Cover not available
Part of
Corpus-based Studies of Lesser-described Languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages
Edited by Amina Mettouchi, Martine Vanhove and Dominique Caubet
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 68] 2015
► pp. 257–279

Functional domains and cross-linguistic comparability

ORCID logo | University of Colorado, Boulder, EPHE and CNRS-LLACAN
This paper investigates a strategy other than the one currently implemented in the CorpAfroAs project, allowing cross-linguistic comparison among multiple-language corpora. It involves comparing a database of functional domains and subdomains across languages. The underlying principle is that cross-linguistic comparison should be conducted on the basis of meanings/functions actually encoded in the grammatical systems of individual languages rather than on the basis of aprioristic categories. Such a study yields reliable information regarding the differences and similarities between grammatical systems.
Published online: 20 May 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.68.08fra
References (32)
References
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere Dale & Pagliuca, William 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English. <[URL]>
Cohen, David. 1989. L’aspect verbal. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, Vol 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1971. Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt [Studien und Materialien 4]. Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1985. Logophoric systems in Chadic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7: 23–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. The de dicto domain in language. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.1 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 219–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
. 1997. Pronouns and agreement: Systems interaction in the coding of reference. In Atomism and Binding, Hans Benis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 115–140. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2008. A Grammar of Gidar. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2010. Cross-linguistic comparison as a heuristic device: What are object pronouns good for? In Essais de linguistique générale et de typologie linguistique, Frank Floricic (ed.), 63–86. Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Les fonctions de l’ordre linéaire des constituants. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 107(1): 7–37.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Grammaticalization of the reference systems. In Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narog (eds), 625–635. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Theoretical bases for differential marking of grammatical and semantic relations of noun phrases: The proper domain for argument-adjunct distinction. Paper given at SLE Conference in Stockholm, September.
. 2013. Non-aprioristic typology as a discovery tool. In Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey [Typological Studies in Language 103], Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwendolyn Hyslop & Joana Jansen (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Submitted. Semantic prerequisites for typology of functional categories.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Johnston, Eric with Edwards, Adrian. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Mycielski, Jan. 1998. On some fundamental problems of mathematical linguistics. In Mathematical and Computational Analysis of Natural Language [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 45], Carlos Martin-Vide (ed.), 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Shay, Erin. 2003. Explaining Language Structure through Systems Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69(1): 287–310.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo. 2002. Preface. In Semitic linguistics: The state of the art at the turn of the twenty-first century. Shlomo Izre’el (ed.). Tel-Aviv: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Philip J. 1994. The space and time adverbials NAN/CAN in Hausa: Cracking the deictic code. Language Sciences 16(3-4): 387–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2004. On the status of linguistics with particular regard to typology. Linguistic Review 21: 389–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina & Chanard, Christian. 2010. From fieldwork to annotated corpora: The CorpAfroAs project. Faits de Langues-Les Cahiers 2: 255–265Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2007. Linguistic typology requires cross-linguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 133–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NKJP -Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. <[URL]>
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1995. Cognitive-conceptual structure and linguistic encoding: Language universals and typology in the UNITYP framework. In Approaches to Language Typology, Masayoshi Shibatani & Theodora Bynon (ed.), 273–326. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar