Volume 8 Issue 1 (2010)
DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.360
Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters
to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display
for requirements to accurately reproduce this page.
Semantic Maps as Helpers in the Quest for Generic
Categories
Comment on ‘Semantic Maps and the Identification of
Cross-Linguistic Generic Categories: Evidentiality and its Relation to Epistemic
Modality’ by Kasper Boye (2010)
Ljuba Veselinova
Stockholm University
Boye (2010) addresses a very important point, namely, the
definition of the concept “category” in functionally-oriented
cross-linguistic theory. The notion of a category becomes a thorny issue any
time some serious theoretical reasoning is attempted in cross-linguistic work.
What becomes immediately apparent during such theorizing is not only the
complete lack of generally accepted definitions of the concept
“category” but also, very often, widespread unawareness of this
deficiency. Boye’s attending to this inadequacy, in turn, makes his paper
a true contribution to linguistic theory. The author argues that semantic maps
are a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, way of defining the notion
“generic category” in a coherent manner. To illustrate his point,
Boye presents a semantic analysis of evidentiality and epistemic modality. The
theoretical reasoning is empirically grounded in a fairly well-spread
typological sample of 55 languages, through which the author aims to elucidate
the core senses of the grams studied.
However, I have a question regarding the methodological justification
for utilizing semantic maps in general, or their raison d-être, as it
were. What are the reasons for assuming that semantic maps provide a better
approach to defining the notion “category” than, say, prototype
theory? Furthermore, Boye tends to label generalizations as
“trivial” or “non-trivial” very frequently throughout
the paper. In fact, one is left with the impression that a substantial part of
his argumentation is actually based on classifying various facts according to
their “triviality“. It is not always clear, however, where he draws
the line between trivial and non-trivial matters. I think that an explicit
definition of this distinction would be needed.
Reference
Boye, Kasper. 2010. Semantic maps and the identification of
cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to Epistemic
Modality. Linguistic Discovery, this issue. doi:10.1349/ps1.1537-0852.a.344
Author’s contact information:
Ljuba Veselinova
Department of Linguistics
Stockholm University
S-106 91 Stockholm
Sweden
ljuba@ling.su.se
|