DOCSLIB.ORG

A Proto-Human Language: Fact Or Fiction?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Proto-Human Language: Fact Or Fiction? S chrryer - Proto-Human Language 53 A Proto-Human Language: Fact or Fiction? established will also be discussed with consideration of Proto-Human, and the The question of where and when idea that "all the languages spoken on anatomically modem humans emerged has earth (roughly 5,000...) are descendant of a long been a controversial issue in single ancestral language" (Ruhlen 1994b). anthropology. Evidence from many This paper will describe comparative different disciplines has been increasingly linguistics, and the many controversies useful in attempting to pinpoint the which are present in this type of study as origins of Homo sapiens in time and well as give examples of linguistic families place. As it is suggested that anatomical which have been compiled. It will also modems were the first humans to have look at genetic evidence, and the ability of the cognitive capacity for modem this to support the linguistic data. linguistic capabilities (Lieberman 1984), it Examples for and against the ability for may be plausible to use linguistic evidence comparative linguistics to compile a in analyzing this biological evolution. proto-language that encompasses all This is because one of the main tenets of human languages will also be discussed in historical linguistics is that "languages an attempt to determine how far these spread as people move" (Barbujani and studies are viable into the past. Pilastro 1993). In fact, Dolukhanov writes in his examination of the archaeological record that: Comparative linguistics, sometimes The advent of language in the called historical linguistics, is often used in Upper Paleolithic was a powerful attempts to link languages that have factor that through the similar cognates, phonology, and intensification of information grammatical structures together. These transfer both in time (from one languages which are grouped together are generation to the next) and space called language families, and are said to be (between neighbouring groups) linked genetically. The languages which drastically accelerated social and are related are then combined into proto- cultural evolution. (1993). languages, or languages which are "reconstructed out of the evidence that is The purpose of this paper is to determine acquired by the careful comparison of the whether or not linguistics can truly be daughter languages [or lower level used to uncover the origins of anatomical languages]" (Haas 1978). These proto- modem humans, or if there is a time limit languages are only estimations of original at which linguistic comparisons can no languages, however, because it is longer be made. This timeframe within impossible to know exactly which which linguistic comparisons can be characteristics from each daughter S chrryer - Proto-Human Language 54 language were present in the original Another problem in the field of language. Proto-languages of spoken or comparative linguistics is the basic recorded languages are fairly accurate assumption that comparisons "account for although estimations which move further similarities which cannot be attributed to away from the actual data are more chance"(Hock and Joseph 1996), and are distorted, and are therefore less therefore the result of a common demonstrable. This is one of the major ancestor. The controversy stems from a problems with comparative linguistics of belief that the cognates which deep-timeframes, and is an essential fact comparative linguists use are not a to remember when attempting to compile product of related languages,but are due an original languagewhich may have been to the processes of diffusion, borrowing, ancestral to all languages on earth and onomatopoeia. These aspects do although advocates of this theory such as occur, but are relativelyeasy to identify as Greenberg and Ruhlen do not seem to chance rather than the result of genetic realize this. Another problem with relations while lexical similarities which historical linguistics is the lack of an are systematic and recurring are more absolute chronology. likely to be due to relations as are the Colin Renfrew writes that, "there presence of idiosyncrasies in languages seems nothing, however, in the pattern of (Hock and Joseph 1996). Borrowing is linguistic change which would allow for the use of words from one language into the establishment of any kind of absolute another, and "will generally be found in chronology" (1990). He suggests that language families that are geographically linguists take it for granted that languages adjacent...