694019070
03
01
01
JB
John Benjamins Publishing Company
01
JB code
TSL 132 Eb
15
9789027259943
06
10.1075/tsl.132
13
2021003475
DG
002
02
01
TSL
02
0167-7373
Typological Studies in Language
132
01
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
01
tsl.132
01
https://benjamins.com
02
https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.132
1
B01
Luca Alfieri
Alfieri, Luca
Luca
Alfieri
University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
2
B01
Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco
Giorgio Francesco
Arcodia
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
3
B01
Paolo Ramat
Ramat, Paolo
Paolo
Ramat
University of Pavia
01
eng
430
vi
424
LAN009060
v.2006
CFK
2
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.COGN
Cognition and language
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.SEMAN
Semantics
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.SYNTAX
Syntax
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.THEOR
Theoretical linguistics
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.TYP
Typology
06
01
Few issues in the history of the language sciences have been an object of as much discussion and controversy as linguistic categories. The eleven articles included in this volume tackle the issue of categories from a wide range of perspectives and with different foci, in the context of the current debate on the nature and methodology of the research on comparative concepts – particularly, the relation between the categories needed to describe languages and those needed to compare languages. While the first six papers deal with general theoretical questions, the following five confront specific issues in the domain of language analysis arising from the application of categories. The volume will appeal to a very broad readership: advanced students and scholars in any field of linguistics, but also specialists in the philosophy of language, and scholars interested in the cognitive aspects of language from different subfields (neurolinguistics, cognitive sciences, psycholinguistics, anthropology).
04
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/475/tsl.132.png
04
03
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208651.jpg
04
03
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208651.tif
06
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/tsl.132.hb.png
07
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/125/tsl.132.png
25
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/tsl.132.hb.png
27
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/tsl.132.hb.png
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.01alf
1
34
34
Chapter
1
01
Chapter 1. Linguistic categories, language description and linguistic typology – An overview
1
A01
Luca Alfieri
Alfieri, Luca
Luca
Alfieri
University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
2
A01
Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco
Giorgio Francesco
Arcodia
Ca' Foscari University
3
A01
Paolo Ramat
Ramat, Paolo
Paolo
Ramat
University of Pavia
01
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 <sc>lingtyp</sc> mailing list (January / February 2016) and in the subsequent monographic issue of <i>Linguistic Typology</i> 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).
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.02has
35
58
24
Chapter
2
01
Chapter 2. Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics
1
A01
Martin Haspelmath
Haspelmath, Martin
Martin
Haspelmath
MPI-SHH Jena and Leipzig University
01
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.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.03wil
59
100
42
Chapter
3
01
Chapter 3. Universal underpinnings of language-specific categories
A useful heuristic for discovering and comparing categories of grammar and beyond
1
A01
Martina Wiltschko
Wiltschko, Martina
Martina
Wiltschko
ICREA, UPF
01
The goal of this paper is to argue that the assumption that there are universal underpinnings for the construction of language specific categories is a useful, if not necessary assumption for the discovery and comparison of categories. Specifically, I will explore three empirical domains: <ol type="i"> <br /><br /> <b>grammatical categories</b> of the familiar kind (e.g., tense, voice, demonstrative, etc.); <br /><br />categories associated with the <b>language of interaction</b> (e.g., sentence final tags, response particles, interjections, etc.), and <br /><br />categories that express <b>emotions</b> (e.g., ideophones, certain types of intonational tunes, expressives, etc.) </ol> <br />The argument will be developed as follows. <br />I start by introducing the framework for the analysis of grammatical categories I have developed in Wiltschko 2014. This approach seeks to reconcile the tension between the two opposing views which this volume addresses: typologists observe that languages differ in their categorial inventories but some linguists (especially of the generative tradition) assume that there is a core which all languages share, including a set of universal