[Lingtyp] What do glossing labels stand for?

Everett, Daniel DEVERETT at bentley.edu
Wed Jan 27 12:12:50 UTC 2016


These are all excellent points (as many points in this long discussion have been).

Cumulatively, they all show why we need grammars, not merely text collections. A grammar is in essence a long narrative on how a specialist interprets structures, meanings, sounds, pragmatics, and their interaction with culture (in my opinion) in a particular language. From a practical perspective, we are unlikely to get more than one narrative per language, though obviously multiple narratives would be better (i.e. either multiple grammars or, better yet, grammars written by teams that included linguist, psycholinguist, and anthropologist - ideally one of these would be a native speaker, but certainly the community should be consulted as the grammar narrative proceeds). Those narratives should be linked to corpora ideally. But perhaps at least as important as corpora would be experiments designed to test or evaluate different plausible analyses. Each of these narratives should be a thick description, in the sense of Ryle (and later Geertz). If the narrative includes a full description of distribution and meaning, then typologists have plenty to work with even if none of the terms match the terms of the typologist. Others have made similar points. And we shouldn’t neglect Bob Dixon’s oft-made point that even typologists should do fieldresearch to better understand the grammar-writing process (recognizing that this is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for good typology).

The interdisciplinary team approach to writing grammars doesn’t require that each member of the team actually go to the field at the same time, though the field experience is ultimately vital to acquiring the subjective feel for the language that is vital for the art and science of grammar-writing.

None of this is algorithmic. The art aspect of field research cannot be overlooked. (http://www.amazon.com/Fieldwork-Harry-Wolcott-University-Oregon/dp/0761991018)

We need multiple interlocutors to produce thick narrative descriptions, followed by the commentaries and interaction with typologists for understanding to advance. All of the considerations brought forward in this list assume grammars of high quality. That’s why I suggest, unrealistically in most cases, though not all, interdisciplinary team work in grammar-writing.

Dan





On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Volker Gast <volker.gast at uni-jena.de<mailto:volker.gast at uni-jena.de>> wrote:


With respect to glossing in general, I think that 'Advanced glossing' as proposed by HH Lieb and S Drude for the DOBES-programme makes a lot of sense (though the following description contains some unnecessary polemics):

http://dobes.mpi.nl/documents/Advanced-Glossing1.pdf

Lieb and Drude try to get away from the item-and-arrangement ideology that still underlies glossing conventions in typology. Category labels are clearly language-specific. (But then, the format targets language documentation, not typological studies.)

I would also regard the Leipzig Glossing Rules as a useful standard for abbreviations and the 'orthography' of glosses. And I agree that most glosses used in typological studies are no more than "reading aids", as Johanna seemed to imply. If they were to have any theoretical significance, or if they were to be interpretable in some way, we should at least indicate what combines with what within a word, and what relates to what (or what takes scope over what). For instance, in

adam-lar-a
man-PL-DAT

there seems to be a hierarchical structure implied:
[adam-lar]-a

'-lar' indicates a property of (the denotation of) 'adam', and '-a' indicates a property of (the denotation of) 'adam-lar'. There's probably no constituent '-lar-a' in that word, but that's not recoverable from the gloss.

Advanced glossing provides for word-internal structure and relations between the constituents of a word (though in a somewhat inelegant way).

Volker

Am 27.01.2016 um 11:09 schrieb Hedvig Skirgård:
Thanks Sebastian, I always appreciate those papers :).

Just to be even clearer from my part as well, by a database I simply here mean a non-linear source of information with multiple connections possible. A wiki for example would qualify.

