Recent papers by Martin Haspelmath
Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters, 2024
Linguists often act as if they had to choose between different approaches or frameworks or resear... more Linguists often act as if they had to choose between different approaches or frameworks or research communities, and sometimes these choices appear as “commitments” or firm beliefs. Thus, structuralists, func- tionalists and generativists have often regarded each other’s work as if the approaches were competitors rather than potentially complementary. Here I note that they can be complementary and that there is no reason for ideo- logical divisions in the field of linguistics. However, it is important to keep structural analyses distinct from biocognitive explanations, as these have of- ten been conflated.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2025
There are about a dozen well-recognized types of nonverbal clause constructions, but the terminol... more There are about a dozen well-recognized types of nonverbal clause constructions, but the terminology by which these subtypes are known varies widely. This paper gives an overview of the major types and defines each term carefully, from the perspective of general syntax. For a number of well-established concepts that have no corresponding well-established term, I propose novel terms. There are four major predicational types (classificational, attributional, predlocative and appertentive), and four major nonpredicational types (equational, existential, predpossessive, and hyparctic).
This paper gives an overview of four senses of the terms "lexical (item/entity)" and "lexicon", a... more This paper gives an overview of four senses of the terms "lexical (item/entity)" and "lexicon", as well as several senses of the term "lexicalization". That these terms have different senses in the literature has been discussed before, and it has been noted that this polysemy is sometimes confusing, but here I provide not only concrete definitions and succinct discussion of the relevant issues, but I also propose two new terms: INVENTORIUM (the unpredictable elements of a language) and MENTALICON (the elements that a speaker stores in memory). The latter two are crucially different because all speakers store many predictable elements.
This paper discusses several prominent comparative concepts in the domain of negated indefinite p... more This paper discusses several prominent comparative concepts in the domain of negated indefinite pronouns constructions. I note that the terminology is sometimes unclear or confused, and I provide clear and simple definitions of six key terms: negindefinite pronoun, negative concord construction, concord negindefinite, negative polarity item, duplex negation, and negative amalgamation. I emphasize that there is widespread agreement on the need for these concepts, and that the definitions of these terms are independent of the semantic analysis.
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads, 2023
This paper offers and discusses a simple definition of the term clitic: A clitic is a bound morph... more This paper offers and discusses a simple definition of the term clitic: A clitic is a bound morph that is neither an affix nor a root. It gives examples of several semantic and positional types of clitics from a wide range of languages, and it discusses some typical phonological effects associated with clitics. In the proposed definition, the crucial contrast between affixes and clitics is that affixes are class-selective (occurring always on nouns, on verbs, or on adjectives), while clitics are indiscriminate (i.e. do not exhibit word-class selectivity). In the stereotypical view of clitics, they are “prosodically deficient” in some way, but the phonolgical effects are quite diverse and cannot serve as a basis for a definition. As clitics are defined as kinds of minimal forms (or morphs), they cannot be nonsegmental, and they cannot “interrupt” another minimal form (so that there are no endoclitics by definition). Finally, I note that the object person indexes of the Romance languages, which have very often been called “clitics”, are actually affixes in the modern languages, although they must go back to earlier clitics.
The study of cross-linguistic word class variability and its limits needs to be based on clear co... more The study of cross-linguistic word class variability and its limits needs to be based on clear comparative concepts because languages have different grammatical structures. Here I show that the notions of (i) function indicators and (ii) semantic root classes give us a way of formulating universals and of distinguishing cross-linguistic macro-classes in a rigorous way. The root classes are action, property, and object; function indicators are markers that signal an unusual propositional act function (e.g. a copula signals predicative use of an object root, and a relativizer signals modifying use of an action root). Substantive markers which add meaning substance (e.g tense markers or articles) are less useful for cross-linguistic comparison because they are so variable across languages. I distinguish sharply between comparison and language-particular analysis, because analysis must be based on language-particular constructions and is thus a rather different enterprise. Description and comparison are linked in that (for practical reasons) the language-particular categories are given labels that correspond to the general root classes (e.g. English Noun, which corresponds to the general root class noun).
