July 18, 2004 Journal article Open Access

Haspelmath, Martin

JSON Export

{
  "files": [
    {
      "links": {
        "self": "https://zenodo.org/api/files/1f1df7f6-94e0-41ca-9939-eeb734ce667c/Haspelmath2004.pdf"
      }, 
      "checksum": "md5:74ea692c15b628dae921218781154196", 
      "bucket": "1f1df7f6-94e0-41ca-9939-eeb734ce667c", 
      "key": "Haspelmath2004.pdf", 
      "type": "pdf", 
      "size": 248437
    }
  ], 
  "owners": [
    26856
  ], 
  "doi": "10.1075/sl.28.3.06has", 
  "stats": {
    "version_unique_downloads": 252.0, 
    "unique_views": 303.0, 
    "views": 318.0, 
    "version_views": 319.0, 
    "unique_downloads": 251.0, 
    "version_unique_views": 304.0, 
    "volume": 64593620.0, 
    "version_downloads": 261.0, 
    "downloads": 260.0, 
    "version_volume": 64842057.0
  }, 
  "links": {
    "doi": "https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.3.06has", 
    "latest_html": "https://zenodo.org/record/831412", 
    "bucket": "https://zenodo.org/api/files/1f1df7f6-94e0-41ca-9939-eeb734ce667c", 
    "badge": "https://zenodo.org/badge/doi/10.1075/sl.28.3.06has.svg", 
    "html": "https://zenodo.org/record/831412", 
    "latest": "https://zenodo.org/api/records/831412"
  }, 
  "created": "2017-07-18T08:46:06.385254+00:00", 
  "updated": "2020-01-20T16:25:03.455431+00:00", 
  "conceptrecid": "831411", 
  "revision": 8, 
  "id": 831412, 
  "metadata": {
    "access_right_category": "success", 
    "doi": "10.1075/sl.28.3.06has", 
    "description": "<p>I argue that the following two assumptions are incorrect: (i) The properties of the innate Universal Grammar can be discovered by comparing language systems, and (ii) functional explanation of language structure presupposes a &ldquo;correct&rdquo;, i.e. cognitively realistic, description. Thus, there are two ways in which linguistic explanation does not presuppose linguistic description.</p>\n\n<p>The generative program of building cross-linguistic generalizations into the hypothesized Universal Grammar cannot succeed because the actually observed generalizations are typically one-way implications or implicational scales, and because they typically have exceptions. The cross-linguistic generalizations are much more plausibly due to functional factors.</p>\n\n<p>I distinguish sharply between &ldquo;phenomenological description&rdquo; (which makes no claims about mental reality) and &ldquo;cognitively realistic descrip- tion&rdquo;, and I show that for functional explanation, phenomenological description is sufficient.</p>", 
    "license": {
      "id": "CC-BY-4.0"
    }, 
    "title": "Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description?", 
    "journal": {
      "volume": "28", 
      "issue": "3", 
      "pages": "554-579", 
      "title": "Studies in Language"
    }, 
    "relations": {
      "version": [
        {
          "count": 1, 
          "index": 0, 
          "parent": {
            "pid_type": "recid", 
            "pid_value": "831411"
          }, 
          "is_last": true, 
          "last_child": {
            "pid_type": "recid", 
            "pid_value": "831412"
          }
        }
      ]
    }, 
    "keywords": [
      "language universals, linguistic typology, Universal Grammar, functional explanation"
    ], 
    "publication_date": "2004-07-18", 
    "creators": [
      {
        "affiliation": "Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology", 
        "name": "Haspelmath, Martin"
      }
    ], 
    "access_right": "open", 
    "resource_type": {
      "subtype": "article", 
      "type": "publication", 
      "title": "Journal article"
    }
  }
}