/Hedvig

Hedvig Skirgård
PhD Candidate
The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity
ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
School of Culture, History and Language
College of Asia and the Pacific
Rm 4203, H.C. Coombs Building (#9)
The Australian National University
Acton ACT 2601
Australia

Co-char of Public Relations
International Olympiad of Linguistics
www.ioling.org<http://www.ioling.org/>

On 27 January 2016 at 18:54, Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de<mailto:sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>> wrote:


On 01/27/2016 02:18 AM, Stef Spronck wrote:
> Hi Hedvig,
>
>
>
> Just to respond to your last point about preferring databases over grammar books: as someone originally trained as a typologist and then writing a fieldwork-based thesis, I agree that that experience changes the way in which you read grammars entirely. I also agree that there can never be enough collaboration between fieldworkers and typologists.
>
>
>
> But I don't think we should conflate the rightly increased focus on the accountability of grammar writers, resulting in the professionalisation of archiving practices, with the goals of grammatical description. The maturation of language documentation as a discipline, separate from language description, following Himmelmann's work has been an extremely important development. But linked corpora, as the product of language documentation, are not grammars. I think that a 'traditonal book grammar' as an intermediary between data repositories and typology has value, exactly because it explicitly serves to interpret the labels in our glosses and tries to account for a language as a system. This does introduce a distinction between the interpretation of glosses in desciptive grammars and in typology, as the many interesting contributions to the present discussion aim to address.

+1 Stef

It is important to make the distinction between a grammar as a "set of
rules" and a grammar as a didactic text genre (the grammatical
description).  These have different communicative goals and different
audiences.
The "set of rules" part can be modeled as a typological database. The
didactic part is normally not modeled, but running prose text. Further
information about this distinction and about ways to represent both
types in computers can be found in the following publications

Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2008 Electronic Reference Grammars for Typology:
Challenges and Solutions. JLDC 2(2). 296-324
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/4352/nordhoff.pdf?sequence=7

Nordhoff, Sebastian (ed.). 2012. Electronic Grammaticography (LD&C
Special Publication No. 4). Manoa: University of Hawai‘i Press.
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/?p=263

Nordhoff, Sebastian and Harald Hammarström (2014).
Archiving grammatical descriptions. In David Nathan & Peter K. Austin
(eds) Language Documentation and Description, vol 12: Special Issue
on Language Documentation and Archiving. London: SOAS. pp. 164-
186  http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/143