(though prehistoric adjacency change at a constant rate, and that might be hard to judge)"(Nettle 1999). It theories based on this premise such as stands to reason then that languages that glottochronology are erroneous in nature. are geographically far apart will have less Glottochronology was a formula originally of a chance of having similarwords unless developed by Morris Swadesh in the they truly are related. Borrowing also 1960's as a means to "predict the history tends to be limited to certain parts of of the derivation from a common vocabulary which are often technical in ancestor of a group of interrelated nature. In contrast similar words which languages reduced to sample wordlists" are part of any basic vocabulary are likely (Guy 1980). It has fallen under universal to be the result of genetic relationships criticism, however, partially as a result of (Hock and Joseph 1996). Onomatopoeic "too much theorizing and little expressions or sounds of nature also tend experimenting" (Guy 1980). This still to be remarkably similar in languages leaves comparative linguistics without a which are not related as are "nursery model for chronology although there have words" or words "which adults assign to been many attempts to find one. There is the early babbling of infants" (Hock and also the question of w~ languageswould Joseph 1996). diverge at a constant rate when there are The higher the number of numerous reasons why they would not languages which can be compared results such as geographical location and in the probability of fewer chance isolation, population densities, and the similarities. However, using comparisons state of relations within the speech of too many languages can also be community. problematic as is seen in the criticisms of Joseph Greenberg's methods of mass 5 chrryer - Proto-Human Language 55 comparisons to create exceptionally large has not only reached the furthest proto-languages from families of geographical regions from which it came, languages which are combined into lower but also because it "shows greater internal level proto-languages. The mass differentiation" (Greenberg, Turner, and comparison or multi-lateral comparison Zegura 1986). The second migration is method establishes genetic affinities of the arrival of people who speak Na-Dene, languages through comparison of a large and who populated mostly the North number of languages on a fairly limited West coast of North America, and are basis (Hock and Joseph 1996). This is therefore geographically less peripheral related to one last criticism of comparative than the third language group of Eskimo- linguistics which is that much of the work Aleut. The arrival of the Na-Dene has been completed by one highly language group appears to be dedicated individual, and for work to be approximately 5, 000 years B.P. (Krauss more widely accepted it is necessary for 1973). The third migration which is movement beyond "the great scholar" probably the most recent around 4,000 B. (NettIe 1999). This is partially due to the P. is the one which coincides with the biases which individual researchers may linguistic family of Eskimo-Aleut, and bring to their comparisons. People with whose populations live in the different knowledge may come up with Northernmost part of North America. different results even when using the same The languages and genes of this linguistic methodology (NettIe 1999). group have been shown to have relationships with Asian populations. EXAMPLES OF PROTO- Amerind is the most controversial LANGUAGE of the groupings, and this is partially due to the fact that it contains the highest Greenberg has used his multilateral amount of language families. As well it is comparison method in the midst of much thought to be of the greatest antiquity. criticism to suggest that the Americas are There is also the controversy over the fact compiled of three different linguistic that Greenberg uses oral languages which groups each of which coincides with a have not all been extensively researched to separate migration into the New World. complete his comparison. Arguments Since traditional linguists suggest that against his method include the idea of comparisons of languages cannot be made Pan-Americanism which is the belief that realistically past 7,000 years they eliminate there is a similarity of words in North the possibility of genetic affmity between American languages simply due to American languages and populations with similarities between Native cultures. As Asian languages and populations as this well, the general belief which most predates the arrival of people into the linguists hold is that there is simply too New World. Greenberg's comparisons much to be compared, and that negate this notion, and support the Greenberg can not thoroughly compare relationship between the two groups of all of the languages which are classified as people. The first migration which he Amerind. Critics often point out errors in suggests took place approximately 11,000- transcription and other minor details to 12,000 years ago, and coincides with the suggest that Amerind is a poor quality proto-language of Amerind. Amerind is comparison although few have the believed to be the oldest language evidence which would suggest the whole migration into North America because it work was not credible. In fact Greenberg Schrryer- Proto-Human lAnguage 56 summanzes his article In Difense if may be the way to eliminate these doubts Amerind by quoting Lamb who writes, from the minds of many scholars "The volume calls for careful study and especiallywhen these other sources might for follow-up research.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Pleistocene Settlement of the Rim of the Indian Ocean
