Aim of the project

The aim of the CorTypo project is the elaboration of an innovative system of linguistic annotation of natural language corpora in lesser-described spoken languages, in view of testing linguistic hypotheses on spontaneous discourse data, in a typological perspective.
In order to achieve this goal a number of fundamental theoretical questions need to be resolved with respect to language form and language functions. Crucially, the project addresses the question of what kind of theoretical apparatus is required for the comparison of languages displaying different formal means and different functions. The approach chosen within the project is the Systems Interactions framework developed by Zygmunt Frajzyngier.

By implementing theoretical solutions into corpus-design and database-design, the project provides the basis for the empirical testing and falsification of hypotheses, and allows the elaboration of new hypotheses on language structure and cross-linguistic comparison. By proposing solutions to the problem of linguistic interoperability, it paves the way for large-scale typological work based on first-hand natural language data.

Innovative nature of the project

1. an annotation of sound-indexed texts that is based on the formal means existing in a given language, including prosodic means, linear orders, and phonological and morphological marking allowing the determination of syntactic and functional units in the language;

2. the creation of a functional database linked to the corpus. The database contains complex information about the functions grammaticalized in each language and the forms which code those functions, as well as terminological information and definitions. The database is linked to the corpus through a query engine so that forms, and ultimately contextualized examples, can be retrieved.


Anderson, Lloyd B. 1982. The ‘perfect’ as a universal and as a language-particular category. In: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics, 227-264. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In: Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: The linguistic encoding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, 273-312.

Bickel, B. & S. Stoll. 2008. Quantitative Analysis of DOBES Corpora Using R. DOBES Workshop on Language Documentation Methods, Nijmegen, June 13, 2008.

Corbett, Greville, Norman M. Fraser and Scott McGlashan (eds). 1993: Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, David. 2003. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 5th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dixon, R.M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory Vol. and 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dryer, Matthew S. 2011. Definite Articles. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 37. Available online at Accessed on 2011-10-12.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Jan Mycielski. 1998. On some fundamental problems of mathematical linguistics. In Carlos Martin-Vide, ed., Mathematical and computational analysis of natural language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295-310.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Erin Shay. 2003. Explaining language structure through systems interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Eric Johnston with Adrian Edwards. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. to appear. Non-aprioristic typology as a discovery tool. In Functional-Historical Approaches to Explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey, eds. Tim Thornes, Erik Andvik, Gwen Hyslop and Joana Jansen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt.1993. A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer.

Haspelmath, M. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11/1, 119-132.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86, 3, 663-687.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. On interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (reply to Newmeyer. Language 86, 3, 696-699.

Izre’el & Mettouchi, draft, Representation of Speech in CorpAfroAs: Transcriptional Strategies and Prosodic Units.

Lazard, Gilbert. 2004. On the status of linguistics with particular regard to typology. The Linguistic Review 21:389-411.

Marouzeau, J. 1951.Lexique de terminologie linguistique. Paris.

Matthews, Peter. 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newmeyer, F.J. 2007. Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11/1, 133-157.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86, 3, 688-695.

Nichols, J. 2007. What, if anything, is typology? Linguistic Typology 11/1, 231-238.

Seiler, Hansjakob. 1995. Cognitive-conceptual structure and linguistic encoding: language universals and typology in the UNITYP framework. In Shibatani and Bynon 1995: 273-326.