[Lingtyp] Lexical nominalisation of property concepts

David Gil gil at shh.mpg.de
Sat Jun 25 23:26:33 EDT 2016


Dear Seino,

The issues you raise are of course valid, and of general relevance to 
our field; they're anything but specific to the particular case of 
adjectives in Mandarin.  Indeed, I have spent much of the last couple of 
decades arguing a very similar point to the one that you make but with 
respect to colloquial varieties of Indonesian, which are notoriously 
difficult to obtain reliable data on, for reasons similar to those which 
you mention for Mandarin.  However, when engaging in typology, we are 
forced to sacrifice depth for breadth, and there is nothing wrong with 
that provided we are clear and consistent with respect to our 
methodology.  In the case at hand, what is important is that I looked at 
Mandarin, Indonesian, and all of the other languages through the same 
eyes — and found a significant difference between "Mandarin-type" and 
"Indonesian-type" languages with respect to the criterion in question.  
Clearly WALS data should not be considered as the final word on 
anything.  WALS should be construed as an invitation to further work, be 
it correcting erroneous data points, filling in empty data cells, 
defining features in alternative ways that may be more insightful, and 
of course seeking explanations for the areal and typological patterns 
that emerge.

Best,

David




On 26/06/2016 00:36, Seino van Breugel wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I don't know how many and what type of consultants you consulted about 
> examples that you offered of unmarked property words in argument 
> position in Mandarin, but I think that the fact that they consistently 
> rejected your examples is not a very valid argument to say that the 
> examples were grammatically incorrect. In my experience, it happens 
> all the time in fieldwork that native speakers reject example 
> utterances during elicitation, even though they use them all the time 
> in real, unchecked life; they are just not aware of it. Due to any 
> number of reasons, when confronted with certain utterances, they 
> reject them. For example, speakers may reject an utterance because it 
> deviates from some kind of perceived standard, and that they feel 
> that, in order to show their knowledge of the standard, they should 
> reject them, especially when the person asking them is a very learned 
> person. The point is that, in my opinion, elicitation alone should not 
> be taken as the basis of a grammatical description. Elicitation should 
> only be used as a tool to gain some deeper insight into the language 
> after ample un-elicited, or spontaneous speech has been collected and 
> analysed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Seino
>
> Dr. Seino van Breugel
> https://independent.academia.edu/SeinovanBreugel
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:17 PM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de 
> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
>
>     Randy,
>
>     Thanks for the very nice presentation of textual examples
>     involving the various combinations of /de/ with the word for
>     'red'.  Of the examples that you cite, it is (2) which constitutes
>     an apparent counterexample to my WALS-map classification of
>     Mandarin as requiring a marker in order for a property-denoting
>     word to occur in argument position.  Note, however, that in the
>     given context, a similar construction is possible also for
>     English: you could perhaps have translated (2) as 'See red before
>     giving birth'.  Given the existence of constructions such as the
>     latter translation, some have questioned my characterization of
>     English in the same WALS map, arguing that adjectives can indeed
>     occur in unmarked form in argument position in English too.  This
>     is the typologist's predicament, and why typologists often get as
>     much flack as they do from language specialists.  Sure,
>     constructions such as these occur in English, however, they are
>     significantly more constrained than in a language such as Italian,
>     Hebrew, or Malay, in which they occur much more freely.  To do
>     typology, you need to posit arbitrary cut-off points, and for
>     better or worse, I chose to classify languages which allow
>     unmarked adjectives to occur in limited contexts such as English
>     as belonging to the same type as languages which do not allow them
>     at all, rather than as belonging to the same type as languages
>     that allow them freely.  In large part this was for practical
>     reasons; I felt more confident in my ability to get the facts
>     right using this cut-off point than the alternative one.  And
>     indeed, your data from Mandarin vindicate my decision.  My
>     Mandarin data was based on elicitation, and perhaps because I am
>     not an expert in Mandarin, I did not encounter, and hence was not
>     aware of, constructions such as that in (2).  Now if I had chosen
>     a simple yes/no cut-off point, I would now, on the basis of your
>     comments, have to amend my classification of Mandarin, and, much
>     worse, I would be increasingly suspicious of my classification of
>     many other languages in the sample.  However, given that my
>     Mandarin consultants consistently rejected the examples that I
>     offered them of unmarked property words in argument position, I
>     remain confident that my classification of Mandarin in the WALS
>     map is the correct one.
>
>     Best,
>
>     David
>
>     On 23/06/2016 16:55, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:
>>     Hi David,
>>     Sorry to take so long to get back you.
>>
>>     Yes, it is fine to "observe two entities, call them A and B, and
>>     then say Hey, A and B are alike *with respect to* property X”,
>>     but my argument was that they are not alike in terms of property X.
>>
>>     In terms of what you said about word classes, /de/ is not
>>     required in Mandarin for an adjective (stative verb) or any other
>>     verb to be used as a referential phrase; as I argued in my paper
>>     arguing for a constructionalist approach to Chinese,* it is
>>     simply a matter of where it appears in the construction. In the
>>     case of adjectives, there is a difference in the use or not of
>>     /de/ with the adjective: without it it would probably be more
>>     often used to refer to the quality as an entity, but with it it
>>     would probably be used to refer to an object with that quality.
>>     Below are five natural examples are each type. In 1 we have it
>>     without /de,/ used to refer to a type of red. In 2, also without
>>     de, it refers to a red object, blood. In 3 it is used with de as
>>     a headless relative clause, referring to the hands. In 4, with
>>     de, it refers to the quality of being red. In 5, with de, it
>>     refers to the red ring of skin, which might also be seen as a
>>     headless relative.
>>
>>     1 中国红到底是什么红?http://daxianggonghui.baijia.baidu.com
>>     /article/49119
>>     Zhongguo hong daodi shi shenme hong
>>     China        red   afterall cop what red
>>     ‘So what is China red?'
>>
>>     2 产前见红 http://www.yaolan.com/zhishi/chanqianjianhong/
>>     chan qian jian hong
>>     give.birth before see red
>>     ‘See blood before giving birth’
>>
>>
>>           3 白的雪,青的葱,红红的是她的小手
>>           http://tiku.21cnjy.com/quest/gzN2U__QMT4O.html
>>
>>
>>     bai-de xue, qing-de cong, hong-hong-de shi ta-de xiaoshou
>>     white-de snow, green-de scallion, red-red-de cop 3sg-de small-hand
>>     ‘White snow, green scallions, the red one is her small hand’
>>
>>
>>             4 关 羽脸为什 么是红的?http://iask.sina.com.cn/b
>>             /10634327.html
>>
>>     Guan Yu lian weishenme shi hong-de
>>     PN         face why           cop red-de
>>     ‘Why is Guan Yu’s face red?'
>>
>>     5宝宝嘴巴周围一圈红红的是怎么回事?
>>     http://www.babytree.com/ask/detail/42954
>>     Baobao zuiba zhouwei yi-quan hong-hong-de shi zenme hui shi?
>>     baby     mouth around  one-ring red-red-de     cop how    CL thing
>>     ‘What is the deal with the ring of redness around the baby’s mouth?’
>>
>>     *LaPolla, Randy J. 2013. "Arguments for a construction-based
>>     approach to the analysis of Chinese". In /Human Language
>>     Resources and Linguistic Typology/, Papers from the Fourth
>>     International Conference on Sinology, edited by Tseng Chiu-yu,
>>     33-57. Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
>>     http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_2013_Arguments_for_a_construction-based_approach_to_the_analysis_of_Chinese.pdf
>>
>>     So for me there are no global word classes; we need to look at
>>     the propositional functions of the elements in the particular
>>     constructions in which they appear.
>>
>>     All the best,
>>     Randy
>>
>>
>>>     On 13 Jun 2016, at 6:24 pm, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
>>>     <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Randy,
>>>
>>>     Thanks for your comments.  Two points:
>>>
>>>     With regard to whether Mandarin /de/ is a separate word or not,
>>>     your criticism is well-taken; my only defense is that that is
>>>     the way it is usually characterized, and that in a typological
>>>     survey of this scope, there is no other way of doing things
>>>     other than to rely on extant descriptions.  Except perhaps to
>>>     sidestep the issue of wordhood altogether and simply collapse
>>>     "affix" and "separate word" into a single type, which, I
>>>     suspect, is what would do now if I were doing the chapter all
>>>     over again.
