The structural uniqueness of languages and the value of comparison for language description
This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique and must be described with
its own categories, but language description profits enormously from typological knowledge. It has sometimes been suggested that the Boasian
imperative (“each language should be described in its own terms”) leads to uninsightful analyses, and that language description should
instead be “typologically informed”. But the Boasian imperative is not at all incompatible with an intimate connection between description
and comparison: Comparative (or typological) knowledge is highly valuable both for making our descriptions transparent and comprehensible,
and for helping describers to ask a wide range of questions that would not have occurred to them otherwise. Since we do not know whether any
of the building blocks of languages are innate and universal for this reason, we cannot rely on general frameworks (of the generative type)
for our descriptions, but we can use typological questionnaires and other kinds of comparative information as a scaffold. Such scaffolds are
not theoretical components of the description, but are important methodological tools.
Keywords: language description, linguistic typology, comparative grammar, methodology of linguistics
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 11 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.20032.has
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.20032.has
Full-text
References
[ p. 363 ]References
Berghäll, Liisa
(2015) A grammar of Mauwake (Studies in Diversity Linguistics). Language Science Press. http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/67. 
Bickel, Balthasar
Boas, Franz
Bochnak, M. Ryan & Matthewson, Lisa
Bond, Oliver
Candea, Matei
Chomsky, Noam A.
Comrie, Bernard
Croft, William
Cysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli
Davis, Henry & Gillon, Carrie & Matthewson, Lisa
[ p. 364 ]
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin
(eds.) (2013) WALS Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (https://wals.info/)
Dryer, Matthew S.
Ember, Carol R. & Melvin Ember
Epps, Patience L. & Webster, Anthony K. & Woodbury, Anthony C.
Epps, Patience
Gil, David
Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
Hanks, William F. & Severi, Carlo
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie
Haspelmath, Martin
(2018) How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Daniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation: Studies in honor of Johan van der Auwera, 83–113. De Gruyter Mouton. https://zenodo.org/record/3519206. 
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
(2019) Against trivializing language description and comparison. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Pavia.
Krifka, Manfred
Lahaussois, Aimée & Marine Vuillermet
LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa
LaPolla, Randy J.
Lehmann, Christian
(1989) Language description and general comparative grammar. In Gottfried Graustein & Gerhard Leitner (eds.), Reference grammars and modern linguistic theory (Linguistische Arbeiten 226), 133–162. Niemeyer. http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lg_descr.pdf. 
(2018) Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. In Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies, 27–50. Franco Angeli. https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_ling_concepts_categories.pdf
Mithun, Marianne
Moravcsik, Edith A.
Mosel, Ulrike
[ p. 366 ]
Muro, Alessio
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergei J. Jaxontov
Plungian, Vladimir A.
Schachter, Paul
Shopen, Timothy
Simpson, Adrian P.
Slingerland, Edward, Quentin D. Atkinson, Carol R. Ember, Oliver Sheehan, Michael Muthukrishna, Joseph Bulbulia & Russell D. Gray