On the right of being a comparative concept

Yu., Lander; Arkadiev, Peter

doi:10.1515/lingty-2016-0014

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From a typological perspective then, "competition marker" sounds like a suitable terminological option for the comparative concept (cf. Haspelmath 2010;Lander & Arkadiev 2016). We shall alternate between the two terms accordingly.…”

Section: Swuni-nunmentioning

confidence: 99%

From reciprocity to competition

Jendraschek

Koo

2023

LALI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Korean has a reciprocal pronoun that under certain conditions takes on an innovative function as a marker of competition. This meaning emerges when the marker is used in reported speech containing a predicate expressing volition, intention, or speaker-orientation. In such contexts, the marker is reanalysed as co-referential with competing subsets of subject referents. The final stage is the extension of the competition marker to simple clauses and predicates. The empirical part of this research is based on a survey with 23 native speakers. The shift from a reciprocal pronoun to a competition marker will be analysed as an instance of subjectification. The innovative use as a competition marker has led to additional distributional differences between the simple use of the marker and its reduplicated form. The situation in Korean is comparable to that in Japanese, Bulgarian, and Karachay-Balkar, and mirrors the polysemy pattern found in Tuvaluan. This is the first typological study of the relevant domain in Korean, and will be a valuable addition to the list of available studies on reciprocity and subjectification.

show abstract

Section: Swuni-nunmentioning

confidence: 99%

From reciprocity to competition

Jendraschek

Koo

2023

LALI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Against trivializing language description (and comparison)

Himmelmann

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that recent proposals to sharply distinguish between language description and comparison are ill-conceived for two reasons. First, comparison is unavoidable and hence an integral part of description. Second, the proposals for a strict separation are based on an unrealistic and anachronistic conception of descriptive categories, assuming that these can be defined in purely distributional terms. Here it is shown that description and comparison make use of, and struggle with, the same kind of empirical evidence; namely, crosslinguistically identifiable properties of grammatical formatives and constructions. If descriptive categories and crosslinguistic comparative concepts did not share such properties, language comparison would be devoid of empirical content. Hence claims that they are ontologically different do not stand up to further scrutiny. In short, said recent proposals portray language description and comparison in too-simplistic terms. They ignore, or at least downplay, most of the complexities involved in both descriptive and comparative projects, many of which in fact result from the inseparability of description and comparison.

show abstract

Describing linguistic objects in a realist way

Lieb

2018

Studies in Language Companion Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The essay is divided into four Parts A to D: Part A (Sections 1 to 3), Topic and background; B. Grammatical description (Sections 4 to 6); C. Grammars and theories of language: motivating axiomatization (Sections 7 to 9); and D. Grammars as axiomatic theories (Sections 10 and 11). The essay characterizes grammatical description, both informal and formal, from a realist point of view as the description of abstract objects, not to be confused with the concrete data to which the description must be ultimately related. The importance of theories of natural human languages for grammars is emphasized, also in view of comparative grammar writing, and is demonstrated by the detailed analysis of a grammatical statement taken from an informal grammar. There is a discussion of adequacy problems that arise in current frameworks for formal grammars due to an absence of theories of language from such frameworks. A format for axiomatic grammars is outlined by which an axiomatic grammar ‘presupposes’ a theory of language, in a technical sense. The view of grammars is non-reductionist; concepts of theory integration are characterized that allow us to integrate grammars with linguistic and non-linguistic theories. The conception of linguistics itself is non-reductionist, too, through applying a concept of inter-discipline that relates linguistics to other disciplines.

show abstract

On the right of being a comparative concept

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

From reciprocity to competition

From reciprocity to competition

Against trivializing language description (and comparison)

Describing linguistic objects in a realist way

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About