Approaches To Language Typology

Approaches to Language Typology
1
Approaches to Language Typology:
A Conspectus
MASAYOSHI SHIBATANI AND
THEODORA BYNON
1.
INTRODUCTION
The schools of language typology represented in this volume are

all current and active. What unites them is a common goal and a
shared scholarly tradition. They have all developed theoretical frameworks within which to account for the particular aspect of crosslinguistic variation they have selected to study, and they all have
their roots in a shared European tradition of scholarship.
According to Greenberg (1974: 13), the word typology gained
wide currency in linguistics only after circa 1928, but the research
activities that can be brought under the rubric of language typology have a long history.1 Although it is not easy to ascertain the
first formulations of a research programme of language typology,
the underlying assumptions that run throughout the history of
language typology can be gleaned from the older passages of the
nineteenth-century writings. Friedrich von Schlegel (17721829) was
among the first linguists to propose a typological framework on
the basis of morphological characteristics. In ber die Sprache
und Weisheit der Indier (1808: 45), he argues for a classification in
terms of the linguistic devices which languages employ in relating
concepts to each other; the corresponding categories of relational
meaning he terms additional determinants of meaning (Nebenbestimmungen der Bedeutung):
We wish to thank Bernard Comrie for reading and commenting on an earlier version of this
paper. This work was in part supported by a grant-in-aid (04301059) from the Japanese
Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture to Masayoshi Shibatani.
1
But Gabelentz (1901: 481) contains a passage in which the author explicitly christens the
field Typologie: Drfte man ein ungeborenes Kind taufen, ich wrde den Namen Typologie
whlen. (Quotation cited in Plank (1991: 421.) Curiously enough, according to Plank (1991),
the first edition of Gabelentzs Die Sprachwissenschaft (1891), which Greenberg lists in his
bibliography, does not contain this particular passage.)
Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon
Entweder werden die Nebenbestimmungen der Bedeutung durch innre

Vernderung des Wurzellauts angezeigt, durch Flexion; oder aber jedesmal
durch ein eignes hinzugefgtes Wort, was schon an und fr sich Mehrheit,
Vergangenheit, ein zuknftiges Sollen oder andre Verhltnissbegriffe der
Art bedeutet; und diese beiden einfachsten Flle bezeichnen auch die beiden
Hauptgattungen aller Sprache. Alle brigen Flle sind bei nherer Ansicht
nur Modifikationen und Nebenarten jener beiden Gattungen; daher dieser
Gegensatz auch das ganze in Rcksicht auf die Mannichfaltigkeit der
Wurzeln unermessliche und unbestimmbare Gebiet der Sprache umfasst
und vllig erschpft.
(The additional determinants of meaning are indicated either through
internal modification of the root, that is to say by means of inflection
or, conversely, in each instance by the addition of a separate word which
in itself signifies plurality, past, future obligation or some other such relational concept; and these two simplest cases also represent the two main
categories of language. All other cases prove, on closer inspection, to be
mere modifications and variants of these two categories; this is why this
opposition covers exhaustively the total domain of language which, as
regards the variety of roots, is infinite and indeterminate.)
Though later typologists have elaborated on this simple morphological classification based on the distinction between Sprachen durch
Flexion and Sprachen durch Affixanotably by adding a third isolating (monosyllabic) type in which the word is invariant and
unanalysable(see below), Schlegel makes it clear that the business
of language typology is, firstly, to classify exhaustively the languages of the world according to specific grammatical criteria.
August Schleicher (182168) is better known as the founder of
the Stammbaumtheorie, the genealogical tree model in historical
and comparative grammar, than as a typologist, but he too made an
important observation highly germane to contemporary typological
practice, namely the possible connections between morphological
characteristics and the manner in which grammatical relations are
expressed. Schleicher (1848: 67) pointed out, perhaps following
Wilhelm von Humboldt, upon whose work he relied heavily in typological subjects, that in the isolating languages, which do not have
morphology, the grammatical relations of subject and object are
expressed by word order, whereas in agglutinative languages they
are expressed by affixes loosely attached to the root. In inflectional
languages, on the other hand, grammatical relations are expressed
fusionally with the unit expressing the root meaning. The significance of Schleichers observation lies in his recognition that linguistic properties show correlative patterns such that the presence of one
particular property often implies the presence (or absence) of some
other properties.
Our references to Schlegel and Schleicher were made not because

these grammarians were the first typologistsit is most likely that
they were heavily influenced by their predecessorsbut because their
clear formulations of the relevant issues represent the two most prevailing concerns of typologists of the past and the present, namely
(1) the typological classification of the worlds languages and (2) the
identification of correlative grammatical properties that define linguistic types. Various issues directly addressed or surrounding the
undertakings by the various typologists and typological groups are
all concerned with these two fundamental problems. In the following exposition, we shall elaborate on a number of salient sub-issues
that emanate from the two goals set forth above.
2.
CLASSIFICATION AND LANGUAGE TYPES
As mentioned above, Schlegels bipartite classification of the worlds

