The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20230331061146/https://eva-mpg.academia.edu/MartinHaspelmath

Skip to main content

Martin Haspelmath

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Faculty Member +1Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Faculty MemberLeipzig University (Universität Leipzig), Institut für Anglistik, Faculty Member

Languages and Linguistics +21

15,966 Followers 598 Following 9 Co-authorsTotal Views

Recent papers

Ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative as comparative concepts

Lifetime linguistic inspirations: To Igor Mel'čuk, edited by Leonid Iomdin, Jasmina Milićević, Alain Polguère, 201-213. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2022, 2022

This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative... more This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative (as general concepts), which are often taken for granted in the literature. Several authors, notably Mel' uk and Creissels, have criticized some of the terminological usage, but I note here that the classical definitions (in terms of alignments of S, A and P) need not be modified. The crucial point to keep in mind is that language-particular descriptive categories are distinct from comparative concepts for general linguistics.

Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics

This paper argues that just like segmental phonetic symbols, grammatical terms should have a stan... more This paper argues that just like segmental phonetic symbols, grammatical terms should have a standard meaning in linguistics. This may be difficult to achieve in practical terms, but I argue that there are no theoretical reasons for skepticism. Terms used in general grammar cannot designate innate building blocks of a biological grammar blueprint anyway, so they need not be any more controversial than IPA symbols.

General linguistics must be based on universals (or nonconventional aspects of language)

This paper highlights the importance of the distinction between general linguistics (the study of... more This paper highlights the importance of the distinction between general linguistics (the study of Human Language) and particular linguistics (the study of individual languages), which is often neglected. The term "theoretical linguistics" is often used as if it entailed general claims. But I note that (unless one studies nonconventional aspects of language, e.g. reaction times as in psycholinguistics), one must study universals if one wants to make general claims. These universals can be of the Greenbergian type, based on grammatical descriptions of the speaker's social conventions, or they can be based on the natural-kinds programme, where linguists try to describe mental grammars as made up of universal building blocks of an innate grammar blueprint. The natural-kinds programme is incompatible with Chomsky's claims about Darwin's Problem, but it is indispensable for a general linguistics in the generative tradition. The Greenbergian programme, by contrast, can make use of framework-free descriptions because its comparisons are based on independently defined universal yardsticks.

Bound forms, welded forms, and affixes: Basic concepts for morphological comparison

Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2021

This paper proposes definitions of three terms that can potentially be used in answering key ques... more This paper proposes definitions of three terms that can potentially be used in answering key questions of general morphology and syntax: bound form, welded form, and affix. The term affix is sometimes thought to involve phonological "fusion" of some kind, but I propose that it is best defined as a bound non-root that cannot occur on roots of different classes. A bound form (or non-autonomous form) is generally defined as a form that does not occur on its own (thus, its definition makes no reference to phonology). As a term for a bound form that shows phonological interactions with its host, I propose the new term welded form. I discuss the ways in which these terms may (or may not) help us justify the syntax-morphology subdivision, and the ways in which these terms may perhaps be the basis for justifying speculative classifications such as the well-known isolating, agglutinative and flective types.

The structural uniqueness of languages and the value of comparison for language description

Asian Languages and Linguistics, 2020

This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique a... more This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique and must be described with its own categories, but language description profits enormously from typological knowledge. It has sometimes been suggested that the Boasian imperative ("each language should be described in its own terms") leads to uninsightful analyses, and that language description should instead be "typologically informed". But the Boasian imperative is not at all incompatible with an intimate connection between description and comparison: Comparative (or typological) knowledge is highly valuable both for making our descriptions transparent and comprehensible, and for helping describers to ask a wide range of questions that would not have occurred to them otherwise. Since we do not know whether any of the building blocks of languages are innate and universal for this reason, we cannot rely on general frameworks (of the generative type) for our descriptions, but we can use typological questionnaires and other kinds of comparative information as a scaffold. Such scaffolds are not theoretical components of the description, but are important methodological tools.

Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and predictability

Journal of Linguistics, 2021

This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adapt... more This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adaptations to the language users' needs, in terms of frequency of use, predictability and coding efficiency. I claim that all grammatical oppositions involving a minimal meaning difference and a significant frequency difference are reflected in a universal coding asymmetry, i.e. a cross-linguistic pattern in which the less frequent member of the opposition gets special coding, unless the coding is uniformly explicit or uniformly zero. I give 25 examples of pairs of construction types, from a substantial range of grammatical patterns. For some of them, the existing evidence from the world's languages and from corpus counts is already strong, while for others, I know of no counterevidence and I make readily testable claims. I also discuss how the functional-adaptive forces operate in language change, and I discuss a number of possible alternative explanations. The paper can be seen as the summary of one of the most ambitious attempts at explaining grammatical patterns in the world's languages.

The morph as a minimal linguistic form

Morphology, 2020

This paper proposes a definition of the term morph as a minimal linguistic form, and discusses a ... more

Ergativity and depth of analysis

Rhema, 2019

This paper argues that "deep" analyses are not necessarily good for general linguistics. What we ... more This paper argues that "deep" analyses are not necessarily good for general linguistics. What we need primarily for general and comparative linguistics is "measurement uniformity" (i.e. comparative concepts that are identified in the same way in all languages), because "building block uniformity" (a set of innate and universal categories that all languages are made up of) is only a remote possibility at present. Ergativity phenomena (from Lezgian and other languages) are used to illustrate this general point.

Human linguisticality and the building blocks of languages

Frontiers in Psychology, 2020

This paper discusses the widely held idea that the building blocks of languages (features, catego... more This paper discusses the widely held idea that the building blocks of languages (features, categories and architectures) are part of an innate blueprint for Human Language, and notes that if one allows for convergent cultural evolution of grammatical structures, then much of the motivation for it disappears. I start by observing that human linguisticality (= the biological capacity for language) is uncontroversial, and that confusing terminology ("language faculty", "universal grammar") has often clouded the substantive issues in the past. I argue that like musicality and other biological capacities, linguisticality is best studied in a broadly comparative perspective. Comparing languages like other aspects of culture means that the comparisons are of the Greenbergian type, but many linguists have presupposed that the comparisons should be done as in chemistry, with the presupposition that the innate building blocks are also the material that individual grammars are made of. In actual fact, the structural uniqueness of languages (in lexicon, phonology and morphosyntax) leads us to prefer a Greenbergian approach to comparison, which is also more in line with the Minimalist idea that there are very few domain-specific elements of the biological capacity for language.

Grammaticalization in creole languages: Accelerated functionalization and semantic imitation

by Martin Haspelmath and Susanne Maria Michaelis

to appear in: Bisang, Walter & Malchukov, Andrej (eds.) 2020. Grammaticalization scenarios, 2020

Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits

Linguistics, 2021

Argument coding splits such as split (= differential) object marking and split ergative marking h... more Argument coding splits such as split (= differential) object marking and split ergative marking have long been known to represent universal tendencies, but the generalizations have not been formulated in their full generality before. In particular, ditransitive constructions have rarely been taken into account, and scenario splits have often been treated separately. Here I argue that all these patterns can be understood in terms of the usual association of role rank (highly ranked A and R, low-ranked P and T) and referential prominence (locuphoric person, animacy, specificity, etc.). At the most general level, the role-reference association universal says that deviations from usual associations of role rank and referential prominence tend to be coded by longer grammatical forms. In other words, A and R tend to be referentially prominent in language use, while P and T are less prominent, and when less usual associations need to be expressed, languages often require special coding by means of additional flags (case-markers and adpositions) or additional verb coding (e.g. inverse or passive markers). I argue that role-reference association is an instance of the even more general pattern of form-frequency correspondence, and that the coding asymmetries can all be explained by frequency-based predictability and coding efficiency.

Differential place marking and differential object marking

This paper gives an overview of differential place marking phenomena and formulates a number of u... more This paper gives an overview of differential place marking phenomena and formulates a number of universals that seem to be well supported. Differential place marking is a situation in which the coding of locative, allative or ablative roles depends on subclasses of nouns, in particular place names (toponyms), inanimate common nouns and human nouns. When languages show asymmetric coding differences depending on such subclasses, they show shorter (and often zero) coding of place roles with toponyms, and longer (often adpositional rather than affixal) coding of place roles with human nouns. Like differential object marking, differential place marking can be explained by frequency asymmetries, expectations derived from frequencies, and the general preference for efficient coding. I also argue that differential place marking patterns provide an argument against the need to appeal to ambiguity avoidance to explain differential object marking.

Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking

Te Reo, 2019

This paper compares the concept pair indexing/flagging and the concept pair head/dependent markin... more This paper compares the concept pair indexing/flagging and the concept pair head/dependent marking, introduced by Nichols. It shows that a general concept of flagging (comprising case and adpositional marking) is needed, and it sketches the advantages of the indexing concept over the old idea of person agreement. It then points out that the notions of head and dependent are hard to define (apart from the two basic domains of clauses and nominals), and that the head/dependent marking typology does not take the function of syntactic relation markers into account. On a functional view, both flags and indexes can be seen as role-identifiers, as opposed to concordants (attributive agreement markers). After discussing three further problems with the head/dependent marking typology, involving construct markers, concordants, and cross-indexes, I conclude that the concept pair indexing/flagging is more suitable for typological purposes than head/dependent marking.

Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change?

In: Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten et al. (eds.) 2019. Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2019

This paper addresses a recent trend in the study of language variation and universals, namely to ... more This paper addresses a recent trend in the study of language variation and universals, namely to attribute cross-linguistic patterns to diachrony, rather than to other causal factors. This is an interesting suggestion, and I try to make the basic concepts clearer, by distinguishing clearly between language-particular regularities, universal tendencies, and mere recurrent patterns, as well as four kinds of causal factors (preferences, constraints, restrictions). I make four claims: (i) Explanations may involve diachrony in different ways; (ii) for causal explanations of universal tendencies, one needs to invoke mutational constraints (change constraints); (iii) in addition to mutational constraints, we need functional-adaptive constraints as well, as is clear from cases of multi-convergence; and (iv) successful functional-adaptive explanations do not depend on understanding the precise pathways of change.

How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different

In: van Olmen, Daniël & Mortelmans, Tanja & Brisard, Frank (eds.) 2018. Aspects of linguistic variation, 83-114 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2018

This paper reasserts the fundamental conceptual distinction between language-particular categorie... more 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 phenomena of languages, not about the incommensurable systems of languages.

Cross-Linguistic Data Formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics

by Johann-Mattis List, Simon J . Greenhill, Martin Haspelmath, and Anna Siewierska

Scientific Data, 2018

The amount of available digital data for the languages of the world is constantly increasing. Unf... more The amount of available digital data for the languages of the world is constantly increasing. Unfortunately, most of the digital data are provided in a large variety of formats and therefore not amenable for comparison and re-use. The Cross-Linguistic Data Formats initiative proposes new standards for two basic types of data in historical and typological language comparison (word lists, structural datasets) and a framework to incorporate more data types (e.g. parallel texts, and dictionaries). The new specification for cross-linguistic data formats comes along with a software package for validation and manipulation, a basic ontology which links to more general frameworks, and usage examples of best practices.

Descriptive hypothesis-testing is distinct from comparative hypothesis-testing

Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale (2016)

Lingua Posnaniensis, 2016

In this paper, I formulate and explain a number of universal generalizations about the formation ... more In this paper, I formulate and explain a number of universal generalizations about the formation of causative verbs (overtly marked verbs with causal meaning) and anticausative verbs (overtly marked verbs with noncausal meaning). Given the spontaneity scale of basic verb meanings (transitive > unergative > automatic unaccusative > costly unaccusative > agentful), we can say that verb pairs with a noncausal verb higher on the scale tend to be causative pairs, and verb pairs with a noncausal verb lower on the scale tend to be anticausative pairs. I propose that these generalizations can be subsumed under the form-frequency correspondence principle: That transitive base verbs tend to form causatives (often analytic causatives) is because they rarely occur in causal contexts, and the fact that unaccusative verbs tend to be coded as anticausatives is because they frequently occur in causal contexts, and special marking is required for the rarer and less expected situation.

Equative constructions in world-wide perspective (Haspelmath & Leipzig Equative Constructions Team)

To appear in a volume edited by Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove

The challenge of making language description and comparison mutually beneficial (short note)

I argue that the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories helps langua... more I argue that the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories helps language describers and typologists to benefit from each other because describers are free to set up their own categories, typologists are free to define their own concepts, comparison need not involve complete systems, and interlinear translation can be either based on comparative concepts or descriptive categories. A similar distinction also exists in other disciplines that deal with cultural concepts.

Ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative as comparative concepts

Lifetime linguistic inspirations: To Igor Mel'čuk, edited by Leonid Iomdin, Jasmina Milićević, Alain Polguère, 201-213. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2022, 2022

This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative... more This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative (as general concepts), which are often taken for granted in the literature. Several authors, notably Mel' uk and Creissels, have criticized some of the terminological usage, but I note here that the classical definitions (in terms of alignments of S, A and P) need not be modified. The crucial point to keep in mind is that language-particular descriptive categories are distinct from comparative concepts for general linguistics.

Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics

This paper argues that just like segmental phonetic symbols, grammatical terms should have a stan... more This paper argues that just like segmental phonetic symbols, grammatical terms should have a standard meaning in linguistics. This may be difficult to achieve in practical terms, but I argue that there are no theoretical reasons for skepticism. Terms used in general grammar cannot designate innate building blocks of a biological grammar blueprint anyway, so they need not be any more controversial than IPA symbols.

General linguistics must be based on universals (or nonconventional aspects of language)

This paper highlights the importance of the distinction between general linguistics (the study of... more This paper highlights the importance of the distinction between general linguistics (the study of Human Language) and particular linguistics (the study of individual languages), which is often neglected. The term "theoretical linguistics" is often used as if it entailed general claims. But I note that (unless one studies nonconventional aspects of language, e.g. reaction times as in psycholinguistics), one must study universals if one wants to make general claims. These universals can be of the Greenbergian type, based on grammatical descriptions of the speaker's social conventions, or they can be based on the natural-kinds programme, where linguists try to describe mental grammars as made up of universal building blocks of an innate grammar blueprint. The natural-kinds programme is incompatible with Chomsky's claims about Darwin's Problem, but it is indispensable for a general linguistics in the generative tradition. The Greenbergian programme, by contrast, can make use of framework-free descriptions because its comparisons are based on independently defined universal yardsticks.

Bound forms, welded forms, and affixes: Basic concepts for morphological comparison

Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2021

This paper proposes definitions of three terms that can potentially be used in answering key ques... more This paper proposes definitions of three terms that can potentially be used in answering key questions of general morphology and syntax: bound form, welded form, and affix. The term affix is sometimes thought to involve phonological "fusion" of some kind, but I propose that it is best defined as a bound non-root that cannot occur on roots of different classes. A bound form (or non-autonomous form) is generally defined as a form that does not occur on its own (thus, its definition makes no reference to phonology). As a term for a bound form that shows phonological interactions with its host, I propose the new term welded form. I discuss the ways in which these terms may (or may not) help us justify the syntax-morphology subdivision, and the ways in which these terms may perhaps be the basis for justifying speculative classifications such as the well-known isolating, agglutinative and flective types.

The structural uniqueness of languages and the value of comparison for language description

Asian Languages and Linguistics, 2020

This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique a... more This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique and must be described with its own categories, but language description profits enormously from typological knowledge. It has sometimes been suggested that the Boasian imperative ("each language should be described in its own terms") leads to uninsightful analyses, and that language description should instead be "typologically informed". But the Boasian imperative is not at all incompatible with an intimate connection between description and comparison: Comparative (or typological) knowledge is highly valuable both for making our descriptions transparent and comprehensible, and for helping describers to ask a wide range of questions that would not have occurred to them otherwise. Since we do not know whether any of the building blocks of languages are innate and universal for this reason, we cannot rely on general frameworks (of the generative type) for our descriptions, but we can use typological questionnaires and other kinds of comparative information as a scaffold. Such scaffolds are not theoretical components of the description, but are important methodological tools.

Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and predictability

Journal of Linguistics, 2021

This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adapt... more This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adaptations to the language users' needs, in terms of frequency of use, predictability and coding efficiency. I claim that all grammatical oppositions involving a minimal meaning difference and a significant frequency difference are reflected in a universal coding asymmetry, i.e. a cross-linguistic pattern in which the less frequent member of the opposition gets special coding, unless the coding is uniformly explicit or uniformly zero. I give 25 examples of pairs of construction types, from a substantial range of grammatical patterns. For some of them, the existing evidence from the world's languages and from corpus counts is already strong, while for others, I know of no counterevidence and I make readily testable claims. I also discuss how the functional-adaptive forces operate in language change, and I discuss a number of possible alternative explanations. The paper can be seen as the summary of one of the most ambitious attempts at explaining grammatical patterns in the world's languages.

The morph as a minimal linguistic form

Morphology, 2020

This paper proposes a definition of the term morph as a minimal linguistic form, and discusses a ... more

Ergativity and depth of analysis

Rhema, 2019

This paper argues that "deep" analyses are not necessarily good for general linguistics. What we ... more This paper argues that "deep" analyses are not necessarily good for general linguistics. What we need primarily for general and comparative linguistics is "measurement uniformity" (i.e. comparative concepts that are identified in the same way in all languages), because "building block uniformity" (a set of innate and universal categories that all languages are made up of) is only a remote possibility at present. Ergativity phenomena (from Lezgian and other languages) are used to illustrate this general point.

Human linguisticality and the building blocks of languages

Frontiers in Psychology, 2020

This paper discusses the widely held idea that the building blocks of languages (features, catego... more This paper discusses the widely held idea that the building blocks of languages (features, categories and architectures) are part of an innate blueprint for Human Language, and notes that if one allows for convergent cultural evolution of grammatical structures, then much of the motivation for it disappears. I start by observing that human linguisticality (= the biological capacity for language) is uncontroversial, and that confusing terminology ("language faculty", "universal grammar") has often clouded the substantive issues in the past. I argue that like musicality and other biological capacities, linguisticality is best studied in a broadly comparative perspective. Comparing languages like other aspects of culture means that the comparisons are of the Greenbergian type, but many linguists have presupposed that the comparisons should be done as in chemistry, with the presupposition that the innate building blocks are also the material that individual grammars are made of. In actual fact, the structural uniqueness of languages (in lexicon, phonology and morphosyntax) leads us to prefer a Greenbergian approach to comparison, which is also more in line with the Minimalist idea that there are very few domain-specific elements of the biological capacity for language.

Grammaticalization in creole languages: Accelerated functionalization and semantic imitation

by Martin Haspelmath and Susanne Maria Michaelis

to appear in: Bisang, Walter & Malchukov, Andrej (eds.) 2020. Grammaticalization scenarios, 2020

Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits

Linguistics, 2021

Argument coding splits such as split (= differential) object marking and split ergative marking h... more Argument coding splits such as split (= differential) object marking and split ergative marking have long been known to represent universal tendencies, but the generalizations have not been formulated in their full generality before. In particular, ditransitive constructions have rarely been taken into account, and scenario splits have often been treated separately. Here I argue that all these patterns can be understood in terms of the usual association of role rank (highly ranked A and R, low-ranked P and T) and referential prominence (locuphoric person, animacy, specificity, etc.). At the most general level, the role-reference association universal says that deviations from usual associations of role rank and referential prominence tend to be coded by longer grammatical forms. In other words, A and R tend to be referentially prominent in language use, while P and T are less prominent, and when less usual associations need to be expressed, languages often require special coding by means of additional flags (case-markers and adpositions) or additional verb coding (e.g. inverse or passive markers). I argue that role-reference association is an instance of the even more general pattern of form-frequency correspondence, and that the coding asymmetries can all be explained by frequency-based predictability and coding efficiency.

