Cover not available
Part of
Essays on Linguistic Realism
Edited by Christina Behme and Martin Neef
[Studies in Language Companion Series 196] 2018
► pp. 79–138

Chapter 5
Describing linguistic objects in a realist way

| Freie Universität Berlin
The essay is divided into four Parts A to D: Part A (Sections 1 to 3), Topic and background; B. Grammatical description (Sections 4 to 6); C. Grammars and theories of language: motivating axiomatization (Sections 7 to 9); and D. Grammars as axiomatic theories (Sections 10 and 11). The essay characterizes grammatical description, both informal and formal, from a realist point of view as the description of abstract objects, not to be confused with the concrete data to which the description must be ultimately related. The importance of theories of natural human languages for grammars is emphasized, also in view of comparative grammar writing, and is demonstrated by the detailed analysis of a grammatical statement taken from an informal grammar. There is a discussion of adequacy problems that arise in current frameworks for formal grammars due to an absence of theories of language from such frameworks. A format for axiomatic grammars is outlined by which an axiomatic grammar ‘presupposes’ a theory of language, in a technical sense. The view of grammars is non-reductionist; concepts of theory integration are characterized that allow us to integrate grammars with linguistic and non-linguistic theories. The conception of linguistics itself is non-reductionist, too, through applying a concept of inter-discipline that relates linguistics to other disciplines.
Keywords: Modified Realism, grammars and theories of language, ‘comparative concepts’, grammars as axiomatic theories
Article outline
  • A.Topic and background of the essay
    • 1.Topic
    • 2.Modified Realism
      • 2.1The position
      • 2.2Three components of Modified Realism
        • Constructive realism
        • Non-cognitivist mentalism (intentionalism)
        • Weaker functionalism
    • 3.Discussion
      • 3.1Explanations: A reason for realism
      • 3.2Objects and data
      • 3.3Linguistic inter-disciplines
      • 3.4Placing Modified Realism
  • B.Grammatical description
    • 4.Preliminaries: Informal grammars
      • 4.1Some basic distinctions
      • 4.2Grammars as texts
      • 4.3Remarks on idiolects and idiolect systems
      • 4.4Sample statement from an informal grammar
      • 4.5Terms in an informal grammar: Language specific and language overarching
      • 4.6Grammatical terms in linguistic theories: Descriptive and comparative linguistics
    • 5.Formal grammars: Problems for grammar adequacy
      • 5.1Types of formal grammars: The requirement of semantic analogues
      • 5.2Problems with language names and domain names
      • 5.3Problems with grammatical terms
    • 6.How to solve the problems
      • 6.1First Solution: The Irrelevance Conception
      • 6.2Second Solution: The Language-Feature Conception
      • 6.3Rejecting the Language-Feature Conception
      • 6.4Third Solution: Cover-all Conceptions of Grammatical Terms
      • 6.5Fourth Solution: Relativizing Conceptions of Grammatical Terms
        • ‘article’ relativized
        • ‘subject’ relativized
      • 6.6Overcoming the opposition of ‘comparative concept’ vs. ‘descriptive category’
      • 6.7Conclusion
  • C.Grammars and theories of language: Motivating axiomatization
    • 7.Advantages of an axiomatic grammar format
      • 7.1Introduction
      • 7.2Important features of axiomatic theories
      • 7.3Discussion and explanations
      • 7.4Clarifying informal grammars by partial axiomatic reformulation
    • 8.Grammatical statements: Informal and semi-formal
      • 8.1Example
      • 8.2Variables and constants
      • 8.3Evaluation
    • 9.Grammatical terms taken over from a theory of language
      • 9.1A basic assumption
      • 9.2Defining terms in a theory of language: Example
      • 9.3Using terms in a grammar as defined in a theory of language: Example
      • 9.4The identification of categories
  • D.Grammars as axiomatic theories
    • 10.Grammars G of D and σ (1): The format
      • 10.1The theory-of-language requirement
      • 10.2Presupposing a theory of language
      • 10.3The language name: Language-determination and language-identification sentences
      • 10.4The language system name: System-determination sentences
      • 10.5The axioms
      • 10.6The theorems: Example
    • 11.Grammars G of D and σ (2): Application and integration
      • 11.1Application
      • 11.2Example
      • 11.3Discussion
      • 11.4Integration
      • 11.5Accounting for quantitative aspects
      • 11.6Integrating linguistic and non-linguistic theories: The interconnection problem
      • 11.7Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.196.05lie
References (82)
References
Beck, David. 2016. Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 395–402.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. & Chang, Nancy. 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds), 147–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobrowski, Ireneusz. 2015. Problems of Methodology and Philosophy in Linguistics [Interfaces. Studies in Language, Mind and Translation 7]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1958. Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its Applications. New York NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. On the Generative Enterprise: A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk von Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clément, Lionel, Kirman, Jérome & Salvati, Sylvain. 2015. A logical approach to grammar description. Journal of Language Modelling 3(1): 87–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crabbé, Benoit, Duchier, Denys, Gardent, Claire, Le Roux, Joseph & Parmentier, Yannick. 2013. XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar. Computational Linguistics 39(3): 591–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2016. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duchier, Denys & Parmentier, Yanick. 2015. High-level methodologies for grammar engineering. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Language Modelling 3 (1): 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ettinger, Allyson. 2017. Workshop on Building Linguistically Generalizable NLP Systems (at EMNLP 2017). (Workshop announcement). <[URL]>