    The Pleistocene settlement of the rim of the Indian Ocean Paper presented at the 18TH CONGRESS OF THE INDO-PACIFIC PREHISTORY ASSOCIATION and subsequently revised UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANILA, 20th TO 26th MARCH 2006 Roger Blench Mallam Dendo 8, Guest Road Cambridge CB1 2AL United Kingdom Voice/ Fax. 0044-(0)1223-560687 Mobile worldwide (00-44)-(0)7967-696804 E-mail [email protected] http://www.rogerblench.info/RBOP.htm This printout: Cambridge, May 15, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................1 2. AUSTRALS AND BOREALS?...................................................................................................................................2 3. COGNACY, TYPOLOGY AND DEEP STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY................................................................3 4. THE ETHNOGRAPHIC SITUATION......................................................................................................................5 4.1 General.................................................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Mikea [=Vazimba] ............................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Wanniya-laeto (Vedda)........................................................................................................................ 6 4.4 Andamanese.........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Handling Word Formation in Comparative Linguistics
    Developing an annotation framework for word formation processes in comparative linguistics Nathanael E. Schweikhard, MPI-SHH, Jena Johann-Mattis List, MPI-SHH, Jena Word formation plays a central role in human language. Yet computational approaches to historical linguistics often pay little attention to it. This means that the detailed findings of classical historical linguistics are often only used in qualitative studies, yet not in quantitative studies. Based on human- and machine-readable formats suggested by the CLDF-initiative, we propose a framework for the annotation of cross-linguistic etymological relations that allows for the differentiation between etymologies that involve only regular sound change and those that involve linear and non-linear processes of word formation. This paper introduces this approach by means of sample datasets and a small Python library to facilitate annotation. Keywords: language comparison, cognacy, morphology, word formation, computer-assisted approaches 1 Introduction That larger levels of organization are formed as a result of the composition of lower levels is one of the key features of languages. Some scholars even assume that compositionality in the form of recursion is what differentiates human languages from communication systems of other species (Hauser et al. 2002). Whether one believes in recursion as an identifying criterion for human language or not (see Mukai 2019: 35), it is beyond question that we owe a large part of the productivity of human language to the fact that words are usually composed of other words (List et al. 2016a: 7f), as is reflected also in the numerous words in the lexicon of human languages. While compositionality in the sphere of semantics (see for example Barsalou 2017) is still less well understood, compositionality at the level of the linguistic form is in most cases rather straightforward.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeolinguistics As a Way to Overcome the Impasse in Comparative Linguistics Wolodymyr H
    Archaeolinguistics As A Way To Overcome The Impasse In Comparative Linguistics Wolodymyr H. Kozyrski1, *, Alexander V. Malovichko2 1The International Physical Encyclopedia Bureau, Mathematical Modeling Laboratory at The Bogolubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine 2Physics Laboratory, The Lyceum at The National Technical University “KPI”, Kiev, Ukraine [email protected] ABSTRACT The paper exposes some essential points of our one and a half decade research results within new approach to study prehistoric stages of human language development mainly in times of ergaster-erectus domination and reflects our reaction to the protracted conceptual crisis in the comparative linguistics. As a result of fundamentally incorrectly stated goals, most of the researchers artificially limited themselves both by the defined scope of the problems to solve and by the methods used. Becoming tightly tied knot of up to now unsolved intrinsic contradictions, today comparative linguistics needs radical change. We have developed a synthetic approach that has proved its effectiveness. Our model is well aligned with prehistoric data of auxiliary historical disciplines and even IBM Genographic project. The results offer further opportunities for interesting studies. Indexing terms/Keywords : Archaeolinguistics, Comparativistics, Ergaster-Erectus, Language Families, Vocabulary Enrichment Subject Classification : Comparative Linguistics Language : English Date of Submission : 2017-12-23 Date of Acceptance : 2018-01-06 Date of Publication : 2018-02-28 ISSN : 2348-3024 Volume : 09 Issue : 01 Journal : Journal Of Advances In Linguistics Publisher : CIRWORLD Website : https://cirworld.com This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 1313 1 INTRODUCTION Exclusively complicated and probably completely inexplicable phenomenon, human language origin still excites thought and imagination of today researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Reconstruction