Differential place marking and differential object marking

This paper gives an overview of differential place marking phenomena and formulates a number of u... more This paper gives an overview of differential place marking phenomena and formulates a number of universals that seem to be well supported. Differential place marking is a situation in which the coding of locative, allative or ablative roles depends on subclasses of nouns, in particular place names (toponyms), inanimate common nouns and human nouns. When languages show asymmetric coding differences depending on such subclasses, they show shorter (and often zero) coding of place roles with toponyms, and longer (often adpositional rather than affixal) coding of place roles with human nouns. Like differential object marking, differential place marking can be explained by frequency asymmetries, expectations derived from frequencies, and the general preference for efficient coding. I also argue that differential place marking patterns provide an argument against the need to appeal to ambiguity avoidance to explain differential object marking.

Indexing and flagging, and head and dependent marking

Te Reo, 2019

This paper compares the concept pair indexing/flagging and the concept pair head/dependent markin... more This paper compares the concept pair indexing/flagging and the concept pair head/dependent marking, introduced by Nichols. It shows that a general concept of flagging (comprising case and adpositional marking) is needed, and it sketches the advantages of the indexing concept over the old idea of person agreement. It then points out that the notions of head and dependent are hard to define (apart from the two basic domains of clauses and nominals), and that the head/dependent marking typology does not take the function of syntactic relation markers into account. On a functional view, both flags and indexes can be seen as role-identifiers, as opposed to concordants (attributive agreement markers). After discussing three further problems with the head/dependent marking typology, involving construct markers, concordants, and cross-indexes, I conclude that the concept pair indexing/flagging is more suitable for typological purposes than head/dependent marking.

Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change?

In: Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten et al. (eds.) 2019. Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2019

This paper addresses a recent trend in the study of language variation and universals, namely to ... more This paper addresses a recent trend in the study of language variation and universals, namely to attribute cross-linguistic patterns to diachrony, rather than to other causal factors. This is an interesting suggestion, and I try to make the basic concepts clearer, by distinguishing clearly between language-particular regularities, universal tendencies, and mere recurrent patterns, as well as four kinds of causal factors (preferences, constraints, restrictions). I make four claims: (i) Explanations may involve diachrony in different ways; (ii) for causal explanations of universal tendencies, one needs to invoke mutational constraints (change constraints); (iii) in addition to mutational constraints, we need functional-adaptive constraints as well, as is clear from cases of multi-convergence; and (iv) successful functional-adaptive explanations do not depend on understanding the precise pathways of change.

How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different

In: van Olmen, Daniël & Mortelmans, Tanja & Brisard, Frank (eds.) 2018. Aspects of linguistic variation, 83-114 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2018

This paper reasserts the fundamental conceptual distinction between language-particular categorie... more 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 phenomena of languages, not about the incommensurable systems of languages.

Cross-Linguistic Data Formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics

by Johann-Mattis List, Simon J . Greenhill, Martin Haspelmath, and Anna Siewierska

Scientific Data, 2018

The amount of available digital data for the languages of the world is constantly increasing. Unf... more The amount of available digital data for the languages of the world is constantly increasing. Unfortunately, most of the digital data are provided in a large variety of formats and therefore not amenable for comparison and re-use. The Cross-Linguistic Data Formats initiative proposes new standards for two basic types of data in historical and typological language comparison (word lists, structural datasets) and a framework to incorporate more data types (e.g. parallel texts, and dictionaries). The new specification for cross-linguistic data formats comes along with a software package for validation and manipulation, a basic ontology which links to more general frameworks, and usage examples of best practices.

Descriptive hypothesis-testing is distinct from comparative hypothesis-testing

Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale (2016)

Lingua Posnaniensis, 2016

In this paper, I formulate and explain a number of universal generalizations about the formation ... more In this paper, I formulate and explain a number of universal generalizations about the formation of causative verbs (overtly marked verbs with causal meaning) and anticausative verbs (overtly marked verbs with noncausal meaning). Given the spontaneity scale of basic verb meanings (transitive > unergative > automatic unaccusative > costly unaccusative > agentful), we can say that verb pairs with a noncausal verb higher on the scale tend to be causative pairs, and verb pairs with a noncausal verb lower on the scale tend to be anticausative pairs. I propose that these generalizations can be subsumed under the form-frequency correspondence principle: That transitive base verbs tend to form causatives (often analytic causatives) is because they rarely occur in causal contexts, and the fact that unaccusative verbs tend to be coded as anticausatives is because they frequently occur in causal contexts, and special marking is required for the rarer and less expected situation.

Equative constructions in world-wide perspective (Haspelmath & Leipzig Equative Constructions Team)

To appear in a volume edited by Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove

The challenge of making language description and comparison mutually beneficial (short note)

I argue that the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories helps langua... more I argue that the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories helps language describers and typologists to benefit from each other because describers are free to set up their own categories, typologists are free to define their own concepts, comparison need not involve complete systems, and interlinear translation can be either based on comparative concepts or descriptive categories. A similar distinction also exists in other disciplines that deal with cultural concepts.

Framework-free grammatical theory (2010)

Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms

In: Bakker, Dik & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. Languages across boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2013

Bound person forms have been prominent in Anna Siewierska’s writings. In this article, I propose ... more Bound person forms have been prominent in Anna Siewierska’s writings. In this article, I propose a conceptual framework for thinking and talking about bound person forms in a non-Eurocentric way, based on a number of Anna’s insights. In well-known European languages such as German, English, Russian and French, bound person forms have generally been regarded as agreement markers, and free person forms as pronouns. But person forms which optionally cooccur with a coreferential nominal (conominal) do not fit comfortably into either of these categories. I argue that bound person forms should be regarded as phenomena sui generis (called “argument indexes”) rather than squeezed into the European mould. We need to distinguish between gramm-indexes (with obligatory conominal), cross-indexes (with optional conominal) and pro-indexes (no conominal possible), of which the cross-indexes are the most common.

Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies

How to compare major word-classes across the world's languages (2012)

UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 2012

Escaping ethnocentrism in the study of word-class universals

On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject 'want' complements (2013)

SKY Journal of Linguistics, 2013

Why open-access publication should be nonprofit — a view from the field of theoretical language science

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

The general distinction between morphology and syntax is widely taken for granted, but it crucial... more The general distinction between morphology and syntax is widely taken for granted, but it crucially depends on the notion of a cross-linguistically valid concept of "(morphosyntactic) word". I show that there are no good criteria for defining such a concept. I examine ten criteria in some detail (potential pauses, free occurrence, mobility, uninterruptibility, non-selectivity, non-coordinatability, anaphoric islandhood, nonextractability, morphophonological isiosyncrasies, and deviations from biuniqueness), and I show that none of them is necessary and sufficient on its own, and no combination of them gives a definition of "word" that accords with linguists' orthographic practice. "Word" can be defined as a language-specific concept, but this is not relevant to the general question pursued here. "Word" can be defined as a fuzzy concept, but this is theoretically meaningful if the continuum between affixes and words, or words and phrases, shows some clustering, for which there is no systematic evidence at present. Thus, I conclude that we do not currently have a good basis for dividing the domain of morphosyntax into "morphology" and "syntax", and that linguists should be very careful with cross-linguistic claims that make crucial reference to a cross-linguistic "word" notion.

