1887
image of Against trivializing language description (and comparison)
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that recent proposals to sharply distinguish between language description and comparison are ill-conceived for two reasons. First, comparison is unavoidable and hence an integral part of description. Second, the proposals for a strict separation are based on an unrealistic and anachronistic conception of descriptive categories, assuming that these can be defined in purely distributional terms. Here it is shown that description and comparison make use of, and struggle with, the same kind of empirical evidence; namely, crosslinguistically identifiable properties of grammatical formatives and constructions. If descriptive categories and crosslinguistic comparative concepts did not share such properties, language comparison would be devoid of empirical content. Hence claims that they are ontologically different do not stand up to further scrutiny. In short, said recent proposals portray language description and comparison in too-simplistic terms. They ignore, or at least downplay, most of the complexities involved in both descriptive and comparative projects, many of which in fact result from the inseparability of description and comparison.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19090.him
2021-04-12
2021-05-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, Laura
    2017 A grammar of Ambel: An Austronesian language of Raja Ampat, west New Guinea. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD disseration.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auwera, Johan van der & Kalyanamalini Sahoo
    2015 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia47. 136–173. 10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2018 Such similatives: A crosslinguistic reconnaissance. Language Sciences81. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck, David
    2016 Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology20. 395–402. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickel, Balthasar
    2007 Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology11. 239–251. 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
    2002 Autotypologizing databases and their use in fieldwork. InAustin, Peter, Helen Dry & Peter Witternburg (eds.), Proceedings of the International LREC Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics, Las Palmas, 26 – 27 May 2002. Nijmegen: ISLE and DOBES. Available atwww.autotyp.uzh.ch/download/canary.pdf (last access20 March 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kamal K. Choudhary, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2015 The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE10(8). e0132819. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0132819
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132819 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carnie, Andrew
    2008Constituent structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chao, Yuen-Ren
    1934 The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica4. 36–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Comrie, Bernard
    1976Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Corcoran, Katja, Jan Crusius & Thomas Mussweiler
    2011 Social comparison: Motives, standards, and mechanisms. InDerek Chadee (ed.), Theories in social psychology, 119–139. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahl, Östen
    1985Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2016 Thoughts on language-specific and crosslinguistic entities. Linguistic Typology20. 427–437. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
  15. Daniel, Michael & Edith Moravcsik
    2013 The associative plural. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info/chapter/36 (last access28 September 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dryer, Matthew
    2018 The order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun. Language94. 798–833. 10.1353/lan.2018.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0054 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath
    (eds) 2013The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info (last access30 January 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fowler, Michael
    1952 Review of Harris 1951. Language23. 504–509. 10.2307/409685
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409685 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gil, David
    2016 Describing languoids: When Incommensurability meets the language-dialect continuum. Linguistic Typology20. 439–462. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0017 [Google Scholar]
  20. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1963/66 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InJoseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gussenhoven, Carlos & Haike Jacobs
    1998Understanding phonology. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hagman, Roy S.
    1977Nama Hottentot grammar (Language Science Monograph 15). Bloomington: Indiana University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris, Zellig
    1951Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Haspelmath, Martin
    1993A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110884210
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884210 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86. 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018 How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. InDaniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation, 83–114. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haspelmath, Martin and the APiCS Consortium
    2013 Position of definite article in the noun phrase. InSusanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hayes, Bruce
    2009Introductory phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heuvel, Wilco van den
    2006 Biak: Description of an Austronesian language of Papua. PhD thesis Universiteit Leiden. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1997Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110929621
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110929621 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2001 Articles. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, 831–841. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016 What about typology is useful for language documentation?Linguistic Typology20. 473–478. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  33. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter
    2018 On the universality of intonational phrases in spontaneous speech – a crosslinguistic interrater study. Phonology35. 207–245. 10.1017/S0952675718000039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000039 [Google Scholar]
  34. Holdcroft, David
    1991Saussure: Signs, systems, and arbitrariness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624599
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624599 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hymes, Dell & John Fought
    1981American structuralism. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110879285
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879285 [Google Scholar]
  36. Karubaba, Sara
    2008 Ambai inflectional and derivational morphology. Leiden: University of Leiden Master’s thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kirihio, J. Karter, Volker Unterladstetter, Apriani Arilaha, Freya Morigerowski, Alexander Loch, Yusuf Sawaki & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2009–2015DoBeS Wooi documentation. DoBeS Archive MPI Nijmegen. Available atwww.mpi.nl/DOBES/ (last access20 March 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kluge, Angela
    2017A grammar of Papuan Malay. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lander, Yury & Peter Arkadiev
    2016 On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology20. 403–416. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lazard, Gilbert
    2002 Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica36. 141–190. 10.1515/flin.2002.36.3‑4.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lehmann, Christian
    2002Thoughts on grammaticalization (Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9). Second, revised edition. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt. Available athttps://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/ASSidUE09.pdf (last access20 March 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2018 Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. InMarina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies, 27–50. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lyons, Christopher G.
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  44. Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber
    (eds.) 2013Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. apics-online.info (last access26 September 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Moravcsik, Edith A.
    2016 On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology20. 417–425. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0015 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mussweiler, Thomas & Kai Epstude
    2009 Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General138. 1–21. 10.1037/a0014374
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014374 [Google Scholar]
  47. Normand, Claudine
    2004 System, arbitrariness, value. InCarol Sanders (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Saussure, 88–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCOL052180051X.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052180051X.007 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pike, Kenneth L.
    1947Phonemics: A technique for reducing languages to writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Round, Erich R. & Greville G. Corbett
    2020 Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics. Linguistic Typology24. 489–525. 10.1515/lingty‑2020‑2060
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2060 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sawaki, Yusuf W.
    2016 A grammar of Wooi: An Austronesian language of Yapen Island, Western New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Seiler, Hansjakob
    2000Language universals research – a synthesis. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Silverman, Daniel
    2006A critical introduction to phonology: Functional and usage-based perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Spike, Matthew
    2020 Fifty shades of grue: Indeterminate categories and induction in and out of the language sciences. Linguistic Typology24. 465–488. 10.1515/lingty‑2020‑2061
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2061 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wells, Rulon S.
    1947 De Saussure’s system of linguistics. WORD3. 1–31. 10.1080/00437956.1947.11659300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1947.11659300 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19090.him
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19090.him
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: language comparison; language description; methodology; pronominal articles; Wooi
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