Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T20:55:50.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Martin Haspelmath
Martin Haspelmath*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
*
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04105 Leipzig, Germany, [haspelmath@eva.mpg.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

language typologycomparative conceptdescriptive categorycrosslinguistic category

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 663 - 687
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. The adjective class in Tariana. Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 97–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 2004. Linguistic universals and particulars. Linguistics today—Facing a greater challenge, ed. by Sterkenburg, Piet van, 47–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, 351–73.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4. 365–400.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa (ed.) 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction. Handbook of American Indian languages, vol. 1. (Bureau of American Ethnology, bulletin 40.) Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Butt, John, and Benjamin, Carmen. 2000. A new reference grammar of Modern Spanish. 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William; and Perkins, Revere D.. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin. 1996. Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. Passive and voice. Passive and voice, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi, 9–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Horie, Kaoru. 1995. Complement clauses versus relative clauses: Some Khmer evidence. Discourse grammar and typology: Papers in honor of John W. M. Verhaar (Studies in language companion series 27), ed. by Abraham, Werner, Givón, T., and Thompson, Sandra A., 65–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Relativization strategies. In Haspelmath, et al., 494–501.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. Linguistic diversity and language theories (Studies in language companion series 72), ed. by Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David S., 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83. 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2009. Grammatical categories and relations: Universality vs. language-specificity and construction-specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 441–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1995. Modern syntactic typology. Approaches to language typology, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Bynon, Theodora, 85–144. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. Approaches to the typology of word classes, ed. by Vogel, Petra M. and Comrie, Bernard, 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. Methods for finding language universals in syntax. Universals of language today, ed. by Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta, 145–64. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2005. French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua 115. 1195–219.Google Scholar
de la Grasserie, Raoul. 1896. De l'article: Morphologie et syntaxe. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 9. 285–322, 381–94.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55. 59–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 30–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, vols. 1 and 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: Dispelling a myth. Lingua 74. 77–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? Essays on language function and language type, ed. by Bybee, Joan L., Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 115–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005a. Order of adjective and noun. In Haspelmath, et al., 354–57.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005b. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Haspelmath, et al., 378–81.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2004. Adjectives in Lao. Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 323–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrar, Scott, and Langendoen, D. Terence. 2003. A linguistic ontology for the semantic web. GLOT International 7. 97–100.Google Scholar
Foster, Helen, and Johnson, Donald Clay (eds.) 2003. Wedding dress across cultures. Oxford: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara, Guardiano, Cristina; and Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. In Biberauer, 109–42.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2001. Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning. Linguistic fieldwork, ed. by Newman, Paul and Ratliff, Martha, 102–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case markings in Australian languages: A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2. 167–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2004. The descriptive grammar as a (meta)database. Proceedings of E-MELD 2004. Online: http://emeld.org/workshop/2004/jcgood-paper.html.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of grammar, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1974. Language typology: A historical and analytic overview. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. (Mouton grammar library 9.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28. 554–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don't exist—Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008a. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In Biberauer, 75–107.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008b. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6. 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Framework-free grammatical theory. The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 341–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David; and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Tadmor, Uri (eds.) 2009a. Loanwords in the world's languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Tadmor, Uri (eds.) 2009b. World loanword database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online: http://wold.livingsources.org/.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75. 244–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heger, Klaus. 1990/91. Noeme als Tertia Comparationis im Sprachvergleich. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 49/50.6–30.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional discourse grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association, International Phonetic. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 303–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 2011. Phonetics in phonology. Handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., ed. by Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, to appear.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. Y a-t-il des catégories interlangagières? Texte, Sätze, Wörter und Moneme: Festschrift für Klaus Heger, ed. by Anschütz, Susanne, 427–34. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. [Reprinted in Études de linguistique générale, by Gilbert Lazard. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.]Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36. 141–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2005. What are we typologists doing? Linguistic diversity and language theories (Studies in language companion series 72), ed. by Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David S., 1–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2006. La quête des invariants interlangues: La linguistique est-elle une science? Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1989. Language description and general comparative grammar. Reference grammars and modern linguistic theory, ed. by Graustein, Gottfried and Leitner, Gerhard, 133–62. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1966. Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. Journal of Linguistics 2. 209–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1981. Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua 111. 419–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, Graham, and Blake, Barry. 1981. Language typology. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 166–75.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1997. Structural linguistics in the 1990s. Lingua 100. 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1992. Justifying part-of-speech distinctions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20. 211–46.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1988. Toward a definition of the concept 'ergative construction'. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice, ed. by Mel'čuk, Igor A., 250–63. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin; and Huber, Magnus (eds.) 2012. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P., Archangeli, Diana; and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2010. The emergence of optimality theory. Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, ed. by Uyechi, Linda and Wee, Lian Hee, 143–58. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 1995. Epistememes in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 15. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and Litvinov, Viktor P.. 1995. The St. Petersburg/Leningrad typology group. Approaches to language typology, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Bynon, Theodora, 215–71. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004. Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4. 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2007. Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11. 133–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel, and Sadler, Louisa. 2004. Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language 80. 776–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel, and Sadler, Louisa. 2008. When is a temporal marker not a tense? Reply to Tonhauser 2007. Language 84. 325–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F., and Leary, Adam P.. 2005. Against formal phonology. Language 81. 927–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasithrathsint, Amara. 2000. Adjectives as verbs in Thai. Linguistic Typology 4. 251–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger P. 2008. Lexicon and syntax from an emic viewpoint. Studies in Language 32. 866–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 13. 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2010. Formal, semantic and functional categories in grammatical theory and linguistic typology. Aarhus: University of Aarhus, ms.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung (ed.) 2011. The Oxford handbook of language typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2011. The problem of cross-linguistic identification. In Song 2011, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. Understanding syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review 22. 183–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2007. Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. Language 83. 831–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2008. Defining crosslinguistic categories: The case of nominal tense (Reply to Nordlinger and Sadler). Language 84. 332–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.) Prag: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1978. The nature of future tenses. Universals of human language, vol. 3, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 83–124. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
van Baer, Conrad J. P. 1998. The applicability of comparative concepts. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 2.2.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. jr., 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantic interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von der Gabelentz, Hans Conon. 1861. Über das Passivum. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse 3. 449–546.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1830. Über den Dualis. Abhandlungen der historisch philologischen Klasse der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1827. 161–87.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1985. Noun phrase, nominal sentence, and clause in Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo. Grammar inside and outside the clause, ed. by Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony C., 61–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1987. Suppressing the Z's. Journal of Linguistics 23. 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar