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. 137–210

Chapter 5
Theories of language, language comparison, and grammatical description

Correcting Haspelmath

| Freie Universität Berlin
This essay is a study of Haspelmath’s conception of ‘comparative concepts’ vs. ‘descriptive categories’ from a new angle: a study concentrating on questions of logical form and formal explicitness rather than on linguistic adequacy; it is suggested that the inconclusiveness of previous discussion of the conception is mainly due to formal flaws hidden in Haspelmath’s account by its informality. Three major flaws of the conception are identified: (i) a failure to explicitly relativize comparative-concept terms to languages: to construe the terms as relational, as denoting relations between linguistic items, or constructions, and languages; (ii) misconstruing empirical statements on descriptive categories as definitions of the category terms; and (iii) a failure to recognize the importance of theories of language in dealing with ‘comparative concepts’ vs. ‘descriptive categories’. There are serious consequences of these flaws, which are pointed out in detail. The conception as such is not rejected: ten revisions are proposed for an improved version. An attempt is made throughout to actually settle matters, which requires going into details rather deeply. The essay proceeds in three steps, using background notions from logic and the philosophy of science: after the introductory Part A (§§ 1 and 2), Haspelmath’s definition of “serial verb construction” is carefully analysed in Part B (§§ 3 to 10) as the most elaborate example of how he wishes to deal with comparative concepts; in Part C (§§ 11 to 19), the conception of ‘comparative concepts’ vs. ‘descriptive categories’ is modified by introducing the revisions, first with respect to comparative concepts (§§ 11 to 13), then with respect to descriptive categories (§§ 14 to 16), resulting in a different view of their interrelations (§§ 17 and 18) and in a more adequate conception of the relations between general linguistics, comparative linguistics, and descriptive linguistics (§ 19).
Article outline
  • A.Introduction and background
    • 1.Introduction
      • 1.1Motivation: Why this essay, and for whom
      • 1.2Topic and coverage (1): General
      • 1.3Topic and coverage (2): Limitations
      • 1.4Method (1): General
      • 1.5Method (2): Specifics
      • 1.6Major theses
      • 1.7Organization
    • 2.Background
      • 2.1Logic (1): General
      • 2.2Logic (2): Lambda expressions
      • 2.3Logic (3): Intensions
      • 2.4Logic (4): The language
      • 2.5Notions of category (1): General
      • 2.6Notions of category (2): Descriptive categories
  • B.Determining a comparative concept: The definition of “serial verb construction”
    • 3.Background: Definition types
      • 3.1A basic ambiguity: ‘Real’ vs. ‘nominal’ definitions
      • 3.2Types of nominal definitions (1): Stipulative definitions
      • 3.3Types of nominal definitions (2): Explicative definitions
      • 3.4Explications and the status of explicative definitions
    • 4.Basic type of the definition
      • 4.1The definition
      • 4.2The objects of the definition: A threefold ambiguity
      • 4.3The ambiguity resolved
      • 4.4The definition as a nominal definition
    • 5.Subtype of the definition
      • 5.1The definition as an explicative definition
      • 5.2The explication
      • 5.3The explicatum theory
    • 6.Background: Definition form
      • 6.1Informal and formal definitions
      • 6.2Requirements on stipulative definitions
      • 6.3Proper definitions (1): Equivalences
      • 6.4Proper definitions (2): Identities
    • 7.The definition of “serial verb construction”: Logical form (1)
      • 7.1Introduction
        • Modification
        • Terminology
      • 7.2Formal rendering of the definition: The translation D1
      • 7.3“serial verb construction”: Logical status as a 1-place predicate
    • 8.The definition of “serial verb construction”: Logical form (2)
      • 8.1The same-language requirement: The problem of the hidden variable
      • 8.2Dealing with the requirement
      • 8.3Status of the hidden variable: Bound or free?
      • 8.4“serial verb construction”: Logical status as a 2-place predicate
      • 8.5An alternative: “serial verb construction” as a one-place function-term
      • 8.6A basic inconsistency
    • 9.The concept of serial verb construction
      • 9.1Basis for the concept
      • 9.2Two ways of construing the concept
        • First construction of the concept
        • Second construction of the concept
      • 9.3Comparison
      • 9.4Adopting the first construction of the concept
    • 10.Applying the concept term
      • 10.1Universality statements
      • 10.2Comparative statements
      • 10.3Simple descriptive statements
      • 10.4Identification statements
  • C.‘Comparative concepts’ vs. ‘descriptive categories’: Revising the conception
    • 11.Comparative concepts (1): Basics – Revisions One to Four
      • 11.1First Revision: Ambiguities resolved
      • 11.2Second Revision: Reference to languages made explicit
      • 11.3Third Revision: The nature of concepts clarified
      • 11.4Fourth Revision: Concept types based on definition types
    • 12.Comparative concepts (2): Intension-based concept types – Revisions Five to Seven
      • 12.1Fifth Revision: Comparative concepts as properties of construction/language pairs
      • 12.2Sixth Revision: Comparative concepts as properties of item/language pairs
      • 12.3The problem of dealing with linguistic functions
      • 12.4Seventh Revision: Comparative concepts as properties of language/function pairs
      • 12.5The intension-based system of concept types
    • 13.Comparative concepts (3): ‘Universal applicability’ – Revision Eight
      • 13.1‘Universal applicability’ of comparative concepts: A problematic conception
      • 13.2Analysis
      • 13.3Interpreting “applicable”
      • 13.4Unfoundedness of the essential claim
      • 13.5Eighth Revision: Rejecting universal applicability, accepting degrees of generality
    • 14.Descriptive categories (1): The nature of descriptive categories – Revision Nine
      • 14.1The problem
      • 14.2Ninth Revision: Adopting a form of weak constructivism throughout
    • 15.Descriptive categories (2): How not to define category terms
      • 15.1Background
      • 15.2The problem of comparability
      • 15.3Identification vs. definition: Example
      • 15.4Rejection of definitions by language-specific criteria
    • 16.Descriptive categories (3): The proper treatment of category terms – Revision Ten
      • 16.1Category terms based on comparative concept terms (1): Lambda expressions
      • 16.2Category terms based on comparative-concept terms (2): Constants
      • 16.3Function category terms
      • 16.4Tenth Revision: Category terms as standard category terms, basic and derived
      • 16.5Non-standard category terms
    • 17.Relating comparative concepts and descriptive categories. Concept types
      • 17.1Comparative concepts and descriptive categories: The ontological relationship
      • 17.2A notational convention
      • 17.3The problem of ‘portable terms’
      • 17.4Comparative concepts: Orientation types and origin types
      • 17.5Standard comparative concepts and the overall system of types
    • 18.The problem of type-token relations
      • 18.1The non-existence claim
      • 18.2The problem of general categories