    SYNTACTIC RECONSTRUCTION Sarah G. Thomason University of Michigan Syntactic reconstruction has not figured prominently in historical linguistic investigations, as can be surmised from the fact that the index of the recent 881-page Handbook of Histor- ical Linguistics (Joseph & Janda 2003) lists just seven pages, all in the same article, where it is discussed. As Fox observes, `Syntactic reconstruction is a controversial area...scholars working within the framework of the classical Comparative Method have been far less suc- cessful in applying their methods here than in the case of phonology of even morphology' (1995:104; see also Jeffers 1976). And in discussing this topic elsewhere, Fox does not point to any methods other than the Comparative Method that have offered promising results (1995:104-109, 190-194, 250-253, 261-270). Efforts to reconstruct syntax can be traced at least as far back as 1893-1900, when Delbr¨uck (as cited in Lehmann 1992:32) reconstructed OV word order for Proto-Indo-European. By far the most ambitious early effort at reconstructing syntax is Schleicher's \Proto-Indo- European fable", which was considered a rash enterprise even in those pre-Neogrammarian times (1868, as cited and translated in Jeffers & Lehiste 1979:107): Avis akv¯asaska `A sheep and horses' avis, jasmin varn¯ana ¯aast, dadarka akvams, tam, v¯aghamgarum vaghantam, tam, bh¯arammagham, tam, manum ¯akubharantam. avis akvabhjams ¯avavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akv¯asas¯avavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varn¯amavis¯amskarnauti svabhjam gharman vastram avibhjams ka varn¯ana asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ¯abhugat.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 African Language Classification Beyond Greenberg
    1 "Areal linguistics in Africa before a new approach to its genealogical language classification" Lecture 1, LLACAN, Paris, 9/3/2019 2 + his earliest classification was received positively - Westermann (1952: 256): 1 African language classification beyond Greenberg Greenberg is the first linguist who has attempted to give a classification of the whole range of Tom Güldemann African languages. He has not contented himself with a general survey, as all his predecessors, Humboldt University Berlin and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History Jena including myself, have done, but has gone into considerable detail; in each single case he gives his proofs in word-lists, in tabulated formative elements, and also on sketch maps; he does not 1.1 Before and after Greenberg (1963) quote all his sources, which would have been practically impossible; nor is it essential, since they are known to the expert. He confirms many findings of those who have worked before 1.1.1 African language classification before Greenberg him, he corrects a number of errors; although many of these had been refuted by others, it had seldom been done with such clarity and definiteness as here. It is quite possible that some of + relying heavily on non-linguistic criteria, couched in colonial European attitudes to Africa his statements and classifications may prove to be not sufficiently clarified, or that he has (notably "Hamitic theory") overlooked a language which cannot be shown to be related to any other in Africa; he will be + highly synthetic: 3-5 genealogically intended super-groups criticized, and some of his classifications may be rejected; but all this does not detract from the value of his study, for which all of us have to thank him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin and Evolution of Word Order
    The origin and evolution of word order Murray Gell-Manna,1 and Merritt Ruhlenb,1 aSanta Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501; and bDepartment of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 Contributed by Murray Gell-Mann, August 26, 2011 (sent for review August 19, 2011) Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost man”) and uses prepositions. (Nowadays, these correlations are all, attested human languages may derive from a single earlier described in terms of head-first and head-last constructions.) In language. If that is so, then this language—like nearly all extant light of such correlations it is often possible to discern relic traits, languages—most likely had a basic ordering of the subject (S), such as GN order in a language that has already changed its basic verb (V), and object (O) in a declarative sentence of the type word order from SOV to SVO. Later work (7) has shown that “the man (S) killed (V) the bear (O).” When one compares the diachronic pathways of grammaticalization often reveal relic distribution of the existing structural types with the putative phy- “morphotactic states” that are highly correlated with earlier syn- logenetic tree of human languages, four conclusions may be tactic states. Also, internal reconstruction can be useful in recog- drawn. (i) The word order in the ancestral language was SOV. nizing earlier syntactic states (8). Neither of these lines of inves- (ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic change, tigation is pursued in this paper. when it occurs, has been for the most part SOV > SVO and, beyond It should be obvious that a language cannot change its basic that, SVO > VSO/VOS with a subsequent reversion to SVO occur- word order overnight.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Evolution of the World's Languages - Ranko Matasović
