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. 35–58

Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics

| MPI-SHH Jena | Leipzig University

This paper proposes that just like phonologists, linguists working on morphosyntax should have a core set of standard terms that are understood in exactly the same way across the discipline. Most of these terms are traditional terms that are given a standard retro-definition, because linguists already behave as if these terms had the same meaning for everyone. The definitions are definitions of general concepts (i.e. comparative concepts, applicable to all languages in exactly the same way), but they are expected to be highly similar to language-particular categories with the same labels. If linguists were close to finding out the true natural-kind categories of Human Language that all grammars consist of, there would be no need for definitions, but since this seems to be a remote goal, research on general linguistics must rely on uniformly defined general terms.

Article outline
  • 1.Terminological consistency and standardization
  • 2.Comparative concepts, language-particular categories, and natural kinds
  • 3.Examples of possible standard definitions of well-known terms
  • 4.Principles for standard morphosyntactic terms
  • 5.Shared-core definitions of comparative concepts
  • 6.Stereotypes and prototypes
  • 7.Standard comparative terms and language-particular description
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.02has
References
Baker, Mark C.
2001 The Atoms of Language. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E.
2005 The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane
2002 Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds), 35–64. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Chumakina, Marina
2013 What there might be and what there is: An introduction to Canonical Typology. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 1–19. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A.
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay
1985 CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. 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
Corbett, Greville G.
2007 Gender and noun classes. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 241–279. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Universals and features. In Universals of Language Today, Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto (eds), 129–143. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2007 Deconstructing categories: Finiteness in a functional-typological perspective. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 91–114. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2016 Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark
2019 ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Ideophones, Mimetics, and Expressives [Iconicity in Language and Literature 16], Kimi Akita & Prashant Pardeshi (eds), 13–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2009 The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. In Universals of Language Today, Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto (eds), 185–207. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Crosslinguistic categories, comparative concepts, and the Walman diminutive. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 305–331. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García García, Luisa
2020 The basic valency orientation of Old English and the causative ja-formation: A synchronic and diachronic approach. English Language & Linguistics. Cambridge University Press 24(1). 153–177. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther
1989 Ergativity in German [Studies in Generative Grammar 35]. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2005 Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011a On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b 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 the world’s languages. In Theories of Everything: In Honor of Edward Keenan [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17, article 16], Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds), 109–130. Los Angeles CA: UCLA. [URL].Google Scholar
2013 Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Defining vs. diagnosing linguistic categories: A case study of clitic phenomena. In How Categorical are Categories? New Approaches to the Old Questions of Noun, Verb, and Adjective, Joanna Błaszczak, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski (eds), 273–304. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language and Linguistics 17(3): 291–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Aspects of Linguistic Variation: Studies in Honor of Johan van der Auwera, Daniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds), 83–113. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b The last word on polysynthesis: A review article. Linguistic Typology 22(2): 307–326. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018c Toward a new conceptual framework for comparing gender systems and some so-called classifier systems. Stockholm University talk handout. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking. Te Reo 62(1): 93–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 The morph as a minimal linguistic form. Morphology 30(2). 117–134. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021a Bound forms, welded forms, and affixes: Basic concepts for morphological comparison. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2021(1). 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021b Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. In Janic, Katarzyna & Puddu, Nicoletta & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Reflexive constructions in the world’s languages (to appear). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hennig, Mathilde
2012 Grammatische Terminologie in der Schule: Einladung zur Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 40(3): 443–450. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibort, Anna
2010 Towards a typology of grammatical features. In Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics, Anna Kibort & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 64–106. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
2011 Phonetics in phonology. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C.L. Yu (eds), 348–373. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
2002 Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36(3–4): 141–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1983 Rektion und syntaktische Relationen. Folia Linguistica 17(1–4): 339–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol
2009 Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 3–18. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List, Johann Mattis, Greenhill, Simon, Rzymski, Christoph, Schweikhard, Nathanael & Forkel, Robert
(eds) 2019 Concepticon 2.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. [URL].Google Scholar
Massam, Diane
2017 Incorporation and pseudo-incorporation in syntax. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. DOI logo. DOI logo
Moran, Steven & McCloy, Daniel
(eds) 2019 PHOIBLE 2.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. [URL].Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1984 Direct and oblique objects in Chechen-Ingush and Russian. In Objects, Frans Plank (ed.), 183–209. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel
2014 Serial verbs in Wambaya. In Language Description Informed by Theory [Studies in Language Companion Series 147], Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin & Diana Guillemin (eds), 263–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric
2018 Reflexives and reflexivity. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1): 81–107. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Luís, Ana R.
2012 Clitics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
1989 Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Alfieri, Luca
2021. Parts of speech, comparative concepts and Indo-European linguistics. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 313 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
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich
2021. Theories of language, language comparison, and grammatical description. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Reiner, Tabea
2021. Comparative concepts are not a different kind of thing. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Sufyan, Abu, Yani Rohmayani, Tubagus Chaeru Nugraha & Mohammed H. Al-Khresheh
2020. INTERFERENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARABIC VOCABULARY (A MORPHOLOGICAL REVIEW). Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 8:4 ► pp. 1319 ff. DOI logo
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Sandra Auderset
2022. Measuring and assessing indeterminacy and variation in the morphology-syntax distinction. Linguistic Typology 0:0 DOI logo
Zaefferer, Dietmar
2021. Beware of the emperor’s conceptual clothes: general linguistics must not be based on shaky dichotomies. Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 april 2023. 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.