>>>
>>>     But I really don't see your point when you write: "I still don’t
>>>     see what lumping together language forms that aren’t similar
>>>     into categories that make them look similar does for us." 
>>>     Surely this is the only way for rational inquiry into language
>>>     (or any other phenomenological domain) to proceed. "Similar" and
>>>     "not similar" aren't binary holistic choices, they only have
>>>     meaning in the context of particular criteria or properties.  We
>>>     observe two entities, call them A and B, and then say Hey, A and
>>>     B are alike *with respect to* property X.  The value of saying
>>>     this depends on how trivial or insightful the property X turns
>>>     out to be, ie. what further understandings X leads us towards. 
>>>     But crucially, the value of X is not negated by pointing to
>>>     properties Y, Z, W, V etc, with respect to which A and B differ.
>>>     The existence of such properties with respect to which A and B
>>>     differ is totally irrelevant to the value of property X, they do
>>>     not impinge on it in any way.
>>>
>>>     You ask "what has lumping Mandarin and English together in this
>>>     context taught us about the languages?".  Well one of the things
>>>     I've always been interested in is cross-linguistic variation
>>>     with respect to parts-of-speech inventories.  The present WALS
>>>     map addresses the issue of whether a language distinguishes
>>>     between adjectives and nouns.  (Note: I'm saying "addresses",
>>>     not "answers".) Specifically, if a language, like English or
>>>     Mandarin, needs to add a grammatical marker to an adjective in
>>>     order to give it the distributional properties of a noun, then
>>>     this provides good reason to suspect that in such languages,
>>>     adjectives and nouns constitute different word classes, defined
>>>     distributionally.  Whereas if a language, like Italian or
>>>     Hebrew, doesn't need to make use of such a marker, then perhaps
>>>     it doesn't distinguish between adjectives and nouns (as indeed
>>>     is suggested by the traditional term "substantives" that groups
>>>     the two classes together), though alternatively it could be the
>>>     case that the language in question does distinguish between
>>>     adjectives and nouns using other criteria.
>>>
>>>     So all this is relevant to English and Mandarin, regardless of
>>>     the myriad other important differences between English /one/ and
>>>     Mandarin /de.
>>>
>>>     /Best,
>>>
>>>     David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 13/06/2016 17:44, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:
>>>>     Hi David,
>>>>     Thanks for your reply. The crux may be the definition of
>>>>     Mandarin /de/ as a word (you don’t specify phonological word or
>>>>     grammatical word, but since you treat clitics—grammatical words
>>>>     that aren’t phonological words—differently, I am assuming you
>>>>     mean phonological word). It cannot appear on its own, and when
>>>>     added to another word, like /hong/, they are pronounced
>>>>     together, so it patterns like a clitic, and so is unlike
>>>>     English /one/ in that way as well (people are often thrown off
>>>>     by the fact that in Chinese each character is written
>>>>     separately, but that doesn’t mean each character is a
>>>>     phonological word).
>>>>
>>>>     And although I don’t want to start the whole debate we had in
>>>>     January again, I still don’t see what lumping together language
>>>>     forms that aren’t similar into categories that make them look
>>>>     similar does for us. Although I can see the practical
>>>>     difficulties of taking the actual facts of all the languages
>>>>     seriously, very concretely, what has lumping Mandarin and
>>>>     English together in this context taught us about the languages?
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks very much.
>>>>
>>>>     All the best,
>>>>     Randy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     On 12 Jun 2016, at 1:36 pm, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
>>>>>     <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Randy,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Yes, my chapter in WALS characterizes the English and Mandarin
>>>>>     constructions as "of the same type structurally", and yes, the
>>>>>     two constructions are different from each other in precisely
>>>>>     the ways that you describe!
