Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344



This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique and must be described with its own categories, but language description profits enormously from typological knowledge. It has sometimes been suggested that the Boasian imperative (“each language should be described in its own terms”) leads to uninsightful analyses, and that language description should instead be “typologically informed”. But the Boasian imperative is not at all incompatible with an intimate connection between description and comparison: Comparative (or typological) knowledge is highly valuable both for making our descriptions transparent and comprehensible, and for helping describers to ask a wide range of questions that would not have occurred to them otherwise. Since we do not know whether any of the building blocks of languages are innate and universal for this reason, we cannot rely on general frameworks (of the generative type) for our descriptions, but we can use typological questionnaires and other kinds of comparative information as a scaffold. Such scaffolds are not theoretical components of the description, but are important methodological tools.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    (2015) The art of grammar: A practical guide. Oxford Universoty Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark C.
    (2001) The atoms of language. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berghäll, Liisa
    (2015) A grammar of Mauwake (Studies in Diversity Linguistics). Language Science Press. langsci-press.org/catalog/book/67. 10.26530/OAPEN_603339
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603339 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickel, Balthasar
    (2015) Distributional Typology. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0046
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0046 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, Franz
    (1896) The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology. Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science4(103). 901–908.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1911) Introduction. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages, 1–83. Bureau of American Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bochnak, M. Ryan & Matthewson, Lisa
    (eds.) (2015) Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bond, Oliver
    (2010) Language documentation and typology. Language Documentation and Description7. 238–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Candea, Matei
    (2018) Comparison in anthropology: The impossible method (New Departures in Anthropology). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108667609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108667609 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, Noam A.
    (1977) On wh-movement. In Akmajian, Adrian & Culicover, Peter W. & Wasow, Thomas (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. Academic Press. (AccessedMarch 13, 2019.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Comrie, Bernard & Norval Smith
    (1977) Lingua descriptive studies: Questionnaire. Lingua42. 1–72. 10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90063‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90063-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, Bernard
    (1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, William
    (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Methods for finding universals in syntax. In Sergio Scalise , Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto (eds.), Universals of language today, 145–164. Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑8825‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. In Kasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 313–350. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli
    (2007) Parallel texts: Using translational equivalents in linguistic typology. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung60(2). 95–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dahl, Östen
    (1985) Tense and aspect systems. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis, Henry & Gillon, Carrie & Matthewson, Lisa
    (2014) How to investigate linguistic diversity: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Language90(4). e180–e226. 10.1353/lan.2014.0076
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0076 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin
    (eds.) (2013) WALS Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (https://wals.info/)
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dryer, Matthew S.
    (1997) Are grammatical relations universal?In Joan L. Bybee , John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 115–143. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.09dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.09dry [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Felix K. Ameka , Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 207–234. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ember, Carol R. & Melvin Ember
    (1998) Cross-cultural research. In H. Russell Bernard (ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, 647–687. AltaMira Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Epps, Patience L. & Webster, Anthony K. & Woodbury, Anthony C.
