Describing languoids: When incommensurability meets the language-dialect continuum

  • 1 Sprach- und Kulturevolution, Max-Planck-Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte, Kahlaische Straße 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
David Gil

Abstract

Many linguists maintain that the grammars of different languages are incommensurable. This poses the problem of how to compare them. One proposed solution is to distinguish between descriptive categories for individual languages and comparative categories for crosslinguistic comparisons. At the same time, it is also commonly assumed that language-internal variation can be described in a unitary manner, thereby presupposing that different dialects of the same language are commensurable. However, it is well known that the language-dialect distinction is not categorical but rather forms a continuum. This raises the question: Where lies the boundary between commensurability and incommensurability? This question is best addressed in terms of the notion of languoid, a cover term that includes languages, smaller entities such as dialects and registers, but also larger assemblages such as genealogical and areal groupings. This article proposes replacing the notion of language-specific descriptive category with that of languoid-associated descriptive category. Since languoids can be of arbitrary size, such categories may form the basis for crosslinguistic comparisons, alongside comparative categories. What this means is that different languoids, regardless of how close or distant they are to each other, may be commensurable with respect to some linguistic features but incommensurable with regard to others.

  • Adnani, Dahnil. 1971. Minangkabau sentences and their constituents: An exploration in semantically based grammatical analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University doctoral dissertation.

  • Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40), Vol. 1, 1–83. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Brustad, Kristen E. 2000. Syntax of spoken Arabic: A comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian and Kuwaiti dialects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

  • Chlenov, M. & D. Deopik. 1974. Toponymy and language (on the problem of differentiating between the substratum of place-name areas). In Yu. Bromley (ed.), Soviet ethnology and anthropology today, 219–239. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameters Theory. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 506–569. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Conners, Thomas, John Bowden & David Gil. 2015. Valency classes in Jakarta Indonesian. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, 941–986. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Cowell, Mark W. 1964. A reference grammar of Syrian Arabic (based on the dialect of Damascus). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

  • Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.

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

  • Cysouw, Michael & Jeff Good. 2013. Languoid, doculect, glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation and Conservation 7. 331–359.

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2010–2012. Basic linguistic theory. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 115–143. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Enfield, Nick J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.

  • Fadlul Rahman, Fitri, Santi Kurniati, Yessy Prima Putri & David Gil. 2013. Word-internal language mixing: Borrowing, code-switching or register switching? Paper presented at the Seventeenth International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, Universitas Bung Hatta, Padang, Sumatra Barat, Indonesia, 9 June 2013.

  • Gil, David. 1994. The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17. 179–200.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Gil, David. 2000. Syntactic categories, cross-linguistic variation and Universal Grammar. In Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes, 173–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Gil, David. 2001a. Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian. Linguistic Typology 5. 325–371.

  • Gil, David. 2001b. Escaping eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 102–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Gil, David. 2004. Learning about language from your handphone: dan, and and & in SMSs from the Siak River Basin. In Katharina Endriati Sukatmo (ed.), Kolita 2, Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya, 57–61. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya, Unika Atma Jaya.

  • Gil, David. 2005. Para-linguistic usages of clicks. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005, 572–575.

  • Gil, David. 2013. Riau Indonesian: A language without nouns and verbs. In Jan Rijkhoff & Eva van Lier (eds.), Flexible word classes: Typological studies of underspecified parts of speech, 89–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Gil, David & Tim McKinnon. 2015. Phrasal phonological alternations in Malayic languages. Paper presented at the 11th Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Albuquerque, NM, 1 August 2015.

  • Gil, David, Uri Tadmor, John Bowden & Bradley Taylor. 2015. Data from the Jakarta Field Station. Database. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie.

  • Grossman, Eitan. 2011. What (else) are comparative concepts and descriptive categories good for? Manuscript. https://www.academia.edu/20715205/

  • Harrell, Richard S. 1962. A short reference grammar of Moroccan Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 119–132.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Defining vs. diagnosing linguistic categories: A case study of clitic phenomena. In Joanna Błaszczak, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski (eds.), How categorical are categories? New approaches to the old questions of noun, verb and adjective, 273–303. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2016. The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language & Linguistics 17. 291‒319.

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hidayat, Lanny. 2010. The acquisition of verb argument structure in basilectal Jakarta Indonesian. Newark, DE: University of Delaware doctoral dissertation.

  • Khaidir Anwar. 1976. Minangkabau, background of the main pioneers of Modern Standard Malay in Indonesia. Archipel 12. 77–93.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 715–762.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Lazard, Gilbert. 2006. La quête des invariants interlangues: La linguistique est-elle une science? Paris: Champion.

  • Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Moravcsik, Edith. 2016. On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20. 417‒425.

  • Moussay, Gerard. 1981. La langue minangkabau. Paris: Archipel.

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Sneddon, James Neil. 2006. Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian (Pacific Linguistics 581). Canberra: Australian National University.

  • Tjung, Yassir Nasanius. 2006. The formation of relative clauses in Jakarta Indonesian: A subject-object asymmetry. Newark, DE: University of Delaware doctoral dissertation.

  • van der Toorn, Johannes L. 1899. Minangkabausche spraakkunst. Den Haag: Nijhoff.

  • Williams, Gerald E. 1961. Colloquial Minangkabau: A description of phonological and morphological structure. Chicago: University of Chicago doctoral dissertation.

  • Wouk, Fay. 1989. The impact of discourse on grammar: Verb morphology in spoken Jakarta Indonesian. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles doctoral disseration.

  • Zarbaliev, Xabib M. 1987. Jazyk minangkabau. Moskva: Nauka.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

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.

Search