>>>>>
>>>>>     That's what typology does: dividing things into classes
>>>>>     according to one set of criteria, thereby putting in to the
>>>>>     same class things that are very different according to other
>>>>>     sets of criteria.  And that's precisely what has happened
>>>>>     here.  My WALS chapter asks whether an adjective can occur on
>>>>>     its own as a noun, without any further morphosyntactic marking
>>>>>     and the answer for both English and Mandarin is the same: no. 
>>>>>     It then further asks, for languages that require such
>>>>>     morphosyntactic marking, what the formal properties of the
>>>>>     marking is, distinguishing between affixes and separate words,
>>>>>     and between forms that occur before and after their host
>>>>>     adjective.  And once again, Mandarin and English come out the
>>>>>     same, with a separate word that occurs after its host
>>>>>     adjective. That's all the WALS chapter purports to say.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Now clearly many constructions in different languages with the
>>>>>     same WALS feature values will differ from each other in myriad
>>>>>     other ways, as is the case for English and Mandarin here.  You
>>>>>     may feel that the typology proposed in the "Adjectives without
>>>>>     Nouns" WALS map overlooks what's "most important" about the
>>>>>     constructions in question, and you could indeed be right about
>>>>>     that.  I suspect, however, that an alternative "Adjective
>>>>>     without Nouns" map distinguishing between "English and
>>>>>     Mandarin types" on the basis of headedness would have been
>>>>>     impractical to produce, since it is too theory dependent, and
>>>>>     hence it would not have been possible to glean the necessary
>>>>>     information from available grammatical descriptions of a
>>>>>     sufficiently large sample of languages.  (In fact, while I
>>>>>     agree entirely with your description of the difference between
>>>>>     English and Mandarin, I bet that there are even grammatical
>>>>>     descriptions of English and Mandarin out there that would see
>>>>>     things differently.)
>>>>>
>>>>>     I hope this clarifies matters ...
>>>>>
>>>>>     David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 12/06/2016 08:20, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:
>>>>>>     Hi David,
>>>>>>     It seems from your message here and from your chapter in WALS
>>>>>>     that the English construction with /one/ and the Chinese
>>>>>>     construction with /de /are of the same type structurally. I
>>>>>>     don’t know if I have read you right, but although they are
>>>>>>     made up of the word representing a property concept followed
>>>>>>     by another word, the two constructions are quite different
>>>>>>     (and the natures of all of the words involved are different
>>>>>>     as well). In the relevant use of English /one/, it is a
>>>>>>     pro-form (see Goldberg, Adele E. & Laura A. Michaelis. 2016.
>>>>>>     One among many: anaphoric /one/ and its relationship to
>>>>>>     numeral /one/. /Cognitive Science/ 40.4:1–26. DOI:
>>>>>>     10.1111/cogs.12339 for interesting discussion) and clearly
>>>>>>     the head of the phrase, but in the Chinese example /de/ is
>>>>>>     only a nominalizer and clearly not the head of the phrase,
>>>>>>     either in terms of structural behaviour (e.g. in English
>>>>>>     /one/ patterns like other heads, e.g. we can say “this one”,
>>>>>>     but this is not the case with Chinese /de/) or in terms of
>>>>>>     speakers’ “feel” for what is the core element of the phrase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     This sort of goes back to the discussion on categorization we
>>>>>>     had back in January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     All the best,
>>>>>>     Randy
>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>>     *Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* (羅仁地)| Division of
>>>>>>     Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological
>>>>>>     University
>>>>>>     HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65)
>>>>>>     6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 |
>>>>>>     <http://randylapolla.net/>http://randylapolla.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 11 Jun 2016, at 3:33 pm, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Luigi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Unlike many of my typologist colleagues who seek refuge from
>>>>>>>     the muddy waters of formal criteria in the supposed clarity
>>>>>>>     of semantics, I find semantic criteria to often be just as
>>>>>>>     problematical, if not more so, than their formal counterparts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     For the purposes of my WALS map, I did not use headedness as
>>>>>>>     a defining criteria, and I would not wish to take a stand on
>>>>>>>     the headedness in the examples that you discuss.  By
>>>>>>>     "adjective" I meant property-denoting word one of whose
>>>>>>>     typical functions is as an attribute of a noun, and by
>>>>>>>     "noun" I meant thing-denoting word. The map shows the
>>>>>>>     morphosyntactic strategies that a language uses to allow an
>>>>>>>     adjective to occur in a noun slot — typically, but not
>>>>>>>     criterially, heading a phrase that occurs in an argument
>>>>>>>     position. This definition is met, among others, by the /one/
>>>>>>>     in English /beautiful one/, the /de/ in Mandarin /hong de/,
>>>>>>>     and also by the lack of (dedicated adjective-to-noun
>>>>>>>     conversion) marking in the Italian /il bello/.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 10/06/2016 23:01, Luigi Talamo wrote:
>>>>>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>>>>>     thanks a lot for your all answers, I really appreciate that.