languages has been modified and extended by the successive attempts of such scholars as August Wilhelm Schlegel (17671845),
Wilhelm von Humboldt (17671835), August Schleicher (182168),
Edward Sapir (18841939), and Vladimr Skalic^ ka (190991).
Before we take up these developments in the classificatory aspect of
language typology, perhaps brief mention should be made of a significant shift in philosophical orientation towards linguistic comparison that had taken place in the history of linguistics. The shift
in question is of interest not only from a historical point of view but
also from a contemporary methodological perspective in that the
two current linguistic methods, namely generative grammar and typological studies, reflect the two philosophical traditions that provided
the backdrop for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century linguistic
studies.
As explained by Paolo Ramat in his contribution to this volume,
in the Age of Reason the diversity of the languages of the world
was considered a superficial phenomenon behind which lay hidden
a universe of eternal ideas (or innate concepts) without which
rational thought was deemed impossible. These underlying mental
invariants were said to be imperfectly reflected in the lexicon and
grammatical structure of the various languages and must therefore
be made apparent through linguistic comparison. This comparison
was, in view of the postulated priority of the universal concepts, deductive and constructive (Coseriu 1972: 214) in that the grammatical and semantic structure of different languages was interpreted in
terms of the basic categories which were deemed logically necessary
for rational thought. Language types would result from comparing linguistic to logical structure; for instance, cross-linguistic variation in the ordering of subject, verb, and object would be related
to the order of logical predication, in which the agent precedes the
action and the action is followed by the affected entity. Languages
which reflect the logical order form one type, and those which do
not, form another requiring an elaborate morphology to compensate
for inverting the logical order.
For Ramat it was Wilhelm von Humboldt who represented the
turning-point from this philosophical to a new properly linguistic
perspective. Humboldt supported the rationalist position to the point
that thought depends on concepts, but departed from it in claiming
that concepts are language-specific. This is because individual languages are historical entities which differ from one another in both
form and content and which continue to be developed by their
speakers according to cultural needs. Each single language thus
represents a unique segmentation of the external world and of the
universe of human experience (see Ramat, this volume). Cognition
is achieved in the individual speech act when the speaker uses the
forms of his or her language creatively in context-related utterance.
The relationship between form and meaning, in other words, is not
only language-specific but also sufficiently elastic for new cognitive
acts to be created and communicated. From this perspective, then,
linguistic comparison does not give access to, nor is it based on, a
universal logic. What is truly universal is the dependence of cognition on articulated sound. That is to say, what all languages have
in common is that they achieve and represent cognition (Seiler, this
volume).
Given that each language is a sign system in its own right linking
language-specific forms and language-specific meanings, what aspect of language is amenable to parametrization? In the passage
quoted in the introduction to this chapter, Friedrich Schlegel argues
that the inventories of lexical roots are large and incommensurate
whereas variation in the grammatical mechanisms employed in relating lexical concepts to each other is severely constrained crosslinguistically. It is the formal expression of relational meaning, then,
which forms the basis of the so-called classical (or morphological)
typology. As elaborated by Sapir (1921: chs 56), relational meaning ranges from the most abstract to the most concrete, comprising
the basic syntactic relations (subject and object), such morphosyntactic categories as gender, case, and tense, and paradigmatic
relations between related lexical concepts (compare farm, farms,
farmed, farming, farmer).
Classical typologists have recognized three (potentially four) basic

strategies or techniques in encoding relational meaning. An inflectional (or flexional, fusional) language encodes relational meaning
by modifying the lexical base by true (that is to say, internal)
inflection (as in English sang). This strategy was considered to achieve
a truly symbolic integration of conceptual and relational meaning
because it represents relational meaning as the modification of lexical units by means of meaningless elements devoid of lexical associations. In an agglutinating (or agglutinative) language, on the other
hand, the individual exponents of relational categories are attached
one by one to the lexical base (as in Turkish ev-ler-im-de (house-PL1SG.POSS-LOC) in my houses), leading to word structures which are
relatively complex but less integrated because, at least in places, the
phonological shape of the affix may indicate its lexical origin. An
isolating language does not give overt expression to relational meaning or else does so by employing to this end the same kind of unit
as is used for encoding lexical concepts (as the Chinese dative goal
marker ge^ i, which derives from the full verb ge^ i meaning to give).
More marginally, an incorporating (or polysynthetic) language is
characterized by incorporating constituents such as lexical objects
into the verb, thereby compressing the content of a sentence into a
single word.
The shortcomings of this classical morphological typology as a
classificatory scheme under the strict sense of classification are all
too apparent, as most languages possess forms exhibiting two or
more techniques of encoding relational meaning. For example,
English shows its isolating character in the encoding of modal
meanings by independent words such as will and may, its agglutinative character in the regular plural formation (e.g. books), and its
inflectional character in the irregular plural and past tense formation (e.g. feet, sang). Sapir (1921: ch. 6) asserts that languages in
their entirety cannot be neatly pigeonholed into a given class, the
matter being a question of tendency (p. 134). It is the prevailing
characteristics that determine the basic type of a language. Reflecting this assumption, Sapir accommodates the gradient characterizations of linguistic types along the degree of fusion such as weakly
agglutinative, symbolic tinge, and mildly agglutinative-fusional
(see below). Moreover, languages may employ one technique in
one domain, e.g. derivational concepts, and another method in
another domain, e.g. relational concepts. Languages could then be
agglutinative-isolating, fusional-isolating, and so on.
Clearly then typological classification, as envisaged by Sapir, which
is one culminationthe other being Skalic^ kas attempt (see below)
of classical (or morphological) typology, is inconsistent with the

classical theories of categorization and classification by, for example, Hemple and Oppenheim (1936), in which class membership
is determined categorically, together with the assumptions of the
uniformity of members and of clear category boundaries. If anything, Sapirs classification is much closer to that envisaged by the
more recent prototype theory of categorization (e.g. Rosch 1977),
which countenances a gradation from central members (prototypes)
to peripheral members within a single category and fuzzy category
boundaries.
Another innovation by Sapir was to separate from the parameters
of technique the dimension of synthesis, the morphological complexity permitted in words. This dimension, which encompasses the
parameters analytic, synthetic, polysynthetic, too, is gradient,
and as with the degree of fusion, mildly synthetic, mildly polysynthetic, and other types of languages are recognized. The parameters
along the dimension of synthesis combine with the parameters of
technique such that languages can be isolating and analytic (e.g.
Chinese), fusional and analytic (English), agglutinative and polysynthetic (Nootka), fusional and polysynthetic (Algonquin), and so
on.
But, for Sapir, a more important classificatory scheme than those
based on the technical externals was the conceptual classification
based on the following two kinds of question: (1) whether a language keep[s] the basic relational concepts . . . free of an admixture
of the concrete (Pure-relational languages) or not (Mixed-relational
languages), and (2) whether a language keep[s] its radical concepts
pure (Simple) or . . . build[s] up its concrete ideas by an aggregation of inseparable elements (Complex), (1921: 138). In the total
classificatory scheme arrived at by Sapir, languages can be Simple
Pure-relational, Isolating, and Analytic (e.g. Chinese), Complex
Pure-relational, Agglutinative, Synthetic (e.g. Turkish), Simple
Mixed-relational, Fusional, Analytic (mildly fusional) (e.g. French),
Complex Mixed-relational, Agglutinative (symbolic tinge), Polysynthetic (e.g. Nootka), etc.
Sapirs morphological classification took two radical departures
from the classical morphological typology. First, quantitative, as
opposed to absolute, characterizations are recognized.2 Secondly,
language types are defined in terms of combinations of properties,
as opposed to single features. These two features of typological
characterization, yielding quantitative characterizations (gradients,
2
See Greenberg (1954) for a rigorous quantitative approach to morphological typology.
scales, continua) and polythetic characterizations (Ramat 1987:

