A Method of Language Sampling
Jan Rijkhoff | University of Amsterdam
Dik Bakker | University of Amsterdam
Kees Hengeveld | University of Amsterdam
Peter Kahrel | University of Amsterdam
In recent years more attention is being paid to the quality of language samples in typological work. Without an adequate sampling strategy, samples may suffer from various kinds of bias. In this article we propose a sampling method in which the genetic criterion is taken as the most important: samples created with this method will reflect optimally the diversity of the languages of the world. On the basis of the internal structure of each genetic language tree a measure is computed that reflects the linguistic diversity in the language families represented by these trees. This measure is used to determine how many languages from each phylum should be selected, given any required sample size.
Published online: 01 January 1993
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij
Cited by
Cited by 41 other publications
No author info given
2007. Book Reviews.
Linguistic Typology 11:3 
No author info given
2011.
In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation,
► pp. 23 ff.
No author info given
2011.
In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation,
► pp. 237 ff.
No author info given
2019.
In Typology of Pluractional Constructions in the Languages of the World [Typological Studies in Language, 125],
Auwera, Johan van der
1998.
In Eurotyp, 3, Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe,
► pp. 1 ff.
Bisang, W.
2006.
In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics,
► pp. 88 ff.
Bisang, Walter
2018.
In Positive Learning in the Age of Information,
► pp. 127 ff.
Bossuyt, Tom
2020. Song, Jae Jung. 2018. Linguistic typology
.
Studies in Language 44:3 ► pp. 722 ff.
De Clercq, Karen
2017. The internal syntax of Q-words.
Linguistics in the Netherlands 34 ► pp. 31 ff.
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011. Differential Agent Marking and animacy.
Lingua 121:3 ► pp. 533 ff.
Franzon, Francesca, Chiara Zanini & Rosa Rugani
2019. Do non-verbal number systems shape grammar? Numerical cognition and Number morphology compared.
Mind & Language 34:1 ► pp. 37 ff.
Gasquet-Cyrus, Médéric, Alice Vittrant & Sylvie Voisin
2017. Présentation : Langues en danger et théories linguistiques : perspectives croisées.
Histoire Epistémologie Langage 39:1 ► pp. 9 ff.
Gast, Volker & Peter Siemund
2006. Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives.
Linguistics 44:2
Handschuh, Corinna
2017. Nominal category marking on personal names: A typological study of case and definiteness.
Folia Linguistica 51:2
Hengeveld, Kees
1996.
In Complex Structures,
Hengeveld, Kees
1998.
In Eurotyp, 3, Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe,
► pp. 335 ff.
Hengeveld, Kees & Sterre Leufkens
2018. Transparent and non-transparent languages.
Folia Linguistica 52:1 ► pp. 139 ff.
HORIE, KAORU
1997. FORM-MEANING INTERACTION IN DIACHRONY: A CASE STUDY FROM JAPANESE.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 14:0 ► pp. 428 ff.
Jin, Yanwei & Jean-Pierre Koenig
2020. A cross-linguistic study of expletive negation.
Linguistic Typology 0:0
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2005. Review of Rijkhoff (2002): The noun phrase.
Functions of Language 12:1 ► pp. 125 ff.
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast
2006. Focused assertion of identity: A typology of intensifiers.
Linguistic Typology 10:2
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
2009. Content interrogatives in a sample of 50 languages.
Lingua 119:8 ► pp. 1131 ff.
Majid, Asifa, Fiona Jordan & Michael Dunn
2015. Semantic systems in closely related languages.
Language Sciences 49 ► pp. 1 ff.
Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe
2016. Sampling for variety.
Linguistic Typology 20:2
Passer, Matthias Benjamin
2016. (What) Do verb classifiers classify?.
Lingua 174 ► pp. 16 ff.
Perez Quintero, Jesús
2000. Review of Van der Auwera (1998): Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe.
Studies in Language 24:2 ► pp. 441 ff.
Piantadosi, Steven T. & Edward Gibson
2014. Quantitative Standards for Absolute Linguistic Universals.
Cognitive Science 38:4 ► pp. 736 ff.
Rijkhoff, Jan
2000.
In Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes,
► pp. 217 ff.
Rijkhoff, Jan
2016. Crosslinguistic categories in morphosyntactic typology: Problems and prospects.
Linguistic Typology 20:2
Salaberri, Iker
2020. Variable D-marking on proper naming expressions: A typological study.
Folia Linguistica 54:3 ► pp. 551 ff.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten & Holger Diessel
2017. Cross-linguistic patterns in the structure, function, and position of (object) complement clauses.
Linguistics 55:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Siewierska, A.
2006.
In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics,
► pp. 642 ff.
van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina & Valentin Goussev
2003.
In Contrastive Analysis in Language,
► pp. 44 ff.
van Lier, Eva
2016. Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages.
Linguistic Typology 20:2
van Lier, Eva
2017. The typology of property words in Oceanic languages.
Linguistics 55:6
Van linden, An & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2008. The nature and origins of counterfactuality in simple clauses.
Journal of Pragmatics 40:11 ► pp. 1865 ff.
van Rijn, Marlou
2016. Locus of marking typology in the possessive NP: A new approach.
Folia Linguistica 50:1
van Rijn, Marlou
2016. The grammaticalization of possessive person marking: a typological approach.
Transactions of the Philological Society 114:2 ► pp. 233 ff.
Voisin, Sylvie
2017. Afrique, langues en danger et diversité linguistique.
Histoire Epistémologie Langage 39:1 ► pp. 37 ff.
Youn, Hyejin, Logan Sutton, Eric Smith, Cristopher Moore, Jon F. Wilkins, Ian Maddieson, William Croft & Tanmoy Bhattacharya
2016. On the universal structure of human lexical semantics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:7 ► pp. 1766 ff.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2009. Relevance of typology to minimalist inquiry.
Lingua 119:11 ► pp. 1589 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2021. 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.