>>>>>>>>     I have found your data very interesting, many comments will
>>>>>>>>     follow :-)
>>>>>>>>     I begin below with David's answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         One of the two kinds of nominalization mentioned in the
>>>>>>>>         query ('beautiful' > 'beautiful one') is the subject of
>>>>>>>>         my WALS map #61 "Adjectives without Nouns".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Thanks David, I have read your WALS map at the beginning of
>>>>>>>>     my work; maybe you remember that we have exchanged a couple
>>>>>>>>     of e-mails some time ago. As you mention in the WALS
>>>>>>>>     article, the most important issue here is whether
>>>>>>>>     adjectives are syntactic heads in constructions such as
>>>>>>>>     'the white one', which translates in Italian as 'quello
>>>>>>>>     bianco'. As you probably noticed, I did not consider these
>>>>>>>>     constructions in my study, as they appear to me to be more
>>>>>>>>     'predicative' than 'referential', at least in Italian;
>>>>>>>>     moreover, the syntactic head of the Italian construction is
>>>>>>>>     most likely the deictic quello 'this'. But what about the
>>>>>>>>     Mandarin example that is reported in your map, Wǒ yào hóng
>>>>>>>>     de. ? Is hóng a property concept with referential function ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Luigi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         On 09/06/2016 21:14, Luigi Talamo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>         Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>         I am conducting a research on the lexical
>>>>>>>>>         nominalisation of property concepts in contemporary
>>>>>>>>>         Italian. My study involves two types of nominalisation
>>>>>>>>>         strategy, affixation such as bello `beautiful' ->
>>>>>>>>>         bell-ezza `beauty (abstract concept)' and zero-marking
>>>>>>>>>         ('conversion'), such as bello (adj) -> `(il) bello' ->
>>>>>>>>>         `the beautiful person', `beauty (abstract concept)'
>>>>>>>>>         and `what is beautiful about something'.
>>>>>>>>>         Drawing mostly from 'Leipzig Questionnaire On
>>>>>>>>>         Nominalisation and mixed Categories' (Malchukov et
>>>>>>>>>         alii (2008)) and studies on adjectival and mixed
>>>>>>>>>         categories, I have elaborated a series of
>>>>>>>>>         morpho-syntactic and semantic parameters, which I have
>>>>>>>>>         employed to study de-adjectival nominalizations in
>>>>>>>>>         actual, corpus-based contexts.