12 ff.), are a hallmark of contemporary typology.
As is clear from the foregoing exposition, Sapir recognizes hierarchy in the importance of classificatory features, considering the
conceptual classification to be the basis of fundamental types, which
can be further subdivided according to the dimensions of technique
and synthesis. The notion of hierarchy among the combinatory
features defining types subsequently takes on a unique character,
transforming itself into perhaps the single most important concept
characterizing contemporary typological practices, and we shall dwell
on it presently; but for the moment, there still remain several areas
needing clarification with respect to the questions of classification
and language types.
First, concerning the notion of type, Sapirs approach makes it
clear that language type is to be defined in terms of a combination
of properties, which may be hierarchically ordered (see below). Type,
in other words, is a holistic, schematized structure (Seiler 1990:
156) arising from a cluster of properties (Greenberg 1974) that exhibit preferred connections (Skalic^ ka 1966) among them. Whereas
Sapir countenances direct gradient characterizations of actually
occurring types in terms of such descriptions as weakly agglutinative and mildly polysynthetic, Skalic^ ka (1935), perhaps following
Humboldts original idea, considers type to be an ideal reference
point, an extreme which is hardly ever realized (or never at all).
In this framework, then, actual languages are approximations to
the ideal types, and the typological characterization of a given
language can be made only in terms of the relative strength of the
types involved in its structure.
Skalic^ ka characterizes the flectional type, for example, as follows:
(1) as having polyfunctional endings (gender, number and case are
expressed by one single ending);
(2) no word appears without an ending, which contains both syntactic and semantic information (reg- never appears alone in
Latin, but is always specified by an ending: regibus [king-DATPL], reg-em [king-ACC-SG] etc.; -(a)verunt in amaverunt [love
-3PL-PERF-INDIC-ACT] expresses membership of the word in the
verb class, plus the grammatical determination of time, mood,
person and diathesis);
(3) motion exists in word formation (niger [black-MASC], nigra
[FEM], nigrum [NEUTER] );
(4) a relatively free syntactic arrangement of words and so on.
(Ramat 1987: 21 f.)
As noted above, in this Prague School typological framework, an

individual language can be characterized in terms of the relative
contribution made to its structure by the properties belonging to
different types. Sgall (this volume) suggests that the predominance
of a particular type in the structure of a language may be interpreted in terms of linguistic economy: adherence to a single type
(either grammar words, or affixes, or alternation, or order) as the
means of encoding relational meaning would appear less costly than
an unprincipled deployment of several types side by side. That is to
say, the ultimate point of reference is a functional perspective, which
is an integral part of Prague School theory.
Defining language types in terms of a set of properties also constitutes the characterizations of the members of different typological
classes. Indeed, for Sapir it was the basic characteristics of single
languages that motivated grouping individual languages into morphological types. Sapirs famous passage describing the sense of this
specific character of individual languages goes as follows:
[I]t must be obvious to any one who has thought about the question [of
the general form of a language] or who has felt something of the spirit of
a foreign language that there is such a thing as a basic plan, a certain cut,
to each language. This type or plan or structural genius of the language
is something much more fundamental, much more pervasive, than any
single feature of it that we can mention, nor can we gain an adequate idea
of its nature by a mere recital of the sundry facts that make up the
grammar of the language. (1921: 120)
Vilm Mathesius, a founding member of the Prague School, pursued this aspect of typological development. The practice, as exemplified by his work (Mathesius 1928), is called the characterological
approach, as it seeks to delineate the characteristics of individual
languages or a group of genetically related languages.
This individualizing approach to language typology (Greenberg
1974), which shares some underlying assumptions with the Humboldtian tradition, and which is still pursued in the anthropological
tradition in America, must be kept apart from efforts to develop a
typological framework in terms of a well-defined notion of types for
comparative purposes. Especially to be avoided is the confusion between the practice of partial typology (see below) and linguistic
characterology. As the quotation from Sapir given above says, a
partial typological feature does not automatically lead to an understanding of the underlying deep-seated character of the language
in question. Thus, contrary to the generally held intuition that ergative case-marking is a manifestation of some design of linguistic
structure fundamentally different from that underlying the familiar

nominative-accusative languages, no consistent, deep-seated character associated with ergative case-marking has emerged so far in spite
of considerable efforts in recent years aimed at the discovery of
some such correlation (see Plank (ed.) 1979 for the diversity of
ergative phenomena).
Whereas language typology and the classification of the worlds
languages in terms of typological features imply classification of a
language and its characterization as a whole, and while Sapirs and
the Prague Schools typology aim at such goals, Sapir already recognized the difficulty of classifying the whole of a language into a
given type. He thus recognized the possibility of a single language
belonging to two types defined by the dimension of technique.
Polynesian languages, for example, are said to be agglutinativeisolating, while Cambodian is characterized as fusional-isolating
an utter contradiction in the classical typology.
It is because of this kind of oft-observed mixed characterization
that languages allowed that scholars began to turn away from the
attempt at holistic typology and to pay increasing attention to the
practice of partial typology, in which certain domains of grammar
are targeted as the object of classification and characterization. Most
contemporary typological studies fall into the practice of partial
typology, where specific constructions and grammatical phenomena, such as word order, case-marking patterns, relative clauses,
passives, causatives, are examined, typologized, and classified. Despite the fact that only a single domain is examined in partial typology, identification of clusters of properties and of their hierarchical
organization plays the crucial role in this endeavour. But the focus
of attention had shifted from the characterizations of individual
languages or the specific type of languages to the drawing of crosslinguistic generalizations.
3.
LANGUAGE-INTERNAL CORRELATIONS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC

GENERALIZATIONS
Typological classification has a twofold goal, namely (1) ascertaining the entire range of variation, and (2) understanding the characters of the members of each typological group. Of these two goals,
the latter is more essential as a way of understanding the nature of
human language, though the former is equally important if we are
to grasp the entire sphere of human language. An ideal situation is
for us to know the nature of the member languages from knowing
10
which typological group they belong to or from knowing a single

typological feature providing a basis for classification. Every
typologists dream in this regard is most eloquently expressed by
Gabelentz (1901: 481) in yet another famous passage in the typological literature:
Aber welcher Gewinn wre es auch, wenn wir einer Sprache auf den Kopf
zusagen drften: Du hast das und das Einzelmerkmal, folglich hast du die
und die weiteren Eigenschaften und den und den Gesammtcharakter!
wenn wir, wie es khne Botaniker wohl versucht haben, aus dem
Lindenblatte den Lindenbaum construiren knnten.
(But what an achievement would it be were we to be able to confront a
language and say to it: you have such and such a specific property and
hence also such and such further properties and such and such an overall
characterwere we able, as daring botanists have indeed tried, to construct the entire lime tree from its leaf.)
It is precisely because of this desire that typologists have traditionally sought a collection of properties as a defining feature of a
particular language type, rather than a classification based on a
single feature. But a simple aggregate of properties does not lead us
to the utopian situation envisaged by Gabelentz. The properties
must be correlative in the sense that knowing the presence of one
property leads to predictions about the status of other properties.
A particularly useful correlation between two properties is that of
implicational correlation, such that the presence of one property
implies the presence of another.
The notion of a language type defined in terms of clusters of
connected properties occupies a central place in both the descriptive
and generative traditions. From a descriptive point of view, a language is assumed, especially under structuralist influence, to be an
organic whole whose properties cohere together to form an integrated system. This assumption arises from the intuitive feeling that
descriptive grammarians often have in actually describing individual
languages and in observing systematic cross-linguistic similarities,
but to some extent it is also a reflection of the desire for a perfect
system. But, for generative grammarians, the idea that a language
(or language type) is organized in terms of interconnected structural
properties takes on a special significance. Their ultimate goal is to
account for language acquisition by childrenhow children acquire
grammars in such a short period on exposure to an impoverished
stimulus. Surely children cannot be learning a complex grammatical
system bit by bit separately, which would take an enormous amount
of time. It is more reasonable to hypothesize that a whole series of
11
grammatical properties are connected such that the acquisition of

one feature leads to the automatic acquisition of a whole array
of related properties. It is this kind of assumption upon which the
current principles-and-parameters approach of Generative Grammar is built, and this approach also embraces a typological method
which attempts to account for the aggregate of typological properties of a given language (group) in terms of the setting of a
particular typological parameter (see Fukui in this volume).
The utopian situation fancied by Gabelentz is what is aimed
at by holistic typology, whose goal is a global characterization of
the entire language on the basis of a small number of typological
characteristics. The holistic approach is still practised by some researchers such as those under the Prague School tradition (see Sgall
in this volume) and a number of Russian typologists such as Klimov
(1974) and Yartseva (1979), who, for example, argues that it is evidently insufficient to take some particular language level as a basis
for typological definitions; it is more advisable to seek those interconnected and inter-level phenomena in which the specific features
of various level markers can be displayed (p. 278). But attaining
the goal of holistic typology has proved quite difficult as more and
more aspects of individual languages have received scrutiny, and
most successful studies have been confined to specific domains, in
which implicational statements make specific predictions only within
a given domain or level of linguistic organization.
The discovery of implicational correlations between different
linguistic objects or properties was first made in relation to a typological domain that did not have any implication for other domains
of grammar, namely the typology of vowel systems by Trubetzkoy
(1958). Roman Jakobsons (1941, 1949) observation that the order
of acquisition of phonological units by children and of loss by
aphasics follow certain patterns, and that these patterns are analogous
to the typological patterns of the phonological systems of the worlds
languages, as investigated by Trubetzkoy, led him to the identification of irreversible solidarity (solidarit irrversible, einseitige
Fundierung) between two elements such that the presence of a certain phoneme, X, implies the presence of another phoneme, Y, in a
given phonological system. (Notice that the reverse, Y X, is not
the case here.) Jakobsons implicational laws (lois dimplication)
are what typologists desire in realizing Gabelentzs dream (even if
what is constructed is confined to a specific domain), and they are
most conspicuously employed in Greenbergs typological works, in
which he put forward specific (and hence falsifiable) claims about
feature combinations in the structure of languages. The parameters
12
investigated by Greenberg have produced cross-linguistic generalizations (language universals) of two kinds: (a) of the theoretically
possible structures, only a subset occur (either absolutely or with
some frequency); and (b) implicational relations between different
features hold such that the presence of one entails that of another
but not vice versa (unidirectional dependencies). (See Croft, this
volume, on the nature of implicational statements.)
Greenbergs (1966) study on word order typology has had a considerable appeal precisely because it has shown that a great deal of
prediction about the structure of a given language can be made once
the basic word order of its major constituents is known. It has been
shown, for example, that if a language has dominant VSO order,
(1) it has prepositions (Gs Universal 3), (2) the genitive follows the
governing noun (Gs Universal 2, formulated originally in terms of
the presence of prepositions), (3) question particles which are specified in position by reference to a particular word in the sentence do
not occur (Gs Universal 10), (4) it always puts interrogative words
or phrases first in interrogative word questions (Gs Universal 12),
(5) an inflected auxiliary precedes the main verb (Gs Universal 16),
and (6) adjectives come after the noun (Gs Universal 17). (See Croft,
this volume, for further developments in word order typology.)
While Greenbergs word order typology has predictive power for
a whole array of type-specific characteristics on the basis of a single
typological property, it is none the less confined to the specific
domain of word order. For example, from knowing that a given
language has VSO order, we cannot predict whether it has agreement, whether it allows relativization on nominals other than subjects, whether it allows passivization of intransitive verbs, whether
it has the category of dual number, whether it allows long-distance
reflexive binding, etc., etc. Word order typology, in other words, is
still a partial typology.3
Partial typological studies are thus confined in their predictive power
to specific domains, but they make far-reaching cross-linguistic predictions. Greenbergs statements are stated as universals precisely
because of their assumed cross-linguistic validity. For example, from
his Universal 3, we would not expect to find a VSO language having
postpositions rather than prepositions. Indeed, as also pointed out
by Ramat (this volume), seeking such cross-linguistically valid generalizations, rather than the characterization of a given type of language,
is a primary concern of the majority of contemporary typological
research.
3
But see Lehmann (1973), who draws both morphological and phonological implications
from word order typology. See also the contributions to Lehmann (1978) for typological
characterizations of individual languages classified in terms of word order.
13
Among the contributions to this volume, the St Petersburg/Leningrad School (as described in the contribution by Nedjalkov and
Litvinov) and the Cologne School (as described by Seiler) most
clearly show the penchant towards partial typology aiming at crosslinguistic generalizations on well-defined, specific constructions and
cognitive-conceptual domains such as causatives, passives, resultatives, possession, determination, and so on. Though the cross-linguistic
generalizations drawn are based on the occurrence of different subtypes of a given construction within single languages, and accordingly it is possible to predict the occurrence of a certain sub-type
within a given language on the basis of the occurrence of another
sub-type, interests are centred on the possibility of drawing crosslinguistic generalizations over the patterns of occurrence of a given
construction so that the entire range of possibilities of the construction and their possible deployment in individual languages
can be captured. Thus, for example, with regard to resultative constructions, the St Petersburg/Leningrad group has found that across
languages possessive resultatives (e.g. Japanese: Taroo wa boosi o
kabut-te iru (Taro TOP hat ACC wear-CONJ be) Taro has a hat on)
are rarer than subjective resultatives (Taroo wa sin-de iru (Taro TOP
die-CONJ be) Taro is dead), which in turn are less common than
objective resultatives (Taroo wa sibat-te aru (Taro TOP tie-CONJ be)
Taro has been tied up), yielding the implicational hierarchy of:
possessive subjective objective. This hierarchy can be utilized
for predicting the language-internal patterns of occurrence of different types of resultatives. Thus, knowing that a given language
has possessive resultatives leads us to the prediction that it also has
the subjective and objective types.
Again, within the highly sophisticated framework of the Cologne
group, a large number of implicational statements can be gleaned.
For example, in Seilers illustration of his method in terms of the
cognitive-conceptual domain of possession, it is shown that if a
language has possessive classifiers (e.g. my as-a-pet dog), it lacks
possessive verbs (e.g. own, have). In fact a whole series of implicational statements can be drawn along the continuum exhibited
by the linguistic representations of the idea of possession. Needless
to say, these implicational statements apply language-internally as
well as capturing cross-linguistic generalizations.
As pointed out above, most contemporary typological works are
of this kind of partial typology that seek cross-linguistic generalizations, which can be applied in discovering language-internal possibilities. In other words, contemporary partial typology strives
to draw generalizations that play the dual function of allowing us
to make predictions on the language-internal properties of a given
14
language or a given type of language (a partial realization of the

