Cover not available
Article published In:
Asian Languages and Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2020) ► pp.147–167

Forward to the past

Modernizing linguistic typology by returning to its roots

| Nanyang Technological University
This paper argues that linguistic typology, and linguistics more generally, got off to a good start in the 19th century with scholars like Wilhelm von Humboldt and Georg von der Gabelentz, where the understanding was that each language manifests a unique world view, and it is important to study and compare those world views. This tradition is still alive, but was sidelined and even denigrated for many years due to the rise of Structuralism, which attempted to study language structures divorced from their linguistic and socio-cultural contexts. The paper reviews the understandings the early scholars had and points out their similarities with cutting edge current views in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, and interactional linguistics, which had to be rediscovered due to the influence of Structuralism for so many years. It then argues that we should make linguistic typology (and linguistics more generally) more modern, scientific, and empirical by returning to our roots.
Keywords: linguistic typology, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Structuralism, Romanticism, cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, interactional linguistics
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835)
  • 2.Georg von der Gabelentz (1840–1893)
  • 3.Franz Boas (1858–1942)
  • 4.Why Boas and Sapir made such a point about languages being equal
  • 5.Sapir and Whorf on language and cognition
  • 6.The Neogrammarians (Junggrammatiker; late 19th century)
  • 7.Structuralism (late 19th century to present)
  • 8.My position
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 11 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.00005.lap
References (79)
References
Aarsleff, H. (1988). Introduction. In first ed of Heath’s translation of Humboldt (1836 [1988]). (pp.vii–lxv).Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U. (2010). Surpass comparatives in Sinitic and beyond: Typology and grammaticalization. Linguistics 48.4: 919–950. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. (1962). The categories on interpretation & prior analytics. London: Heinemann/ Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press [Loeb’s Classics].Google Scholar
Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Muller, F. (1999). Language in time: the rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beames, J. (1868). Outlines of Indian philology. London: Trübner and Company.Google Scholar
Beyer, S. V. (1992). The Classical Tibetan language (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. (2013). Die ‘Chinesische Grammatik’ von Georg von der Gabelentz aus typologischer Sicht. Preface to the reprint of: Gabelentz, G. von der. 1881. Chinesische Grammatik. Mit Ausschluss des niederen Stiles und der heutigen Umgangssprache. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: H. Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Bo, Hanxi (Bauer, M.). (2013). Georg von der GabeIentz Hanwenjinwei (Chinesische Grammatik） yanjiu [A study of Georg von der GabeIentz’ Chinesische Grammatik]. Shanghai Normal University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages (pp. 1–83). Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 371: 366–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1.1: 1–14.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43.1: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American. 304.2: 63–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (2004). From universal to language-specific in early grammatical development [Reprint]. In K. Trott, S. Dobbinson, & P. Griffiths (Eds.), The child language reader (pp. 131–146). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2007). Containment, support and beyond: Constructing topological spatial categories in first language acquisition. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 177–203). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 387–427). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. W. & Lenneberg, Eric H. (1954). A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 491:454–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnouf, E. (1825a). Review of “Vergleichende Zcrgliederung der Sanskrita-Sprache und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen. Erste Abhandlung: Von den Wurzeln und Pronomen erster und zweiter Person” In F. Bopp (Ed.), Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1825 (pp. 117–148). Journal Asiatique 61 (pp.52–62), (pp.113–124).Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. von der. (1881). Chinesische Grammatik, Mit Ausschluss des niederen Stiles und der heutigen Umgangssprache. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.Google Scholar
. (1891 [1901]). Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. 2nd edn. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Gobineau, J. A. de. (1854–5). Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (41 volumes). Paris: Firmin-Didiot et Compagnie.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Harris, R. & Taylor, T. J. (1997). Landmarks in linguistic thought 1: The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure, 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Areal influence on grammaticalization. In M. Putz (Ed.), Language contact language conflict (pp. 55–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997a). Cognitive foundations of grammar. NY & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997b). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Claudi, U. (1986). On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language 10.2: 297–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2001). Convergence and divergence in the development of African languages: Some general observations. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Case studies in language change (pp. 225–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herforth, D. D. (1987). A case of radical ambiguity in Old Chinese: Some notes toward a discourse-based grammar. Suzugamine Joshi Tanki Daigaku Bulletin of Humanities and Social Science Research 341: 31–40.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1967 [1977]). Where the tongue slips, there slip I. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 11 October 1966, 910–36. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Hockett 1977, 226–56].Google Scholar