categories. The key to reconciling this tension, I argue, is to assume that the categories we observe are always constructed on a language-specific basis, but that there are some universal building blocks involved in their construction, namely the <i> <b>universal spine</b>,</i> a hierarchically organized set of functions which is at the core of constructing sentential meanings. The spine has to be associated with units of language (I use the term unit of language as opposed to morpheme or word because I include – among other things - features as well and intonational tunes in the set of elements that can associate with the spine). Familiar grammatical categories are constructed via this association: that is, units of language <i>per se</i> do not form grammatical categories, they do so only in interaction with the spine. It follows that grammatical categories will always be language-specific, since the units of language are language-specific (for traditional morphemes this follows from the Saussurian assumption that the relation between form and meaning is arbitrary – hence must be conventionalized on a language specific basis). What this assumption allows us to do is to compare language-specific categories via a third element (Humboldt’s <i>tertium comparationis</i>), namely the spine. Comparing language-specific categories directly to each other is typically meaning-based, but categories of similar meaning do not always have the same distribution and hence cannot be classified as universal categories (assuming that the hallmark of units of language of the same category is that they display the same distributional patterns). <br />I then proceed to show that the same framework can be used for the discovery and comparison of categories which are not typically assumed to be part of grammar proper: interactive and emotive categories. I first show that they, too, display the patterns of grammatical categories: we find classes of UoLs which enter into syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations; and they display patterns of contrast and patterns of multi-functionality.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.04fra
101
136
36
Chapter
4
01
Chapter 4. Typology of functional domains
1
A01
Zygmunt Frajzyngier
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
Zygmunt
Frajzyngier
University of Colorado
01
The aim of this study is to advocate one of the aims of linguistic typology, viz. the discovery of how languages are similar or different with respect to the functions they encode and consequently for the development of a typology based solely on the functions encoded in the grammatical systems of individual languages. Such a typology has the advantage of not requiring or depending on aprioristic definitions. Such a typology also has the following additional advantages: it can serve as a tool in explaining the forms of utterances in individual languages and in explaining why certain languages have functions that other languages do not.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.05lie
137
210
74
Chapter
5
01
Chapter 5. Theories of language, language comparison, and grammatical description
Correcting Haspelmath
1
A01
Hans-Heinrich Lieb
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich
Hans-Heinrich
Lieb
Freie Universität Berlin
01
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).
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.06rei
211
248
38
Chapter
6
01
Chapter 6. Comparative concepts are <i>not</i> a different kind of thing
1
A01
Tabea Reiner
Reiner, Tabea
Tabea
Reiner
University of Munich
01
This contribution challenges the by now established notion of comparative concepts; in particular, it can be read as a (delayed) response to Haspelmath (2010). Like Haspelmath’s original paper, the present one is theoretical in essence, with examples used primarily for illustration. My main point is that Haspelmath’s comparative concepts are, despite his claims to the contrary, simply crosslinguistic categories. This point has been made before; however, I offer two new ingredients to the argument: first, an explicit definition of the crucial term <i>instantiation</i>, allowing, among other things, a reaction to Haspelmath’s (2018b) newest defence of comparative concepts, and second, an alternative approach involving multiple monotonic inheritance. The contribution as a whole, though being theoretical, strives to argue as framework-neutrally as possible; in particular I remain agnostic about the existence and nature of Universal Grammar in any sense.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.07sei
249
278
30
Chapter
7
01
Chapter 7. Essentials of the <sc>unityp</sc> research project
Attempt of an overview
1
A01
Hansjakob Seiler
Seiler, Hansjakob
Hansjakob
Seiler
University of Zurich/University of Cologne
2
A01
Yoshiko Ono
Ono, Yoshiko
Yoshiko
Ono
University of Zurich/University of Cologne
3
A01
Waldfried Premper
Premper, Waldfried
Waldfried
Premper
University of Zurich/University of Cologne
01