Gabelentz dream) and of leading us to a general understanding of
the nature of human language (though limited in scope).
4.
COMPARATIVE TYPOLOGY
Although partial typology, seeking cross-linguistic regularities and

constraints on specific grammatical domains, is most widely practised now, there are some recent resurgent moves that are perhaps
more consonant with the traditional typological approach in that
they aim at comparing the overall grammatical structures of two or
more languages. This approach, which in some respects harks back
to Mathesiuss characterological practice, can be said to be a branch
of contrastive linguistics, but whereas contrastive linguistics has been
concerned with comparison of languages with the utilitarian purpose of improving the methods of language teaching, the typological approach is more concerned with theoretical issues pertaining to
universal grammar and its relation to specific grammars. The move
for this unified typological comparison partly comes from dissatisfaction with the partial typological practice, as expressed by Hawkins
(1986: 3):
At the same time this [partial typological] study . . . is probably missing
important universal generalizations. It involves examination of a small
number of variant linguistic properties within large numbers of languages
. . . In each case, small pieces of language are plucked out from the overall
grammar that contains them, and the range of attested variation is described, and universal generalizations, or truths, are proposed that are
compatible with all and only the observable patterns. Obviously, the more
such pieces of language we study, the more universal generalizations we
gain. But it is not clear that we are making much progress towards understanding how the variants that an individual language selects in one area
of grammar are determined by, or determine, the variants that it selects in
another.
In contrast to partial typology, the comparative typology of specific languages compares a large number of variant properties in a
small number of languages so as to identify the underlying principles that unify the contrastive features that distinguish the languages
compared. The basic assumption, again, is familiar from the earlier
assumption within typology that languages do not assemble their
characteristic properties randomly; rather, language characteristics
are connected in a hierarchical manner such that the presence of
one characteristic may be responsible for the presence of others.
15
While Hawkins (1986) compares genetically related English and

German without a specific theoretical formulation, more ambitious
attempts at both theoretical and descriptive levels have been taking
place.
The adoption of typological assumptions characterizes the significant shift in the orientation of Generative Grammar in the late
1970s and the early 1980s (see Chomsky 1981). Rather than seeking only abstract universals that are assumed to be basic to all
human languages, Generative Grammar began to pay more serious
attention to cross-linguistic variation. The new goal has become the
uncovering of the set of universal principles (universal grammar
or UG) and a unified account of the actual variant realizations of
these principles in different languages. The new generative paradigm, known as the principles-and-parameters approach, hypothesizes abstract principles making up UG whose values are
parameterized. Language variation results from the different values
that each language chooses in implementing the universal principles
governing human language.
Whereas the principles-and-parameters approach, or any systematic comparison, appears to be more effectively practised with respect to closely related languages, it has in fact had a greater impact
on comparative studies dealing with entirely unrelated languages
such as English and Australian languages or American Indian languages (see Hale 1983). Fukui, in this volume, also attempts a typological comparison of two radically different languages, English and
Japanese. A number of seemingly disparate properties of the two
languages, such as the presence/absence of wh-movement, the presence/absence of expletives, the freedom of word order, are brought
together and an attempt is made to attribute the differences to two
underlying differences in the two languages: the head-parameter
(English, head-initial; Japanese, head-final) and the presence (English)/absence (Japanese) of agreement-inducing functional elements,
e.g. AGR.
For a long time typological studies and Generative Grammar
countenanced different orientations and methodology: (1) the former
sought features distinguishing languages, while the latter sought
common features; (2) the former examined a large number of languages, while the latter dealt with a limited number of languages;
and (3) the former confined itself to the actually observable features, while the latter posited abstract constructs rather freely.
However, as the recent principles-and-parameters approach shows,
the two fields are fast converging, though remaining differences
exist (see next section).
16
Before we turn to the next topic, it is perhaps worth summarizing

