<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">It has become clear from an exchange of
email I have had with Christian that I did misinterpret what he
was saying, for which I apologize,<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
On 3/13/14 12:13 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ACBF46EB-DA81-4736-9B17-D1F130074C10@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Although the discussion seems to have died down a bit, I
would still like to make two points in response to some of the
posts:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1.</div>
<div>The question of truth and how we can know anything about
anything has been a longstanding question of philosophy and
science (which used to be one thing), and this question gave
rise to what we think of as the scientific method. That is, it
was philosophers, not scientists, who defined what science is,
most recently Karl Popper. In the modern era we can start with
David Hume, who tried to move away from the Aristotelian and
theologically based science of his time, to try to create a
"science of man". He importantly showed that induction is
problematic, so we cannot say that an inductive generalization
is absolutely true, only contingently true. Hume awoke Kant from
his "dogmatic slumbers", as Kant put it, and Kant tried to
define what is necessarily true and what isn't with his
analytical/synthetic distinction and his a priori/a posteriori
distinctions. Both men them influenced Mill and Pierce and many
others down the line. Peirce (the founder of Pragmatism) was
important for showing the role of abduction in hypothesis
creation. William James was influenced by Hume, Kant, and
Pierce, and he in turn influenced Wittgenstein, who, in his
Tractatus, tried to use language to define the limits of our
world, and defined necessary truth (tautology--showing that
logic and math are all tautology), necessary untruth
(contradiction), and possibility, what is in between (cf.
Halliday's discussion of epistemic modality as the space between
yes and no). Wittgenstein's work was hugely influential on the
logical positivists of the Vienna Circle (who in turn were very
influential on Bloomfield), and they tried to develop the idea
of verification as truth. Karl Popper (also directly influenced
by Hume in his discussion of induction) criticized this idea and
said we cannot verify; the best we can do is falsify (a concept
actually similar to Peirce's fallibilism): we come up with a
hypothesis, test it, and if it isn't falsified, then it stands
for the time being. So in this view nothing is true; all our
facts are simply hypotheses we haven't proven wrong yet. There
has been much criticism of Popper's view, but nowadays it has
become something of a received view, so when asking if something
is a scientific hypothesis or not, we ask if it is falsifiable
(see for example Bernard Comrie's argument in Ch. 1 of his
textbook that Chomsky's assumption of an innate UG is not a
falsifiable hypothesis). Popper himself developed this because
he was concerned to show that Freudian psychoanalysis and
Marxist "scientific materialism" (what Popper called
"historicism") were not scientific, as he felt that they had
been used to justify totalitarianism (he was a refugee from the
Nazis).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
2.
<div>I did understand Christian's contribution in the way Matthew
did, as saying that someone who believes in the uniqueness of
languages is not being scientific.
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In doing linguistics we have looked to similar things
found in different languages (I think this is what is
Christian meant by sinngemäß, not exact equivalents),
and in order to talk about them, we have abstracted away
from the details of the individual languages to some
aspect that is thought to be comparable in the two or
more languages. Greenberg and Haspelmath have taken
semantics as that commonality, comparing, for example,
property words in different languages as if they are the
same because they represent the "same" property concept.
We have also constructed implicational universals that
take the form of material implications, e.g.
<i>if p then q,</i> again based on abstract categories
that may or may not actually be manifest in the
languages being compared, such as "subject" (e.g. in
"SOV") or "noun".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have argued against this methodology, as I find it
unscientific, because it ignores the empirical facts of
the languages involved and also because the material
implications do not imply causation or any sort of
necessary relation (e.g. "If I am sending this message
then I live in Singapore" is a true material
implication), and are only false when the antecedent is
true and the consequent is false (so if the antecedent
and the consequent are both false, the statement is
true). Statistical correlations also do not entail
causation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What I have advocated instead is looking at whether a
language does or does not constrain the interpretation
of some semantic domain, and if so, to what extent, but
also in terms of what particular mechanism is used in
the language to do so.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From doing this we can build up inductive
generalizations, but as we have known since Hume's work,
induction is problematic. We can only say what we have
found so far in the small number of languages we have
looked at and cannot predict what we will find in the
next language we look at with certainty. That is, we can
have de facto contingent universals, but not de jure
universals.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Particularly if we understand language as an emergent
phenomenon, then we wouldn't assume there are any de
jure / a priori language universals, but only common
reactions to communicative needs (unless you want to
count the communicative needs as universals) often
working with the same basic materials (e.g. constrained
by the physical nature of our bodies and mode of
production of speech). We should then look for the
functional pressures that give rise to those
commonalities. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are many threads of linguistics, as hoped for
by Franz Dotter, but this list is dominated by people
who still believe in the Structuralist notion of
language as a static system where all things hold
together. I think this notion limits what we can do and
leads to the sorts of problems Bill Croft has clearly
pointed out. The kind of science we can do will be
limited. If instead we take the emergent nature of
language seriously, and see language not as a thing, but
as a form of interactional behavior, then we need to
approach it differently. And linguistics is then not the
study of language, but the study of communicative
behavior, or even more broadly, the study of intentional
behavior. Linguistics is ontologically late as a science
because communicative behavior is a complex phenomenon,
not one where it is easy to isolate one or two variables
and make predictive statements and falsifiable
hypotheses. This is why it is good for linguistics that
complexity science is on the rise. It is precisely
things like communicative behavior and economic behavior
that complexity science was created for, as it is
designed to deal with many variables at the same time. I
often hear people talk about the behavioral sciences as
the "soft" sciences, compared to the "hard" sciences
like physics. In fact the contrast is one of complex vs.