This contribution surveys the insights of ‘<sc>unityp</sc>’ (Language Universals and Typology), a research project initiated and led by Hansjakob Seiler from 1973 until 1992 and further developed by him until 2017. First, an overview of essential concepts and the architecture of the <sc>unityp</sc> model is given. Of central importance are three levels of research: cognitive-conceptual, general comparative grammar, and individual languages. Then the conceptual and methodological implications are demonstrated by selected analyses. These comprise a summary of Seiler’s latest ‘works in progress’ concerning Identification as well as an application of the crucial abductive method in cross-linguistic investigation, exemplified by the object relation and number.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.08mat
279
312
34
Chapter
8
01
Chapter 8. The non-universality of linguistic categories
Evidence from pluractional constructions
1
A01
Simone Mattiola
Mattiola, Simone
Simone
Mattiola
University of Bologna
01
This paper aims at giving a typological overview of pluractionality in order to show how grammatical categories, in cross-linguistic perspective, cannot be considered as universally valid entities. After having defined the phenomenon, I will present the main functions and some formal characteristics that pluractional markers have in the languages of the world. Then, I will describe the diachronic sources from which pluractional markers probably come from. Finally, I will discuss the grammatical status that pluractionality has in cross-linguistic perspective in the light of the broad variety it shows in the languages of the world and also taking into consideration data from specific languages.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.09alf
313
366
54
Chapter
9
01
Chapter 9. Parts of speech, comparative concepts and Indo-European linguistics
1
A01
Luca Alfieri
Alfieri, Luca
Luca
Alfieri
University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
01
The paper adopts and further elaborates on the distinction between comparative concepts (CC) and descriptive categories (DC) by proposing a partly new definition of the parts of speech (PoS), and uses that definition to provide a new analysis of PoS in Latin and RV Sanskrit. More, specifically, the paper shows that in Latin three major classes of morphemes are found (nouns, adjectives and verbs), whereas in the RV only two major classes are found (verbal roots and nouns) and the typical “adjective” is a derived stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality (i.e. roughly a nominalization). The data described are then used to contribute to the CC debate in the field of PoS, by showing its relation with historical Indo-European linguistics, by critically analysing traditional labels such as noun, adjective, verb, root, stem and lexeme, and by questioning the alleged incommensurability between CCs and DCs.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.10pud
367
388
22
Chapter
10
01
Chapter 10. Verbal vs. nominal reflexive constructions
A categorial opposition?
1
A01
Nicoletta Puddu
Puddu, Nicoletta
Nicoletta
Puddu
University of Cagliari
01
Reflexives have been extensively studied from different approaches and perspectives, but no clear consensus has been established on the criteria for their definition. From a morphological point of view, a distinction between nominal reflexives and verbal reflexives has been generally accepted in both functional and generative approaches. However, it is ultimately hard to make a precise distinction between verbal and nominal reflexives which should possibly be viewed as a continuum rather than as a discrete partition. In this paper, I will discuss the opportunity of a categorial distinction between verbal and nominal reflexive constructions, identifying some general principles which allow us to classify a form as “verbal” or “nominal”.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.11dam
389
410
22
Chapter
11
01
Chapter 11. The category ‘pronoun’ in East and Southeast Asian languages, with a focus on Japanese
1
A01
Federica Da Milano
Da Milano, Federica
Federica
Da Milano
Università di Milano-Bicocca
01
The topic of the paper is an analysis of the debated notion of the category ‘pronoun’ in East and Southeast Asian languages, with a special focus on Japanese. After a description of the main aspects of the notion of ‘person’ as a grammatical category, the focus is devoted to personal pronouns in general and then to personal pronouns in East and Southeast Asian languages. Special attention is devoted to Japanese personal pronouns, taking into account the Emancipatory Pragmatics approach.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.sub
411
418
8
Miscellaneous
12
01
Subject index
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.lan
419
420
2
Miscellaneous
13
01
Language index
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.aut
421
424
4
Miscellaneous
14
01
Author index
02
JBENJAMINS
John Benjamins Publishing Company
01
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam/Philadelphia
NL
04
20210709
2021
John Benjamins B.V.
