Academic literature on the topic 'Typology (Linguistics)'

The paper looks back at Hawkins (1986), A comparative typology of English and German, and shows, on the basis of raising and human impersonal pronouns in English, Dutch and German, that contrastive linguistics can be viewed as a pilot study in typology. It also pleads for doing the contrastive linguistics of three languages rather than of two, not least because the third language can teach us something about the other two.

Comparative linguistics, or comparative-historical linguistics (formerly comparative philology ) is a branch of historical linguistics that is concerned with comparing languages to establish their historical relatedness. This article focuses on the comparative typology of English, Uzbek and discusses the formation of comparative typology as a science, its methods of analysis, and the relations it with other linguistic subjects. Key words-comparative typology, confrontative linguistics, contrastive linguistics, linguistic characterology, comparativists, notions of a type of a language and a type in a language, linguistic universals, recessives and uncials

Abstract Jinghpaw is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northern Burma and adjacent areas of China and India. The language is known for both its conservative nature (e.g., comparative Tibeto-Burman linguistics) and the innovative nature of its speakers (e.g., social anthropology of highland Burma). In view of this duality, this paper explores the Jinghpaw lexicon asking whether it is conservative enough to shed great light on the reconstruction of the proto-language or whether it is innovative, having undergone a grand-scale lexical replacement under intensive contact. This paper addresses this question by measuring the lexical borrowing rate in the language based on the methodology laid out by the Loanword Typology (LWT) project. The results put Jinghpaw among average borrower languages in terms of the borrowability scale of the world’s languages. This study concludes that the Jinghpaw lexicon, especially its basic vocabulary, is relatively conservative, and the semantic fields affected by borrowing are mostly restricted to those that show high cross-linguistic susceptibility to intercultural influences. The results and discussion in this paper enable further understanding of comparative Tibeto-Burman linguistics and contact linguistics of northern Burma and beyond.

AbstractThe relationship between typology and Cognitive Linguistics was first posed in the 1980s, in terms of the relationship between Greenbergian universals and the knowledge of the individual speaker. An answer to this question emerges from understanding the role of linguistic variation in language, from occasions of language use to typological diversity. This in turn requires the contribution of discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and evolutionary historical linguistics as well as typology and Cognitive Linguistics. While Cognitive Linguistics is part of this enterprise, a theory of language that integrates all of these approaches is necessary.

This is a survey of comparative linguistics viewed as a set of the related paradigms that embrace comparative historical linguistics, aerial linguistics, linguistic typology and contrastive linguistics. The treatment of the science in question is largely based on the author’s long-standing experience deduced from research projects and from teaching it as a University professor. Placing the aforementioned paradigms under the umbrella concept “comparative linguistics” seems relevant and appropriate due to their sharing the key tool of investigation, i.e., COMPARISON, also due to their providing each other with applicable procedures and principles, as in case of two seemingly closer pairs, comparative historical and aerial areal linguistics, on the one hand, linguistic typology and contrastive linguistics, on the other hand.

When defining the term Discourse, the difference between its content and structure converges on the basis of speech, the presentation of one's own thoughts. Social activity requires consideration of discourse in the context of communicative activity, taking into account its inseparable socio-psychological characteristics. In linguistic science, even in the context of the structure of discourse, the vision of scientists-researchers in the general solution has not been formed. Nevertheless, it is obvious that there is a certain system of steps of organized communication and the structure of the exchange of speech actions. In the article, some typology sections are conventionally named “typology”, “structural typology”, “comparative typology”, “regional typology”, “counterlinguistics”, “linguistic universals”, “translation grammar”, “comparative typological linguistics” and others. The terms “matching” and “comparison method” are often synonymous. Such a proliferation of terms shows that linguistic typology is not yet firmly established as a science. In linguistics, it includes the discipline of each section and all types of linguistic typology, the juxtaposition of comparative and typological methods, the typological description of related and unrelated languages, characteristic and uncharacteristic studies, etc. To determine such contradictory views, these studies were and are necessary. On the one hand, modern journalistic discourse is characterized by an abundance of template forms of Moderna, ready-made blocks, turns and speech stereotypes. On the other hand, journalism is full of methods and forms that are not fixed in the language sphere and created in a certain speech situation with a certain communicative purpose. Among the many media typical of Moderna discourse, the main focus is on influencing the information and emotions of the addressee and achieving a positive communicative result. These concepts are also significantly disclosed in the article.

Comparative language typology is part of the general typology of linguistics. She studies systems of two or more languages, certain categories of languages in a deductive way (from external to internal). Comparative linguistic typology, as the concept itself shows, is a linguistic subject of typology based on the method of comparison. Comparative typology can equally consider only dominant or common features, as well as only distinctive features that occur in languages of the same structural type (synthetic, analytical, agglutinative, etc.) or in languages of different structural types (synthetic and analytical, agglutinative and incorporated, etc.). The classification of the main essential features of languages, and their most important characteristics and patterns, are the subject of comparative linguistic typology. The task of comparative linguistic typology is to create general typological rules and concepts by comparing linguistic phenomena of different languages. Classification of the main essential features of languages, the most important characteristics and regularities are the subject of comparative typology. The task of Comparative Typology is to create General typological rules and conceptions by comparing linguistic phenomena of various languages.