject. And it's also imaginable that languages start their sentences with objects, then the subject and then the verb, or they have a structure where the object is followed by the verb and then the subject. In fact, all six theoretically possible types are used in the languages of the world. However, the distribution of these types across the languages of the world is relatively remarkable, because we find that these orders here, the first three, cover the vast majority of the languages of the world and that the other types, these three are very much marginal. Well, what do the first three have in common? Well, they have in common that the subject always precedes the object. Let us illustrate this with some languages. For example, English is a typical SVO language, Turkish is an example of an S or V language and Arabic is an example of a VSO language. So these are the three main types and in fact, the vast majority of the languages of the world use any of these three types of word order. The main question arises now, how do we establish the basic word order of a language? Well, let us illustrate this with present day English. In present day English declarative sentences, and these are the sentence types we are going to explore the following word order types can be found or not. We all know that English has many examples where we have the subject indicated in red, then the verb blue and the object represented in green. The man saw the woman, no problems with that word order. SOV by contrast is impossible in present day English. So the man the woman saw is absolutely impossible. There is no sentence in present day English which can exhibit the SOV structure. Now, VSO is an interesting type of word order which is possible in present day English. However, as you can see in the example, never has the man seen the woman, there must be an adverbial preceding, the adverbial of course is never. And then we have a VSO word order. However, the adverbial has to be of a negative kind. By no means has the man seen the woman is possible but always has the man seen the woman does not work. So this is possible but exceptional. Verb object subject is certainly impossible, never has the woman seen the man. Well, superficially it looks as if the first sentence never has the woman seen the man is possible. However, please note that the woman is the object and the man the subject, we can illustrate the impossibility of the sentence by replacing them with pronouns and then you have never has her seen he and that's of course totally out. OSV, the next word order. The woman the man saw is impossible. However, quite interestingly it works in cases of object fronting under certain thematic pressure. The woman he saw or I always remember the famous Metallica line trust I seek from nothing else matters. The old rock musician comes through. So this works however in very rare cases. In fact, the condition is that the subject he must be nominative marked. So for example, we have I, he, she, we and they. And finally, OVS, the woman saw the man. Again, this looks superficially as if it was possible. The woman saw the man. However, please note the woman indicated in green is the object the man the subject. If we draw a parallel with pronouns, then you can easily see that her saw he is impossible. So what can we conclude from this? Well, we can conclude that in present day English declarative sentences, the overwhelming majority of sentences exhibits the SVO word order. Thus present day English is an SVO language. And this can easily be supported by the analysis of English text corpora. Over and above the basic word order, there are interesting correlations. That is ordering patterns that concern other head modifier relationships. And there may be problems. However, these will be discussed in a separate e-lecture on word order typology. Let's finally look at the phonological parameters of language classification. Well, there are several possibilities of classifying languages phonologically. For example, one could use segmental aspects such as the presence or absence of certain segments or segmental effects. Examples could be the pre-absence, presence or absence of particular vowels or consonants or the use of nasalization. However, such segmental parameters are less significant than suprasegmental aspects such as the classification of tonal phenomena or the rhythmic organization of a language. So let's look at them in more detail. Now, pitch variations that affect the meaning of a word are called tones. A language that uses this technique is referred to as a tone language. Well, let's illustrate this on the map. The simplest kind of tone language uses two possible tones that is high tones and low tones. Such languages are called register tone languages and they can be found primarily in Africa, for example, within the Bantu languages. More complex tone systems use contour tones, tones that involve gliding movements. For example, rising tones, falling tones, fall rise or rise fall. The most well-known contour tone languages can be found in Asia, for example, in the Sino-Tibetan languages or in the Austro-Asiatic languages. Let us listen to some Chinese tones to illustrate this effect. Now, here are the numbers 1 to 10 in Chinese taken from a dialect spoken in Wuhan. Let's listen to the tones. Clearly, a level tone, rising, level, rising, falling, low, level, falling and level again. So this should suffice to illustrate the tones in Chinese. The second phonological parameter, which is often applied, is a rhythmic parameter. Now, according to the rhythmic organization of speech, languages can be subdivided into two types, stress-timed and syllable-timed. A language is defined as stress-timed when it shows at a given rate of speech. A rhythmic patterning where tone units are roughly perceived as equal in length. English is such a case. Now, here you have a sentence represented phonologically with syllable boundaries. Many intelligent students go to Marburg and the line I have just inserted indicates that we have two tone units with one nucleus each. Stu and Ma. Many intelligent students go to Marburg. Both tone units with one nucleus are roughly perceived as equal in length. Thus, English is a typical stress-timed language. This can be contrasted with Italian. Now, the direct translation of this sentence into Italian is multi studenti intelligenti vanu a Marburg. And if you listen carefully, you will find that here we have a tendency for every syllable to be heard as lasting approximately the same amount of time. So Italian is syllable-timed. Let us summarize. We have defined several parameters for the classification of languages. Morphologically, languages can be classified in terms of a continuum between analytic and synthetic. Syntactically, the basic word order, that is the order of the main functional elements in declarative sentences, constitutes the central parameter. In phonology, segmental as well as suprasegmental features and here, in particular, tonal and rhythmical aspects constitute the basis for a typological classification of the languages of the world. In addition to these central parameters, numerous specific parameters ranging from phonology to syntax and even beyond come in. But that's a different story.