On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology

The terms S (intransitive), A, P (transitive), as well as T and R (ditransitive) have been used s... more The terms S (intransitive), A, P (transitive), as well as T and R (ditransitive) have been used since the 1970s to allow linguists to characterize the differences between major alignment patterns such as accusative vs. ergative. They are often taken for granted, but a closer examination of the literature reveals that they can have three rather different meanings: In the Dixonian approach, they are used as universal syntactic functions based on transitivity; in the Comrian approach, they are seen as comparative concepts for the two arguments of a typical action clause, and in the Bickelian approach, they are taken as generalized semantic roles (Dowtyan proto-roles). In this paper, I explain the three approaches in some detail, and I argue that the Comrian approach is superior to the other two approaches. It is better than the Dixonian approach, because it does not take an undefined transitivity notion for granted but defines transitivity in terms of A and P. It is also better than the Bickelian approach, because the Dowtyan proto-roles were designed for the description of a particular class of English verbs; for cross-linguistic comparison, we need to limit ourselves to restricted (and semantically coherent) classes of verbs if we want to arrive at general statements.

On system pressure competing with economic motivation

Preface to the reprinted edition of Joseph H. Greenberg's "Language universals (1966)"

This preface summarizes the wide-ranging claims about grammatical universals made by Greenberg (1... more

The semantic development of old presents (1998)

The European linguistic area: Standard Average European (2001)

Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues (2009)

Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals (2008)

This paper compares the generative principles and parameters approach to explaining syntactic uni... more This paper compares the generative principles and parameters approach to explaining syntactic universals to the functional-typological approach and also discusses the intermediate approach of Optimality Theory. It identifies some fundamental differences between generative parametric explanations and functional explanations.

Ditransitive constructions: Towards a new Role and Reference Grammar account (2008)

In this paper, I will examine the treatment of ditransitive constructions in Role and Reference G... more In this paper, I will examine the treatment of ditransitive constructions in Role and Reference Grammar and compare it to the perspective on ditransitives that I have developed in earlier work (Haspelmath 2005a, 2007a), as well as to some other formal grammatical frameworks. I will conclude by proposing a fairly radical revision of the standard treatment of ditransitive constructions in RRG (Guerrero & Van Valin 2004, Van Valin 2007).

A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking (2008)

This paper identifies a number of empirically observable universals of reflexive marking that con... more

Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types (2005)

In syntactic typology, the monotransitive alignment types, in particular accusativity and ergativ... more

Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? (2004)

Abstract: I argue that the following two assumptions are incorrect:(i) The properties of the inna... more Abstract: I argue that the following two assumptions are incorrect:(i) The properties of the innate Universal Grammar can be discovered by comparing language systems, and (ii) functional explanation of language structure presupposes a “correct “, ie cognitively realistic, description. Thus, there are two ways in which linguistic explanation does not presuppose linguistic description.

Der europäische Sprachbund (with Ekkehard König)

EXPLAINING SOME UNIVERSALS OF CAUSATIVE VERB FORMATION (plenary lecture)

However, these universals are not widely known, so that one finds proposals for language-particul... more However, these universals are not widely known, so that one finds proposals for language-particular accounts of the corresponding restrictions in individual languages (eg [Alalou, Farrell 1993] on Berber,[Cole, Son 2004] on Indonesian) that are clearly lacking in generality.[Hale, Keyser 2002] provide an account of a variant of (2), but they miss the fact that it is only a one-way implication. I start with the observation (due to [Haspelmath 1993]) that unaccusatives fall into two classes with respect to causative verb formation.

Explaining alienability contrasts in adnominal possession: economy vs. iconicity

For'arm', a juxtaposition construction is chosen, with little" linguistic distance" between posse... more For'arm', a juxtaposition construction is chosen, with little" linguistic distance" between possessor and possessum. This iconically reflects the greater conceptual closeness of possessor and possessum (arms are not conceived of independently of their owners). By contrast,'my garden'shows an overt marker bi between the possessor and the possessum, implying greater linguistic distance. This reflects the greater conceptual distance between'garden'and'I'.

Functional and formal explanation (Düsseldorf summer school 2002)

Against iconicity and markedness (Stanford 2003, superseded)

Explaining alienability contrasts (Lancaster 2006)

Chomsky now rejects universal grammar (and comments on alien languages

Diversity Linguistics Comment, 2018

That our colleague Noam A. Chomsky no longer argues for a rich innate universal grammar (UG), con... more That our colleague Noam A. Chomsky no longer argues for a rich innate universal grammar (UG), containing many dozens (or even hundreds) of substantive features or categories, is old news. In Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002), the authors say that the domain-specific faculty of language (=FLN) comprises only the property of recursion, nothing more. (This may still be called “UG”, and the headline of this post may thus be a little imprecise – but what I focus on is that Chomsky no longer argues for a rich UG of the sort that would be relevant for the ordinary grammarian and, e.g., for syntax textbooks.)...

Morphists and adaptationists in 19th century biology, and in modern linguistics: Some intriguing parallels

Diversity Linguistics Comment, 2018

Maybe historians of science will dispute my interpretations, but I cannot resist the temptation t... more

Are we making progress in understanding differential object marking?

The moving parts and fixed parts of our theories: Why functional-adaptive explanations are more testable

Marrying Boas and Chomsky: Davis, Gillon and Matthewson on “formal” diversity research

Is Special A Marking the mirror image of Special P Marking?

How to make scientific publication more efficient: Enforce deadlines without mercy, eliminate revise-and-resubmit

How would non-selective author-pays publication (“mega-journals”) transform our science?

Do we know what “noun incorporation” is? (blog post)

This definition (as well as Gerdts's (1998) very similar definition) is fully in line with Wilhel... more This definition (as well as Gerdts's (1998) very similar definition) is fully in line with Wilhelm von Humboldt's original use of the term “einverleibend” (= incorporating) for examples such as Classical Aztec ni-naka-kwa [1SG-meat-eat] 'I eat meat', where -naka- 'meat' seems to be part of the complex verbal word ninakakwa, at least according to the spelling. But how exactly do we know that ni-naka-kwa is a single word, apart from the spelling? Couldn't we write it ni naka kwa and regard it as a syntactic phrase?

