Downloads provided by UsageCountsPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.
This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different (draft)
Haspelmath, Martin;
Haspelmath, Martin;
How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different (draft)
This paper reasserts the fundamental conceptual distinction between language- particular categories of individual languages, defined within particular systems, and comparative concepts at the cross-linguistic level, defined in substantive terms. The paper argues that comparative concepts are also widely used in other sciences, and that they are always distinct from social categories, of which linguistic categories are special instances. Some linguists (especially in the generative tradition) assume that linguistic categories are natural kinds (like biological species, or chemical elements) and thus need not be defined, but can be recognized by their symptoms, which may be different in different languages. I also note that category-like comparative concepts are sometimes very similar to categories, and that different languages may sometimes be described in a unitary commensurable mode, thus blurring (but not questioning) the distinction. Finally, I note that cross- linguistic claims must be interpreted as being about the facts of languages, not about the incommensurable systems of languages.
comparative concept, typology, natural kind
comparative concept, typology, natural kind
7118
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, David. 2016. Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 395-402. doi:10.1515/lingty-2016-0013.
Bošković, Željko. 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63(2). 187-203.
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2013. Grammatical categories in theory and practice. Rask 38. 101- 131.
Broadwell, George Aaron & Lachlan Duncan. 2002. A new passive in Kaqchikel. Linguistic Discovery 1(2). doi:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.161.
Brown, Cecil H. 2005. Hand and arm. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 522-525. Oxford University Press. (http://wals.info/chapter/s6).
Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.). 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford University Press.
Butt, Miriam. 2010. The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 48-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam A. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average views 543 downloads 915 citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average - 543views915downloads
citations
Citations provided by BIP!
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
Citations provided by BIP!popularityPopularity provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
Popularity provided by BIP!influenceInfluence provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
Influence provided by BIP!impulseImpulse provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
Impulse provided by BIP!viewsViews provided by UsageCounts
Views provided by UsageCountsdownloadsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts 0
Average
Average
Average
543
915
This paper reasserts the fundamental conceptual distinction between language- particular categories of individual languages, defined within particular systems, and comparative concepts at the cross-linguistic level, defined in substantive terms. The paper argues that comparative concepts are also widely used in other sciences, and that they are always distinct from social categories, of which linguistic categories are special instances. Some linguists (especially in the generative tradition) assume that linguistic categories are natural kinds (like biological species, or chemical elements) and thus need not be defined, but can be recognized by their symptoms, which may be different in different languages. I also note that category-like comparative concepts are sometimes very similar to categories, and that different languages may sometimes be described in a unitary commensurable mode, thus blurring (but not questioning) the distinction. Finally, I note that cross- linguistic claims must be interpreted as being about the facts of languages, not about the incommensurable systems of languages.