02
WORLD
13
15
9789027208651
01
JB
3
John Benjamins e-Platform
03
jbe-platform.com
09
WORLD
21
01
00
105.00
EUR
R
01
00
88.00
GBP
Z
01
gen
00
158.00
USD
S
679019069
03
01
01
JB
John Benjamins Publishing Company
01
JB code
TSL 132 Hb
15
9789027208651
13
2021003474
BB
01
TSL
02
0167-7373
Typological Studies in Language
132
01
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
01
tsl.132
01
https://benjamins.com
02
https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.132
1
B01
Luca Alfieri
Alfieri, Luca
Luca
Alfieri
University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
2
B01
Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco
Giorgio Francesco
Arcodia
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
3
B01
Paolo Ramat
Ramat, Paolo
Paolo
Ramat
University of Pavia
01
eng
430
vi
424
LAN009060
v.2006
CFK
2
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.COGN
Cognition and language
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.SEMAN
Semantics
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.SYNTAX
Syntax
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.THEOR
Theoretical linguistics
24
JB Subject Scheme
LIN.TYP
Typology
06
01
Few issues in the history of the language sciences have been an object of as much discussion and controversy as linguistic categories. The eleven articles included in this volume tackle the issue of categories from a wide range of perspectives and with different foci, in the context of the current debate on the nature and methodology of the research on comparative concepts – particularly, the relation between the categories needed to describe languages and those needed to compare languages. While the first six papers deal with general theoretical questions, the following five confront specific issues in the domain of language analysis arising from the application of categories. The volume will appeal to a very broad readership: advanced students and scholars in any field of linguistics, but also specialists in the philosophy of language, and scholars interested in the cognitive aspects of language from different subfields (neurolinguistics, cognitive sciences, psycholinguistics, anthropology).
04
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/475/tsl.132.png
04
03
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027208651.jpg
04
03
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027208651.tif
06
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/tsl.132.hb.png
07
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/125/tsl.132.png
25
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/tsl.132.hb.png
27
09
01
https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/tsl.132.hb.png
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.01alf
1
34
34
Chapter
1
01
Chapter 1. Linguistic categories, language description and linguistic typology – An overview
1
A01
Luca Alfieri
Alfieri, Luca
Luca
Alfieri
University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
2
A01
Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco
Giorgio Francesco
Arcodia
Ca' Foscari University
3
A01
Paolo Ramat
Ramat, Paolo
Paolo
Ramat
University of Pavia
01
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 <sc>lingtyp</sc> mailing list (January / February 2016) and in the subsequent monographic issue of <i>Linguistic Typology</i> 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).
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.02has
35
58
24
Chapter
2
01
Chapter 2. Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics
1
A01
Martin Haspelmath
Haspelmath, Martin
Martin
Haspelmath
MPI-SHH Jena and Leipzig University
01
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.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.03wil
59
100
42
Chapter
3
01
Chapter 3. Universal underpinnings of language-specific categories
A useful heuristic for discovering and comparing categories of grammar and beyond
1
A01
Martina Wiltschko
Wiltschko, Martina
Martina
Wiltschko
ICREA, UPF
01
The goal of this paper is to argue that the assumption that there are universal underpinnings for the construction of language specific categories is a useful, if not necessary assumption for the discovery and comparison of categories. Specifically, I will explore three empirical domains: <ol type="i"> <br /><br /> <b>grammatical categories</b> of the familiar kind (e.g., tense, voice, demonstrative, etc.); <br /><br />categories associated with the <b>language of interaction</b> (e.g., sentence final tags, response particles, interjections, etc.), and <br /><br />categories that express <b>emotions</b> (e.g., ideophones, certain types of intonational tunes, expressives, etc.) </ol> <br />The argument will be developed as follows. <br />I start by introducing the framework for the analysis of grammatical categories I have developed in Wiltschko 2014. This approach seeks to reconcile the tension between the two opposing views which this volume addresses: typologists observe that languages differ in their categorial inventories but some linguists (especially of the generative tradition) assume that there is a core which all languages share, including a set of universal categories. The key to reconciling this tension, I argue, is to assume that the