>>>>>>>>>         I would like to insert in my study some
>>>>>>>>>         cross-linguistic notes on the phenomenon, which I hope
>>>>>>>>>         to further study from a typological perspective. I
>>>>>>>>>         will be glad if you can provide me some examples from
>>>>>>>>>         your languages of expertise. I have found some
>>>>>>>>>         examples of de-adjectival nominalizations here and
>>>>>>>>>         there in grammars, but I was not able to exactly
>>>>>>>>>         figure out which are the parameters involved;
>>>>>>>>>         moreover, some recent works (among others, Roy (2010),
>>>>>>>>>         Alexiadou et alii (2010), Alexiadou & Iordachioaia
>>>>>>>>>         (2014)) give interesting insights on de-adjectival
>>>>>>>>>         nominalization, but examples are limited to European
>>>>>>>>>         languages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         I am particularly interested in non-European languages
>>>>>>>>>         showing a distinct class of adjectives;
>>>>>>>>>         morpho-syntatic parameters include case, number,
>>>>>>>>>         gender, definiteness and specificity, degree, external
>>>>>>>>>         argument structure and, possibly, verbal parameters,
>>>>>>>>>         which are however not very significant for Italian
>>>>>>>>>         de-adjectival nominalisation; semantic parameters
>>>>>>>>>         include referent animacy, the distinction between the
>>>>>>>>>         nominalisation of the adjectival 'argument' vs. the
>>>>>>>>>         nominalisation of the adjective itself e.g., softie `a
>>>>>>>>>         thing which is soft' vs. softness and the semantic
>>>>>>>>>         type of property concepts e.g., PHYSICAL PROPERTY or
>>>>>>>>>         HUMAN PROPENSITY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         So, possible questions are as following:
>>>>>>>>>         1. Can property concepts be turned into nouns?
>>>>>>>>>         2. Which strategies are employed for this purpose?
>>>>>>>>>         3. Which parameters do de-adjectival nouns display?
>>>>>>>>>         4. Are there any missing values for a given parameter?
>>>>>>>>>         For instance, de-adjectival nouns can be only singular
>>>>>>>>>         or definite or restricted to the subject position.
>>>>>>>>>         5. Are de-adjectival nouns found in both semantic
>>>>>>>>>         types of nominalization? For instance, I have observed
>>>>>>>>>         that European languages focus on the nominalisation of
>>>>>>>>>         the adjective itself, while argument nominalizations
>>>>>>>>>         are scarcely attested, limited to certain language
>>>>>>>>>         varieties and not stable in the lexicon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         (needless to say, questions 2 to 4 can have multiple
>>>>>>>>>         answers, helping to describe different patterns of
>>>>>>>>>         property nominalisation)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Thanks in advance for your help, all the best.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Luigi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>>>>>         PhD Program in Linguistics ('Scienze Linguistiche')
>>>>>>>>>         University of Bergamo and University of Pavia - Italy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>         Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>>>>         Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>>>>         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>>>>         David Gil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>>>>>>>>         Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>>>>>>>>         Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>>>>>>>>         Office Phone (Germany):+49-3641686834 <tel:%2B49-3641686834>
>>>>>>>>         Mobile Phone (Indonesia):+62-82238009215 <tel:%2B62-82238009215>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>         Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>>>         Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>>>         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>>>     PhD Program in Linguistics ('Scienze Linguistiche')
>>>>>>>>     University of Bergamo and University of Pavia - Italy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>>>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>>>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>>     David Gil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>>>>>>>     Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>>>>>>>     Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>>>>>>>     Office Phone (Germany):+49-3641686834 <tel:%2B49-3641686834>
>>>>>>>     Mobile Phone (Indonesia):+62-82238009215 <tel:%2B62-82238009215>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>     Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>     CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the
>>>>>>     person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
>>>>>>     you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify
>>>>>>     us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
>>>>>>     Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank
>>>>>>     you. 
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>     David Gil
>>>>>
>>>>>     Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>>>>>     Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>>>>>     Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>>>>
>>>>>     Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>>>>>     Office Phone (Germany):+49-3641686834 <tel:%2B49-3641686834>
>>>>>     Mobile Phone (Indonesia):+62-82238009215 <tel:%2B62-82238009215>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     David Gil
>>>
>>>     Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>>>     Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>>>     Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>>
>>>     Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>>>     Office Phone (Germany):+49-3641686834 <tel:%2B49-3641686834>
>>>     Mobile Phone (Indonesia):+62-82238009215 <tel:%2B62-82238009215>
>>>
>>
>
>     -- 
>     David Gil
>
>     Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>     Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>     Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>
>     Email:gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>     Office Phone (Germany):+49-3641686834 <tel:%2B49-3641686834>
>     Mobile Phone (Indonesia):+62-82238009215 <tel:%2B62-82238009215>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lingtyp mailing list
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>

-- 
David Gil

Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-82238009215

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160626/8c4ad508/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list