How to talk about role coding: cases and index-sets, nominative/accusative, subject/object, agent/patient (blog post)

As an Athabaskanist working in Russia, Andrej Kibrik has long been interested in the head-marking... more As an Athabaskanist working in Russia, Andrej Kibrik has long been interested in the head-marking/dependent-marking typology: Athapaskan languages mark the major clause roles by person prefixes on the verb, whereas the languages of Russia (Uralic, Turkic, Nakh-Daghestanian, etc.) almost all… Continue reading→

A catalogue of categories?

Linguists have their catalogue of languages, biologists are working on their catalogue of species... more

Deductive vs. aprioristic theories: Continuing the debate on word-class universality

Generative and nongenerative diversity linguists do not often engage in debates on general issues... more Generative and nongenerative diversity linguists do not often engage in debates on general issues, but the topic of word-classes (nouns, verbs and adjectives) seems to be an area where some kind of dialogue seems to be not impossible (cf. Baker 2003, Croft 2009, and the 2005 LSA Institute class taught jointly by Baker and Croft, presenting their contrasting approaches to the students).

Collaborative comparative linguistics via specialist consortia

To compare many different (including little-studied) languages around the world, comparative ling... more To compare many different (including little-studied) languages around the world, comparative linguists need access to good data, which is often difficult to get. Many research questions cannot be answered easily by consulting reference works such as dictionaries and grammars. We… Continue reading→

Creoles are paradigmatically simplified but may otherwise be complex

For a long time, linguists have had the impression that creoles are particularly simple, but a pr... more

“Impersonality” cross-linguistically

At the 2008 annual conference of the SLE in the Italian provincial town of Forlì, Andrej Malchuko... more

Discussing framework-free grammatical theory

A few months ago, there was a lively discussion at Languagehat of my proposal that grammatical th... more

On Larry Hyman on the universality of the syllable

The sound strings of all spoken languages alternate between consonants and vowels (CVCV…), so it ... more

Nouns are prosodically privileged over verbs

At the recent LIPP Symposium on parts of speech in Munich, one of the most interesting papers was... more At the recent LIPP Symposium on parts of speech in Munich, one of the most interesting papers was Jennifer L. Smith's paper on “Parts of speech in phonology” (see also Smith 2011). She examines 20 languages from 11 families and finds that in almost all cases where nouns, verbs and adjectives behave differently phonologically, the nouns have more phonological contrasts than adjectives, and these in turn have more contrasts than verbs. A well-known example is Spanish, where stress is contrastive in nouns (cf.

Syntax of the World’s Languages 5 in Dubrovnik, a conference report

– Bernard Comrie's plenary talk on differential object marking (DOM), where he discussed the clai... more – Bernard Comrie's plenary talk on differential object marking (DOM), where he discussed the claim by Bickel & Witzlack-Makarevich (2008) that DOM is not robustly attested in the world's languages. Comrie noted that in contrast to what these authors do in their paper, DOM has usually been formulated in fairly narrow terms (involving only flagging, not indexing, and involving only animacy and referentiality, not other parameters).

A special kind of transitivity marking in Kerinci Malay

The focus of their paper is the syntactic distribution of the Objective form (they use the tradit... more The focus of their paper is the syntactic distribution of the Objective form (they use the traditional but confusing term “oblique form”, or “O-form”), which they claim licences a null object pronoun. Since null object pronouns are often taken to be licenced by agreement morphology in generative grammar, they talk about the Absolute/Objective contrast as an agreement system.

Indefinite pronouns

This is the manuscript version of my 1997 OUP book "Indefinite pronouns", lacking Unicode fonts a... more

Indefinite pronouns

This is the manuscript version of my 1997 OUP book "Indefinite pronouns", lacking Unicode fonts a... more

O čem je morfologie (Czech translation of Understanding Morphology) [table of contents]

by Martin Haspelmath and Andrea Sims

A Czech translation by Aleš Klégr and Kateržina Vašků of Understanding Morphology 2ed.

Understanding Morphology, 2ed

by Martin Haspelmath and Andrea Sims

Understanding Morphology offers students an introduction to the study of word structure that star... more Understanding Morphology offers students an introduction to the study of word structure that starts at the very beginning. Assuming no knowledge of the field of morphology, the book present a broad range of morphological phenomena from a variety of languages.

The goal is to shed light on major issues of analysis, so chapters are structured around essential questions: What are the basic units of the lexicon -- words or morphemes? Is there a categorical difference between inflection and derivation? Do the same principles apply to both word formation and sentence formation? What makes on morphological rule more productive than another? Are inflectional paradigms part of the morphological architecture?

To answer these questions, the authors draw on the best research available, discussing a variety of theoretical approaches. This second edition also expands the discussion of several topics, including frequency effects, the structure of the lexicon, and productivity.

Each chapter includes a summary, suggestions for further reading, and comprehension exercises (with answers). New to this second edition are exploratory exercises which allow students to put what they have read into practice and extend their knowledge.

Understanding morphology (2002)

From space to time

Such systematic typological investigations became more urgent when the old assumption of universa... more Such systematic typological investigations became more urgent when the old assumption of universality was challenged. In particular, Benjamin Lee Whorf, the famous student of Hopi and author of the" linguistic relativity hypothesis", claimed that Hopi (a Uto-Aztecan language of Arizona and New Mexico) does not show the metaphor from space to time:" The absence of such metaphor from Hopi speech is striking.

Is Special A Marking the mirror image of Special P Marking?

Fauconnier & Verstraete (2014) examine “Differential A Marking” (DAM, where ergative flagging is ... more Fauconnier & Verstraete (2014) examine “Differential A Marking” (DAM, where ergative flagging is different in prominent and less prominent nominals), compare it with “Differential O Marking” (DOM, where accusative flagging is restricted to prominent nominals), and conclude that the two are not each other’s “mirror image”. Whatever the explanation of (better-known) DOM, the explanation for DAM must thus be different. They note that two previous approaches claim that DOM and DAM are mirror-imag..

The moving parts and fixed parts of our theories: Why functional-adaptive explanations are more testable

I have recently stumbled upon a new metaphor may might help us think more clearly about different... more I have recently stumbled upon a new metaphor may might help us think more clearly about different approaches in linguistics: the “moving-parts” metaphor that is sometimes used by generative linguistics. It came up first in a Twitter conversation I had with Peter Jenks, which was originally about how we can tell affixes from non-affixed material, which Jenks said “can’t be answered a priori” (but must be determined by theorizing). I objected that generative linguists don’t keep empirical gener..