Linguistics, 2024
This paper revisits the distinction between inflectional and derivational patterns in general gra... more This paper revisits the distinction between inflectional and derivational patterns in general grammar and discusses the possibility that this well-known distinction is not rooted in the reality of languages, but in the Western tradition of describing languages, through dictionaries (for words, including drivational formations) and through grammar books (where we often find tables of exemplary paradigms). This tradition has led to rather different terminological treatments of the two kinds of patterns, but from the perspective of a constructional view of morphology, there is no need to incorporate such differences into formal grammatical descriptions. For practical purposes, we need clear and simple definitions of entrenched terms, so the paper proposes semantically based retro-definitions of inflection, derivation and lexeme that cover the bulk of the existing usage. Finally, I briefly explain why we need sharp definitions of comparative concepts, and why prototype-based and fuzzy definitions of traditional terms are not helpful.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2023
Meanings and linguistic shapes (or forms) do not always map onto each other in a unique way, and ... more Meanings and linguistic shapes (or forms) do not always map onto each other in a unique way, and linguists have used all kinds of different terms for such situations: Ambiguity, polysemy, syncretism, lexicalization, semantic maps; portmanteau, cumulative exponence, feature bundling, underspecification, and so on. In the domain of lexical comparison, the term colexification has become generally established in recent years, and in the present paper, I extend this wordformation pattern in a regular way (cogrammification, coexpression; syllexification, syngrammification, synexpression). These novel terms allow us to chart the range of relevant phenomena in a systematic way across the grammar-lexicon continuum, and to ask whether highly general explanations of coexpression and synexpression patterns are possible. While there is no new proposal for explaining coexpression here, I will suggest that frequency of occurrence plays a crucial role in explaining synexpression patterns.
WORD, 2023
In this paper, I propose a definition of the term word that can be applied to all languages using... more In this paper, I propose a definition of the term word that can be applied to all languages using the same criteria. Roughly, a word is defined as a free morph or a clitic or a root plus affixes or a compound plus affixes. The paper relies on earlier definitions of the terms free, morph, affix, clitic, root, and compound, which are summarized here. I briefly compare the proposed definition with Bloomfield's, I note that it is a shared-core definition, and I say how word-forms differ from lexemes. In the final section, I explain why I think that an unnatural-seeming definition is better than a prototype definition or other options.
Reflexive constructions in the world's languages, ed. by Katarzyna Janic, Nicoletta Puddu, and Martin Haspelmath. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2023
The past four decades have seen a lot of new research on reflexive constructions that goes far be... more The past four decades have seen a lot of new research on reflexive constructions that goes far beyond the earlier literature, and a variety of technical terms have been used. The divergent frameworks have made some of this literature hard to access. This paper provides a nontechnical overview of the most important kinds of phenomena in the world’s languages and offers a coherent conceptual frame- work and a set of cross-linguistically applicable technical terms, defined also in an appendix. I also explain other widely used terms that do not form part of the present conceptual system (defined in another appendix). The paper begins with a definition of the most basic term (reflexive construction) and then moves to types of reflexivizers (reflexive pronouns and reflexive voice markers), as well as syntac- tic concepts such as ranks and domains. I also briefly discuss obviative anaphoric pronouns and antireflexive marking. Finally, I introduce the distinction between discourse-referential and co-varying coreference. The general philosophy is that we will understand general questions about reflexive constructions (i.e. questions not restricted to the language-particular level) only when we know what is univer- sal and what is historically accidental, so there is also an appendix that lists some possible universals of reflexive constructions.
Constructions, 2023
In this short think-piece, I propose a definition of the term construction for general linguistic... more In this short think-piece, I propose a definition of the term construction for general linguistics and I relate it to the earlier literature. The term construction has a general meaning that was not defined in the earlier literature, but several specific definitions were proposed in work by construction grammarians. Here I point out that construction grammarians actually tend to use the general meaning, even though it is widely known that “construction in the sense of construction grammar” has been defined in more specific senses. I propose that the novel senses are perhaps better expressed by novel terms (such as “inventorial item”), and that the primary insight about the continuity of word knowledge and constructional knowledge is best expressed by using a different term (such as “inventorium”) to cover all “stored pieces of structure”.
Lifetime linguistic inspirations: To Igor Mel'čuk, edited by Leonid Iomdin, Jasmina Milićević, Alain Polguère, 201-213. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2022, 2022
This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative... more This paper discusses the definitions of the terms ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative (as general concepts), which are often taken for granted in the literature. Several authors, notably Mel' uk and Creissels, have criticized some of the terminological usage, but I note here that the classical definitions (in terms of alignments of S, A and P) need not be modified. The crucial point to keep in mind is that language-particular descriptive categories are distinct from comparative concepts for general linguistics.
