1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that linguistic typology, and linguistics more generally, got off to a good start in the 19th century with scholars like Wilhelm von Humboldt and Georg von der Gabelentz, where the understanding was that each language manifests a unique world view, and it is important to study and compare those world views. This tradition is still alive, but was sidelined and even denigrated for many years due to the rise of Structuralism, which attempted to study language structures divorced from their linguistic and socio-cultural contexts. The paper reviews the understandings the early scholars had and points out their similarities with cutting edge current views in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, and interactional linguistics, which had to be rediscovered due to the influence of Structuralism for so many years. It then argues that we should make linguistic typology (and linguistics more generally) more modern, scientific, and empirical by returning to our roots.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/alal.00005.lap
2020-03-11
2020-04-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarsleff, H.
    (1988) Introduction. Infirst ed of Heath’s translation of Humboldt (1836 [1988]) (pp.vii–lxv).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ansaldo, U.
    (2010) Surpass comparatives in Sinitic and beyond: Typology and grammaticalization. Linguistics48.4: 919–950. doi:  10.1515/ling.2010.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.029 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aristotle
    Aristotle (1962) The categories on interpretation & prior analytics. London: Heinemann/ Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press [Loeb’s Classics].
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Muller, F.
    (1999) Language in time: the rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, P.
    (2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences31: 1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beames, J.
    (1868) Outlines of Indian philology. London: Trübner and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beyer, S. V.
    (1992) The Classical Tibetan language (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bisang, W.
    (2013) Die ‘Chinesische Grammatik’ von Georg von der Gabelentz aus typologischer Sicht. Preface to the reprint of: Gabelentz, G. von der. 1881. Chinesische Grammatik. Mit Ausschluss des niederen Stiles und der heutigen Umgangssprache. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloomfield, L.
    (1933) Language. New York: H. Holt and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bo, Hanxi (Bauer, M.
    ) (2013) Georg von der GabeIentz Hanwenjinwei (Chinesische Grammatik) yanjiu [A study of Georg von der GabeIentz’ Chinesische Grammatik]. Shanghai Normal University PhD thesis.
  11. Boas, F.
    (1911) Introduction. InF. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages (pp.1–83). Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolinger, D. L.
    (1961) Syntactic blends and other matters. Language37: 366–381. 10.2307/411078
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411078 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1976) Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum1.1: 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boroditsky, L.
    (2001) Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology43.1: 1–22. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American. 304.2: 63–65. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican‑0211‑62
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican-0211-62 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bowerman, M.
    (2004) From universal to language-specific in early grammatical development [Reprint]. InK. Trott, S. Dobbinson, & P. Griffiths (Eds.), The child language reader (pp.131–146). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2007) Containment, support and beyond: Constructing topological spatial categories in first language acquisition. InM. Aurnague, M. Hickmann & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp.177–203). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.20.11bow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.20.11bow [Google Scholar]
  18. Bowerman, M. & Choi, S.
    (2003) Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. InD. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp.387–427). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown, R. W. & Lenneberg, Eric H.
    (1954) A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49:454–462. 10.1037/h0057814
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057814 [Google Scholar]
  20. Burnouf, E.
    (1825a) Review of “Vergleichende Zcrgliederung der Sanskrita-Sprache und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen. Erste Abhandlung: Von den Wurzeln und Pronomen erster und zweiter Person”InF. Bopp (Ed.), Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1825 (pp.117–148). Journal Asiatique6 (pp.52–62), (pp.113–124).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) Radical Construction Grammar. InG. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gabelentz, G. von der
    (1881) Chinesische Grammatik, Mit Ausschluss des niederen Stiles und der heutigen Umgangssprache. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1891 [1901]) Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. 2nd edn.Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gobineau, J. A. de
    (1854–5) Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (4volumes). Paris: Firmin-Didiot et Compagnie.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenberg, J. H.
    (1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InJ. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp.73–113). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994) An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Harris, R.
    (1981) The language myth. London: Duckworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Harris, R. & Taylor, T. J.
    (1997) Landmarks in linguistic thought 1: The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure, 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Heine, B.
    (1993) Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1994) Areal influence on grammaticalization. InM. Putz (Ed.), Language contact language conflict (pp.55–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.71.03hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.71.03hei [Google Scholar]
  32. (1997a) Cognitive foundations of grammar. NY & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1997b) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  34. Heine, B. & Claudi, U.
    (1986) On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language10.2: 297–335. 10.1075/sl.10.2.03cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.2.03cla [Google Scholar]
  35. Heine, B. & Kuteva, T.
    (2001) Convergence and divergence in the development of African languages: Some general observations. InR. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change (pp.225–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Herforth, D. D.
    (1987) A case of radical ambiguity in Old Chinese: Some notes toward a discourse-based grammar. Suzugamine Joshi Tanki Daigaku Bulletin of Humanities and Social Science Research34: 31–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hockett, C. F.
    (1967 [1977]) Where the tongue slips, there slip I. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 11 October 1966, 910–36. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Hockett 1977, 226–56].
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1968) The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1977) The view from language. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopper, P. J.
    (1992) Times of the sign: on temporality in recent linguistics. Time and society1(2): 223–238. 10.1177/0961463X92001002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X92001002006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, P.