the issues concerning holistic versus partial typological practice. The
Gabelentzian ideal of being able to construct the entire structure of
a language on the basis of a single or even a handful of properties
is perhaps impossible to attain. Language structures do not seem to
consist of a simple aggregate of properties that can be drawn together
by the presence of a certain fundamental property. Hawkins is quite
right in saying that a simple collection of cross-linguistic generalizations over bits of language in isolation does not lead us to a
deeper understanding of how each generalization is related to the
rest of the language and how each language chooses those properties permitted. Thus, to be more effective, partial typology must
organize its domains of investigation into an interrelated network
so that possible hierarchical structuring of the domains may emerge.
Indeed, some such possibilities are in the offing in the St Petersburg
typological framework and elsewhere, where inter-structural relationships began to be recognized between different constructions,
for example between causatives and transitive structures, between
passives, statives, and resultatives, and between benefactive constructions and the basic give constructions (see Shibatani, 1996, on
the last correlation).
The ultimate goal of typology and linguistics as a whole is to
unravel the nature of linguistic properties: what are they, how are
they selected and distributed, and how are they organized? The goal
can be pursued by the methods of both partial typology and (mostly
modest) holistic approaches of comparison of two or a small number
of languages over several features. In fact, these two complementary
methods are not different substantively, as the difference between
them is largely a matter of degree.4
5.
FORMAL VERSUS FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES
One of the major differences between the generative typological

approach and others is over the formal/functional dichotomy. The
terms formal and functional, however, are used ambiguously in
linguistics. The ambiguity relevant to our discussion relates to the
objects to be typologized and to the nature of the explanations
invoked.
Generative Grammar is said to be formal in two senses. In one
4
See the proceedings of the plenary session on Typology: Integral Typology versus Partial
Typology in the Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists (AkademieVerlag, Berlin, 1990).
17
sense, Generative Grammar is formal in that it deals with the abstract formal skeleton (Chomsky 1975: 55) of syntactic structures
pursued independently of semantic considerations in keeping with
its autonomy thesis. In another sense, Generative Grammar is formal in that it offers explanations that are not functionally based.
For example, Fukuis contribution to this volume recognizes an
abstract category AGR that is not motivated by anything but the
patterning of formal properties relating to agreement, the distribution of wh-elements, etc.5
When the term formal is understood in the first sense of dealing
with formal objects in isolation from semantic and other functional
considerations, then, a fair number of typological investigations must
be said to be formal. For example, Greenbergs word order typology takes no semantic or functional considerations into account,
though the underlying semantic motivations for grammatical categories and constructions are assumed. Contrast this with some
more recent approaches to word order typology such as Thompson
(1978), Tomlin (1986), and Siewierska (1988), in which pragmatic
and other functional considerations are given due attention.
The basic sense of the term functional relates to the idea that the
central function of language is to communicate experience and
thought. Under this interpretation, functional linguistics seeks to
determine how this central function is achieved in individual languages and in human language in general. Some typological works
are truly functional in this sense, as they seek to determine the range
of possible expression types over a particular conceptual sphere.
Perhaps the Cologne group countenances this functional approach
most strongly. As detailed in Seilers contribution to this volume,
the domain of investigation firstly is not defined in terms of formal
objects such as grammatical constructions or formal elements such
as case markers, but rather in terms of cognitive-conceptual domains such as possession, determination, apprehension, and referencing. The functional view in this paradigm is couched in the
notion of problem-solving system, that is, how languages conceptualize a given cognitive domain and express the concepts by linguistic means. This functional stance has a long and venerable
history linking the current works with Sapirs and ultimately with
the Humboldtian conception of language as an enrgeia (a creative
activity) rather than an rgon (a product).
Even though the St Petersburg group typically works with specific
5
It is ironical that Fukui terms these abstract categories as functional categories in
opposition to lexical categories whose members are associated with definite meanings.
18
grammatical constructions, it too shows a functional inclination in

the present sense. Thus, instead of formal characterization of constructions, the domain of investigation is semantically defined in
terms of such notions as the causative situation for causative constructions and the state of an object implying a previous event for
resultatives. However, this approach in practice employs both functional and formal considerations in that the constructions investigated are often defined in connection with verbal or other formal
categories and their correlative semantics. For example, the St
Petersburg studies on reflexives and diathesis define the domain of
inquiry more from formal than from semantic considerations.6 This
compromise is inevitable for some areas because it is often unclear
whether a coherent conceptual domain exists for a given linguistic
feature. Such is the case with passives and reflexives, where, especially in the latter, a wide-ranging array of semantic correlates is
observed.
Among the research groups represented in this volume, the Paris
RIVALC group (as described by Lazard in his contribution) explicit-ly states its formal orientation. Thus, in the domain of their
inquiry actancy is defined exclusively in morphosyntactic terms in
keeping with Tesnires (1959) model. The object of investigation,
actancy variation, reflecting differential grammatical relationships
between the predicate and the major nominal constituents, is determined on the basis of morphosyntactic formal manifestations such
as verbal marking for cross-referencing, positional changes, and
sensitivity to syntactic transformations.
However, the practice of the Paris group is not entirely formal.
Rather than simply stating formal correlates of actancy variation,
the group attempts to relate the variation with meaning and communicative intent. In the final analysis, this group too aims at gaining an insight into the relationships between, on the one hand,
processes in the real world as reflected by the human mind (semantics) and the constraints of communication (pragmatics) and, on the
other hand, the functioning of language with its own internal dialectics, its relative inertia and the unequal plasticity of its different
components (p. 204).
The difference then lies in initial orientationwhether a conceptual domain is first defined and then the linguistic methods that
solve the problems of representation and expression are sought, or
whether one starts out with formal manifestations of a definite kind
and then seeks their semantic and pragmatic correlates. In either
6
See also Knott 1988 on the St Petersburg methodology.
19
approach the ultimate goal is a functional account for the observed

