Concerning WALS

Mon Nov 10 14:22:07 UTC 2008

Bernd,

Let me emphasize that (1) what I am talking about is a matter of personal taste;
and (2) I'm not questioning the value of explanatory work.  I have done work both
in constructing theories about what languages are like and in explaining why they
are that way, and while each are a source of satisfaction in their own way,
ultimately I find the former more satisfying.  I understand perfectly well why
there are others who find the latter more satisfying.  The field benefits from
having both sorts of linguists.

My email was in response to Tom's original email that seemed to interpret the
difference, not as a matter of personal taste, but as a matter of difference in
belief.  (I say "Tom's original email", since in a response he sent just to me,
he did recognize that a difference in temperament was at least part of the
picture.)  And his email seemed not to recognize that there is a large body of
theoretical work in typology that essentially involves theories of what languages
are like rather than explanations for why they are that way.

So to answer your question, Bernd, while I get more personal satisfaction from
theories about what languages are like, I don't stop there.  I am interested in
functional explanations for why they are that way, I engage in such work myself
to some extent, and I certainly hope that others do as well.

Now I recognize that there is another very different body of work that could also
be characterized as being about what languages are like, namely work in
generative grammar, that does not aim at going beyond that (apart from
attributing things to innateness).  But functionalists should not let such work
give the idea of theories about what languages are like a "bad name".  

Nor should we accept the generative linguists' view of work in typology that
characterizes what languages are like as atheoretical.  Too many typologists and
functionalists seem to accept that view.

