[Lingtyp] SLE2026 workshop proposal: Microtypology

[Linda Konnerth]

Dear All,

Sandra Auderset, Sergey Say, and I are soliciting abstracts (max. 300 
words) for a workshop proposal for next year's SLE in Osnabrück. Please 
send your abstract to any of us *by Monday, November 17th*.

All the best,

Linda, Sandra, Sergey

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

SLE 2026 Workshop proposal

*Microtypology: Zooming in to get at the big picture*

Linguistic typology as a discipline has focused heavily on universally 
applicable contrasts from which generalizations about language(s) and 
language change can be derived. Based on this line of inquiry, a 
subfield has emerged that focuses on developing methods for ‘balanced’ 
sampling and deriving universally valid generalizations (see Bakker 
2010, Miestamo et al. 2016 for overviews, and Himmelmann 2000 for a 
critique).

In contrast, typological studies drawing on small samples - especially 
those with strong genealogical and/or areal biases - have traditionally 
been viewed as less relevant to general typological and theoretical 
questions (see also Kibrik 1998). Yet small-scale samples are 
well-suited for investigating explanations for typological distributions 
drawing on the complexity of grammatical systems, socio-cultural 
contexts, and links to historical events.

In this workshop, we invite an open discussion on what can be referred 
to as /microtypology/: zooming in to small-scale samples in order to 
achieve a *higher resolution* for asking ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions of 
typological distributions. Such small-scale samples involve languages 
that share many variables thanks to a common genealogical, areal, or 
socio-cultural core. This achieves higher explanatory power for 
variables that do differ, in line with the ‘*language laboratory’* idea 
(cf. Moulton 1962; De Vogelaer & Seiler 2012; Yang 2022). Moreover, 
microtypological research can effectively address phenomena that are 
confined to specific areas or families and do not easily fit within 
broad typological definitions (Arkadiev 2014; Konoshenko 2014; Shluinsky 
2017).

*Dense samples*including many related varieties help counter-act the 
bias towards standard varieties in current typology (De Vogelaer & 
Seiler 2012). Microtypologists are, or closely collaborate with, 
*experts/primary fieldworkers* on the sample languages, allowing for 
*higher-quality data* collection and analysis, which ideally includes 
*spontaneous language use*. A *diachronic *thrust is typical as zooming 
in on nascent grammatical changes is crucial for examining the evolution 
of *typological diversity*. In-depth**analyses facilitate the discovery 
of *grammatical interactions* (Heath 2016, 2018). Similarly picking up 
on Heath’s (2016) call for more *integrative* efforts, microtypology 
offers opportunities for *interdisciplinary* approaches. Generally, the 
targeted variables in microtypology can be defined *bottom-up*, 
databases can better adhere to *late aggregation* and *modularity* 
principles, allowing for enhanced *reusability* and *sustainability*.

These properties of this type of approach can be loosely characterized 
by the family resemblance principle. Different studies exhibit different 
ones, and there may be no single study that exhibits all of them 
simultaneously.

_1. Empirical depth_

Microtypological research emphasizes high-quality data and offers a 
complementary “vertical” dimension to the “horizontal” dimension of 
macrotypology: to offer more depth where macrotypology offers more 
breadth (cf. König 2025).

*Dense sampling:*Samples are defined by /a priori/ shared features among 
the varieties, such as genealogical, areal, or socio-cultural factors 
and aim at covering all varieties that meet the inclusion criteria. Such 
fine-grained samples extend beyond standard varieties (Murelli & 
Kortmann 2011), sometimes reaching the level of individual villages 
(Adamou & Sobolev 2024). The shared features also enable the discovery 
of meaningful correlations between variables (Noorlander et al. 2025). 
Such ‘language laboratory’ conditions (De Vogelaer & Seiler 2012) 
increase the explanatory power of qualitative and quantitative models.**

*Higher-quality data:*Typically, data are specifically collected for the 
purpose of a particular study. Grammatical descriptions may serve as 
reference works rather than data sources. Ideally, the data include less 
elicitation and more naturalistic data (e.g., Haig et al. 2024). By 
focusing on authentic language use rather than abstracted systems, 
microtypology can capture inherent variation and usage patterns.

*Close collaboration with language experts*: The reliance on language 
experts/primary fieldworkers enhances data quality in terms of accuracy, 
integration with the broader language system, and contextualization with 
respect to language history and contact (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2010; 
Khachaturyan et al. 2025).

_2. Integration_

Microtypology can achieve integration between (i) diachrony and 
synchrony; (ii) target variables and their language-specific grammatical 
context; and (iii) linguistic and extralinguistic 
variables/interdisciplinary methodologies. By examining the 
configurations that condition and constrain grammatical changes we can 
study the evolution of typological diversity (cf. Bisang 2004, Evans 
2016). **

*Diachrony: *Synchronic typological distributions arise from diachronic 
processes (Greenberg 1978; Bybee 1988; Bickel 2007). Due to the complex 
interactions between linguistic and extralinguistic factors, the higher 
resolution that microtypology offers provides an effective strategy for 
working towards an explanatory framework (cf. Heath 2018). **

*Grammatical interactions*: Linguistic phenomena are best studied in 
their grammatical context with particular attention to systemic 
interactions between them (Heath 2016, 2018). This is also a key insight 
of construction grammar approaches (Noël & Colleman 2021).

*Interdisciplinary approaches*: Including extralinguistic factors 
(Hildebrandt et al. 2023) and taking interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. 
with anthropology (Bickel & Gaenszle 2015); or sociolinguistics 
(Dobrushina 2025) can yield higher adequacy. Integrating insights and 
methodologies from dialectology and variationist sociolinguistics can 
advance this agenda (De Vogelaer & Seiler 2012).


_3. Data collection and database design principles_

The focus on developing fine grained, bottom-up variables and modular 
data sets makes it possible to explore a variety of research questions 
based on the same data set (e.g. Auderset & Konnerth 2025).

*Actual forms:*By incorporating actual forms and constructions instead 
of only relying on abstract features, the potential for data re-use 
increases (e.g., historical linguistics studies or integration of corpus 
measures such as frequencies).

*Bottom-up variables: *By developing variables in a bottom-up fashion, 
they are revised and expanded during data collection in order to capture 
variation instead of relying on pre-defined top-down categories that 
might miss important aspects of the phenomenon in question.

*Late aggregation: *Aggregation during data collection can be avoided 
more easily, allowing to instead focus on fine-grained variables that go 
beyond the specific phenomenon at hand (this follows AUTOTYP design 
principles, see Witzlack-Makarevich et al. 2022). The data can then be 
aggregated and summarized later on to answer specific questions. This 
contributes to a high re-use potential and sustainability of the data sets.

*Modular database design:*If different data sets are built independently 
implementing a common design and structure (cf. Witzlack-Makarevich et 
al. 2022), as facilitated through a microtypological approach, they can 
be expanded on and combined depending on the research question and thus 
work towards a systemic approach to language (e.g. combining data from 
corpora and grammars; looking at the prosody and constructional nature 
of a phenomenon, etc.).


With this workshop, we aim to bring together researchers working on 
different families, areas, or phenomena to discuss shared goals within 
this type of framework. Our rationale is that microtypological 
approaches can generate valuable insights for some of the most pertinent 
questions in typology. We invite contributions that present case studies 
and/or discuss conceptual and methodological issues.

_References_

Adamou, Evangelia & Andrey N. Sobolev. 2024. “The Atlas of the Balkan 
Linguistic Area program”. /Balcanica /55, 69-84. DOI:10.2298/BALC2455069A

Arkadiev, Peter. 2014. “Towards an areal typology of prefixal 
perfectivization”. Scando-Slavica 60(2), 384-405.

Auderset, Sandra, and Linda Konnerth. 2025. “A microtypological approach 
to the dynamics of person marking: A database of person forms in South 
Central Trans-Himalayan.” Paper presented at the 2025 Transalpine 
Typology Meeting (TTM25). University of Pavia, Italy.

Bakker, Dik. 2010. Language sampling. In Jae Jung Song (ed). The Oxford 
handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 100–127.

Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. "Typology in the 21st century: Major current 
developments."__/Linguistic Typology /11(1): 239–251. 
DOI:10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018 <https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018>

Bickel, Balthasar & Martin Gaenszle. 2015. "First person objects, 
antipassives, and the political history of the Southern Kirant." 
/Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics/ 2(1): 63–86.

Bisang, Walter. 2004. “Dialectology and Typology-An Integrative 
Perspective.” /Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs/ 153: 11–46.

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. “The Diachronic Dimension in Explanation.” In John 
A. Hawkins (ed). /Explaining Language Universals/. Oxford: Blackwell. 
350-379.

De Vogelaer, Gunther & Guido Seiler, eds. 2012. /The Dialect Laboratory: 
Dialects as a Testing Ground for Theories of Language Change/. John 
Benjamins.

Dobrushina, Nina. 2025. “Commemorative formulas”. In: /Typological Atlas 
of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD), v 2.0.0/. Ed. by Michael Daniel, 
Konstantin Filatov, Timur Maisak, George Moroz, Timofey Mukhin, Chiara 
Naccarato & Samira Verhees. Moscow: Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, 
NRU HSE. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6807070.

Evans, Nicholas. 2016. “Typology and Coevolutionary Linguistics.” 
/Linguistic Typology/ 20 (3): 505–20.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. “Diachrony, Synchrony and Language 
Universals.” In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. 
Moravcsik (eds)./Universals of Human Language I: Method and Theory/. 
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 61-92.

Haig, Geoffrey, Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand, Don Stilo, Laurentia Schreiber 
and Nils Schiborr. 2024. /Post-predicate elements in the Western Asian 
Transition Zone: A corpus-based approach to areal typology/. Berlin: 
Language Science Press.

Heath, Jeffrey. 2016. “Type-Ology or Typ-Ology?” /Linguistic Typology/ 
20(3): 479–95.

Heath, Jeffrey. 2018. “Dogon Existential (-Presentative) Proclitics: 
Syntax, Semantics, Evolution.” /Lingua/ 213: 78–90.

Hildebrandt, Kristine A., Oliver Bond, and Dubi Nanda Dhakal. 2023. “A 
Micro-Typology of Contact Effects in Four Tibeto-Burman Languages.” 
/Journal of Language Contact/ 15(2): 302–40.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2000. Towards a typology of typologies. 
/Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung/53(1). 5-12.

Khachaturyan, Maria, George Moroz, Valentin Vydrin, Maria Konoshenko. 
2025. “Valency Patterns in Mande.” /Studies in Language /49(4). 823-857. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23053.kha.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1998. “Does Intragenetic Typology Make Sense.” In 
Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner, Wolfgang 
Wildgen (eds)./Sprache in Raum und Zeit. Beiträge zur Empirischen 
Sprachwissenschaft. In Memoriam Johannes Bechert/, vol. 2. Tübingen: 
Gunter Narr Verlag. 61-68.

Konoshenko, Maria. 2014. Lično-čislovoe soglasovanie v jazykax mande: 
vnutrigenetičeskaja tipologija [Person-number agreement in Mande: An 
intragenetic typology]. Moscow: Institute of linguistics RAS. Ph.D. 
dissertation.

König, Ekkehard. 2025. “Comparative and (Micro-)Typological Approaches 
to the Analysis of Germanic Languages.” Oxford University Press, 
January. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.1063.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2010. “Linguistic Typology and Language 
Contact.” In /The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology/. Oxford 
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0027.

Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe. 2016. Sampling for variety. 
Linguistic Typology 20(2). 233–296.

Moulton, William G. 1962. “Dialect Geography and the Concept of 
Phonological Space.” /Word/ 18(1–3): 23–32.

Murelli, Adriano & Bernd Kortmann. 2011. "Non-standard Varieties in the 
Areal Typology of Europe". In: B. Kortmann, J. van der Auwera (eds). The 
Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin/New 
York: Mouton de Gruyter. 525-544.

Noël, Dirk & Timothy Colleman. 2021. "Diachronic construction grammar." 
In: Xu, Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.). /The Routledge handbook of 
cognitive linguistics/. New York: Routledge. 662-675.

Noorlander, Paul M., Dorota Molin & Geoffrey Haig. 2025. “Between VO and 
OV in Arabic and Aramaic.” /Studies in Language /49 (2): 289 - 336. DOI: 
10.1075/sl.24027.noo.

Shluinsky, Andrey. 2017. “An Intragenetic Typology of Kwa Serial Verb 
Constructions.” /Linguistic Typology/ 21(2): 333–85.

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Johanna Nichols, Kristine Hildebrandt, Taras 
Zakharko, Balthasar Bickel, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Bradley McDonnell, 
Eve Koller, and Lauren B. Collister. 2022. "Managing AUTOTYP data: 
Design principles and implementation." In: /The Open Handbook of 
Linguistic Data Management/. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 631-642.

Yang, Cathryn. 2022. "The phonetic tone change* high> rising: Evidence 
from the Ngwi dialect laboratory." /Diachronica/ 39(2): 226 - 267.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251010/7285a330/attachment.htm>