In this paper, variation is defined as a type having more than one subtype. Using twelve examples from linguistics, two kinds of accounts are identified: eliminating variants and motivating them. Eliminating variants means a subtype is promoted to a type. Motivating variation in turn involves acknowledging the existence of the variants and explaining their existence either by reference to their differing meanings or by identifying the different contexts they occur in. The general applicability of these two ways of dealing with variation is shown by examples from other fields of study and from everyday life.
Chapin, Paul G. 1978. Easter Island: a characteristic VSO language. In Lehmann (ed.) 139-168.Search in Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the language glass. Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.Search in Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Position of polar question particles. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, & Bernard Comrie (eds.) 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press. (Also on the internet.), 374-377.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying words. Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of language. 73-113. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, Brent Berlin, Luisa Maffi, William R. Merrifield, Richard Cook. 2009. World color survey. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1973. Japanese: a characteristic OV language. In Lehmann (ed.), 57-92.Search in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.) Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language. University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2003. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Elaine J. Francis, Laura A. Michaelis (eds.) Mismatch. Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. 259-310. Stanford CA: The Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Grammatical hierarchy and linear precedence. In Geoffrey Huck, Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.) Discontinuous constituency, 303-340. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373204_013Search in Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2016. Thinking for speaking and the construction of evidentiality in language contact. In Mine Güven et al. (eds.) Exploring the Turkish linguistic landscape 105-120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.175.07sloSearch in Google Scholar
Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2003. Phonology, morphology and word formation. In Mati Erelt (ed.) Estonian language. 9-129. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Edith Moravcsik, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.