Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics

Erich R. Round 1 , 2 , 3  and Greville G. Corbett 3
  • 1 University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • 2 Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany
  • 3 Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, Guildford, England
Erich R. Round
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany
  • [ɡɹɛvɪl kɔːbɪt],, Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, Guildford, England
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Greville G. Corbett

Abstract

Linguistics, and typology in particular, can have a bright future. We justify this optimism by discussing comparability from two angles. First, we take the opportunity presented by this special issue of Linguistic Typology to pause for a moment and make explicit some of the logical underpinnings of typological sciences, linguistics included, which we believe are worth reminding ourselves of. Second, we give a brief illustration of comparison, and particularly measurement, within modern typology.

  • Aronoff, Mark. 2019. Canonical syncretism and Chomsky’s S. In Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Morphological perspectives, 138–147. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty.2007.018.

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd edn., 901–923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Boguslavskaja, Ol´ga Ju. 1995. Genitives and adjectives as attributes in Daghestanian. In Frans, Plank (ed.), Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, 230–239. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 20–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bond, Oliver. 2019. Canonical typology. In Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 409–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cartwright, Nancy & Norm Bradburn. 2011. A theory of measurement. In Rose Maria Li (ed.), The importance of common metrics for advancing social science theory and research, 53–70. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

  • Chumakina, Marina, Dunstan Brown, Harley Quilliam & Greville G. Corbett. 2007. Slovar´ arčinskogo jazyka (arčinsko-russko-anglijskij) [A dictionary of Archi: Archi-Russian-English]. Makhachkala: Delovoj Mir.

  • Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath & Balthasar Bickel. 2008. The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Leipzig: Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1995. Slavonic’s closest approach to Suffix Copying: The possessive adjective. In Frans Plank (ed.), Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, 265–282. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/decemb/6/abstract2231.html.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Paradigm conventions. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split, 18–21 September 2013. https://www.academia.edu/9055930/Paradigm_conventions.

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91. 145–193. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0003.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2016. Canonical gender. Journal of Linguistics 52. 495–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000195.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Cormier, Kearsy, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll. 2013. Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua 137. 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.010.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Daniels, Don & Greville G. Corbett. 2019. Repartitioning. Language 95. 711–750. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0071.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • De Queiroz, Kevin. 2005. Different species problems and their resolution. BioEssays 27. 1263–1269. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20325.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • Dench, Alan C. & Nicholas Evans. 1988. Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8. 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608808599390.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1996. Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. London: Penguin.

  • Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross & Darrell Tryon (eds.), The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton (Pacific Linguistics 514), 97–115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

  • Ember, Carol R., Marc Howard Ross, Michael L. Burton & Candice Bradley. 1991. Problems of measurement in cross-cultural research using secondary data. Behavior Science Research 25. 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719102500108.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Evans, Nicholas. 2013. Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018a. The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10. 111–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.21 [open access].

  • Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018b. The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10. 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.22 [open access].

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Evans, Nicholas & Alan Dench. 2006. Introduction: Catching language. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 1–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999094x.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Fedden, Sebastian & Greville G. Corbett. 2017. Gender and classifiers in concurrent systems: Refining the typology of nominal classification. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1), 34. 1–47. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.177.

  • Feest, Uljana. 2005. Operationism in psychology: What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 41. 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20079.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • Forkel, Robert, Johann-Mattis List, Simon J. Greenhill, Christoph Rzymski, Sebastian Bank, Michael Cysouw, Harald Hammarström, Martin Haspelmath, Gereon A. Kaiping & Russell D. Gray. 2018. Cross-linguistic data formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics. Scientific Data 5. 180205. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.205.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • Forker, Diana. 2016. Conceptualization in current approaches of language typology. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48. 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2016.1176372.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Gerlach, Martin, Beatrice Farb, William Revelle & Luís A. Nunes Amaral. 2018. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour 2. 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • Greenberg, Joseph. 1974. Language typology: A historical and analytic overview. The Hague: Mouton.

  • Grigull, Ulrich. 1986. Fahrenheit a pioneer of exact thermometry. Heat Transfer 1986: Proceedings of the eighth international heat transfer conference, San Francisco, USA, I, 9–18. Washington: Hemisphere. http://ihtcdigitallibrary.com/download/article/1480b040272d93c1/pl-2.pdf.

  • Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath. 2019. Glottolog 4.0. Jena. https://glottolog.org/.

  • Hand, David J. 2016. Measurement: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 506–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

  • Hempel, Carl G. & Paul Oppenheim. 1936. Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik. Leiden: Sijthoff.

  • Hull, David L. 1968. The operational imperative: Sense and nonsense in operationism. Systematic Biology 17. 438–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412042.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Hyman, Larry M. 2012. In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman & Venditti. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 341–385. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0014.

  • International Phonetic Association. 1999. Handbook of the international phonetic association: A guide to the use of the international phonetic alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ivanova, T. A. 1975. Nekotorye aspekty sopostavitel´nogo analiza posessivnyx konstrukcij (Na materiale sovremennyx slavjanskix literaturnyx jazykov) [Aspects of the comparative analysis of possessive constructions (based on contemporary Slavonic literary languages)]. Slavjanskaja filologija 3. 148–152. (Leningrad).

