gil at shh.mpg.de
Wed Jul 25 07:24:18 EDT 2018
Just one point in response to Martin's latest ...
On 25/07/2018 16:29, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> But then how do we improve the terminological situation? I mean cases
> where we all agree that there are conceptual distinctions that are
> worth making, but we don't have a way of agreeing on a term?
My impression is that in many cases, including the present one involving
"coexpression", it is not the case that "we all agree that there are
conceptual distinctions that are worth making". Perhaps I am wrong, but
it seems to me that at least some of the people objecting to the term
"coexpression" do not agree on the need for ANY term that would function
as a cover term for (i) monosemy/macrofunctionality; (ii)
polysemy/polyfunctionality; and (iii) homonomy. Which is probably why
nobody has taken up your challenge of offering an alternative term.
More generally, the terminological issues can't always be neatly
separated from the substantive ones. For example, when I (and many of
my typologist colleagues) argue against TPs (Tense-Phrases) in, say,
Southeast Asian languages, the rejection of the term isn't "just" a
terminological quibble, but rather a substantive claim about what
certain languages are like.
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): +62-81281162816
More information about the Lingtyp