This paper argues that just like segmental phonetic symbols, grammatical terms should have a stan... more This paper argues that just like segmental phonetic symbols, grammatical terms should have a standard meaning in linguistics. This may be difficult to achieve in practical terms, but I argue that there are no theoretical reasons for skepticism. Terms used in general grammar cannot designate innate building blocks of a biological grammar blueprint anyway, so they need not be any more controversial than IPA symbols.
This paper highlights the importance of the distinction between general linguistics (the study of... more This paper highlights the importance of the distinction between general linguistics (the study of Human Language) and particular linguistics (the study of individual languages), which is often neglected. The term "theoretical linguistics" is often used as if it entailed general claims. But I note that (unless one studies nonconventional aspects of language, e.g. reaction times as in psycholinguistics), one must study universals if one wants to make general claims. These universals can be of the Greenbergian type, based on grammatical descriptions of the speaker's social conventions, or they can be based on the natural-kinds programme, where linguists try to describe mental grammars as made up of universal building blocks of an innate grammar blueprint. The natural-kinds programme is incompatible with Chomsky's claims about Darwin's Problem, but it is indispensable for a general linguistics in the generative tradition. The Greenbergian programme, by contrast, can make use of framework-free descriptions because its comparisons are based on independently defined universal yardsticks.
Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2021
This paper proposes definitions of three terms that can potentially be used in answering key ques... more This paper proposes definitions of three terms that can potentially be used in answering key questions of general morphology and syntax: bound form, welded form, and affix. The term affix is sometimes thought to involve phonological "fusion" of some kind, but I propose that it is best defined as a bound non-root that cannot occur on roots of different classes. A bound form (or non-autonomous form) is generally defined as a form that does not occur on its own (thus, its definition makes no reference to phonology). As a term for a bound form that shows phonological interactions with its host, I propose the new term welded form. I discuss the ways in which these terms may (or may not) help us justify the syntax-morphology subdivision, and the ways in which these terms may perhaps be the basis for justifying speculative classifications such as the well-known isolating, agglutinative and flective types.
Asian Languages and Linguistics, 2020
This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique a... more This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique and must be described with its own categories, but language description profits enormously from typological knowledge. It has sometimes been suggested that the Boasian imperative ("each language should be described in its own terms") leads to uninsightful analyses, and that language description should instead be "typologically informed". But the Boasian imperative is not at all incompatible with an intimate connection between description and comparison: Comparative (or typological) knowledge is highly valuable both for making our descriptions transparent and comprehensible, and for helping describers to ask a wide range of questions that would not have occurred to them otherwise. Since we do not know whether any of the building blocks of languages are innate and universal for this reason, we cannot rely on general frameworks (of the generative type) for our descriptions, but we can use typological questionnaires and other kinds of comparative information as a scaffold. Such scaffolds are not theoretical components of the description, but are important methodological tools.
Journal of Linguistics, 2021
This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adapt... more This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adaptations to the language users' needs, in terms of frequency of use, predictability and coding efficiency. I claim that all grammatical oppositions involving a minimal meaning difference and a significant frequency difference are reflected in a universal coding asymmetry, i.e. a cross-linguistic pattern in which the less frequent member of the opposition gets special coding, unless the coding is uniformly explicit or uniformly zero. I give 25 examples of pairs of construction types, from a substantial range of grammatical patterns. For some of them, the existing evidence from the world's languages and from corpus counts is already strong, while for others, I know of no counterevidence and I make readily testable claims. I also discuss how the functional-adaptive forces operate in language change, and I discuss a number of possible alternative explanations. The paper can be seen as the summary of one of the most ambitious attempts at explaining grammatical patterns in the world's languages.
Morphology, 2020
This paper proposes a definition of the term morph as a minimal linguistic form, and discusses a ... more This paper proposes a definition of the term morph as a minimal linguistic form, and discusses a range of alternatives and possible problems. The term morph is basic to all of morphosyntax, because other frequent ters like affix, root, and marker are defined in terms of it.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2020
This paper discusses the widely held idea that the building blocks of languages (features, catego... more This paper discusses the widely held idea that the building blocks of languages (features, categories and architectures) are part of an innate blueprint for Human Language, and notes that if one allows for convergent cultural evolution of grammatical structures, then much of the motivation for it disappears. I start by observing that human linguisticality (= the biological capacity for language) is uncontroversial, and that confusing terminology ("language faculty", "universal grammar") has often clouded the substantive issues in the past. I argue that like musicality and other biological capacities, linguisticality is best studied in a broadly comparative perspective. Comparing languages like other aspects of culture means that the comparisons are of the Greenbergian type, but many linguists have presupposed that the comparisons should be done as in chemistry, with the presupposition that the innate building blocks are also the material that individual grammars are made of. In actual fact, the structural uniqueness of languages (in lexicon, phonology and morphosyntax) leads us to prefer a Greenbergian approach to comparison, which is also more in line with the Minimalist idea that there are very few domain-specific elements of the biological capacity for language.