Falkenberg, Thomas. 1996. Grammatiken als empirische axiomatische Theorien [Linguistische Arbeiten 346]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[FG-2016] The 21st Conference on Formal Grammar. Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, August 20–21, 2016. (Conference announcement). <[URL]>
Gil, David. 2016. Describing languoids: When incommensurability meets the language-dialect continuum. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 439–462.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2015. Nominal Syntax at the Interfaces: A Comparative Analysis of Languages with Articles. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., Osgood, Charles E. & Jenkins, James J. 1963. Memorandum concerning language universals presented to the conference on Language Universals, Gould House, Dobbs Ferry NY, April 13–15, 1961. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), xv–xxvii. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Forkel, Robert, Haspelmath, Martin & Bank, Sebastian. 2016. Glottolog 2.7. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 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
. 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
. 2016a. The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language and Linguistics 17(3): 291–319.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. The challenge of making language description and comparison mutually beneficial. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 299–301.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. Toward a standard list of grammatical comparative concepts: The Grammaticon. SLE 2017 Book of Abstracts: 500–501.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Some principles for language names. Language Documentation & Conservation 11: 81–93.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Östman, Jan-Ola (eds). 2016. Constructions across Languages [Benjamins Current Topics 82]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K., with collaborators. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1981. Language and Other Abstract Objects. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
2000[1998]. Realistic Rationalism. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2010. Introduction. In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, Andy Kirkpatrick (ed.), 1–16. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury & Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 403–416.DOI logoGoogle 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 & Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. Forthcoming. Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. To appear in Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies, Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds). Milano: Franco Angeli.
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do Linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (eds). 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 19th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Lichte, Timm & Petitjean, Simon. 2015. Implementing semantic frames as typed feature structures with XMG. Journal of Language Modelling 3(1): 185–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich. 1968. Communication Complexes and their Stages. A Contribution to a Theory of the Language Stage [Janua Linguarum 71]. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1969. On explicating ‘language’ for linguistics. Semiotica 1: 167–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1970. Sprachstadium und Sprachsystem: Umrisse einer Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
. 1974. Grammars as theories: The case for axiomatic grammar (Part I). Theoretical Linguistics 1: 39–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. Universals of language: Quandaries and prospects. Foundations of Language 12: 471–511.Google Scholar
. 1976. Grammars as theories: The case for axiomatic grammar (Part II). Theoretical Linguistics 3: 1–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Universals and linguistic explanation. In Universals of Human Language, Vol.1: Method & theory, Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), 157–202. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. Wortbedeutung: Argumente für eine psychologische Konzeption. Lingua 52: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Integrational Linguistics, Vol. I: General Outline [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1987. Sprache und Intentionalität: der Zusammenbruch des Kognitivismus. In Sprachtheorie: Der Sprachbegriff in Wissenschaft und Alltag. Jahrbuch 1986 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache [Sprache der Gegenwart 71], Rainer Wimmer (ed.), 11–76. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
. 1992a. The case for a New Structuralism. In Prospects for a New Structuralism [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 96], Hans-Heinrich Lieb (ed.), 33–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992b. Integrational Semantics: An integrative view of linguistic meaning. In Current Advances in Semantic Theory [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 73], Maxim Stamenov (ed.), 239–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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, Vol.2 [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 21.2], D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Lutzeier (eds), 1613–1646. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. Towards a General Theory of Word Formation: The Process Model. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. <[URL]>
. 2017. ‘Comparative concepts’ vs. ‘descriptive categories’: Bridging the gap. Paper read at the 50th yearly conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in Zürich, September 10 to September 13, 2017. Ms.