variation. However, the problem discussed here relates to a more
fundamental problem of cross-linguistic comparison. That is, the
problem of determining the basis of comparison, the tertium comparationis, is a serious one for any comparative undertaking. Ramat,
Seiler, and Croft address this problem (see also Seiler 1990).
Besides the basic notion of functional discussed above, there is
a more recent use of the term in reference to the approach, adopted
by many American typologists, that attempts to explain linguistic
forms and their patterning in terms of external motivation. This
approach, as detailed by Croft in this volume, is contrasted with the
formal explanation attempted in the generative paradigm. Though
this sense of the term functional is more concerned with the problem of explanation in linguistics, the approach is functional par
excellence in that its objective is the typology of the relation between grammatical expressions and semantic as well as pragmatic
functions.
6.
TYPOLOGY AND UNIVERSALS
Typological research and language universals research are intimately

connected. But since the connection is sometimes blurred by a number of factors, some relating to the interpretation of the notion of
language universals, a brief discussion seems appropriate. Initial
reactions that while typology seeks differences among languages,
universals research seeks what is universal, i.e. common to all human languages, should give way to a more informed perspective
once it is recalled that typology in the first place seeks exhaustive
classification of human languages (see 1 above) in terms of variant
features. Secondly, the current universals research seeks not only
what is com-mon to all human languages but also the range, and
the permitted variation within the range of possible natural languages. In other words, the two fields have the same goal of characterizing human language and understanding it.
Typology should now be considered as a method in universals
research, as Generative Grammar has been since its original conception. Typological studies define a domain of inquiry, which in a
truly functional approach is defined conceptually, assemble possible
language structures corresponding to the domain, and then draw
cross-linguistic generalizations. The range of the observed variation
and its internal structures defined by cross-linguistic generalizations
delimit the range of possible (segments of) human languages. The
20
two most difficult tasks in this approach are establishment of tertia

comparationis that form a basis for the comparison and identification of a common functional denominator establishing the invariant on the basis of the generalizations drawn from the observed
variants (see Seiler 1990, and this volume).
As mentioned earlier, Generative Grammar has made a significant
shift in its search for universals. Rather than seeking only what is
common to all human languages, it has made serious attempts to
account for cross-linguistic variation. The range of possible variation within a given domain is represented by a parameter whose
values vary. Universal grammar, UG, in this conception contains a
large number of parametrized principles that, together with constant principles, define the range of possible human languages.
Languages vary within this limit as a result of different settings of
various parameters.
Both typological and generative methods aim at the same goal of
identifying universal invariants and permitted variations. The difference essentially is methodological, as pointed out in 4.
7.
TYPOLOGY AND LANGUAGE CHANGE
Typology is often characterized as ahistorical classification of languages and is contrasted with genetic classification, which is historical. These two methods of language classification are indeed
independent of each other, genetic classification being based on
shared lexical as well as morphological elements and typological
classification on shared structure. This does not, however, imply
that typological and historical comparison belong to two entirely
unrelated subfields of linguistics, for, as elaborated most fully in
Greenbergs contribution to this volumebut see also those of
Ramat, Sgall, and Croft, and Croft et al. (1990)both evolution
and structure are constrained by general principles of language,
and typological studies have important implications for historical
linguistics.
A diachronic perspective was soon to form an integral part of the
classical typology, isolation, agglutination, and fusion being interpreted as successive stages in an evolutionary progression from simple unanalysable to tightly integrated morphologically complex
words. Such change would be brought about by independent words
with fairly general meaning being employed to convey relational
meaning and in this function becoming agglutinated to others and
progressively fusing with them over time (Schleicher 1848; 1859).
21
This evolutionary perspective, first formulated by Horne Tooke in

the eighteenth century (Robins 1990: 172), was, however, based
on a priori reasoning rather than on actual empirical evidence and,
in the positivistic climate of the late nineteenth century, this socalled agglutination theory was rejected as glottogonic speculation.
As a result, historical and typological comparison went their own
ways, much to the detriment of both.
The claim that new morphology reflects earlier syntax has recently been revived by Givn, who represents the grammaticalization
chain in the formula (1979: 209):
Discourse Syntax Morphology Morphophonemics zero
Givn argues that inherited morphology breaks down when morphologically related forms become separated through sound change
(as is the case with the old past participles cloven and molten,
which have lost their link with the verbs cleave and melt and become
independent adjectives; the new participles cleft/cleaved and melted
follow the pattern of the weak verb characterized by identical suffixes
in past participle and past tense; etymologically, however, only the
former is a suffix while the latter goes back to the verb do used as
an auxiliary following the main verb.) The loss of old morphology
is thus compensated by the morphologization of previous syntax,
and the syntax is renewed in turn by the syntacticization of previous
discourse structures. The diachronic processes of cliticization and
agglutination, semantic bleaching and syntactic tightening subsumed
under the notion grammaticalization are at the forefront of current
research in historical linguistics (Hopper and Traugott 1994). But
we do not now see grammaticalization as a mechanism which propels entire languages from one type to another.
Joseph Greenberg, who has pioneered the integration of typological and diachronic research, has used the same approach of interpreting types as evolutionary stages as did the tradition. Significantly,
however, the notion of type is now defined by reference to a partial,
and no longer an all-embracing holistic typology. Word order is a
prime example. Greenbergs word order universals (see above, 3)
firstly allow us to interpret several seemingly isolated changes that
distinguish the languages of modern Europe from their common
ancestor (ultimately Proto-Indo-European) as related episodes of a
single drift from verb-final to verb-medial order. This is because a
number of universals relate the relative order of verb and object to
that of head-noun and genitive attribute and of head-noun and
attributive adjective (see Hawkins 1983 for a conspectus). Secondly,
implicational universals of the form If x then y impose constraints
22
on the relative order of changes. Assuming that in a given language