Chomsky now rejects universal grammar (and comments on alien languages)

That our colleague Noam A. Chomsky no longer argues for a rich innate universal grammar (UG), con... more That our colleague Noam A. Chomsky no longer argues for a rich innate universal grammar (UG), containing many dozens (or even hundreds) of substantive features or categories, is old news. In Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002), the authors say that the domain-specific faculty of language (=FLN) comprises only the property of recursion, nothing more. (This may still be called “UG”, and the headline of this post may thus be a little imprecise – but what I focus on is that Chomsky no longer argues fo..

Indefinite pronouns in Maltese

This paper describes indefinite pronouns in Maltese, from the perspective of the approach adopted... more

Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits

Linguistics, 2020

Argument coding splits such as differential (= split) object marking and split ergative marking h... more Argument coding splits such as differential (= split) object marking and split ergative marking have long been known to be universal tendencies, but the generalizations have not been formulated in their full generality before. In particular, ditransitive constructions have rarely been taken into account, and scenario splits have often been treated separately. Here I argue that all these patterns can be understood in terms of the usual association of role rank (highly ranked A and R, low-ranked P and T) and referential prominence (locuphoric person, animacy, definiteness, etc.). At the most general level, the role-reference association universal says that deviations from usual associations of role rank and referential prominence tend to be coded by longer grammatical forms. In other words, A and R tend to be referentially prominent in language use, while P and T are less prominent, and when less usual associations need to be expressed, languages often require special coding by means ...

The Generic Style Rules For Linguistics

The Generic Style Rules for Linguistics provide a style sheet that can be used by any linguistics... more The Generic Style Rules for Linguistics provide a style sheet that can be used by any linguistics journal or edited book, or for teaching purposes. They regulate aspects of text-structure style such as typographic highlighting, citation style, use of capitalization, and bibliographic style (based on the LSA's Unified Stylesheet for linguistics).

Concessive Conditionals In The Languages Of Europe

This paper describes concessive conditional clauses (such as "Even if it rains, we will go o... more

Chapter 1. Equative constructions in world-wide perspective

Similative and Equative Constructions, 2017

Comparative Syntax

This chapter gives an overview two approaches to syntactic typology, the non-aprioristic approach... more

Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral

Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, 2018

Grammaticalization is nowadays often seen primarily as a kind of semantic-pragmatic change, but i... more Grammaticalization is nowadays often seen primarily as a kind of semantic-pragmatic change, but in the 19th century it was more typically seen in a holistic typological perspective: the idea was that synthetic languages develop from analytic languages, and that they may become analytic again. This kind of development is indeed occasionally observed in entire languages, as in the Romance languages and in Later Egyptian, but it is quite unclear whether such holistic changes are at all common. Similarly, there seems to be no good evidence that changes from agglutinative patterns to isolating patterns go through an intermediate flective or fusional stage. By contrast, there is abundant evidence for the old observation that older tightly bound constructions often face competition from new constructions based on content items, which may eventually replace the older patterns (I call this kind of process ‘anasynthesis’). Such anasynthetic changes are driven by inflationary processes that ca...

How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different

Aspects of Linguistic Variation, 2018

Towards standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics

Typological Studies in Language, 2021

Bound forms, welded forms, and affixes: Basic concepts for morphological comparison

Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2021

The morph as a minimal linguistic form

Morphology, 2020

This paper makes a terminological proposal: that the old termmorphcan be used for a minimal lingu... more This paper makes a terminological proposal: that the old termmorphcan be used for a minimal linguistic form. Many linguists (not only morphologists) need such a term, because we often refer to minimal linguistic forms, but the various terms used by linguists in roughly this meaning are either unclear or do not refer to forms. The term “morpheme” has three rather different meanings, and other terms such as “vocabulary item” are too abstract. The term “morph” can be used as the basis for defining other widely used terms such as “root”, “prefix”, and “suffix”, which are currently often defined as kinds of “morphemes”. It can also serve as the basis for a clearer definition of suppletion (involving suppletive morph sets) and morph variants, thus avoiding the confusions surrounding the term “allomorph(y)”.

Human Linguisticality and the Building Blocks of Languages

Frontiers in Psychology, 2020

The World Loanword Database (WOLD) 2009

Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.) 2009. World Loanword Database. Leipzig: Max Planck In... more

Defining vs. diagnosing linguistic categories: A case study of clitic phenomena

How Categorical are Categories?, 2015

Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2008

Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts

Linguistic Discovery, 2014

An Empirical Test of the Agglutination Hypothesis

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

On what a construction is

In this short think-piece, I propose a definition of the term construction for general linguistic... more In this short think-piece, I propose a definition of the term construction for general linguistics and I relate it to the earlier literature. The term construction has a general meaning that was not defined in the earlier literature, but several specific definitions were proposed in work by construction grammarians. Here I point out that construction grammarians actually tend to use the general meaning, even though it is widely known that “construction in the sense of construction grammar” has been defined in more specific senses. I propose that the novel senses are perhaps better expressed by novel terms (such as “inventorial item”), and that the primary insight about the continuity of word knowledge and constructional knowledge is best expressed by using a different term (such as “inventorium”) to cover all “stored pieces of structure”.

Download View Comments

Defining the word

In this paper, I propose a definition of the term word that can be applied to all languages using... more In this paper, I propose a definition of the term word that can be applied to all languages using the same criteria. Roughly, a word is defined as a free morph or a clitic or a root plus affixes or a compound plus affixes. The paper relies on earlier definitions of the terms free, morph, affix, clitic, root, and compound, which are summarized here. I briefly compare the proposed definition with Bloomfield's, I note that it is a shared-core definition, and I say how word-forms differ from lexemes. In the final section, I explain why I think that an unnatural-seeming definition is better than a prototype definition or other options.

Negindefinites and negative concord: Concepts, terms and analyses

This paper discusses several prominent comparative concepts in the domain of negated indefinite p... more This paper discusses several prominent comparative concepts in the domain of negated indefinite pronouns constructions. I note that the terminology is sometimes unclear or confused, and I provide clear and simple definitions of six key terms: negindefinite pronoun, negative concord construction, concord negindefinite, negative polarity item, duplex negation, and negative amalgamation. I emphasize that there is widespread agreement on the need for these concepts, and that the definitions of these terms are independent of the semantic analysis.

Types of clitics in the world's languages

This paper offers and discusses a simple definition of the term clitic: A clitic is a bound morph... more This paper offers and discusses a simple definition of the term clitic: A clitic is a bound morph that is neither an affix nor a root. It gives examples of several semantic and positional types of clitics from a wide range of languages, and it discusses some typical phonological effects associated with clitics. In the proposed definition, the crucial contrast between affixes and clitics is that affixes are class-selective (occurring always on nouns, on verbs, or on adjectives), while clitics are indiscriminate (i.e. do not exhibit word-class selectivity). In the stereotypical view of clitics, they are “prosodically deficient” in some way, but the phonolgical effects are quite diverse and cannot serve as a basis for a definition. As clitics are defined as kinds of minimal forms (or morphs), they cannot be nonsegmental, and they cannot “interrupt” another minimal form (so that there are no endoclitics by definition). Finally, I note that the object person indexes of the Romance languages, which have very often been called “clitics”, are actually affixes in the modern languages, although they must go back to earlier clitics.

