The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies
Abstract
In this discussion note, I argue that we need to distinguish carefully between descriptive categories, that is, categories of particular languages, and comparative concepts, which are used for crosslinguistic comparison and are specifically created by typologists for the purposes of comparison. Descriptive formal categories cannot be equated across languages because the criteria for category assignment are different from language to language. This old structuralist insight (called categorial particularism) has recently been emphasized again by several linguists, but the idea that linguists need to identify ‘crosslinguistic categories’ before they can compare languages is still widespread, especially (but not only) in generative linguistics. Instead, what we have to do (and normally do in practice) is to create comparative concepts that allow us to identify comparable phenomena across languages and to formulate crosslinguistic generalizations. Comparative concepts have to be universally applicable, so they can only be based on other universally applicable concepts: conceptual-semantic concepts, general formal concepts, and other comparative concepts. Comparative concepts are not always purely semantically based concepts, but outside of phonology they usually contain a semantic component. The fact that typologists compare languages in terms of a separate set of concepts that is not taxonomically superordinate to descriptive linguistic categories means that typology and language-particular analysis are more independent of each other than is often thought.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures
Chomsky, N. (1993) · Mouton eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110884166 · Cited by 8,541
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
Huddleston, R., Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1988) · Language · doi:10.2307/415437 · Cited by 7,587
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
Beauvais, P. J., Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1987) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.2307/357731 · Cited by 5,488
Lectures on Government and Binding
Williams, E., & Chomsky, N. (1984) · Language · doi:10.2307/413646 · Cited by 5,136
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316423530 · Cited by 4,136
Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements
Greenberg, J. H. (1963) · Americanae (AECID Library) · Cited by 3,065
Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective
Croft, W. (2001) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 · Cited by 2,910
Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective
Cinque, G. (1999) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001 · Cited by 2,767
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2005) · Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik · doi:10.1515/zaa-2005-0209 · Cited by 2,408
Cited by
Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 · Cited by 494
The Serial Verb Construction: Comparative Concept and Cross-linguistic Generalizations
Haspelmath, M. (2016) · Language and Linguistics · doi:10.1177/2397002215626895 · Cited by 305
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Haspelmath, M.
- Venue
- Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 663-687
- ISSN
- 0097-8507 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-0665
- OpenAlex
- W2087360383
- Cited by
- 1,041
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 152.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/lan.2010.0021
- The paper
- Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.