the position of the object were to change from preverbal to postverbal
position, Greenbergs Universal 25 (If the pronominal object follows the verb, so does the nominal object) predicts that while the
nominal object can shift first (as in French, which shows variation
between postverbal nominal object and preverbal pronominal object:
Je vois Jean I see John, Je le vois I see him), the pronominal object
may not change position first as this would violate the universal.
Typological considerations are, finally, relevant to historical reconstruction in that if protolanguages were to violate any known
universals this would make them different from real languages and
would make postulated diachronic developments based on them
suspect. In the comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages, for instance, the so-called glottalic theory (Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov 1973) argues for ejectives in the place of the traditionally
reconstructed voiced plosives because phonological systems comprising a voiceless, a glottalized, and an aspirated series (/t/, /t?/,
/th/) are attested, while a system comprising a single aspirated series
alongside voiced and voiceless unaspirated plosives (/t/, /d/, /dh/) is
suspect for the same reasons (as already argued in Jakobson 1958).
The basic principles of design postulated by typology are obviously reflected in both synchrony and diachrony. Historical linguistics has undoubtedly benefited from typology, but it must not be
forgotten that synchronic states exhibit fuzziness and variation and
structural indeterminacy is often an indicator of ongoing change,
which is where synchrony and diachrony meet.
8.
CONCLUSION
The goal not only of language typology but also of a truly general General Linguistics must lie in explain[ing] the way in which
language-specific facts are connected with a unitary concept of
language (Seiler 1990: 157). Typological comparison has moved
from a search for universals of the kind all languages have . . . to
more significant ones which are more telling. These are, firstly,
the universals which state that of the x number of theoretically possible combinations of properties, only a subset is actually found in
the languages of the worldbe it absolutely or with more than
chance frequency as Greenberg has tended to formulate itand,
secondly, the implicational type which makes the presence of one
feature dependent on that of another. Such recurrent constraints
cannot be accidental and point to underlying invariants. For the
23
formalist these lie in the abstract categories and principles of Universal Grammar; for the functionalist they lie in the task languages
need to perform in the process of conceptualizing and representing
the spectrum of human experience.
In both the above paradigms unity and diversity are subsumed
under the higher principle of variation, which is reflected equally in
the synchronic and the diachronic dimension. The contributors to
this volume outline and illustrate with model analyses the different
pathways they are taking towards that common goal.
REFERENCES
Chomsky, N. (1975), Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

(1981), Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Coseriu, E. (1972), Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie von der Antike bis
zur Gegenwart. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Croft, W. et al. (eds.) (1990), Typology and Diachrony: Festschrift for
Joseph Greenberg. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gabelentz, Georg von der (1901), Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben,
Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Chr. H. Tauchnitz.
Gamkrelidze, T. V. and Ivanov, V. V. (1973), Sprachtypologie und die
Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlsse. Phonetika,
27: 150156.
Givn, T. (1979), On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Greenberg, J. (1954), A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological
Typology of Language. In R. F. Spencer (ed.), Methods and Perspective
in Anthropology, 192220. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
(1966), Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to
the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of
Grammar (2nd edn), 73113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
(1974), Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview.
The Hague: Mouton.
Hale, K. (1983), Warlpiri and the Grammar of Nonconfigurational Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1: 547.
Hawkins, J. (1983), Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.
(1986), A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying
the Contrasts. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1936), Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der
neuen Logik. Leiden: Sijthoff.
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. (1994), Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Horne, K. (1966), Language Typology: 19th and 20th Century Views.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Institute of Language and
Linguistics.
24
Jakobson, R. (1941/1968), Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological

Universals (trans. A. R. Keiler). The Hague: Mouton.
(1949), Les Lois phoniques du langage enfantin et leur place dans la
phonologie gnrale. Reprinted in Roman Jakobson: Selected Writings,
vol. 1 (1971). The Hague: Mouton.
(1958/1971), Typological Studies and Their Contribution to Comparative-Historical Linguistics. In Selected Writings, vol. 1, 523532.
The Hague: Mouton.
Klimov, G. A. (1974), On the Character of Languages of Active Typology. Linguistics, 131: 1125.
Knott, J. (1988), The Leningrad Group for the Typological Study of Languages: Introduction and Translations. London: School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London.
Lehmann, W. P. (1973), A Structural Principle of Language and its Implications. Language, 49: 4766.
(ed.) (1978), Syntactic Typology. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mathesius, V. (1928), On Linguistic Characterology with Illustrations
from Modern English. Reprinted in J. Vachek (ed.), A Prague School
Reader in Linguistics (1964), 5967. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Plank, F. (ed.) (1979), Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical
Relations. London: Academic Press.
(1991), Hypology, Typology: The Gabelentz Puzzle. Folia Linguistica,
25 (34): 421458.
Ramat, P. (1987), Linguistic Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Robins, R. H. (1990), A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.
Rosch, E. (1977), Human Categorization. In N. Warren (ed.), Studies in
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 349. London: Academic Press.
Sapir, E. (1921), Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Schlegel, Friedrich von (1808), ber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier.
Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer. New edition by E. F. K. Koerner (1977),
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schleicher, A. (1848), Sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchungen I: zur
vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte. Bonn: H. B. Knig.
(1859), Zur Morphologie der Sprache. Mmoire de lAcadmie des
Sciences de St-Ptersbourg, series 7, vol. 1, no. 7, 138.
Seiler, H. (1990), Language Typology in the UNITYP Model. In W.
Bahner et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists, 155167. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Shibatani, M. (1996), Applicatives and Benefactives: A Cognitive Account.
In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 15795. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Siewierska, A. (1988), Word Order Rules. London: Croom Helm.
Skalic^ ka, V. (1935), Zur ungarischen Grammatik. Prague: Universitas
Caroliensis.
25
Skalic^ ka, V. (1966), Ein typologisches Konstrukt. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 2: 1428.
Tesnire, L. (1959), lments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
Thompson, S. (1978), Modern English from a Typological Point of View:
Some Implications of the Function of Word Order. Linguistische Berichte,
54: 1935.
Tomlin, R. (1986), Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London and
Sydney: Croom Helm.
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1958), Grundzge der Phonologie. Gttingen:
Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Yartseva, V. (1979), The Semantic and Structural Parameters of a Language Type. Acta linguistica Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae, Tomus
29 (34): 275287.

Approaches To Language Typology - Shibatani

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches To Language Typology - Shibatani

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches To Language Typology - Shibatani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The schools of language typology represented in this volume are

Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon

Entweder werden die Nebenbestimmungen der Bedeutung durch innre