Linguistics, 2021
Argument coding splits such as split (= differential) object marking and split ergative marking h... more Argument coding splits such as split (= differential) object marking and split ergative marking have long been known to represent universal tendencies, but the generalizations have not been formulated in their full generality before. In particular, ditransitive constructions have rarely been taken into account, and scenario splits have often been treated separately. Here I argue that all these patterns can be understood in terms of the usual association of role rank (highly ranked A and R, low-ranked P and T) and referential prominence (locuphoric person, animacy, specificity, etc.). At the most general level, the role-reference association universal says that deviations from usual associations of role rank and referential prominence tend to be coded by longer grammatical forms. In other words, A and R tend to be referentially prominent in language use, while P and T are less prominent, and when less usual associations need to be expressed, languages often require special coding by means of additional flags (case-markers and adpositions) or additional verb coding (e.g. inverse or passive markers). I argue that role-reference association is an instance of the even more general pattern of form-frequency correspondence, and that the coding asymmetries can all be explained by frequency-based predictability and coding efficiency.
Uploads
Recent papers by Martin Haspelmath
No primeiro capítulo do livro, “As regularidades interlinguísticas podem ser explicadas por restrições à mudança?” (publicado originalmente em 2019, no livro Explanation in typology: diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence), o autor discute uma tendência recente de atribuir padrões interlinguísticos unicamente à
atuação de aspectos diacrônicos, desconsiderando fatores causais. No segundo capítulo, “Diferentes explicações na gramática são mutuamente compatíveis: estruturais, evolutivas e biocognitivas” (baseado em uma apresentação de 2021 para o Centro de Ciências Linguísticas da Universidade Normal de Pequim), Haspelmath busca demonstrar a compatibilidade entre diferentes explicações gramaticais, a fim de evitar
divisões ideológicas no estudo das línguas. Já no terceiro capítulo, “O morfe como forma linguística mínima” (publicado originalmente em 2020, no número 30 do periódico Morphology), é defendida a visão de que o termo morfe deva ser adotado para referir-se à unidade linguística mínima, para minimizar inconsistências terminológicas e adotar-se nomenclatura padronizada nos estudos linguísticos. No capítulo “A
linguisticidade humana e os blocos elementares de construção das línguas” (publicado originalmente em 2020, no volume 10 da revista Frontiers in Psychology), o autor defende que a capacidade biológica dos seres humanos para a linguagem é mais bem estudada a partir de uma “perspectiva comparativa em sentido lato” e que a comparação
de línguas não leva diretamente a conclusões imediatas sobre a linguisticidade humana. Por fim, no quinto e último capítulo do livro, “Explicando assimetrias na codificação gramatical: correspondências forma-frequência e previsibilidade” (publicado originalmente no volume 57, número 3, da revista Journal of Linguistics, em 2021),
Haspelmath busca demonstrar que as assimetrias existentes na codificação gramatical se devem a questões de previsibilidade e eficiência de codificação, as quais estão pautadas em aspectos de frequência de uso.
O livro foi organizado e traduzido pelos professores da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Felipe Bilharva da Silva, Gabriel de Ávila Othero, Pablo Nunes Ribeiro e Sérgio de Moura Menuzzi – e pela mestranda em Linguística pela mesma instituição Melissa Lazzari.
The goal is to shed light on major issues of analysis, so chapters are structured around essential questions: What are the basic units of the lexicon -- words or morphemes? Is there a categorical difference between inflection and derivation? Do the same principles apply to both word formation and sentence formation? What makes on morphological rule more productive than another? Are inflectional paradigms part of the morphological architecture?
To answer these questions, the authors draw on the best research available, discussing a variety of theoretical approaches. This second edition also expands the discussion of several topics, including frequency effects, the structure of the lexicon, and productivity.
Each chapter includes a summary, suggestions for further reading, and comprehension exercises (with answers). New to this second edition are exploratory exercises which allow students to put what they have read into practice and extend their knowledge.