[Lingtyp] Comparative concepts?

[Gilbert Lazard]

Dear all, 

	May I recall what I  wrote a few years ago (Studies in language 36: 250):

	 "On the nature of the notions chosen as ICFs [= Intuitive Conceptual Concepts] : Haspelmath (2009; 2010b) insisted on grammatical notions as “comparative concepts” I think there is no reason for restricting the choice in this way. Any notions belonging to the common domain of representation of the world may be used as ICFs, provided that the linguist takes care to define them precisely. For instance, I personally used the notion of prototypical action as an ICF for the study of transitivity (Lazard 2002; 2005: 9; 2006a: 128–134; see also Lazard 2011b)".

	Also (a few lines below):
	
	 "Description and typology take different first steps: in description, the procedure goes first from form to meaning; in typological comparison, it first follows the opposite direction from meaning (the ICF) to forms. But the next step, i.e. typological comparison, can be fruitful only if the languages to be compared have previously been described as systems. The linguist examines how the notion chosen as an ICF is placed in each system, whether it coincides with a signifié — i.e., whether it is the only meaning of a form — or is only one of the meanings of a polysemic signifiant, in what oppositions the sign in question enters into, etc. He can then extend the comparison step by step. He finally is in a position to discern the boundaries between signs in the semantic region he is exploring, and to see whether the different systems have something in common, in what respects they are different, and, hopefully, to establish a typology."

	Best wishes.

Gilbert Lazard,
49, av. de l'Observatoire,
F-75014 Paris

gilzard at orange.fr



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160123/5a73e070/attachment.htm>