Walking the line: Balancing description, argumentation and theory in academic grammar writing

This chapter explores how to incorporate linguistic typology, argumentation, and theoretical innovation into a reference grammar. It provides recommendations on how to produce a balanced grammar that is firmly grounded in theory, responsible to the unique structures of the language, and comprehensible now and over time. Linguistic typology provides a set of widely recognized linguistic categories used in the classification of grammatical patterns. These can be taken as starting points from which the structures of the language can be compared, contrasted, explored, and explained, profiling the unique shapes of language-particular categories. Argumentation for particular analyses provides clarification and explanation, although excessive argumentation can obscure descriptive facts. Simply asserting facts is appropriate for lower-level linguistic features, simple canonical structures, or uncontroversial elements or their functions. Argumentation is appropriate when structures differ from typologically-expected patterns, when the analysis counters descriptions in the literature, and in cases of multiple interpretations of a structure. Grammar writing immerses researchers in the structure of a language, revealing new vistas of understanding and novel ways of interpreting structure. Theoretically innovative analyses that reflect these insights can be incorporated as long as they are motivated, well-explained, and balanced by a typologically-informed descriptive base. 1. INTRODUCTION. An academic reference grammar is a complex study which can be enriched by incorporating diachronic, ethnographic, and theoretical dimensions. The grammar writer must determine how much he or she can incorporate these dimensions and still achieve the primary goal of presenting the facts of the language in an accessible and interpretable way. For example, inclusion of excessive diachronic discussion can obscure the synchronic details and produce a study that is primarily historical; this is clearly a worthy endeavor, but one with a different function and goals than a descriptive reference grammar. The same is true for theory: a grammar that is devoid of deeper observations lacks richness and depth; on the other hand, grammars with too much theoretical machinery will be dated and obscure to anyone not trained within that theoretical paradigm. It is also true for argumentation: while argumentation provides invaluable depth to the analysis, excessive argumentation can be tedious and frustrating for the reader. This chapter thus addresses a practical question: how does one incorporate typological analysis, structural argumentation, and theoretical innovation into a reference grammar while still presenting the descriptive facts in a clear and accessible manner? Or, phrased differently, how can a grammar writer do justice to the language-specific richness and variety of structural categories without being either straight-jacketed by typological and theoretical convention or overrun by it? It is all about finding balance. Section 1 of this chapter addresses linguistic typology. Specifically, it discusses how to balance the typological classification of linguistic forms with the imperative to describe