  • Ivanova, T. A. 1976. K voprosu o sootnošenii upotrebljaemosti posessivnyx konstrukcij v sovremennyx slavjanskix jazykax [The relative frequency of use of possessive constructions in different contemporary Slavonic languages]. Voprosy filologii 5. 3–10. (Izdatel´stvo Leningradskogo universiteta).

  • Johnson, Todd M. & Brian J. Grim. 2013. The world’s religions in figures: An introduction to international religious demography. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Jung, Carl Gustav. 1921. Psychologische typen. Zurich: Rascher.

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1995. Direct-oblique agreement of attributes in Daghestanian. In Frans Plank (ed.), Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, 216–229. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2003. Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe. In Frans Plank (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe, 621–722. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Krasovitsky, Alexander, Dunstan Brown, Greville G. Corbett, Matthew Baerman, Alison Long & Harley Quilliam. 2009. Surrey database of short term morphosyntactic change: Case assignment on direct objects of negated transitive verbs. Surrey: University of Surrey. http://dx.doi.org/10.15126/SMG.17/3.

  • Kwon, Nahyun. 2017. Total reduplication in Japanese ideophones: An exercise in localized canonical typology. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1), 40. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.267.

  • Kwon, Nahyun & Erich R. Round. 2015. Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-014-9250-z.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1990. Vowels of the world’s languages. Journal of Phonetics 18. 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30396-1.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Lakatos, Imre. 1976. Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lander, Yury A. 2009. Varieties of genitive. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 581–592. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lazarsfeld, Paul F. 1937. Some remarks on the typological procedures in social research. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6. 119–139. https://doi.org/10.5840/zfs193761137.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lienhard, John H. 2000. The engines of our ingenuity: An engineer looks at technology and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Matthews, P. H. 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Mel´čuk, Igor´. 2006. Calculus of possibilities as a technique in linguistic typology. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 171–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Menzel, Thomas. 2018. Kanonische morphologische Komplexität im Sorbischen. Lětopis Sorbisches Institut e.V. Bautzen 65(2). 81–106.

  • Michael, Lev. 2014. The Nanti reality status system: Implications for the typological validity of the realis/irrealis contrast. Linguistic Typology 18. 251–288. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2014-0011.

  • Murdock, George P. 1967. Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Mustajoki, Arto & Hannes Heino. 1991. Case selection for the direct object in Russian negative clauses: II: Report on a statistical analysis (Slavica Helsingiensia 9). Helsinki: Department of Slavonic Languages, University of Helsinki.

  • Nettle, Daniel. 2018. Hanging on to the edges. Essays on science, society, and the academic life. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0155.

  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86. 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0037.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Nichols, Johanna. 2019. Canonical tough cases. In Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Morphological perspectives, 148–168. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Nikolaeva, Irina. 2013. Unpacking finiteness. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 99–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Nikolaeva, Irina & Andrew Spencer. 2013. Possession and modification – a perspective from canonical typology. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 207–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Parker, Steve. 2008. Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics 36. 55–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2007.09.003.

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

  • Round, Erich. R. 2017. Review of Gordon, Matthew K. Phonological typology. 2016. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Folia Linguistica 51. 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0027.

  • Round, Erich. R. & Greville G. Corbett. 2017. The theory of feature systems: One feature versus two for Kayardild tense-aspect-mood. Morphology 27. 21–75. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11525-016-9294-3 [open access].

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Rudner, Richard S. 1966. Philosophy of social science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

  • Simpson, Adrian P. 1999. Fundamental problems in comparative phonetics and phonology: Does UPSID help to solve them. Proceedings of the 14th international congress of phonetic sciences, 349–352. Berkeley: University of California.

  • Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Spencer, Andrew. 2019. Canonical compounds. In Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Morphological perspectives, 31–64. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Stanton, Elizabeth A. 2007. The human development index: A history. (Working Paper Series No. 127). Amherst: Political Economy of Research Institute, University of Massachusetts.

  • Stevens, Stanley S. 1951. Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. Handbook of experimental psychology, 1–49. New York: Wiley.

  • Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Stump, Gregory. 2017. The nature and dimensions of complexity in morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3. 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040752.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Tabain, Marija, David Bradley & Defen Yu. 2019. Central Lisu. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 49. 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025100318000129.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Thornton, Anna. 2019. Overabundance in morphology. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.554.

  • Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • van den Berg, Helma. 2005. The East Caucasian language family. Lingua 115. 147–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.06.004.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • van Helden, W. Andries. 1993. Case and gender: Concept formation between morphology and syntax (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 20). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Weber, Max. 1949 [1904]. “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In Edward A. Shils & Henry A. Finch (eds. & trans.), The methodology of the social sciences, 50–112. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

  • Winch, Robert F. 1947. Heuristic and empirical typologies: A job for factor analysis. American Sociological Review 12. 68–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086492.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Wisniak, Jaime. 2005. Development of the concept of absolute zero temperature. Educación Química 16. 104–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fq.18708404e.2005.1.66145.

  • Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax [Interpreting the term ‘case’ in linguistic descriptions]. In Andrej A. Zaliznjak (ed.), Problemy grammatičekogo modelirovanija [Problems of grammatical modelling], 53–87. Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted in Andrej A. Zaliznjak. 2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannix rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju [Russian nominal inflection: With a supplement of selected works on contemporary Russian and general linguistics], 613–647. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.].

  • Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar´ russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie [A grammatical dictionary of Russian: Inflection]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. [A fourth, corrected edition appeared in 2003, Moscow: Russkie slovari.].

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