Band 20, Heft 2 -

While word classes are language-specific categories, lexical flexibility remains under discussion. This article investigates this phenomenon in a balanced sample of 36 Oceanic languages, a genetic group that has figured prominently in this debate. Based on a systematic survey of the morphosyntactic behavior of a range of semantic word types in three propositional functions, it is shown how lexical flexibility can be measured and compared across languages and constructions. While Oceanic flexibility is pervasive in some respects, lexical categorization in these languages does not qualitatively deviate from relevant typological tendencies.

Variety sampling aims at capturing as much of the world’s linguistic variety as possible. The article discusses and compares two sampling methods designed for variety sampling: the Diversity Value method, in which sample languages are picked according to the diversity found in family trees, and the Genus-Macroarea method, in which genealogical stratification is primarily based on genera and areal stratification pays attention to the proportional representation of the genealogical diversity of macroareas. The pros and cons of the methods are discussed, some additional features are introduced to the Genus-Macroarea method, and the ability of both methods to capture crosslinguistic variety is tested with computerized simulations drawing on data in The world atlas of language structures database.

I argue that the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories helps language describers and typologists to benefit from each other because describers are free to set up their own categories, typologists are free to define their own concepts, comparison need not involve complete systems, and interlinear translation can be either based on comparative concepts or descriptive categories. A similar distinction also exists in other disciplines that deal with cultural concepts.

In this article, I consider the notions of crosslinguistic categories and comparative concepts as they apply to a diminutive category in Walman, a language in the Torricelli family spoken in Papua New Guinea. I discuss three interpretations of the question of whether the Walman diminutive is a gender. One interpretation is the question whether the Walman diminutive is an instance of a crosslinguistic category of gender. I argue that this interpretation is problematic since it assumes the existence of crosslinguistic categories and I argue that there is no reason to believe that crosslinguistic categories exist, since the similarities among languages can be explained without appeal to crosslinguistic categories. A second interpretation involves a question of how the diminutive fits into the grammar of Walman, whether the diminutive should be considered a third value of a feature in the grammar of Walman which has two clear values, masculine and feminine. I argue that the evidence supports the view that the Walman diminutive is not a gender in this sense. The third interpretation is whether the Walman diminutive is an instance of a comparative concept of gender. But the answer to that question depends on how one defines gender as a comparative concept.

This article offers a new, transparent method to construe morphosyntactic categories for crosslinguistic research. It avoids the problem of categorial confusion attested in major post-Greenbergian studies in morphosyntactic typology, in particular in probabilistic typological investigations, which tend to mix up semantic and formal criteria and marginalize “statistically insignificant” morphosyntactic variants. These and other problems are avoided by using functional criteria as the starting point in identifying comparable forms and constructions in different languages. Subsequently formal and semantic criteria are employed to arrive at a morphosyntactic category whose members are sufficiently similar in terms of function, form, and meaning.

This paper argues that in doing both description and comparison we should work inductively, staying true to the facts of the languages as manifested in natural data, and not resort to abstractions that lead to classifying languages or constructions in a way that ignores the actual facts of the languages. A non-Structuralist alternative view of communication and typological description is also presented.

What are comparative concepts and how are they related to language-specific categories used in language description? Three general categories of comparative concepts are defined here: purely functional comparative concepts and two types of hybrid formal-functional concepts, constructions and strategies. The two hybrid types provide more explicit and precise definitions of common typological practice. However a terminological issue is that Western grammatical terms are frequently used to describe strategies which are not universal rather than constructions which are. Language-specific categories appear to be radically different from comparative concepts because the former are defined distributionally whereas the latter are defined in universal functional and formal terms. But language-specific constructions have functions, that is, they are instances of constructions in the comparative sense and their form is an instantiation of a strategy. Typology forms generalizations across language-specific constructions in both their form and their function. Finally, a major issue is the confusion of terminological choices for language-specific categories. Four rules of thumb for useful labeling of language-specific categories, largely following best descriptive practice, are offered.

Haspelmath (2010) draws a categorial distinction between language-particular terms – terms used in the description of specific languages – and comparative concepts – terms used for crosslinguistic comparison. This seems like a valid distinction for a lot of terminology, but it is also true that there are “portable” terms that are suitable both for the description of specific languages and for crosslinguistic comparison. This descriptive metalanguage is analogous to the descriptive vocabulary employed in other observational sciences, and its elaboration is an important enterprise for both descriptivist and comparative linguists.

We provide a critical review of the distinction between “comparative concepts” and “descriptive categories”, showing that in current typological practice the former are usually dependent on the latter and are often vague, being organized around prototypes rather than having sharp boundaries. We also propose a classification of comparative concepts, arguing that their definitions can be based on similarities between languages or on differences between languages or can also be “blind” to language-particular facts. We conclude that, first, comparative concepts and descriptive categories are ontologically not as distinct as some typologists would like to have it, and, second, that attempts at a “non-aprioristic” approach to linguistic description and language typology are more of an illusion than reality or even a desideratum.

Brief comments are offered on crosslinguistic and single-language categories, the logical relationship between the two, and ways of testing the applicability of these notions in and across languages.

This article discusses questions arising in connection with Martin Haspelmath’s proposal to distinguish between “descriptive categories” at the language-specific level and “comparative concepts” at the crosslinguistic level, where the latter cannot be seen as either crosslinguistic categories or category types (Haspelmath 2010). It is argued that comparative concepts may be better subsumed under the notion of “generalizing concept”, which is not tied to any specific level of analysis, and that the distinction between what is language-specific and what is crosslinguistic is not absolute. Further, it is shown that crosslinguistic pattern clusters as identified in what is here called “bottom-up typology” meshes well with the homeostatic property cluster approach to biological species.

Many linguists maintain that the grammars of different languages are incommensurable. This poses the problem of how to compare them. One proposed solution is to distinguish between descriptive categories for individual languages and comparative categories for crosslinguistic comparisons. At the same time, it is also commonly assumed that language-internal variation can be described in a unitary manner, thereby presupposing that different dialects of the same language are commensurable. However, it is well known that the language-dialect distinction is not categorical but rather forms a continuum. This raises the question: Where lies the boundary between commensurability and incommensurability? This question is best addressed in terms of the notion of languoid, a cover term that includes languages, smaller entities such as dialects and registers, but also larger assemblages such as genealogical and areal groupings. This article proposes replacing the notion of language-specific descriptive category with that of languoid-associated descriptive category. Since languoids can be of arbitrary size, such categories may form the basis for crosslinguistic comparisons, alongside comparative categories. What this means is that different languoids, regardless of how close or distant they are to each other, may be commensurable with respect to some linguistic features but incommensurable with regard to others.