What are comparative concepts and how are they related to language-specific categories used in language description? Three general categories of comparative concepts are defined here: purely functional comparative concepts and two types of hybrid formal-functional concepts, constructions and strategies. The two hybrid types provide more explicit and precise definitions of common typological practice. However a terminological issue is that Western grammatical terms are frequently used to describe strategies which are not universal rather than constructions which are. Language-specific categories appear to be radically different from comparative concepts because the former are defined distributionally whereas the latter are defined in universal functional and formal terms. But language-specific constructions have functions, that is, they are instances of constructions in the comparative sense and their form is an instantiation of a strategy. Typology forms generalizations across language-specific constructions in both their form and their function. Finally, a major issue is the confusion of terminological choices for language-specific categories. Four rules of thumb for useful labeling of language-specific categories, largely following best descriptive practice, are offered.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. On explaining language universals. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2, 195–209. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 2009. Methods for finding language universals in syntax. In Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto (eds.), Universals of language today, 145–164. Berlin: Springer.
Croft, William. 2010. Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes 4.303 http://cognitextes.revues.org/303/
Croft, William. 2014. Comparing categories and constructions crosslinguistically (again): The diversity of ditransitives (review article on Malchukov et al. (eds.) 2010). Linguistic Typology 18. 533–551.
Croft, William (in preparation). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34. 1–37.
Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34. 1–37.10.1515/THLI.2008.001)| false
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2012. How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds.), Theories of everything: In honor of Edward Keenan (UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17), 109–130. Los Angeles: UCLA. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/wpl/issues/wpl17/wpl17.html
Jagersma, Abraham Hendrik. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Sumerian. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden doctoral dissertation.
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1975. La catégorie de l’éventuel. In Mélanges linguistiques offers à Émile Benveniste, 347–358. Leuven: Peeters.
Levinson, Stephen C., Sérgio Meira, and the Language and Cognition Group. 2003. ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79. 485–516.
Majid, Asifa, James S. Boster, Melissa Bowerman. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109. 235–250.
Majid, Asifa, James S. Boster, Melissa Bowerman. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109. 235–250.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.00918947824)| false
Rogers, Phillip. 2015. Illustrating the prototype structures of parts of speech: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico MA thesis.
Schachter, Paul & Timothy Shopen. 2007. Parts of speech systems. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edn.), Vol. 1: Clause structure, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linguistic Typology publishes research on linguistic diversity and unity. It welcomes articles that report empirical findings about crosslinguistic variation, advance our understanding of the patterns of diversity, or refine typological methodology.