Against trivializing language description (and comparison)

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.

doi:10.1075/sl.19090.him

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We ask the same questions and struggle with the same problems whether we describe a single phonological feature or compare such features within or across languages. This and similar points have been made many times, illustrated by examples from pretty much every corner of linguistics (Bickel 2007(Bickel , 2010(Bickel , 2011(Bickel , 2015Bickel and Nichols 2002;Dahl 2016;Forker 2016;Himmelmann 2021;Newmeyer 2010;Round and Corbett 2020).…”

Section: Comparison Is Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Beyond universals and particulars in language

Bickel

2021

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his target article "General linguistics must be based on universals (or nonconventional aspects of language)", Martin Haspelmath invites us to reconsider the distinction between general linguistics and the linguistics of a particular language. The distinction is clearly useful to demarcate foci of interest and job descriptions. Also, it helps clarify what we expect our theories and models to achieve in terms of data fit: In general linguistics, we expect theories and models to capture something about the general nature of language. Now, since we can test the relevant hypotheses only in a relatively small sample of currently known languages, we want to avoid what statisticians call overfitting our particular sample. This means that we don't expect models to perfectly fit every single language in this one sample; instead, we expect models to have good predictive performance in any sample we choose, allowing for random historical fluctuations and a healthy modicum of uncertainty. From a language-particular study, by contrast, we expect theories and models to capture one specific language, from its most general regularities to its most specific exceptions. We can't overfit at that level. Where we do want to avoid overfitting is at the level of the idiosyncrasies that characterize individual speakers/signers or individual utterances (or, say, individual glyph tokens when we want to generalize not over an entire language but only over its inscriptional record). Beyond clarifying these differences, I don't think the distinction between general and particular linguistics takes us much further. In important respects the two enterprises are heavily intertwined: Language-particular findings can generate hypotheses about the general nature of language (e.g. the discovery of free affix order in one language led to a learning-based hypothesis why most avoid it: Mansfield et al. 2020), and general linguistics obviously depends on samples of language-particular analyses. Haspelmath proposes that the distinction take us further nevertheless. The proposal rests on linking the distinction to two demands: general linguistics (1) "must study universals", and (2) needs "comparative concepts" that are independent of the categories we need for describing particular languages. I am not convinced that these two demands are helpful.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Is Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Beyond universals and particulars in language

Bickel

2021

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We examine and justify the underpinnings of a proposed typology, and relate them to the underlying attributes of the domain (Round & Corbett 2020). In doing so, we take on board advances in related typological disciplines, demonstrating that linguistics is normal (social) science (Spike 2020, Himmelmann 2022). Since doubts were first expressed about the nature of semantic agreement, it has taken many years to offer a way forward: new data, some "less semantic" than semantic agreement, and some "more semantic", have been key.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Agreement Hierarchy and (generalized) semantic agreement

Corbett

2023

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Therefore typology requires a means for generalizing over them. Instances like plural have are frequently termed "semantic agreement" (vs. "syntactic agreement" for singular has), but this notion has proved difficult. The challenge is to encompass the full typological range of alternative agreements. These include the core instances: (i) hybrid nouns like family; and (ii) constructional mismatches, such as conjoined nominal phrases, but also less obvious phenomena: (iii) split hybrids where neither alternative is straightforwardly semantic, both appear related to form, and (iv) examples like Scandinavian "pancake sentences", which stretch semantic agreement towards pragmatics. These different types are comparable in that (i) the alternatives are realized by the normal agreement forms; and (ii) they are subject to the Agreement Hierarchy. Hence they demand a common treatment. To achieve this, I first unpack the Agreement Hierarchy constraint into the agreement target positions and the directionality implied by "semantic agreement". I show how the latter arises from mismatches between the agreement information available from different sources. Typically, in the core instances, the information from one source is more evidently semantic than from the second. But in other instances, this is less clear. I argue that it is more parsimonious to treat these less obvious phenomena as falling under the constraint of the Agreement Hierarchy. They are seen as part of the pattern of a Hierarchy of Agreement Sources, which gives different degrees of "generalized semantic agreement". This reworking offers a more robust underpinning to the Agreement Hierarchy, and fits into a current trend: a typology that works is no longer sufficient, rather we examine and justify the defining criteria, and relate them to the underlying attributes of the domain.

show abstract

“…There are therefore four types of split, in each of the four host relations, which gives sixteen theoretical possibilities. Thus we were able to construct an elegant typology, using minimal machinery and applying the same measures within and across languages (Round & Corbett 2020, Himmelmann 2022.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The typology of external splits

Corbett¹

2023

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lexicon divides into parts of speech (or lexical categories), and there are cross-cutting regularities (features). These two dimensions of analysis take us a long way, but several phenomena elude us. For these the term 'split' is used extensively ('case split', 'split agreement', and more), but in confusingly different ways. Yet there is a unifying notion here. I show that a split is an additional partition, whether in the part-of-speech inventory or in the feature system. On this base an elegant typology can be constructed, using minimal machinery. The typology starts from four external relations (government, agreement, selection, and anti-government), and it specifies four types of split within each (sixteen possibilities in all). This typology (i) highlights less familiar splits, from diverse languages, and fits them into the larger picture; (ii) introduces a new relation, anti-government, and documents it; (iii) elucidates the complexities of multiple splits; and (iv) clarifies what exactly is split, which leads to a sharpening of our analyses and applies across different traditions.

show abstract

Against trivializing language description (and comparison)

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

Beyond universals and particulars in language

Beyond universals and particulars in language

The Agreement Hierarchy and (generalized) semantic agreement

The typology of external splits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About