      • 18.3General categories as types: Qualifying the non-existence claim
        • a.Comparative concepts of the construction/language type
        • b.Comparative concepts of the item/language type
        • c.Comparative concepts of the language/function type
      • 18.4General categories and systems of categories
    • 19.Theories of language, language comparison, and grammatical description
      • 19.1Theories of language
      • 19.2Comparative concepts and theories of language
      • 19.3Comparative concepts and language comparison
      • 19.4Comparative concepts and grammatical description
      • 19.5General linguistics, comparative linguistics, and descriptive linguistics
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.05lie
References (51)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds), 1–68.Google Scholar
2018. Serial Verbs. [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, Robert M.W. (eds). 2006. Serial Verb Construction: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alama, Jesse & Korbmacher, Johannes. 2019. The Lambda calculus. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
van der Auwera, Johan & Gast, Volker. 2010. Categories and prototypes. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 165–189. Oxford: OUP. (Online edn 2012).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
Beck, David. 2016. Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 395–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behme, Christina & Neef, Martin (eds). 2018. Essays on Linguistic Realism [Studies in Language Companion Series 196]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander & Tobin, Emma. 2018. Natural kinds. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 4th edn. 2013. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1956. Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1958[2012]. Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its Applications. New York NY: Dover Publications. (Reprinted in 2012 by Courier Corp. North Chelmsford MA).Google Scholar
. 1960. Einführung in die symbolische Logik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Anwendungen. Zweite, neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (2nd edn, revised and enlarged). Vienna: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chini, Marina & Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds). 2018. Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Coquand, Thierry. 2018. Type Theory. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Cordes, Moritz & Siegwart, Geo. No year. Explication. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <[URL]> (8 April 2019).
Croft, William. 2016. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan, Hundsnurscher, Franz, Job, Michael & Lutzeier, Peter Rolf (eds). 2005. Lexikologie. Lexicology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen. An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies, 2. Halbband / Volume 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Da Milano, Federica. 2021. The category ‘pronoun’ in East and Southeast Asian languages, with a focus on Japanese. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duchier, Denys & Parmentier, Yanick. 2015. High-level methodologies for grammar engineering. Introduction to the special issue of Journal of Language Modelling 3(1): 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitting, Melvin. 2015. Intensional Logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2021. Typology of functional domains. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Anil. 2015. Definitions. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Quoted from Bird & Tobin 2018).Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language & Linguistics 17(3): 291–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Aspects of Linguistic Variation, Daniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds), 83–114. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutton, Christopher. 1990. Abstraction and Instance: The Type-token Relationship in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Quoted from Wetzel 2018 ).Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. Based on A Grammar of Contemporary English by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.Google 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: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich. 1980. Wortbedeutung: Argumente für eine psychologische Konzeption. Lingua 52: 132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Integrational Linguistics, Vol. I: General Outline [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Die Polyfunktionalität des deutschen Vorgangspassivs. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, Phonetik und Kommunikationsforschung 45(2): 178–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Linguistic Variables: Towards a Unified Theory of Linguistic Variation [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 108]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Notions of paradigm in grammar. In Lexikologie. Lexicology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen. An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies, 2. Halbband / Vol. 2, D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Rolf Lutzeier (eds), 1613–1646. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2018. Describing linguistic objects in a realist way. In Essays on Linguistic Realism [Studies in Language Companion Series 196], Christina Behme & Martin Neef (eds), 79–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2017. Linguistic Research in Progress: Proceedings of the Berlin Research Colloquium on Integrational Linguistics 1992–2003 (Parts I to XXII) / Berliner Forschungskolloquium Integrative Sprachwissenschaft 1992–2003. Protokolle (Teil I bis XXII). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. <[URL]> (12 November 2020).Google Scholar
Margolis, Eric & Laurence, Stephen. 2014. Concepts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2016. On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 417–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, Ryan M. 2018. Languages and other abstract structures. In Essays on Linguistic Realism [Studies in Language Companion Series 196], Christina Behme & Martin Neef (eds), 193–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël, Mortelmans, Tanja & Brisard, Frank (eds). 2018. Aspects of Linguistic Variation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orilia, Francesco & Swoyer, Chris. 2017. Properties. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Puddu, Nicoletta. 2021. Verbal vs. nominal reflexive constructions: a categorial opposition? In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian (ed.). 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2017. Introduction. In Roberts (ed.), 1–34.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1957[1999]. Introduction to Logic [The University Series in Undergraduate Mathematics]. Princeton NJ: Van Nostrand. (Reprinted in 1999, Dover Books in Mathematics. New York NY: Dover Publications).Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie. 2018. Categories. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Wetzel, Linda. 2018. Types and tokens. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 edn), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]> (12 November 2020).
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.