    (2017) A holistic humanities of speaking: Franz Boas and the continuing centrality of texts. International Journal of American Linguistics. The University of Chicago Press83(1). 41–78. 10.1086/689547
    https://doi.org/10.1086/689547 [Google Scholar]
  25. Epps, Patience
    (2011) Linguistic typology and language documentation. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handook of linguistic typology, 634–649. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gil, David
    (2001) Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 102–132. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.006 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gippert, Jost , Nikolaus Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel
    (eds.) (2006) Essentials of language documentation. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197730
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
    (eds) (2002) Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings. 2volumes. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.61
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.61 [Google Scholar]
  29. Halle, Morris
    (1959) The sound pattern of Russian. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hanks, William F. & Severi, Carlo
    (2014) Translating worlds: The epistemological space of translation. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory4(2). 1–16. 10.14318/hau4.2.001
    https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.2.001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Haspelmath, Martin , Matthew Dryer , David Gil & Bernard Comrie
    (eds.) (2005) The world atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Haspelmath, Martin
    (2007) Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology11(1). 119–132. 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2010a) Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 341–365. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2010b) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2011) The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica45(1). 31–80. 10.1515/flin.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2018) How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Daniël Van Olmen , Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation: Studies in honor of Johan van der Auwera, 83–113. De Gruyter Mouton. https://zenodo.org/record/3519206. 10.1515/9783110607963‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110607963-004 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2019) Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema (2019)(4). 108–130. 10.31862/2500‑2953‑2019‑4‑108‑130
    https://doi.org/10.31862/2500-2953-2019-4-108-130 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2021a) Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics. InAlfieri, Luca, Giorgio Arcodia & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Linguistic categories, language description and linguistic typology. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2021b) Word class universals and language-particular analysis. To appear.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hewitt, Brian George
    (1979) Abkhaz. North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    (1998) Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics36. 161–196. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2016) What about typology is useful for language documentation?Linguistic Typology20(3). 473–478. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  43. Himmelmann, Nikolaus
    (2019) Against trivializing language description and comparison. Paper presented at theBiennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Pavia.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    (1997) Turkish. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Krifka, Manfred
    (1995) Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, vol.398, 398–411. The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lahaussois, Aimée & Marine Vuillermet
    (2019) Methodological tools for linguistic description and typology (Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication 16). University of Hawai’i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa
    (2006) On describing word order. In Felix K. Ameka , Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–295. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. LaPolla, Randy J.
    (2020) Forward to the past: Modernizing linguistic typology by returning to its roots. Asian Languages and Linguistics. John Benjamins1(1). 147–167. 10.1075/alal.00005.lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.00005.lap [Google Scholar]
  49. Lass, Roger
    (1984) Vowel system universals and typology: Prologue to theory. Phonology1. 75–111. 10.1017/S0952675700000300
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000300 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lehmann, Christian
    (1989) Language description and general comparative grammar. In Gottfried Graustein & Gerhard Leitner (eds.), Reference grammars and modern linguistic theory (Linguistische Arbeiten 226), 133–162. Niemeyer. www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lg_descr.pdf. 10.1515/9783111354590.133
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354590.133 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2018) Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. In Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies, 27–50. Franco Angeli. https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_ling_concepts_categories.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lyons, John
    (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mithun, Marianne
    (2001) Who shapes the record: The speaker and the lingust. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 34–54. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.003 [Google Scholar]
  54. Moravcsik, Edith A.
    (2003) A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Studies in Language27(3). 469–503. 10.1075/sl.27.3.02mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.3.02mor [Google Scholar]
  55. Mosel, Ulrike
    (2012) Morphosyntactic analysis in the field: A guide to the guides. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic fieldwork, 72–89. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Muro, Alessio
    (2015) Lost in translation between typologically different grammarsInMiola, Emanuele & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Language across languages: New perspectives on translations, 35–38. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergei J. Jaxontov
    (eds.) (1988) The typology of resultative constructions. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.12 [Google Scholar]
  58. Plungian, Vladimir A.
    (2011) Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: Grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy jazykov mira. RGGU.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rice, Keren
    (1989) A grammar of Slave (Mouton Grammar Library 5). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110861822
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110861822 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2006) Let the language tell its story? The role of linguistic theory in writing grammars. In Felix K. Ameka , Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 235–268. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Schachter, Paul
    (1985) Parts-of-speech systems. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.1, 3–61. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Shopen, Timothy
    (ed.) (1985) Language typology and syntactic description. 3volumes. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (ed.) (2007) Language typology and syntactic description. 3volumes. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Simpson, Adrian P.
    (1999) Fundamental problems in comparative phonetics and phonology: Does UPSID help to solve them?InProceedings of the 14th international congress of phonetic sciences, vol.1, 349–352.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Slingerland, Edward , Quentin D. Atkinson , Carol R. Ember , Oliver Sheehan , Michael Muthukrishna , Joseph Bulbulia & Russell D. Gray
    (2020) Coding culture: Challenges and recommendations for comparative cultural databases. Evolutionary Human Sciences2. e29. 10.1017/ehs.2020.30
    https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2020.30 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tallerman, Maggie
    (1998) Understanding syntax. Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Trubetzkoy, Nikolaus
    (1939) Grundzüge der Phonologie (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7). Cercle Linguistique de Prague.
    [Google Scholar]
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