[Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'

[Bohnemeyer, Juergen]

Dear colleagues — The purpose of this message is not to start another debate on terminology. Rather, I’d simply like to gather data on how this community views a particular terminological choice. I created a survey that people can take anonymously, which should take them all of 60 seconds. I’ll be happy to report the results on this board. Here is the link to the survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G953WP7

The issue concerns the term ‘library study’, when used to designate any typological research design that draws primarily on existing language descriptions. I have long considered ‘library study’ to be a well-established technical term for this concept, and I’m unaware of equally well-established terminological alternatives.

Within typology, ‘library studies’ in this sense would contrast with studies based on 

* typological databases such as WALS and AutoTyp; 

* primary data (prevalent in semantic typology; occurs more marginally elsewhere);

* expert questionnaires (as opposed to questionnaires administered to speakers and designed for primary data collection; e.g. Comrie & Smith 1977, as opposed to Dahl 1985);

* anything else? 

I’m just trying to find out whether I’m an outlier. 

Note, this is not about whether one finds the label fitting or unfortunate. All I’m trying to determine is whether to an audience of typologists it gets the intended meaning across. 

Thanks! — Juergen



-- 
Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University at Buffalo 

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 
Phone: (716) 645 0127 
Fax: (716) 645 3825
Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/ 

Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for remote office hours.

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In 
(Leonard Cohen)