<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 28.02.18 13:40, Balthasar Bickel wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CCBE48C-DF0D-4EAD-8E30-773637975163@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
In terms of daily research and teaching we don’t see much
difference anymore between historical/evolutionary linguistics and
typology, so we don’t really care about the traditional
associations that the label “comparative linguistics” has. </blockquote>
Yes, and I would even argue that the activities traditionally
subsumed under "language typology" can only be defined in such a way
that they comprise historical-genealogical studies as a special
case. Dan Slobin cited the following definition of typology, which
actually sounds much more like a definition of "(implicational)
universals research":<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CCBE48C-DF0D-4EAD-8E30-773637975163@uzh.ch"
type="cite"><i style="">The essence of typology lies in structural
traits – ranging from sound and grammar to lexicon and discourse
– that could vary independently from language to language but
actually do vary together, setting limits to cross-linguistic
variation and defining the groundplans on which languages are
constructed. The discovery and the explanation of such
interdependencies...</i></blockquote>
<br>
But a lot of actual research in our community (and research
published in LT) has been concerned with setting up types, i.e.
defining comparative concepts and pointing to previously unsuspected
connections, rather than with discovering new universals or
explaining older ones. As Randy LaPolla points out, by describing a
new language, one can also make an important contribution to this
endeavor (Dixon's description of Dyirbal helped us understand
comparative concepts "accusative/ergative" better, but it didn't
contain any universals).<br>
<br>
So "comparative linguistics" simply consists in systematic
comparison of language systems (and also of social embeddings, in
comparative sociolinguistics), and in a second step, in finding
explanations for any generalizations found in this way. <br>
<br>
In many cases, similarities between languages (including cases of
covariation of structural traits!) turn out to be due to shared
inheritance from a common ancestor, and these cases have long been
particularly well understood (and studied under the rubric of
historical-genealogical linguistics). But how exactly to draw the
boundary between shared-inheritance explanations and other
explanations (or lack of explainability) is often unclear, and is
the object of current research.<br>
<br>
In the past I have sometimes defined "typology" as "non-genealogical
comparison of languages", but this delimitation works only if one
already knows what kind of explanation is correct.<br>
<br>
One might also compare "comparative linguistics" and
"historical-genealogical linguistics" to the contrast between
"primatology" and "anthropology" – strictly speaking, the former
subsumes the latter, but it is natural that anthropologists have
their own conferences (and their own specialized subfields such as
economics or sociology) because so much more is known about Homo
sapiens than about the other primates. <br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
IPF 141199
Nikolaistrasse 6-10
D-04109 Leipzig
</pre>
</body>
</html>