Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
Edited by Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat
[Typological Studies in Language 132] 2021
► pp. 1–34

Chapter 1
Linguistic categories, language description and linguistic typology – An overview

| University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
| Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
| University of Pavia

In this paper we propose a critical discussion of the rationale for this volume. After a short introduction (Section 1), an outline of the long-standing opposition between language particular description and universal grammar in the history of the language sciences is provided (Section 2). This opposition indeed represents the substrate on which our ‘comparative concepts debate’ is based: a summary of the debate, both in the form it had in the lingtyp mailing list (January / February 2016) and in the subsequent monographic issue of Linguistic Typology 2016, is offered in Section 3 and Section 4. Some critical consideration on the debate and on its relation with the various branches of linguistics are presented in Section 5. An overview of the papers included in the volume closes this introduction (Section 6).

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: The rationale for this book
  • 2.Language-specific vs. universal categories, description vs. comparison – A long history made short
  • 3.The lingtyp debate and its background
  • 4.Recent insights: The Linguistic Typology debate
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • 6.The contributions to this volume
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.01alf
References
Beck, David
2016 Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20(2):995–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belardi, Walter
1990 Contrasti teorici nella linguistica del Novecento. In Linguistica, filologia e critica dell’espressione, Belardi Walter (ed.), 93–154. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1992 Reflections on the history of the study of universals. The case of the partes orationis . In Meaning and Grammar. Cross-linguistic Perspectives [Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4], Michel Kefer & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botha, Rudolph
2016 Language Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985 Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1978 Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1981[1989] Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2014 Competing motivation models and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), 282–298. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1990[2003] Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2000 Parts of speech as language universals and language-particular categories. In Approaches to the Typology of Word-Classes, Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds), 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Word-classes, parts of speech and syntactic argumentation. Linguistic Typology 9: 431–441.Google Scholar
2016 Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & van Lier, Eva
2012 Language universals without universal categories. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1–2): 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael & Good, Jeff
2000 Languoid, doculect and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 331–359.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2016 Thoughts on language-specific and cross-linguistic entities. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 427–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1977 Where have all adjectives gone? Studies in Languages 1: 19–77. (Repr. 1982. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1992 The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1): 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Cross-linguistic categories, comparative concepts, and the Walman diminutive. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 305–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2013 Language diversity as a resource for understanding cultural evolution. In Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, Religion, Peter J. Richerson & Morten H. Christiansen (eds), 233–268. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.
2009 The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David
2016 Describing languoids: When incommensurability meets the language-dialect continuum. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 439–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graffi, Giorgio
2001 200 Years of Syntax. A Critical Survey [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 98]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The pioneers of linguistic typology. In Song (ed), 25–42.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966[1963] Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, 2nd edn, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28(3): 554–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Pre-established categories don’t exist – Consequence for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86: 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language 86(3): 696–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 How to compare major word classes across languages. In Theories of Everything in Honor of Edward Keenan [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 17, Article 16], Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds), 109–130. Los Angeles CA: UCLA. [URL] (11 November 2020).Google Scholar
2014 (Non-)universality of word-classes and words: The mid-20th century shift. [URL] (11 November 2020).
2016 The challenge of making language description and comparison mutually beneficial. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 299–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Aspects of Linguistic Variations: Studies in Honour of Johan van der Auwera, Daniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds), 83–113. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change? In Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds), 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard
(eds) 2005 The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: OUP. (On line edition 2013: Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew S. (eds). Leipzig: Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology).Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1983 Word Order Universals: Quantitative analyses of linguistic structure. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1968[1928] Principes de grammaire générale. København: Munsgaard.Google Scholar
Hurford, James R.
2007–2012 Language in the Light of Evolution, Vol. 1 (2007), Vol. 2 (2012) Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha
2019 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1958 Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. In Actes du 8ème Congr. Intern. des Linguistes, Eva Siversten (ed.), 17–25. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury & Arkadiev, Peter
2016 On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 403–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1975 La catégorie de l’éventuel. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Emile Benveniste, Georges Dumézil, Claude Hagège & Emmanuel Laroche (eds), 347–358. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
1992 Y a-t-il des catégories interlanguagières? In Texte, Sätze, Wörter und Moneme. Festschrift für Klaus Heger zum 65. Geburtstag, Susanne R. Anschüz (ed.), 427–434. Heidelberger: Orientverlag.Google Scholar
1997 Pour une terminologie rigoureuse: Quelques principes et propositions. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris (nouvelle série) 6: 111–133.Google Scholar
2001a On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36: 141–200.Google Scholar
2004 On the status of linguistics with particular regards to typology. The Linguistic Review 21: 389–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 The case for pure linguistics. Studies in Language 36(2): 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
2016 On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 365–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2018 Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. In Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies, Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.). 27–50. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian
2018 Is phonological typology possible without (universal) categories? In Phonological Typology, Larry M. Hyman & Franz Plank (eds), 107–125. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne M., Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus
(eds) 2013 The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 4 Vols. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Moravcisik, Edith A.
2016 On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 417–425.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna
1994 La linguistica dell’Ottocento. In Storia della linguistica, Vol. 3, Giulio C. Lepschy (ed.), 11–399. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
2007 Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 133–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3): 688–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans
2007 Extent and limit of linguistic diversity as the remit of typology – But through constraints on what is diversity limited? Linguistic Typology 11: 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Of categories: Language-particular – Comparative – Universal. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 297–298.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo
1990 Da Humboldt ai neogrammatici: Continuità e fratture. In Leibniz, Humboldt, and the Origins of Comparativism, Tullio De Mauro & Lia Formigari (eds), 199–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations. Linguistics 37(1): 157–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The (early) history of linguistic typology. In Song (ed.), 9–24.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan
2004[2002] The Noun Phrase. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016 Crosslinguistic categories in morphosyntactic typology: Problems and prospects. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 333–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand
1922 Course de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Italian edn. by De Mauro, Tullio 1997 Corso di linguistica generale. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob
1995 Cognitive-conceptual structure and linguistic encoding: Language universals and typology in the UNITYP framework. In Shibatani & Bynon (eds), 273–325.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Bynon, Theodora
(eds) 1995 Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sommerfelt, Alf
1971[1962] Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
(ed.) 2011 The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
1985 Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origin of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Sahoo, Kalyanamalini
2015 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta linguistica Hafniensia 47(2): 136–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina
2014 The Universal Structure of Categories. Towards a Formal Typology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar