Special Onymic Grammar In Typological Perspective

For the first time, proper names are made the topic of a cross-linguistic account of morphosyntactic properties which formally distinguish place names, personal names, and common nouns. It is shown that the behaviour of place names and personal names in morphology and syntax frequently disagrees with the rules established for other word classes independent of the language’s genetic affiliation, grammatical structure, and geographic location. Place names and personal names each boast a grammar of their own. They are candidates for the status of a distinct word class. Their special grammar comes frequently to the fore in the domain of spatial and possessive relations. This fact is explained with reference to functional notions.

For the first time place names are made the topic of a cross-linguistic account of morphosyntactic properties which formally distinguish place names from personal names and common nouns. It is shown that the behavior of place names in morphology and syntax frequently disagrees with the rules established for other word classes independent of the language’s genetic affiliation, grammatical structure, and geographic location. Place names boast a grammar of their own. They are candidates for the status of a distinct word class. The special grammar of place names comes frequently to the fore in the domain of spatial relations. This fact is explained with reference to functional notions.

Research on language universals and research on linguistic typology are not antagonistic, but rather complementary approaches to the same fundamental problem: the relationship between the amazing diversity of languages and the profound unity of language. Only if the true extent of typological divergence is recognized can universal laws be formulated. In recent years it has become more and more evident that a broad range of languages of radically different types must be carefully analyzed before general theories are possible. Typological comparison of this kind is now at the centre of linguistic research. The series empirical approaches to language typology presents a platform for contributions of all kinds to this rapidly developing field. The distinctive feature of the series is its markedly empirical orientation. All conclusions to be reached are the result of a deepened study of empirical data. General problems are focused on from the perspective of individual languages, language families, language groups, or language samples. Special emphasis is given to the analysis of phenomena from little known languages, which shed new light on long-standing problems in general linguistics. The series is open to contributions from different theoretical persuasions. It thus reflects the methodological pluralism that characterizes the present situation. Care is taken that all volumes be accessible to every linguist and, moreover, to every reader specializing in some domain related to human language. A deeper understanding of human language in general, based on a detailed analysis of typological diversity among individual languages, is fundamental for many sciences, not only for linguists. Therefore, this series has proven to be indispensable in every research library, be it public or private, which has a specialization in language and the language sciences. To discuss your book idea or submit a proposal, please contact Birgit Sievert.

This volume explores the way in which grammaticalization processes converge and differ across languages and language areas. Chapters systemically explore these processes languages of Africa, Europe, Asia and the Pacific, and the Americas, and in creole languages, revealing a number of unique pathways as well as shared features.

'An important and original work by one of the world's leading linguistic theorists. Radical Construction Grammar presents a profound critique of syntactic theory, offers a new approach to syntax, and uncovers the real universals of grammar. It will particularly interest those concerned with theories of grammar and language typology, and with mind/language relations.' -Folia Linguistica'This is a very important book. It gathers intra- and inter-linguistic evidence that point at the centrality and relativity of the notion of construction; it presents an in-depth discussion of grammatical relations thus revealing problematic hidden assumptions; it argues for universality on the basis of our common cognitive processes but also recognises the importance of language as a system capable of influencing grammatical codification; it shifts the focus of attention to the notion of function. Moreover, Croft weaves his ideas and critical analyses into a coherent picture that exposes the contradictory foundations of much of modern linguistic theory (viz. the circularity of syntactic argumentation). For all these reasons, Croft's book is a must-read for all those interested in grammatical theory and typology.' -Naomi Ogasawara, Linguist ListAn important new volume based on the results of research in language typology, and motivated by the need for a theory to explain them. Professor Croft puts forward a new approach to syntactic representation and a new model of how language and languages work. He covers a wide range of syntactic phenomena, illustrating these with examples that show the varied grammatical structures of the world's languages.

The series is a platform for contributions of all kinds to this rapidly developing field. General problems are studied from the perspective of individual languages, language families, language groups, or language samples. Conclusions are the result of a deepened study of empirical data. Special emphasis is given to little-known languages, whose analysis may shed new light on long-standing problems in general linguistics.

This is the first book-length functional-typologically inspired crosslinguistic study of comitatives and related categories such as the instrumental. On the basis of data drawn from 400 languages world-wide (covering all major phyla and areas), the authors test and revise a variety of general linguistic hypotheses about the grammar and cognitive foundations of comitatives. Three types of languages are identified according to the morphological treatment of the comitative and its syncretistic association with other concepts. It is shown that the structural behaviour of comitatives is areally biassed and that the languages of Europe tend to diverge from the majority of the world's languages. This has important repercussions for a language-independent definition of the comitative. The supposed conceptual closeness of comitative and instrumental is discussed in some detail and a semantic map of the comitative is put forward. Markedness is the crucial concept for the evaluation of the relation that ties comitatives and instrumentals to each other. In a separate chapter, the diachrony of comitatives is looked into from the perspective of grammaticalisation research. Throughout the book, the argumentation is richly documented by empirical data. The book contains three case-studies of the comitative in Icelandic, Latvian and Maltese - each of which represents one of the three language types identified earlier in the text. For the purpose of comparing the languages of Europe, a chapter is devoted to the analysis of a large parallel literary corpus (covering 64 languages) which reveals that the parameters of genetic affiliation, areal location and typological classification interact in intricate ways when it comes to predicting whether or not two languages of the sample behave similarly as to the use to which they put their comitative morphemes. With a view to determining the degree of similarity between the languages of the European sub-sample, methods of quantitative typology are employed. General linguists with an interest in case, functional typologists, grammaticalisation researchers and experts of markedness issues will value this book as an important contribution to their respective fields of interest. We regret that, due to a PDF problem, the figure on page 111 is partly shown in black. Please find the correct table here.