categories we observe are always constructed on a language-specific basis, but that there are some universal building blocks involved in their construction, namely the <i> <b>universal spine</b>,</i> a hierarchically organized set of functions which is at the core of constructing sentential meanings. The spine has to be associated with units of language (I use the term unit of language as opposed to morpheme or word because I include – among other things - features as well and intonational tunes in the set of elements that can associate with the spine). Familiar grammatical categories are constructed via this association: that is, units of language <i>per se</i> do not form grammatical categories, they do so only in interaction with the spine. It follows that grammatical categories will always be language-specific, since the units of language are language-specific (for traditional morphemes this follows from the Saussurian assumption that the relation between form and meaning is arbitrary – hence must be conventionalized on a language specific basis). What this assumption allows us to do is to compare language-specific categories via a third element (Humboldt’s <i>tertium comparationis</i>), namely the spine. Comparing language-specific categories directly to each other is typically meaning-based, but categories of similar meaning do not always have the same distribution and hence cannot be classified as universal categories (assuming that the hallmark of units of language of the same category is that they display the same distributional patterns). <br />I then proceed to show that the same framework can be used for the discovery and comparison of categories which are not typically assumed to be part of grammar proper: interactive and emotive categories. I first show that they, too, display the patterns of grammatical categories: we find classes of UoLs which enter into syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations; and they display patterns of contrast and patterns of multi-functionality.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.04fra
101
136
36
Chapter
4
01
Chapter 4. Typology of functional domains
1
A01
Zygmunt Frajzyngier
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
Zygmunt
Frajzyngier
University of Colorado
01
The aim of this study is to advocate one of the aims of linguistic typology, viz. the discovery of how languages are similar or different with respect to the functions they encode and consequently for the development of a typology based solely on the functions encoded in the grammatical systems of individual languages. Such a typology has the advantage of not requiring or depending on aprioristic definitions. Such a typology also has the following additional advantages: it can serve as a tool in explaining the forms of utterances in individual languages and in explaining why certain languages have functions that other languages do not.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.05lie
137
210
74
Chapter
5
01
Chapter 5. Theories of language, language comparison, and grammatical description
Correcting Haspelmath
1
A01
Hans-Heinrich Lieb
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich
Hans-Heinrich
Lieb
Freie Universität Berlin
01
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).
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.06rei
211
248
38
Chapter
6
01
Chapter 6. Comparative concepts are <i>not</i> a different kind of thing
1
A01
Tabea Reiner
Reiner, Tabea
Tabea
Reiner
University of Munich
01
This contribution challenges the by now established notion of comparative concepts; in particular, it can be read as a (delayed) response to Haspelmath (2010). Like Haspelmath’s original paper, the present one is theoretical in essence, with examples used primarily for illustration. My main point is that Haspelmath’s comparative concepts are, despite his claims to the contrary, simply crosslinguistic categories. This point has been made before; however, I offer two new ingredients to the argument: first, an explicit definition of the crucial term <i>instantiation</i>, allowing, among other things, a reaction to Haspelmath’s (2018b) newest defence of comparative concepts, and second, an alternative approach involving multiple monotonic inheritance. The contribution as a whole, though being theoretical, strives to argue as framework-neutrally as possible; in particular I remain agnostic about the existence and nature of Universal Grammar in any sense.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.07sei
249
278
30
Chapter
7
01
Chapter 7. Essentials of the <sc>unityp</sc> research project
Attempt of an overview
1
A01
Hansjakob Seiler
Seiler, Hansjakob
Hansjakob
Seiler
University of Zurich/University of Cologne
2
A01
Yoshiko Ono
Ono, Yoshiko
Yoshiko
Ono
University of Zurich/University of Cologne
3
A01
Waldfried Premper
Premper, Waldfried
Waldfried
Premper
University of Zurich/University of Cologne
01