Best
Sebastian




>
>
>
> Best,
> Stef
>
>
>
>
>
> Stef Spronck
>
> KU Leuven, Linguistics, research unit FunC<<http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/func>http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/func> | KU Leuven profile<http://http//www.kuleuven.be/wieiswie/nl/person/00098925> | Personal website<http://people.anu.edu.au/stef.spronck/>
>
> ________________________________
> Van: Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>] namens Hedvig Skirgård [hedvig.skirgard at gmail.com<mailto:hedvig.skirgard at gmail.com>]
> Verzonden: woensdag 27 januari 2016 1:31
> Aan: Östen Dahl
> CC: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Onderwerp: Re: [Lingtyp] What do glossing labels stand for?
>
> Thank you everyone, in particular Nordhoff for that very clear list :D. It's exactly what I was thinking too.
>
> The Leipzig glossing rules do state that they are not absolute rules, but merely summing up already existing conventions. I.e. you can't really "apply the Leipzig glossing rules" without giving any more information, but just use it as a help in formulating your own glossing rules. Right? Or am I misreading it?
>
> I agree with Dahl though, a paragraph on comparative concepts vs lg-spec descriptive (or whatever terms you want to use) would be useful.
>
> Intertwined with this is that lg-spec authors of grammars often envisage certain readers, like typologists and sometimes look for "guidance" in typological literature - an enterprise that is problematic like we've discussed. Furthermore, there's the potential issues with expecting PhD students to write a grammar (sketch) in four years and with a quite restrictive page count.
>
> I've worked in a grammatical survey the last few years on african languages, and interacted a lot with fieldworkers working on those languages (extremely rewarding!!) and discussed their manuscripts with them. (This is something I highly-highly encourage every grammar-reading typologist to do if they aren't already). From my relatively limited experience reading grammars so far (compared to say Dahl or Dryer) there are some things that I've found more helpful as a reader and tried to suggest to the writers. Basically I'd like them to be longer, more repetitive, more examples and explicit in more assumptions. Preferably, for me, I'd like a grammar not to be book really, but rather a database with linked corpora. In connection to that, I'd like for there to be better standards in publishing corpora and getting proper credit for it.
>
> Might I also recommend this issue of LD&C that brings up new methods in grammar writing?
> http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/?p=263
>
> /Hedvig
>
>
> Hedvig Skirgård
> PhD Candidate
> The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity
>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
>
> School of Culture, History and Language
> College of Asia and the Pacific
>
> Rm 4203, H.C. Coombs Building (#9)
> The Australian National University
>
> Acton ACT 2601
>
> Australia
>
> Co-char of Public Relations
>
> International Olympiad of Linguistics
>
> www.ioling.org<http://www.ioling.org/><<http://www.ioling.org/>http://www.ioling.org<http://www.ioling.org/>>
>
> On 27 January 2016 at 09:14, Östen Dahl <<mailto:oesten at ling.su.se>oesten at ling.su.se<mailto:oesten at ling.su.se><mailto:<mailto:oesten at ling.su.se>oesten at ling.su.se<mailto:oesten at ling.su.se>>> wrote:
> OK, do I understand this correctly? The labels stand for language-specific categories, but normally we arbitrarily choose labels that are names of comparative concepts, without asserting "any relation between the morpheme being glossed and a comparative concept however defined (beyond the mnemonic usefulness).". But at the same time, according to the document at <https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php> https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php, the glosses are intended to "give information about the meanings and grammatical properties of individual words and parts of words". Can you do that without asserting any relation between the comparative concept identified by the label and the meaning of the item being glossed? The document says: "In many cases, either a category label or a word from the metalanguage is acceptable". Does this mean that lexical glosses are also only mnemonic?
>
> There is also a pedagogical problem here. There is no mention in the document of the distinction between descriptive categories and comparative concepts. The question is if people who write typological papers as well as those who read them understand the significance of glosses. I think there is a general tendency towards fundamentalism in most of us in the sense that we tend to take things more literally than they were intended to. So I suspect that most people who see the gloss DAT will think that it means that the author really thinks that the form in question is a dative, or at least matches some idea of what datives are like. Or that if the German word "Pferd" is glossed as 'horse', that means that it means 'horse'. In other words, it might be worth having some discussion in the document about these problems.
>
> östen
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org><mailto:<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>>] För William Croft
> Skickat: den 26 januari 2016 17:23
> Till: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org><mailto:<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Ämne: Re: [Lingtyp] What do glossing labels stand for?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Bill
>
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 1:11 AM, Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de<mailto:sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de><mailto:<mailto:sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de<mailto:sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>>> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>> - a language-specific category is a concept with a label chosen by the
>> linguist.
>> - the label is in principle arbitrary.
>> - for mnemonic reasons, a label evocative of the concept being
>> described is normally used.
>> - since some labels are rather long, it is convenient to abbreviate them.
>> - some abbreviations have several plausible expansions (SUPerlative,
>> SUPeressive, SUPine)
>> - a standardization of the match abbreviation-long label is therefore
>> useful for disambiguation purposes. This is what the Leipzig glossing
>> rules do in my opinion
>> - the Leipzig glossing rules therefore match abbreviations with common
>> concept labels. An author using a Leipzig gloss does, however, not
>> assert any relation between the morpheme being glossed and a
>> comparative concept however defined (beyond the mnemonic usefulness).
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> On 01/25/2016 09:27 PM, Östen Dahl wrote:
>>> Here is a question that I would like to pose to the members of the ALT list. If we accept the distinction between "descriptive categories" and "comparative concepts", what do the labels we use in glossing example sentences stand for - in particular, the labels defined in the Leipzig glossing rules? I have some thoughts about this myself but would like to hear what others think first.
>>> östen
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org><mailto:<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org><mailto:<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org><mailto:<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org><mailto:<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp




_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp



--
Prof. Volker Gast
English and American Studies
Ernst-Abbe-PLatz 8
D-07743 Jena

Fon: ++49 3641 9-44546
Fax: ++49 3641 9-44542

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160127/1442e528/attachment.htm>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list