Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Editor-in-Chief: Plank, Frans / Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria

3 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.304

CiteScore 2016: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.629
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.234

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 20, Issue 2 (Oct 2016)

Issues

On the right of being a comparative concept

Yury Lander
  • Corresponding author
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, 105066 Moskva, Russian Federation; Institut vostokovedenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk (IV RAN)
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Peter Arkadiev
  • Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 119991 Moskva, Russian Federation; Russian State University for the Humanities; Moscow State Pedagogical University
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-09-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0014

Abstract

We provide a critical review of the distinction between “comparative concepts” and “descriptive categories”, showing that in current typological practice the former are usually dependent on the latter and are often vague, being organized around prototypes rather than having sharp boundaries. We also propose a classification of comparative concepts, arguing that their definitions can be based on similarities between languages or on differences between languages or can also be “blind” to language-particular facts. We conclude that, first, comparative concepts and descriptive categories are ontologically not as distinct as some typologists would like to have it, and, second, that attempts at a “non-aprioristic” approach to linguistic description and language typology are more of an illusion than reality or even a desideratum.

Keywords: categories; comparison; methodology; relative clause

References

  • Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edn.), Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Brody, Jill. 1984. Some problems with the concept of basic word order. Linguistics 22. 711–736.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103.Google Scholar

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Typological studies: Word order and relative clauses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Davies, William D. & Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2003. Word: A typological framework. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Functionalism and the theory–metalanguage confusion. In Grace Wiebe et al. (eds.), Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing, 27–59. Taipei: Crane.Google Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of adjective and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie.http://wals.info/chapter/87 (accessed on 21 March 2016)

  • Evans, Nicholas D. 2010. Semantic typology. In Song (ed.) 2010, 504–533.Google Scholar

  • Ewert, Alfred. 1940. Dante’s theory of language. The Modern Language Review 35. 355–366.Google Scholar

  • Falk, Yehuda N. 2006. Subjects and Universal Grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • 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, 211–243. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 375–402. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45. 31–80.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Comparative syntax. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 490–508. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jaggar, Philip J. 1998. Restrictive vs non-restrictive relative clauses in Hausa: Where morphosyntax and semantics meet. Studies in African Linguistics 27. 199–238.Google Scholar

  • Jaggar, Philip J. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘Subject’. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Lander, Yury & Natalia Tyshkevich. 2015. True, liminal and fake prototypes in syntactic typology. In Ekaterina Lyutikova et al. (eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov, Vol. 2, 185–199. Moskva: Moskovskij pedagogičeskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.Google Scholar

  • LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. On describing word order. In Felix Ameka et al. (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej L. 2000. Dependency reversal in Noun-Attribute constructions: Towards a typology. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 281–328. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In William Shipley (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American linguistics, 557–609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Raible, Wolfgang. 2001. Language universals and language typology. In Martin Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, Vol. 1, 1–24. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ross, Malcolm. 1998. Possessive-like attribute constructions in the Oceanic languages of Northwest Melanesia. Oceanic Linguistics 37. 234–276.Google Scholar

  • Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2009. Towards the typology of raising: A functional approach. In Alexander Arkhipov & Patience Epps (eds.), New challenges for typology: Transcending the borders and redefining the distinctions, 245–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Siewierska, Anna. 1994. Word order and linearization. In R. E. Asher et al. (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 9, 4993–4999. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

  • Song, Jae Jung (ed.). 2010. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stassen, Leon. 2010. The problem of cross-linguistic identification. In Song (ed.) 2010, 90–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tolstoj, Nikita Il’jič. 1968. Nekotorye problemy sravnitel’noj slavjanskoj semasiologii [Some problems of comparative Slavic semasiology]. In Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: VI Meždunarodnyj s”jezd slavistov (Praga, avgust 1968 g.): Doklady sovetskoj delegacii, 339–365. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

  • van der Auwera, Johan & Volker Gast. 2010. Categories and prototypes. In Song (ed.) 2010, 166–189.Google Scholar

  • van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.Google Scholar

  • van der Auwera, Johan & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2015. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47. 136–173.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Semantic primes and linguistic typology. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and empirical findings, Vol. 2, 257–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Xolodilova, Marija A. 2015. Soglasovanie s veršinoj otnositel’nyx konstrukcij i obosoblennyx imennyx oborotov v russkom jazyke [Agreement with the head of relative clauses and detached noun phrases in Russian]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 2(30). 74–97.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-03-22

Revised: 2016-07-02

Published Online: 2016-09-27

Published in Print: 2016-10-01


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0014.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in