|Full Title:||DGfS 2014 Workshop: Grammatical Categories in Macro- and Microcomparative Linguistics|
|Start Date:||05-Mar-2014 - 07-Mar-2014|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
Aria Adli (Humboldt University Berlin)
Andreas Dufter (LMU Munich)
Martin Haspelmath (MPI-EVA Leipzig)
Balthasar Bickel (U Zurich)
This workshop will address the question which categories can be used to compare languages. The older practice of describing all languages with the categories of European languages has been discredited since the early 20th century: We know that languages have very different categories, and Boas (1911) urged linguists to describe each language in its own terms, i.e. with its own categories. This view was widespread in the structuralist period around the middle of the 20th century (e.g. Glinz 1952), but it also meant that is was no longer clear how to compare languages if each has different categories.
With the advent of generative grammar, the prevailing view since the 1960s came to be that the categories of different languages are after all much more similar than claimed by the structuralists, and it was often assumed without discussion that categories like verb, noun, determiner, complementizer, 3rd person, plural, subject, specifier, wh-element, anaphor (or the features that constitute these categories) are universal or universally available. At the same time, successes in empirical world-wide comparison such as Greenberg (1963), Keenan & Comrie (1977) and Dahl (1985) seemed to confirm that languages again and again show the same categories.
But the last years have seen a resurgence of the controversy: While Newmeyer (2007) defends the standard view of generative grammar, others such as Dryer (1997), Croft (2001) and Haspelmath (2007, 2010) returned to the Boasian view that each language has its own categories, so that language comparison must make use of a special set of comparative concepts. These can be typological grammatical concepts (such as S, A, P for the ergative-accusative distinction), or nonverbal stimuli like pictures and videos which are often used in lexical typology.
|Linguistic Subfield:||Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Sociolinguistics; Syntax; Typology|
|Calls and Conferences main page|