    (2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. InP. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.22–44). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2012) Emergent grammar. InJ. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp.301–314). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Humboldt, W. von
    (1827) Lettre à m. Abel-Rémusat, sur la nature des forms grammaticales en general, et sur le génie de la language chinoise en particular. Paris: Dondey-Dupré père et fils. Available athttps://archive.org/search.php?query=source%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DmW9GAAAAMAAJ%26oe%3DUTF-8%22
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (1836 [1988]) On Language  – The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Translated byP. Heath. CUP 1988.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (1903–1936) Gesammelte Schriften. InA. Leitzmann (Ed.), 17Volumes. Berlin: Behr. 10.1515/9783110818284
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110818284 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1997) Essays on Language. InT. Harden & D. Farrelly (Eds.), Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. InT. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–449). Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Joseph, John E.
    1999 A Matter of Consequenz: Humboldt, Race and the Genius of the Chinese Language. Historiographia Linguistica26.89-148. 10.1075/hl.26.1‑2.06jos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.26.1-2.06jos [Google Scholar]
  49. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. LaPolla, R. J.
    (1993) Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology63.4: 759–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2009) Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. InY. Nagano (Ed.), Issues in Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics (Senri Ethnological Studies 75) (pp.227–237). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2003) Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. InD. Bradley, R. J. LaPolla, B. Michailovsky & G. Thurgood (Eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff (pp.113–144). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (2013) Arguments for a construction-based approach to the analysis of Chinese. Edited by T. Chiu-yu. Human language resources and linguistic typology, Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology (pp.33–57). Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2015) On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. InR. D. Busser & R. J. LaPolla (Eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors (pp.33–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.6.02lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6.02lap [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016) On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Linguistic Typology20.2: 365–375. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2017) Causation as a factor and goal in typological comparisons. Linguistic Typology21.3: 547–554. 10.1515/lingty‑2017‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0013 [Google Scholar]
  57. LaPolla, R. J. & Huang, C.
    (2003) A grammar of Qiang, with annotated texts and glossary (Mouton Grammar Library 39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197273 [Google Scholar]
  58. Li, B.
    (2010) Jiabeilunci Hanwenjingwei (Chinesische Grammatik von Hans Georg Conon von der Gabelentz)hanwenyinlijiaolong – yi shu, shi, lunyu wei zhongxin [Collation on the citation of Chinesiche Grammatik]. Chengdu, China: Southwest Jiaotong University, MA thesis.
  59. Li, F.-K.
    (1951[2013]) Zang-Hanxi yuyan yanjiufa [The method of studying Sino-Tibetan languages]. Guoli Beijing Daxue Guoxue Jikan7.2(1951), republished inJournal of Sino-Tibetan Linguistics7(2013): 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Li, J.
    (1924) Xin zhu guoyu wenfa [New grammar of the national language]. Beijing: Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1953) Zhongguo yufa de “cifa” yantao [Discussion of the grammar of words in Mandarin Chinese grammar]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 1953.9: 8–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Noonan, M.
    (1999) Non-structuralist syntax. InM. Darnell, E. Moravcsik & M. Noonan (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics Vol. 2 (pp.11–31). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Studies in Language Companion Series 42]. 10.1075/slcs.41.03noo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.41.03noo [Google Scholar]
  63. Reddy, M. J.
    (1979) The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about language. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Renan, E.
    (1858) De l’origine du langage (deuxième édition, revue et considérablement augmentée). Paris: Michel Lévy, Frères, Librairies-Éditeurs.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sapir, E.
    (1921) Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Also available aswww.gutenberg.net.EBook.#12629
    [Google Scholar]
  66. (1929[1949]) The status of linguistics as a science. Language5: 207–14. Also inD. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality (1949).
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Saussure, F. de
    (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Edited byC. Bally & A. Sechehaye, assisted byA. Riedlinger. Lausanne and Paris: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Serruys, P. L.
    (1981) Towards a grammar of the Shang bone inscriptions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Chinese Studies, August 15–17, 1980 (pp.313–364). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Steinthal, H.
    (1850) Die Classification der Sprachen dargestellt als die Entwickelung der Sprachidee. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler’s Buchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (1860) Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Swiggers, P.
    (1986) InW. Humboldt (Ed.), Review of Brief an M. Abel-Rémusat: Über die Natur grammatischer Formen im allgemeinen und über den Geist der chinesischen Sprache im besonderen. Nach der Ausgabe Paris 1827 ins Deutsche ubertragen und mit einer Einfuhrung versehen von Christoph Harbsmeier. (Grammatica universalis, 17). Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich From- mann Verlag – Gunther Holzboog 1979 Language62.2: 456–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Tobin, Y.
    (2006) Structuralist phonology: Prague School. InBrown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition, vol.12, 170–177. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00085‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00085-7 [Google Scholar]
  73. Trabant, J.
    (2016) Theses on the future of language. InB. Mersman & H. G. Kippenberg (Eds.), The Humanities between global integration and cultural diversity (pp.135–140). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110452181‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110452181-010 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tsao, F.
    (1989) Comparison in Chinese: A topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series19.1: 152–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Wang, K.
    (1986) Gu Hanyu dong bing yuyi guanxi de zhiyue yinsu [Factors conditioning the relationship between verbs and objects in Old Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 1: 51–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Wang, L.
    (1985) Zhongguo Gu Wenfa [Ancient Grammar in China]. InWang Li Wen Ji [Collection of L. Wang’s Works], Vol.3, 1–85. Jinan: Shandong Jiaoyu Chubanshe.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I.
    (1968) Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. InW. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp.95–195). Austin & London: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Whorf, B. L.
    (1956) Language, thought, and reality; selected writings. Edited byJ. B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Yao, X.
    (2015) Hanwen Jingwei [Chinese translation of Gabelentz 1881]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/alal.00005.lap
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error