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. 101–136

Chapter 4
Typology of functional domains

| University of Colorado
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Aims of typology
  • 2.Approaches to the study of functional categories
  • 3.Problems with conceptual frameworks (comparative concepts)
  • 4.Current approaches to the discovery of functions
  • 5.Theoretical foundations for a non-aprioristic description of functions
  • 6.Discovery of the function of a linguistic form
    • 6.1The prerequisites for the discovery of functions
    • 6.2Two types of functions in the present approach
      • 6.2.1Relationship between functions as a main discovery tool
  • 7.The basic questions in the cross-linguistic study of functions
  • 8.Proposed object of typology of functions
  • 9.Point of view
    • 9.1Point of view of the subject as a marked category
    • 9.2Point of view of the subject as unmarked category
    • 9.3Goal orientation
    • 9.4Point of view of the subject and goal orientation in Hdi
  • 10.Locative predication
  • 11.Benefactive, malefactive, and the indirect object
    • 11.1Benefactive function
    • 11.2Indirectly affected argument
    • 11.3Conclusions
  • 12.Advantages of comparing functions encoded in the grammatical systems
  • 13.What the typology of functional functions will look like
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.04fra
References (76)
References
Beeching, Kate. 1980–1990. Un corpus d’entretiens spontanés. Enregistrés et transcrits par Kate Beeching. Southampton: LLAS Centre for Languages, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English.
Cohen, David. 1989. L’aspect verbal. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, Herbert , Davidse, Kristin & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (eds.). 2010. Grammaticalization and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 3: Further Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1991. SOV languages and the OV: VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27: 443–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1): 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order. In Word Order in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 30], Michael Noonan & Pamela Downing (eds), 105–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a. Definite articles. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (28 May 2017).Google Scholar
2013b. Indefinite articles. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (28 May 2017).Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27(3): 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud & Fenk, August. 2005. Crosslinguistic correlations between size of syllables, number of cases, and adposition order. In Sprache und Natürlichkeit: Gedenkband für Willi Mayerthaler, Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon & Christian Winkler (eds), 75–86. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Richard, Harms (eds), 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Mithun, Marianne & Evans, Nicholas (eds). 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1985a. Ergativity, number, and agreement. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Mary Niepokuj, Mary VanClay, Vassiliki Nikiforidou & Deborah Feder (eds), 96–106. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 1985b. Truth and the indicative sentence. Studies in Language 9(2): 243–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Truth and the compositionality principle: A reply to Palmer. Studies in Language 11(1): 211–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence: A Case Study in Chadic [Studies in Language Companion Series 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Grammaticalization of number: From demonstratives to nominal and verbal plural. Linguistic Typology 1: 193–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Domains of point of view and coreferentiality: System interaction approach to the study of reflexives. In Reflexives: Forms and Functions, Vol.1 [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci Walker (eds), 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A Grammar of Lele [Stanford Monographs in African Linguistics]. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2004. Principle of functional transparency in language structure and language change. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, David Rood & Adam Hodges (eds), 259–283. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. A Grammar of Gidar. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008b. Grammaticalization, typology, and semantics: Expanding the agenda. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 76], Maria Jose Lopez-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds), 61–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Grammaticalization within and outside of the domain. In Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 43–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization of the reference systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 625–635. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. A Grammar of Wandala. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Indirect object and benefactive predications in Chadic: A typological sketch. Studies in African Linguistics 42(1): 33–68.Google Scholar
. 2016. Inflectional markers of sentential parsing. Lingua 183: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. Toward a typology of reference systems. Languages and Linguistics 79: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Coding locative predication in Chadic. In Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 339], Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds), 203–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. What the grammaticalization of ‘head’ reveals about the semantic structure of a language. In Embodiment in Cross-Linguistic Studies: The ‘Head’, Iwona Kraska-Szlenk (ed.), 51–75. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Butters, Marielle. 2020. The Emergence of Grammatical Functions. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Johnston, Eric, with Edwards, Adrian. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Liu, Meichun, Ye, Yingying. 2020. The reference system of Modern Mandarin Chinese. Australian Journal of Linguistics 40(1).
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Mycielski, Jan. 1998. On some fundamental problems of mathematical linguistics. In Mathematical and Computational Analysis of Natural Language [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 45], Carlos Martin-Vide (ed.), 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt with Shay, Erin. 2002. A Grammar of Hdi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt with Erin Shay. 2003. Explaining Language Structure through Systems Interaction [Typological Studies in Language 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Role of Functions in Syntax: A Unified Approach to Language Theory, Description, and Typology [Typological Studies in Language 111]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Munkaila, Mohammed. In progress. Locative predications in Hausa.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. n.d. Field-notes on Hona.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Johnston, Eric. n.d. Field-notes for Mina dictionary.
Garrigues-Cresswell, Martine with Weibegué, Christophe. 1981. Livre de Lecture Lélé. Sarh: Centre D’études Linguistiques.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & van der Auwera, Johan. 2012. This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Gilles Gaston. 1960. Pensée Formelle et Science de l’Homme. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Grammar, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine. 2016. Associated motion in South America: Typological and areal perspectives. Linguistic Typology 20(1): 81–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Perdue, Clive. 1997. The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13(4): 301–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha (eds) 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, second, extensively revised and updated edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2004. On the status of linguistics with particular regard to typology. The Linguistic Review 21: 389–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, Anna & Austin, Peter K. 2007. Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45(3): 393–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1950. La structure de la phrase dans les langues indigènes de l’Amérique du nord. Lingua Posnaniensis 2: 162–207.Google Scholar
. 1962. Typological similarities between Caucasian and American Indian languages. Folia Orientalia IV: 221–230.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case and its motivations. Language 67: 510–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne & Chafe, Wallace. 1999. What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23(3): 579–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
NKJP: Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego-Polish National Corpus.
Radetzky, Paula & Smith, Tomoko. 2010. An areal and cross-linguistic study of benefactive and malefactive constructions. In Benefactives and Malefactives. Typological Perspectives and Case Studies [Typological Studies in Language 92], Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds), 97–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe T. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 2017. A Chadic Cornucopia, Paul Newman (ed.). Oakland CA: California Digital Library. <[URL]> (12 November 2020).Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2006. Word order and linearization. In Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 13, Keith Brown (ed.), 642–649. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Variation in major constituent order: A global and European perspective. In Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, Anna Siewierska (ed.), 475–552. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Person. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Bakker, Dik. 1996. The distribution of subject and object agreement and word order type. Studies in Language 20(1): 115–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanini, Jean. 1962. La voix pronominale en ancien et en moyen français. Aix-en-Provence: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1963. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan & Cysouw, Michael (eds). 2010. Rara & Rarissima. Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

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.