Hjelmslev as a ‘forerunner’ of the semantic map method in linguistic typology

In his influential Prolegomena of a Theory of Language ([1943] 1961: 53–54) Hjelmslev used graphic representations to visualize the cross-linguistic differences as regards the designations of lexemes. These representations appear in a section that discusses how the languages of the world introduce their own discrete boundaries in (1) the phonetic continuum, (2) the morpho-syntactic functions, and (3) various semantic domains. Besides, Hjelmslev argued that, for linguistic comparison to be possible, one needs (a) to rely on forms, namely on the intrinsic articulation of each language, and not on common features (1961: 50); and (b) to use an extensional set of formulae, which should serve as a neutral base in order to grasp the specificities of those forms and to compare them on safer, general ground. Such an approach was fleshed out in Hjelmslev’s essay La Catégorie des Cas (1935; 1937). In this talk, we compare Hjelmslev’s approach to a modern method in linguistic typology, the semantic map model (Haspelmath 1997; 2003; Cysouw et al. 2010; van der Auwera 2013), which crucially also resorts to visual representations. While practitioners of the semantic map model regularly mention Hjelmslev’s examples, they often fail to acknowledge the significance and impact of the theoretical framework summarised above. To put it bluntly, the points on the maps (i.e., the cross-linguistic invariants) are usually defined a priori and loosely (in lexical typology, see for instance the Concepticon [List et al. 2016]), which impedes semantic maps from being an actual tool for analysis, remaining a mere visualisation technique (Malchukov 2010). As a consequence, the universalist (and sometimes cognitive-oriented) claims of the semantic map model are not always solid. We show that Hjelmslev’s legacy, which is directly acknowledged by foremost scholars of the semantic map model (e.g., Haspelmath 2003: 237–238), can continue to benefit linguistic typology by suggesting avenues to overcome current methodological challenges, and by giving further directions for the field.