Matthew

On Fri 11/07/08  9:01 PM , Bernd Heine bernd.heine at uni-koeln.de sent:
> Matthew,
> I am a little bit confused. In  your understanding: What is 'functional
> linguistics'? Does it have any meaning? Is it just a label? And how 
> would you relate your own work to this term?
> Bernd
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > I think you're imagining a difference in belief
> where there isn't one. > There is no belief behind WALS that typology can
> be theory-neutral (in > any sense of "theory") and no sense in
> which WALS is based on > Bloomfieldian empiricism.  If there's a
> difference in anything, it's > simply a difference in taste and
> interest.>
> > But let me address one, ultimately
> terminological, issue.  You seem to > think that theory means explanation.  But the
> theoretical questions > that I'm most interested in are questions of the
> form "What are > languages like?" I'm interested in theories
> about the range of > typological variation and the limits on this
> variation.  I'm also > interested in theories about why languages are
> the way they are, but > for me those questions are more like a hobby
> than the core of what I > do as a linguist.  There are a number of reasons
> for this.  For one > thing, theories about why languages are the way
> they are "neigh > meaningless" if what they are explaining
> isn't true or even if what > they purport to explain is something that we
> don't know yet if it's > true or not.  There is a huge body of literature
> from the past 40 > years that falls into this category. 
> Unfortunately, Tom, that > includes some of your work.  For another, even
> if the explanandum is > something that we can be fairly confident of,
> hypotheses about why > languages are the way they are ultimately just
> that, hypotheses.  All > too often, they are untestable and unfalsifiable
> and always will be.  > Now I don't want to sound like a Martin Joos and
> say that we shouldn't > be asking such questions or trying to answer
> them.  I'm just > explaining why I personally am more interested
> in theoretical > questions about what languages are like.  But
> that's ultimately just a > matter of taste, not really any different from
> why I chose to be a > linguist rather than something else.  I'm glad
> that there are others > whose tastes have led them to devote their
> energy to questions of > explanation, especially you, I might add, since
> in my opinion no > linguist has come up with more interesting
> hypotheses over the past 35 > years than you have.  But let's not confuse
> these differences in taste > with differences in belief.
> >
> > But I do object to your trying to use the term
> "theory" exclusively > for questions of explanation.  I think you do
> Greenberg a disservice > when you say "Greenberg's work in typology
> has been theoretical from > the very start, in at least three senses I am
> aware of: (a) the work > on markedness of categories; (b) The work on the
> diachronic > foundations of typology; (c) His later forays
> into diachrony and > evolution."  You miss a very important
> fourth sense: his work on what > languages are like. Greenberg loved reading
> grammars.  His unique > contribution to the field resulted from the fact
> that he was > interested in what languages were like in a way
> that none of his > contemporaries were.
> >
> > Of course, you're free to use the word
> "theory" as you wish and you're > free to object to how I use the word.  But
> that's not a substantive > issue either.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > --On Thursday, November 6, 2008 10:06 AM -0700
> Tom Givon > <tgivon at uor
> egon.edu> wrote:>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think Martin, perhaps inadvertently,
> articulated the concern that some>> of us have felt about the WALS project from
> its very inception--it's>> relentless a-theoretical perspective. To me,
> this project has chosen to>> follow the old empiricist lisonception  (vis
> Bloomfield,  Carnap, etc.)>> that facts are, somehow, theory-
> independent, and that one can do a>> theory-free typology. This is done by two
> implicit moves: First, by>> defining grammatical phenomena purely
> structurally, rather than grouping>> them by the* grammaticalized functional
> domains* that underlie them And>> second, by leaving *diachrony* out of the
> equation. To my mind, the>> geographical distribution of grammatical
> phenomena is neigh meaningless>> without considering the diachrony of the
> particular languages (or>> families) in the region. It is of course
> true that a project could >> choose
> >> to be less ambitious, and simply give us
> "pure facts", perhaps in>> anticipation that theory-oriented people
> would later on use those facts>> to build their theories. But I have to agree
> with Hanson (and, for that>> matter, Chomsky, perish the thought...) that
> in science facts are never>> theory-neutral, and that to propose to do a
> science of "pure facts", >> even
> >> as a preliminary exercise to  subsequent
> theory-building, is the height>> of self delusion.
> >>
> >> Cheers,  TG
> >>
> >> =========
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> >>> Dear Esa,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot for writing this detailed
> commentary on the World Atlas>>> of Language Structures (WALS). This is
> the most detailed review that>>> has been written, and we are very
> grateful for it. Many of the>>> individual points of criticism are
> well-taken, and the WALS authors>>> should take them into account in future
> editions. (We're planning>>> future online editions of WALS, see the
> free online version at>>> http://wals.info.)>>>
> >>> Just one comment, concerning one of your
> major points:>>>
> >>> You write (p. 1): "The reader of
> WALS is encouraged ... to seek>>> *correlations* between the results of
> different chapters, and this>>> clearly presupposes a high degree of
> compatibility between the views>>> of different authors."
> >>>
> >>> Well, I would say: To find true
> correlations, the chapters must be>>> sufficiently correct, but they don't
> necessarily have to be very>>> compatible, certainly not in
> terminology. Suppose you want to link>>> case-marking and plural marking, and ask
> whether affixal case-marking>>> (as opposed to adpositional marking)
> correlates with affixal plural>>> marking (as opposed to pluralization by
> number words). Then even if>>> the two chapters use different
> definitions of "affixal", you might>>> still get a true correlation. But it
> will of course be a correlation>>> between affixal(1) case-marking and
> affixal(2) pluralization, not>>> between "affixal (tout court)
> case-marking and pluralization".>>>
> >>> My view is that typological definitions
> are inherently>>> linguist-specific, and as such the
> typological concepts of different>>> linguists are bound to be different
> (unless a Chomsky-like figure>>> comes along and imposes widespread
> "agreement by authority"). So care>>> has to be taken in interpreting WALS
> correlations, of course. But this>>> is not a flaw in the design of the
> project.>>>
> >>> Typology cannot be based on some kind of
> "definitive" set of>>> grammatical concepts, because there is
> no such list (or if there is,>>> i.e. if UG exists after all, we're so
> far away from knowing what it is>>> that it's irrelevant for practical
> purposes). Each language has its>>> own categories, so typologists
> necessarily have to make up their>>> comparative concepts that give them the
> most interesting results.>>>
> >>> (For more on this, see my paper
> "Comparative concepts and descriptive>>> categories in cross-linguistic
> studies", on my website under "Papers>>> and handouts".)
> >>>
> >>> Martin Haspelmath
> >>>
> >>> Esa Itkonen wrote:
> >>>> Dear Funknetters: By all accounts,
> World Atlas of Language Structures>>>> (= WALS) is a monumental
> achievement. Still, two intrepid Finnish>>>> linguists (= myself & Anneli
> Pajunen) have ventured to write a>>>> 30-page commentary on it, available
> on the homepage below. Enjoy!>>>>
> >>>> Esa Itkonen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Prof. Bernd Heine
> Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
> Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
> 3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
> Tokyo, 183-8534 JAPAN
> Phone: 042-330-5664
> Fax:      042-330-5610
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 