Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics

Round, Erich R.; Corbett, Greville G.

doi:10.1515/lingty-2020-2060

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For recent references on Canonical Typology seeRound and Corbett (2020) and the bibliography at tiny. cc/ctbib.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features

Corbett

2021

Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexemes may be split internally, by phenomena such as suppletion, periphrasis, heteroclisis and deponency. Generalizing over these phenomena, which split a lexeme’s paradigm, we can establish a typology of the possible internal splits. There are also lexemes whose external requirements are split: they induce different agreement, for instance. Again, a typology of these splits has been proposed. The next logical step is to attempt a typology of the possible relations between internal and external splits. This is not straightforward, since we need to avoid spurious linkages. Four lines of argument are offered: (i) general plausibility: the internal-external linkage is compelling, and so other accounts require a degree of coincidence which is unlikely; (ii) overabundance: alternative inflectional forms link to different external requirements; (iii) variation in time and space: splits in inflection and in external requirements vary, while maintaining their linkage; (iv) pluralia tantum nouns: the different types of these nouns provide intriguing confirming evidence. Case studies include Asia Minor Greek, Polish, Russian, Scottish Gaelic, Sɛlɛɛ, Serbo-Croat (BCMS), Slovenian, Latin and Old Frisian. The clear instances which emerge, where an external split is demonstrably linked to an internal one, prove both surprising and significant. We discover that in split paradigms, besides overt overabundance, there may also be covertly overabundant cells. Furthermore, when external splits involve individual cells, these will not induce simple (consistent) agreement. This makes good sense, demonstrating that featural information is associated with lexemes in a natural default manner: at the lexeme level by default, unless overridden at the sub-paradigm level, unless in turn overridden at the level of individual cells.

show abstract

“…For recent references on Canonical Typology seeRound and Corbett (2020) and the bibliography at tiny. cc/ctbib.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features

Corbett

2021

Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, Canonical Typology has been applied to give a nuanced description of the differences between languages (for instance, Hyman phonology). However, I adopt Kwon's (2017) "Localized Canonical Typology" to evaluate variations within a language-specific category (see also Round & Corbett 2020), in this case, clusters and units. In Localized Canonical Typology, a canonical core is set for units and clusters, in this case, to characterize the most straightforward units and clusters.…”

Section: Conclusion: An Approach From Canonical Typologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clusters vs units in Otomanguean: the cases of Tlapanec (Mè’phàà) and Zapotec (Dixsa:)

Uchihara

2021

CLECM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Desde el trabajo pionero de Trubetzkoy (1939), se han presentado varias propuestas para distinguir las secuencias y las unidades consonánticas en las lenguas individuales. En este artículo, exploraré los casos del tlapaneco (mè’phàà) de Malinaltepec y el zapoteco (dixsa:) de Teotitlán del Valle, dos lenguas otomangues. Examinaré los criterios generales y particulares de cada lengua para distinguir secuencias y unidades en estas lenguas. Mostraré que en ambos casos los criterios no siempre coinciden: ciertas secuencias resultan ser secuencias según algunos criterios pero como unidades según otros. Basándome en estas observaciones e inspirado en la Tipología Canónica (Brown et al. 2012), argumentaré que la distinción entre las secuencias y unidades no es dicotómica, sino multidimensional: los casos individuales pueden considerarse simultáneamente secuencias en algunos aspectos, pero unidades en otros, entonces la tipología de los comportamientos es más rica que la oposición binaria simple.

show abstract

“…In fact, a number of TT works have expressed this view, see e.g. Gill (2016), Lander and Arkadiev (2016), Round and Corbett (2020) (for a criticism of Haspelmath's position in question, see especially Spike 2020). In some languages those abstract categories would happen to map straightforwardly to surface categories, and in others that would not be the case: in such a case we could have the X=Y+Z situation (with Y applicable to all languages).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Haspelmath's position seems to be a result of accepting a certain level of abstractness in doing typological work but not in doing analyses of individual languages, which essentially leads to separating the two into different fields (as Haspelmath 2010: 682 puts it, "the analysis of particular languages and the comparison of languages are thus independent of each other as theoretical enterprises"). Allowing the same level of abstractness for both, which would also be in the spirit of Occam's razor, would, however, dissolve this distinction (see also Round and Corbett 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At any rate, this is a case where there is less disagreement between traditional and formal typologists in practice than what is generally assumed; note that the main point is actually methodologicalassuming the X/Y distinction is necessary methodologically to be able to do typological work, whether those Xs are real or not is a separate issue (where in fact there is no full field vs field disagreement; as Round and Corbett (2020) (see also Spike 2020) put it, this is an issue of a more general philosophical understanding of science, which isindependent of the two approaches to language discussed here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Formalism and, not vs, Functionalism

Bošković¹

2022

Belgrade Linguistics Days (BeLiDa)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Baker & McCloskey (2007) examine the relationship between traditional typology and generative theoretical syntax. Since then typology has started to play an increasingly more important role within the latter camp to the point that we can actually talk about generative typology. Given that traditional typology is generally associated with functional approaches (see e.g. Nichols 2007), this then gives us two approaches to typology, which I will refer to as traditional (TT) and generative typology (GT). 1 In a way, then, typology is setting grounds for a potential rapprochement of the functional and the formal approach to language more generally. This paper will provide a number of remarks to this effect, within a unificational view where both of these approaches have a place, i.e. where they are in principle not in competition with each other. 2

show abstract

Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics

Cited by 28 publications

References 64 publications

Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features

Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features

Clusters vs units in Otomanguean: the cases of Tlapanec (Mè’phàà) and Zapotec (Dixsa:)

Formalism and, not vs, Functionalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About