Given our concern with the role of typologies in conceptualization and measurement, the discussion here necessarily focuses on "descriptive" typologies. In such typologies, the cells correspond to specific types or instances of a broader concept. These can be contrasted with "explanatory" typologies, 1 in which the rows and columns are explanatory variables, and the cells contain hypothesized outcomes. Both descriptive and explanatory typologies can, in addition, be used to classify cases.

In good science one expects experiments to be reproducible and their results to be replicable. Results are only accepted if researchers other than those who designed and ran the original experiment and thereby obtained results rousing the scientific community to (re-)action can independently repeat the same experiment and obtain the same results, over and over again. Scientific methods include not only experimentation but also surveys. In the life sciences, probably all population and ecological sciences, sciences of the past (palaeontology, archaeology, etc.), and sociology, surveys are used rather than experiments. Essentially, an experiment is where the researcher manipulates conditions, and a survey is where s/he selects conditions. Simulation is another standard procedure in some of the sciences, where experiments or surveys would be unviable. The replicability issue is equally important for experiments , surveys, and simulations. The question is: to what extent does this principle of scientific method-that in order to be accepted, results must be replicable-apply to linguistic typology? For once, let's be catholic on what is typology. Typology is concerned with the human capacity for speaking and understanding. This is what most of linguistics is about, but typology's special remit is to observe, describe, and explain how particular manifestations of this capacity-the particular grammars and lexicons mentally represented by individual speakers and socially shared by speech communities-can or cannot vary. The first real question then is whether typology is a science. The alternative, to put it somewhat grossly, is that it is a form of art, like writing sonnets or interpreting them. Most current practitioners of typology presumably opt for science, be it cognitive or behavioural or both, even when based in Arts or Humanities faculties. That is to say, they would like to see the results of their work evaluated as true or false rather than as beautiful or ugly, meaningful or meaningless. Perhaps more accurately, there is a commitment to validation and falsification first and only secondarily a concern with aesthetics and hermeneu-tics. Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University Authenticated Download Date | 10/28/17 8:33 AM

Linguistic Typology, 11:239-251, 2007

A Knowledge Representation Practionary, 2018

Typology is not a typical term within semantic technology circles, though it is used extensively in such fields as archaeology, urban planning, theology, linguistics, sociology, statistics, psychology, anthropology, and others. Based on etymology, 'typology' is the study of types. 1 However, as used in the fields noted, a 'typology' is the result of the classification of things according to their characteristics. As stated by Merriam Webster, a 'typology' is 'a system used for putting things into groups according to how they are similar.' Though some have attempted to make academic distinctions between typologies and similar notions such as classifications or taxonomies [1], we think this idea of grouping by similarity is the best way to think of a typology. In this classification, each of our SuperTypes, as was introduced in the prior chapter, gets its own typology. The idea of a SuperType, in fact, is exactly equivalent to the root node of a typology, wherein we relate multiple entity types with similar essences and characteristics to one another via a natural classification. A typology is a systematic classification of types according to their common or shared characteristics. A typology could be composed of all living things; all animals; all product types; or something as narrow as supervised machine learning algorithms. While types are classifications of instances according to their shared characteristics, a typology is a classification of types on a similar basis. Types enable us to 'carve Nature at the joints,' while typologies give us the organizational framework for coherently subsuming types under a general type. We have complete flexibility to define our general root type for a given typology as narrowly or broadly as we wish, flexibility of immense design importance.

Linguistic Typology, 2016

Linguistic Typology, 2016

If the goals of linguistic typology, are, as described by Plank (2016): (a) to chart linguistic diversity (b) to seek out order or even unity in diversity knowledge of the current state of the art is an invaluable tool for almost any linguistic endeavor. For language documentation and description, knowing what distinctions, categories, and patterns have been observed in other languages makes it possible to identify them more quickly and thoroughly in an unfamiliar language. Knowing how they differ in detail can prompt us to tune into those details. Knowing what is rare cross-linguistically can ensure that unusual features are richly documented and prominent in descriptions. But if documentation and description are limited to filling in typological checklists, not only will much of the essence of each language be missed, but the field of typology will also suffer, as new variables and correlations will fail to surface, and our understanding of deeper factors behind cross-linguistic similarities and differences will not progress.

John Benjamins, 2015

The volume the readers hold in their hands focuses on valence-changing categories in the Zapotec languages-a group of closely related Mesoamerican languages, which are spoken by nearly half-a-million people and constitute one of the branches of the Oto-Manguean language family. The present volume offers of course a valuable addendum to the ample database of transitivity and valence-changing, and, with this, it might pass unnoticed among dozens of studies dealing with this particular domain of the linguistic system,-quite a popular topic of linguistic research. But the contribution of this book does not amount to this addendum-it offers much more to linguists. In order to clarify this point, it might be advisable to take a closer look at the stateof-affairs in linguistic typology. The last decades are marked with considerable progress in the typological study of several linguistic categories. The voice-and valence-related categories, such as causative, applicative or reciprocal, are not exceptional, instantiating probably one of the most flowering domains and one of the favourite objects of study within this branch of linguistics. Our knowledge of valence-changing categories as well as, to put it in more general terms, the domain of transitivity oppositions, is accumulated in such works as Lazard (1998), Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds) 2000, Kittilä (2002), Naess (2007), Nichols, Peterson & Barnes (2004), to mention just a few, let alone such impressive compendia as Nedjalkov et al. (2007), a five-volume encyclopaedia of reciprocals. Evidence gathered in this field creates a solid basis for understanding the structure and functioning of these linguistic categories, their status within the linguistic system and their interaction with other domains. This pertains, foremost, to the synchronic properties of these categories. There is, however, a regrettable imbalance between synchronic and diachronic typological research in the field. The results achieved in the domain of diachronic typology are much more limited. The mechanisms and scenarios of the rise, development and decline of linguistic categories mostly remain on the periphery of typological research.

Linguistic Typology, 2016

1990

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. © Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Toward a typology of European languages / edited by Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini, Claude Buridant. p. cm.-(Empirical approaches to language typology ; 8) Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index. ISBN 0-89925-588-4 (alk. paper) 1. Europe-Languages.

The aim of AMERICAN QUA RTERLY is to aid in gIVIng a sense of direction to studies in the culture of the United States, past and present. Editors and contributors therefore concern themselves not only with the areas of American life which they know best but with the relation of those areas to the entire American scene and to world society, AMERICAN QUARTERLY is published by the University of Pennsylvania In cooperation with the American Studies Association.