Inflection and derivation as traditional comparative concepts

This paper revisits the distinction between inflectional and derivational patterns in general gra... more This paper revisits the distinction between inflectional and derivational patterns in general grammar and discusses the possibility that this well-known distinction is not rooted in the reality of languages, but in the Western tradition of describing languages, through dictionaries (for words, including drivational formations) and through grammar books (where we often find tables of exemplary paradigms). This tradition has led to rather different terminological treatments of the two kinds of patterns, but from the perspective of a constructional view of morphology, there is no need to incorporate such differences into formal grammatical descriptions. For practical purposes, we need clear and simple definitions of entrenched terms, so the paper proposes semantically based retro-definitions of inflection, derivation and lexeme that cover the bulk of the existing usage. Finally, I briefly explain why we need sharp definitions of comparative concepts, and why prototype-based and fuzzy definitions of traditional terms are not helpful.

Nonverbal clause constructions

There are about a dozen well-recognized types of nonverbal clause constructions, but the terminol... more There are about a dozen well-recognized types of nonverbal clause constructions, but the terminology by which these subtypes are known varies widely. This paper gives an overview of the major types and defines each term carefully, from the perspective of general syntax. For a number of well-established concepts that have no corresponding well-established term, I propose novel terms. There are four major predicational types (classificational, attributional, predlocative and appertentive), and four major nonpredicational types (equational, existential, predpossessive, and hyparctic).

Why the functional-head theory in syntax is probably wrong

draft

This paper examines the functional-head theory in syntax, i.e. the claim that grammatical meaning... more This paper examines the functional-head theory in syntax, i.e. the claim that grammatical meanings are represented as heads in syntax, in much the same way as contentive heads (verbs and nouns). It starts out from the presumption that the functional-head theory can be expected to predict typical head behaviour of grammatical elements, especially with respect to the core head properties: hyperonym status, distributional identity, obligatoriness, idioselection. These general predictions do not seem to be supported by the cross-linguistic evidence, so I go on to discuss additional motivations for the functional-head theory. In practice, the functional-head theory has not been justified in terms of typical head behaviour, but in rather different ways. I present some alternatives to the widely adopted functionalhead notation, and then I offer a general discussion of how one might justify general theories in syntax. My conclusion that the functional-head theory appears to be wrong is not very certain, but rather than assume its correctness, future research should formulate it in a clearly testable way and find robust empirical evidence to determine whether it is correct or not.

Valency and voice constructions

This paper provides an overview of the key concepts and associated terminology in the domain of v... more This paper provides an overview of the key concepts and associated terminology in the domain of valency and voice constructions. It does not discuss explanatory theories, but focuses on clarifying the concepts and terms to serve as the basis for an evaluation of competing theories. An appendix gives simple definitions of 41 technical terms, many of which do not have a consistent meaning in the earlier literature.

Word class universals and language-particular analysis

The study of cross-linguistic word class variability and its limits needs to be based on clear co... more The study of cross-linguistic word class variability and its limits needs to be based on clear comparative concepts because languages have different grammatical structures. Here I show that the notions of (i) function indicators and (ii) semantic root classes give us a way of formulating universals and of distinguishing cross-linguistic macro-classes in a rigorous way. The root classes are action, property, and object; function indicators are markers that signal an unusual propositional act function (e.g. a copula signals predicative use of an object root, and a relativizer signals modifying use of an action root). Substantive markers which add meaning substance (e.g tense markers or articles) are less useful for cross-linguistic comparison because they are so variable across languages. I distinguish sharply between comparison and language-particular analysis, because analysis must be based on language-particular constructions and is thus a rather different enterprise. Description and comparison are linked in that (for practical reasons) the language-particular categories are given labels that correspond to the general root classes (e.g. English Noun, which corresponds to the general root class noun).

Comparing reflexive constructions in the world's languages

This paper proposes a number of cross-linguistically applicable definitions of general terms that... more This paper proposes a number of cross-linguistically applicable definitions of general terms that are useful for comparing reflexive constructions in the world's languages. The idea is that general theories of reflexive constructions must be based on broad cross-linguistic comparison, and that this must be based on clearly defined terms. At the same time, the paper offers a general overview of types of reflexive constructions and reflexivizers (reflexive pronouns and reflexive markers) in the world's languages.

Ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative as comparative concepts

This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative... more This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative (as general concepts), which are often taken for granted in the literature. Several authors, notably Mel'čuk and Creissels, have criticized some of the terminological usage, but I note here that the classical definitions (in terms of alignments of S, A and P) need not be modified. The crucial point to keep in mind is that language-particular descriptive categories are distinct from comparative concepts for general linguistics.

The last word on polysynthesis: A review article on the Oxford handbook of polysynthesis (edited by Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun and Nicholas Evans, 2017)

A critical review of Mark Baker's book "Case" (2015)

Review of "Preferred argument structure" (ed. by John Du Bois) (2006, Language)

uniformity effects, since the uniformity pressure is not on the entire word—there can be no penal... more uniformity effects, since the uniformity pressure is not on the entire word—there can be no penalty for members of a paradigm being distinct from one another as the result of having different affixes. But paradigm contrast takes the entire inflected form, not just the stem, as its domain. Because their domains are somewhat different, it would be imprecise to characterize paradigm uniformity and paradigm contrast as conflicting or competing forces, pushing the same correspondence relationship in different directions. An informal functionalist perspective easily casts the two forces as complementary. The stem portion of the members of a paradigm should be identical, to facilitate identification of paradigm membership. But each complete member of the paradigm should be different from the next one to facilitate unique identification of the morphemes being expressed. (For detailed discussion of this point and its implications for a formal model, see the chapter by Rebrus and Törkenczy.) Whether the optimal-paradigms model can be enhanced to cover cases of paradigm contrast as well remains a topic for future research. The elements of such an enhancement may include establishing a correspondence relation between the complete words in the paradigm, and having some set of constraints that considers just the stem portions while others consider the entire form. The constraints assuring contrast also have to be formalized. The book is easy to recommend in terms of both content and production. The editors have done a good job of focusing the chapters on an important, well-defined, and specific topic, and the production is fine. There is relatively little discussion between the chapters, although the editors occasionally add relevant cross-referencing. Finally, while I applaud the publication of a paperback version simultaneously with the hardback, the purpose of doing that is surely to make the book affordable for individual researchers. Unfortunately, it isn't.