(ed.). 1992. Prospects for a New Structuralism [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 96]. 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]>
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich & Drude, Sebastian. 2000. Advanced Glossing. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. <[URL]>
[Lingtyp] 2016a. [Lingtyp] Comparative Concepts. <[URL]>
[Lingtyp] 2016b. [Lingtyp] What do Glossing Labels Stand for? <[URL]>
Müller, Stefan. 2010. Grammatiktheorie [Stauffenburg Einführungen 20]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2013. Grammatiktheorie, 2nd edn. [Stauffenburg Einführungen 20]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2015. The CoreGram project: Theoretical linguistics, theory development, and verification. Journal of Language Modelling 3(1): 21–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches [Textbooks in Language Sciences 1]. Berlin: Language Science Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin. 2014. Das nächste Paradigma: Realistische Linguistik. Eine Ergänzung zum Beitrag Wo stehen wir in der Grammatiktheorie? von Wolfgang Sternefeld und Frank Richter. Muttersprache 124(2): 105–120. Also: lingbuzz/001801.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3): 688–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolda, Andreas. 2018. Explaining linguistic facts in a realist theory of word formation. In Essays on Linguistic Realism, Christina Behme & Martin Neef (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitt, David. 2009. Intentional psychologism. Philosophical Studies 146: 117–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[Plank, Frans (ed.)]. 2016. Discussion. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 297–462.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.. 2012. Chomsky’s foundational admission. lingbuzz/001569.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2013. The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind & Language 28(4): 492–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richter, Frank. 2004. Foundations of Lexical Resource Semantics. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Abteilung Computerlinguistik. Habilitationsschrift. Ms.Google Scholar
. 2007. Closer to the truth: A new model theory for HPSG. In Model-theoretic syntax at 10 [Proceedings of the ESSLLI ’07 workshop MTS@10], James Rogers & Stephan Kepser (eds), 101–110. Dublin: Trinity College.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Journal of Linguistics 86(3): 486–545.Google Scholar
2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Sign-based Construction Grammar [SDLI Lecture Notes 193], Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds), 69–202. Stanford CA: CSLI. <[URL]>
Schäfer, Roland & Bildhauer, Felix. 2013. Web Corpus Construction. San Francisco CA: Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar
Scholz, Barbara C., Pelletier, Francis Jeffry & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2011–2015. Philosophy of Linguistics. Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sept. 2011 – Jan. 2015.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2016[1996]. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology [Classics in Linguistics 2]. Berlin: Language Science Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2013. Cognitive propositions. Philosophical Perspectives: Philosophy of Language 27: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc (ed.). 2011. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 11]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Richter, Frank. 2012. Wo stehen wir in der Grammatiktheorie? Bemerkungen anlässlich eines Buchs von Stefan Müller. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 31: 263–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1957. Introduction to Logic. Princeton NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Wasserscheidt, Philipp. 2016. Constructions do not cross languages: On cross-linguistic generalizations of constructions. In Constructions across Languages [Benjamins Current Topics 82], Martin Hilpert & Jan-Ola Östman (eds), 169–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

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
Nefdt, Ryan M.
2018. Chapter 6. Languages and other abstract structures. In Essays on Linguistic Realism [Studies in Language Companion Series, 196], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.