This contribution surveys the insights of ‘<sc>unityp</sc>’ (Language Universals and Typology), a research project initiated and led by Hansjakob Seiler from 1973 until 1992 and further developed by him until 2017. First, an overview of essential concepts and the architecture of the <sc>unityp</sc> model is given. Of central importance are three levels of research: cognitive-conceptual, general comparative grammar, and individual languages. Then the conceptual and methodological implications are demonstrated by selected analyses. These comprise a summary of Seiler’s latest ‘works in progress’ concerning Identification as well as an application of the crucial abductive method in cross-linguistic investigation, exemplified by the object relation and number.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.08mat
279
312
34
Chapter
8
01
Chapter 8. The non-universality of linguistic categories
Evidence from pluractional constructions
1
A01
Simone Mattiola
Mattiola, Simone
Simone
Mattiola
University of Bologna
01
This paper aims at giving a typological overview of pluractionality in order to show how grammatical categories, in cross-linguistic perspective, cannot be considered as universally valid entities. After having defined the phenomenon, I will present the main functions and some formal characteristics that pluractional markers have in the languages of the world. Then, I will describe the diachronic sources from which pluractional markers probably come from. Finally, I will discuss the grammatical status that pluractionality has in cross-linguistic perspective in the light of the broad variety it shows in the languages of the world and also taking into consideration data from specific languages.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.09alf
313
366
54
Chapter
9
01
Chapter 9. Parts of speech, comparative concepts and Indo-European linguistics
1
A01
Luca Alfieri
Alfieri, Luca
Luca
Alfieri
University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
01
The paper adopts and further elaborates on the distinction between comparative concepts (CC) and descriptive categories (DC) by proposing a partly new definition of the parts of speech (PoS), and uses that definition to provide a new analysis of PoS in Latin and RV Sanskrit. More, specifically, the paper shows that in Latin three major classes of morphemes are found (nouns, adjectives and verbs), whereas in the RV only two major classes are found (verbal roots and nouns) and the typical “adjective” is a derived stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality (i.e. roughly a nominalization). The data described are then used to contribute to the CC debate in the field of PoS, by showing its relation with historical Indo-European linguistics, by critically analysing traditional labels such as noun, adjective, verb, root, stem and lexeme, and by questioning the alleged incommensurability between CCs and DCs.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.10pud
367
388
22
Chapter
10
01
Chapter 10. Verbal vs. nominal reflexive constructions
A categorial opposition?
1
A01
Nicoletta Puddu
Puddu, Nicoletta
Nicoletta
Puddu
University of Cagliari
01
Reflexives have been extensively studied from different approaches and perspectives, but no clear consensus has been established on the criteria for their definition. From a morphological point of view, a distinction between nominal reflexives and verbal reflexives has been generally accepted in both functional and generative approaches. However, it is ultimately hard to make a precise distinction between verbal and nominal reflexives which should possibly be viewed as a continuum rather than as a discrete partition. In this paper, I will discuss the opportunity of a categorial distinction between verbal and nominal reflexive constructions, identifying some general principles which allow us to classify a form as “verbal” or “nominal”.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.11dam
389
410
22
Chapter
11
01
Chapter 11. The category ‘pronoun’ in East and Southeast Asian languages, with a focus on Japanese
1
A01
Federica Da Milano
Da Milano, Federica
Federica
Da Milano
Università di Milano-Bicocca
01
The topic of the paper is an analysis of the debated notion of the category ‘pronoun’ in East and Southeast Asian languages, with a special focus on Japanese. After a description of the main aspects of the notion of ‘person’ as a grammatical category, the focus is devoted to personal pronouns in general and then to personal pronouns in East and Southeast Asian languages. Special attention is devoted to Japanese personal pronouns, taking into account the Emancipatory Pragmatics approach.
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.sub
411
418
8
Miscellaneous
12
01
Subject index
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.lan
419
420
2
Miscellaneous
13
01
Language index
10
01
JB code
tsl.132.aut
421
424
4
Miscellaneous
14
01
Author index
02
JBENJAMINS
John Benjamins Publishing Company
01
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam/Philadelphia
NL
04
20210709
2021
John Benjamins B.V.
02
WORLD
08
905
gr
01
JB
1
John Benjamins Publishing Company
+31 20 6304747
+31 20 6739773
bookorder@benjamins.nl
01
https://benjamins.com
01
WORLD
US CA MX
21
13
10
01
02
JB
1
00
105.00
EUR
R
02
02
JB
1
00
111.30
EUR
R
01
JB
10
bebc
+44 1202 712 934
+44 1202 712 913
sales@bebc.co.uk
03
GB
21
10
02
02
JB
1
00
88.00
GBP
Z
01
JB
2
John Benjamins North America
+1 800 562-5666
+1 703 661-1501
benjamins@presswarehouse.com
01
https://benjamins.com
01
US CA MX
21
2
10
01
gen
02
JB
1
00
158.00
USD