definition of typology

[dlevere at ILSTU.EDU]

Discussing what typology is is certainly going to get a lot of  
responses. It could be useful for revealing diversity of opinion on  
the subject, but since no one can show that there is one true  
definition, consensus is unlikely. We could take a vote, but that  
wouldn't settle it either.

Some linguists pronounce on even the basic training required to do  
typology. Bob Dixon give his view in his recent two-volume set on  
Basic Linguistic Theory. I tend to agree with Bob, but it is hardly  
the kind of thing one would expect to gain consensus on. And it would  
eliminate a lot of great work if it were adopted as the basic  
credentials of a typologist.

Anyway, just in case you haven't seen it, I quote Bob here below.

- Dan

"Once a linguist has served their apprenticeship, as it were, by producing
full documentation of a language, they may move on ... to typological
comparison...There are some linguists... who avoid the travails of field
work and do not themselves produce a grammar, lexicon, and text collection
for a previously undocumented language, but attempt straightaway to work
on linguistic theory. This is rather like a biologist who has only
observed animals in picture books (or perhaps a zoo) and then proceeds to
statements about the nature and habits of a particular animal... one
should learn the art of analysing a language, constructing a grammar,
before embarking on theoretical generalizations based on examination of a
selection of good grammars." R.M.W Dixon (2009: 2-3)




--------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.