(1968). The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1977). The view from language. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1992). Times of the sign: on temporality in recent linguistics. Time and society 1(2): 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Emergent grammar. In J. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 301–314). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von. (1827). Lettre à m. Abel-Rémusat, sur la nature des forms grammaticales en general, et sur le génie de la language chinoise en particular. Paris: Dondey-Dupré père et fils. Available at [URL]
. (1836 [1988]). On Language  – The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Translated by P. Heath. CUP, 1988.Google Scholar
. (1903–1936). Gesammelte Schriften. In A. Leitzmann (Ed.), 171 Volumes. Berlin: Behr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Essays on Language. In T. Harden & D. Farrelly (Eds.), Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–449). Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 1999. A Matter of Consequenz: Humboldt, Race and the Genius of the Chinese Language. Historiographia Linguistica 261.89-148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. (1993). Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63.4: 759–813.Google Scholar
(2009). Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. In Y. Nagano (Ed.), Issues in Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics ( Senri Ethnological Studies 75 ) (pp. 227–237). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
(2003). Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In D. Bradley, R. J. LaPolla, B. Michailovsky & G. Thurgood (Eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff (pp. 113–144). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2013). Arguments for a construction-based approach to the analysis of Chinese. Edited by T. Chiu-yu. Human language resources and linguistic typology, Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology (pp. 33–57). Taiwan: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
(2015). On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. In R. D. Busser & R. J. LaPolla (Eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors (pp. 33–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Linguistic Typology 20.2: 365–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Causation as a factor and goal in typological comparisons. Linguistic Typology 21.3: 547–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. & Huang, C. (2003). A grammar of Qiang, with annotated texts and glossary (Mouton Grammar Library 39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, B. (2010). Jiabeilunci Hanwenjingwei (Chinesische Grammatik von Hans Georg Conon von der Gabelentz）hanwenyinlijiaolong – yi shu, shi, lunyu wei zhongxin [Collation on the citation of Chinesiche Grammatik ]. Chengdu, China: Southwest Jiaotong University, MA thesis.Google Scholar
Li, F.-K. (1951[2013]). Zang-Hanxi yuyan yanjiufa [The method of studying Sino-Tibetan languages]. Guoli Beijing Daxue Guoxue Jikan 7.2(1951), republished in Journal of Sino-Tibetan Linguistics 7(2013): 1–10.Google Scholar
Li, J. (1924). Xin zhu guoyu wenfa [New grammar of the national language]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
(1953). Zhongguo yufa de “cifa” yantao [Discussion of the grammar of words in Mandarin Chinese grammar]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 1953.9: 8–12.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. (1999). Non-structuralist syntax. In M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik & M. Noonan (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics Vol. 2 (pp. 11–31). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Studies in Language Companion Series 42]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renan, E. (1858). De l’origine du langage (deuxième édition, revue et considérablement augmentée). Paris: Michel Lévy, Frères, Librairies-Éditeurs.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Also available as [URL]
(1929[1949]). The status of linguistics as a science. Language 51: 207–14. Also in D. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality (1949).Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, assisted by A. Riedlinger. Lausanne and Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Serruys, P. L. (1981). Towards a grammar of the Shang bone inscriptions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Chinese Studies, August 15–17, 1980 (pp. 313–364). Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Steinthal, H. (1850). Die Classification der Sprachen dargestellt als die Entwickelung der Sprachidee. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler’s Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
(1860). Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Swiggers, P. (1986). In W. Humboldt (Ed.), Review of Brief an M. Abel-Rémusat: Über die Natur grammatischer Formen im allgemeinen und über den Geist der chinesischen Sprache im besonderen. Nach der Ausgabe Paris 1827 ins Deutsche ubertragen und mit einer Einfuhrung versehen von Christoph Harbsmeier. (Grammatica universalis, 17). Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich From- mann Verlag – Gunther Holzboog, 1979. Language 62.2: 456–57.Google Scholar
Tobin, Y. (2006). Structuralist phonology: Prague School. In Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition, vol. 121, 170–177. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trabant, J. (2016). Theses on the future of language. In B. Mersman & H. G. Kippenberg (Eds.), The Humanities between global integration and cultural diversity (pp. 135–140). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsao, F. (1989). Comparison in Chinese: A topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 19.1: 152–189.Google Scholar
Wang, K. (1986). Gu Hanyu dong bing yuyi guanxi de zhiyue yinsu [Factors conditioning the relationship between verbs and objects in Old Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 11: 51–57.Google Scholar
Wang, L. (1985). Zhongguo Gu Wenfa [Ancient Grammar in China]. In Wang Li Wen Ji [Collection of L. Wang’s Works], Vol. 31, 1–85. Jinan: Shandong Jiaoyu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I.. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–195). Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality; selected writings. Edited by J. B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yao, X. (2015). Hanwen Jingwei [Chinese translation of Gabelentz 1881]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Li, Jinman
2024. 汉语句子的基本单位刍议. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 11:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard
2023. Linguistic cognition and worldview. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 55:sup1 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin
2020. The structural uniqueness of languages and the value of comparison for language description. Asian Languages and Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 346 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.