    LINGUISTICS - Historical Evolution of the World's Languages - Ranko Matasović HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD'S LANGUAGES Ranko Matasović University of Zagreb, Croatia Keywords: language diversity, language families, comparative linguistics, linguistic palaeontology, population genetics, language spread, wave of advance model, elite dominance model Contents 1. Introduction 2. Models of language spread 2.1. Wave of advance 2.2. Elite dominance 3. Language families in the Old World 4. Language families in the New World 5. Recent history 6. Conclusion Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary Interdisciplinary research and cooperation of linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and population genetics have led to new insights about the prehistory of language families of the world. Several models of language spread are used to account for the current distribution of the world's languages. In some cases, this distribution reflects large-scale prehistoric migrations (the "wave of advance" model), while in other cases languages have spread without the actual movement of people, often because the idiom of a small, but dominant group acquired a great social prestige and was adopted by the majority of a given population (the "elite dominance" model). 1. Introduction UNESCO – EOLSS The subject of this chapter is the historical developments that have led to the current state and distribution of languages and language families in the world. This subject has been investigatedSAMPLE from different points of CHAPTERSview, and it is currently an area of interdisciplinary research. The questions to be addressed are: why are some language families very small, in terms of the number of languages constituting them (e. g. the Kartvelian language family in the Caucasus, with only four languages), while others are extremely large (e.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph H. Greenberg
    Joseph H. Greenberg PAUL NEWMAN Joseph H. Greenberg, undoubtedly the most important African linguist in the sec- ond half of the 20th century, passed away on May 7, 2001. Greenberg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on May 28, 1915. He received his B.A. (Phi Beta Kappa) from Columbia University in 1936, and his Ph.D. in anthropology from Northwest- ern University in 1940. His Ph.D. thesis was on traditional, non-Islamic Hausa religion. During World War II (1940–1945), he served in the United States Army Signal and Intelligence Corps. After the war, he spent a year on a Social Science Re- search Council Fellowship and then took a teaching position in Anthropology at the University of Minnesota (1946–48). This was followed by an appointment at Columbia University (1948–62). While at Columbia, he served for five years as co- editor of the journal Word. In 1962 Greenberg moved to Stanford University, where he was Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics. He officially retired from Stan- ford in 1985, but remained professionally active until the time of his death. Greenberg was an unusually prolific and wide-ranging scholar with some 250 publications to his credit. His initial reputation was established through his mon- umental work in the area of African linguistic classification. This was published first as a series of articles in the late 1940s and then ultimately in reworked and revised form as The Languages of Africa (1963), a work that thirty-five or more years later still stands as the cornerstone of African language classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative-Historical Linguistics and Lexicostatistics
    COMPARATIVE-HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS AND LEXICOSTATISTICS Sergei Starostin COMPARATIVE-HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS AND LEXICOSTATISTICS [This is a translation, done by I. Peiros and N. Evans, of my paper "Sravnitel'no-istoričeskoe jazykoznanie i leksikostatistika", in "Lingvističeskaja rekonstrukcija i drevnejšaja istorija Vostoka", Moscow 1989. I have introduced, however, a number of modifications into the final English text — basically rewritten it again, since the English version needs English examples and etymologies, not Russian ones.] The last two decades have witnessed a fundamental advance in the techniques of comparative linguistic research. A prolonged period of comparative work with a wide range of language families has laid the foundation for the study of genetic relationships between remotely related languages or language groups. The first step in this direction was taken by V.M. Illich-Svitych in his seminal work 'Towards a comparison of the Nostratic languages' in which, with a combination of rigorous methods and intuitive flare, he begins to demonstrate the relatedness of a number of languages of the Old World. This new level of comparative studies appears completely legitimate. In fact, if we take the theory of language divergence as axiomatic, we have to concede the fact that from around the sixth millenium B.C. to the first millenium B.C. there was quite a number of different reconstructable proto-languages throughout the world. Once the level of reconstruction of various proto-languages is improved, the question inevitably arises: are any of these proto-languages genetically related and, if so, can we prove this relationship? To the first part of this question we must now answer in the affirmative.
