Chapter 6
Comparative concepts are not a different kind of thing
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 instantiation, 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.A critical close reading of Haspelmath (2010a)
- 2.1Short summary of Haspelmath (2010a)
- 2.2Discussion of Haspelmath (2010a)
- 2.2.1The core arguments
- 2.2.2Haspelmath’s suggestions for concrete comparative concepts
- 3.An alternative: Monotonic, multiple inheritance
- 3.1Background
- 3.2Blueprint
- 3.3Implementation
- 3.3.1A guided tour through Figure 11
- 3.3.2Beyond Figure 11
- 4.Conclusion and outlook
-
Acknowledgments
-
Notes
-
References
References (64)
References
Armstrong, David M.
2004. How do particulars stand to universals?
In
Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 1, Dean W.
Zimmerman
(ed.), 139–154. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Biggs, Bruce. 1961. The structure of New Zealand Maaori. Anthropological Linguistics
3(3): 1–54.
Brown, Cecil H.
2013. Hand and arm. In
The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S.
Dryer & Martin
Haspelmath
(eds). Leipzig: MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (18 December 2018).
Brown, Dunstan & Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology. A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 133]. Cambridge: CUP. 

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures [Janua Linguarum 4]. The Hague: Mouton. 

Clements, George N.
1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook
2: 225–252. 

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. 

Croft, William. 2005. Word classes, parts of speech, and syntactic argumentation. Linguistic Typology
9(3): 431–441.
Culicover, Peter W.
1999. Syntactic Nuts. Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition [Foundations of Syntax 1]. Oxford: OUP.
Daelemans, Walter, Gerald, Gazdar & De Smedt, Koenraad. 1992. Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics
18(2): 205–218.
Dahl, Östen. 2016. Thoughts on language-specific and crosslinguistic entities. Linguistic Typology
20(2): 427–437. 

Dryer, Matthew S.
2005. Order of adjective and noun. In
The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin
Haspelmath, Matthew S.
Dryer, David
Gil & Bernard
Comrie
(eds), 354–357. Oxford: OUP.
Dryer, Matthew S.
2013. Order of adjective and noun. In
The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S.
Dryer & Martin
Haspelmath
(eds). Leipzig: MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (16 January 2019).
Elbert, Samuel H. & Pukui, Mary Kawena. 1979. Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu HI: The University Press of Hawaii. 

Gair, James W.
1970. Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures [Janua Linguarum; Series Practica 83]. The Hague: Mouton. 

Gerner, Matthias & Bisang, Walter. 2010. Social-deixis classifiers in Weining Ahmao. In
Rara & Rarissima. Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 46], Jan
Wohlgemuth & Michael
Cysouw
(eds), 75–94. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Gil, David. 2013. Riau Indonesian. A language without nouns and verbs. In
Flexible Word Classes. Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, Jan
Rijkhoff & Eva
van Lier
(eds), 89–130. Oxford: OUP. 

Glottolog. <[URL]> (18 December 2018).
Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case marking in Australian languages. A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics
2(2): 167–196. 

Goddard, Cliff. 1985. A Grammar of Yankunytjatjara. Alice Springs: Institute for Aboriginal Development.
Gross, Maurice. 1989. On the failure of Generative Grammar. Language
55(4): 859–885. 

Halle, Morris, Vaux, Bert & Wolfe, Andrew. 2000. On feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation. Linguistic Inquiry
31(3): 387–444. 

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language
86(3): 663–687. 

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language
86(3): 696–699. 

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica
45(1): 31–80. 

Haspelmath, Martin. 2018a. Facing the challenge of general linguistics when nature doesn’t help us. Diversity Linguistics Comment of 18 February. <[URL]> (7 February 2019).
Haspelmath, Martin. 2018b. 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. 

Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony [Functional Grammar Series 15]. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Hengeveld, Kees. 2013. Parts-of-speech systems as a basic typological determinant. In
Flexible Word Classes. Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, Jan
Rijkhoff & Eva
van Lier
(eds), 31–55. Oxford: OUP. 

Kaplan, Ronald M.
2003. Syntax. In
The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, Ruslan
Mitkov
(ed.), 70–90. Oxford: OUP.
Karlsson, Fred. 2015. Finnish. An Essential Grammar [Routledge Essential Grammars], 3rd edn. London: Routledge. 

Kim, Jong-Bok. 2016. The Syntactic Structures of Korean. A Construction Grammar Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. 

Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language [Germanic Linguistics]. London: Routledge.
Koch, Harold. 2006. Kaytetye. In
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Keith
Brown
(ed.), 170–172. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish [Descriptive Grammars]. London: Routledge.
Lander, Yuri & Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology
20(2): 403–416. 

Lee, Que. 1997. Dative Constructions and Case Theory in Korean. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.
Lehmann, Christian. 2018. Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. In
Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies [Materiali Linguistici 79], Marin
Chini & Pierluigi
Cuzzolin
(eds), 27–50. Milano: Franco Angeli. <[URL]> (9 May 2019).
Maddieson, Ian. 2018. Is phonological typology possible without (universal) categories?
In
Phonological Typology [Phonology and Phonetics 23], Larry M.
Hyman & Frans
Plank
(eds), 107–125. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Maiden, Martin. 2009. From pure phonology to pure morphology. The reshaping of the Romance verb. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes
38: 45–82. 

McGinn, Colin. 2012. Truth by Analysis. Oxford: OUP.
Moravcsik, Edith A.
2016. On linguistic categories. In
Linguistic Typology
20(2): 417–425. 

Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language
86(3): 688–695. 

Quine, Willard van Orman. 1960. Word and Object [Series in Communication]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Reiner, Tabea. 2014. Lexical and grammatical meaning. Revisited. In
Semantics and Beyond. Philosophical and Linguistic Investigations [Philosophical Analysis 57], Piotr
Stalmaszczyk
(ed), 231–240. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Riemer, Nick. 2006. Reductive paraphrase and meaning. A critique of Wierzbickian semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy
29(3): 347–379. 

Rijkhoff, Jan. 2016. Crosslinguistic categories in morphosyntactic typology. Problems and prospects. In
Linguistic Typology
20(2): 333–363. 

Schachter, Paul. 1996. The Subject in Tagalog. Still None of the Above [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15]. Los Angeles: UCLA.
Spencer, Andrew. 2008. Does Hungarian have a case system?
In
Case and Grammatical Relations. Studies in Honour of Bernard Comrie [Typological Studies in Language 81], Greville G.
Corbett & Michael
Noonan
(eds), 35–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Stassen, Leon. 2013. Zero copula for predicate nominals. In
The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S.
Dryer & Martin
Haspelmath
(eds). Leipzig: MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (17 January 2019).
van der Auwera, Johan & Sahoo, Kalyanamalini. 2015. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia
47(2): 136–173. 

van Lier, Eva & Rijkhoff, Jan. 2013. Flexible word classes in linguistic typology and grammatical theory. In
Flexible Word Classes. Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, Jan
Rijkhoff & Eva
van Lier
(eds), 1–30. Oxford: OUP. 

Van Valin, Jr. Robert D.
2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. 

Van Valin, Jr. Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: CUP. 

Wade, Terence. 1992. A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Weber, Benjamin. 2019. Eine korpuslinguistische Analyse der Wortarten im Hawai’i (A corpus-linguistic analysis of word classes in Hawaiian). Presentation, Munich, 12 July.
Zaefferer, Dietmar. 2007. Language as mind sharing device. Mental and linguistic concepts in a general ontology of everyday life. In
Ontolinguistics. How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts [Trends in Linguistics; Studies and Monographs 176], Andrea C.
Schalley & Dietmar
Zaefferer
(eds), 193–227. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.