    [Show full text]
  • Support for Linguistic Macrofamilies from Weighted Sequence Alignment
    Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment Gerhard Jäger1 Department of Linguistics, University of Tübingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany Edited by Barbara H. Partee, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, and approved August 25, 2015 (received for review January 7, 2015) Computational phylogenetics is in the process of revolutionizing more than 6,000 languages and dialects, covering more than historical linguistics. Recent applications have shed new light two-thirds of the world’s living languages. Each entry is given in on controversial issues, such as the location and time depth of a uniform phonetic transcription. language families and the dynamics of their spread. So far, these In this study, I zoomed in on the 1,161 doculects (languages and approaches have been limited to single-language families because dialects) from the Eurasian continent (including neighboring is- they rely on a large body of expert cognacy judgments or grammat- lands but excluding the predominantly African Afro-Asiatic family ical classifications, which is currently unavailable for most language and the predominantly American Eskimo-Aleut family, as well as families. The present study pursues a different approach. Starting the non-Asian parts of Austronesian) contained in the ASJP da- from raw phonetic transcription of core vocabulary items from very tabase. In a first step, pairwise similarities between individual diverse languages, it applies weighted string alignment to track both words (i.e., phonetic strings) were computed using sequence phonetic and lexical change. Applied to a collection of ∼1,000 Eur- alignment. In a second step, these string alignments were used to asian languages and dialects, this method, combined with phyloge- determine pairwise dissimilarities between doculects.
    [Show full text]
  • Synchronic Reconstruction
    SYNCHRONIC RECONSTRUCTION John T. Jensen University of Ottawa 1. Reconstruction Historical linguistics recognizes two types of reconstruction. Comparative reconstruction compares cognate forms from two or more languages and posits an historical form from which the attested forms can be derived by plausible historical changes. A typical example is shown in (1). (1) Sanskrit: pitā́ Greek: patḗr PIE: *pәtḗr Latin: pater Gothic: fadar By comparing cognate forms in related languages, “the comparative method produces proto-forms, which cluster around a split-off point, a node in a family tree” (Anttila 1989: 274). Internal reconstruction compares related forms in a single language to determine a single form in an earlier stage from which those attested forms can be derived. A textbook example is Campbell’s (2004: 242) first exercise in his chapter on internal reconstruction, from German given in (2). (2) [ty:p] Typ ‘type’ [ty:pәn] Typen ‘types’ [to:t] tot ‘dead’ [to:tә] Tote ‘dead people’ [lak] Lack ‘varnish’ [lakә] Lacke ‘kinds of varnish’ [tawp] taub ‘deaf’ [tawbә] Taube ‘deaf people’ [to:t] Tod ‘death’ [to:dә] Tode ‘deaths’ [ta:k] Tag ‘day’ [ta:gә] Tage ‘days’ (Data: Campbell 2004: 242) This leads us to reconstruct historical forms in (3) and to posit the sound change in (4). (3) *ty:p *to:t *lak *tawb *to:d *ta:g Sound change: (4) [–sonorant] > [–voice] / ____ # According to Raimo Anttila, “[i]nternal reconstruction gives pre-forms, which can reach to any depth from a given point of reference…” (Anttila 1989: 274). Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCUSSION NOTES Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies
    DISCUSSION NOTES Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies MARTIN HASPELMATH Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology In this discussion note, I argue that we need to distinguish carefully between descriptive cate- gories, that is, categories of particular languages, and comparative concepts, which are used for crosslinguistic comparison and are specifically created by typologists for the purposes of compar- ison. Descriptive formal categories cannot be equated across languages because the criteria for category assignment are different from language to language. This old structuralist insight (called CATEGORIAL PARTICULARISM) has recently been emphasized again by several linguists, but the idea that linguists need to identify ‘crosslinguistic categories’ before they can compare languages is still widespread, especially (but not only) in generative linguistics. Instead, what we have to do (and normally do in practice) is to create comparative concepts that allow us to identify compara- ble phenomena across languages and to formulate crosslinguistic generalizations. Comparative concepts have to be universally applicable, so they can only be based on other universally appli- cable concepts: conceptual-semantic concepts, general formal concepts, and other comparative concepts. Comparative concepts are not always purely semantically based concepts, but outside of phonology they usually contain a semantic component. The fact that typologists compare lan- guages in terms of a separate set of concepts
    [Show full text]