simple, respectively. The following quote is from an
article published in 1948 by a scientist. I post this in
response to the posting that science is just about
making mobile phones and the like.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>“Impressive as the progress has been, science has
by no means worked itself out of a job. It is
soberly true that science has, to date, succeeded in
solving a bewildering number of relatively easy
problems, whereas the hard problems, and the ones
with perhaps promise most for man’s future, lie
ahead.<span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate; color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-family:Verdana; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2; word-spacing:0px"></span></div>
</div>
“We must, therefore, stop thinking of science in terms
of its spectacular successes in solving problems of
simplicity. This means, among other things, that we must
stop thinking of science in terms of gadgetry.” Warren
Weaver, “Science and complexity”, E:CO 6.3 (2004[1948]):
65-74, p. 73.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2; word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-variant:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
widows:2; word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-variant:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-variant:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
font-size:15px"><span
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white">-----</span></span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-variant:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-variant:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal;
orphans:2;
text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none;
white-space:normal;
widows:2;
word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
font-variant:normal;
letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal;
orphans:2;
text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none;
white-space:normal;
widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-family:Verdana;
font-size:medium"><span
style="font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white"><b>Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>（</span><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white;
font-size:13px"><font
class="Apple-style-span" face="Song">罗仁地</font></span><span
style="font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white">）| Head, Division of Linguistics and
Multilingual
Studies | Nanyang
Technological
University</span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style:normal; font-weight:normal;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
font-size:15px"><span
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br>
<span
style="background-color:white">HSS-03-80,
14 Nanyang
Drive,
Singapore
637332</span></span></span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style:normal; font-weight:normal;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:13px"><span
style="background-color:white"> | </span></span><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-style:normal;
font-weight:normal;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
font-size:15px"><span
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="background-color:white">Tel: (65)
6592-1825
GMT+8h | Fax:
(65) 6795-6525
| <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/">
http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/</a></span></span></span></div>
<div><font
class="Apple-style-span"
color="#222222"
face="Arial,
sans-serif"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:13px"><br>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</span></span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size:medium; border-collapse:separate;
color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Verdana;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Verdana;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2;
text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, William Croft
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>I didn't interpret Christian's statement this
way at all. Particularism is an approach that
argues that traits in different cultures
(including language) are incommensurable, and is
therefore strongly relativistic. It is predominant
in cultural anthropology, and anthropologists I
have spoken to use that specific term in that way.<br>
<br>
Measuring diversity involves comparison, and
comparison requires some degree of abstraction.
That is how I understood Christian's
characterization of seeking unity in diversity. To
me, that is what is important in typology,
exemplified for example in the implicational
universal. This is the point that is often missed
in discussions by non-typologists of "language
universals", which frequently still assume that
all such universals are (or must be) of the form
"All languages have X".<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Matthew Dryer <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dryer@BUFFALO.EDU">dryer@BUFFALO.EDU</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have often commented
informally to other linguists that there are two
kinds of typologists, those who are more
interested in the way that languages are similar
to each other and those who are more interested
in the way that languages are different from
each other. Of course, many typologists fall in
between, but at least many typologists “lean”
more in one direction.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Frans is quite right of
course, that the mission of LT is both
enterprises. It may, however, be the case that
there is some imbalance in papers in LT, an
imbalance that may reflect current fashion. I
read Frans’ email as lamenting this imbalance
rather than a suggestion that one enterprise is
more important than the other.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">But I see no need for
chauvinistic comments like those of Christian.
The idea that the search for diversity is
somehow less scientific than the search for
similarity is nonsense. Science is the pursuit
of truth, whether that truth involves diversity
or similarity. Some of the recent swing toward
diversity is precisely a reaction to a tendency
for linguists to make false claims about
similarity and hence is precisely making
linguistics more scientific.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">It is also very misleading
to suggest that the search for typological
diversity is similar to the famous view of Joos.
For one thing, the very question of how
languages might differ with respect to some
phenomenon was not a question that interested
Joos. Second, the search for typological
diversity is, contrary to what Christian
suggests, impossible without abstraction. One
cannot recognize that some phenomenon in a given
language is unusual without abstracting over
phenomena across languages.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">I see nothing in Frans’
comments to suggest he thinks the search for
diversity is unscientific or that that search is
not an essential part of typology. I read his
email as lamenting that there is too little
attention paid to similarities.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Matthew<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">_______________________<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Matthew Dryer, Professor<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Department of Linguistics<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">616 Baldy Hall<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">University at Buffalo
(SUNY)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Buffalo NY 14260<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Phone: 716-645-0122<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> FAX: 716-645-3825<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu">dryer@buffalo.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">On 3/10/14 11:30 AM, Prof.
Dr. Christian Lehmann wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Frans and fellow
typologists,<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I would like to second
Frans in every respect. Some specialists have<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">been confounding the
theory of universal grammar with linguistic<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">universal research. As
far as empirically based knowledge goes, there
is<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">no universal grammar.
But since grammar does not exhaust language,
that<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">does not entail that
nothing about language is universal.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Apparently the history
of our discipline is doomed to follow the
motion<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">of a pendulum: after
North American structuralism ("languages could<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">differ from each other
without limit and in unpredictable ways"
[Martin<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Joos 1957]), we have had
Generative Grammar ("Grammatica una et eadem<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">est secundum substantiam
in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">varietur" [Roger Bacon
1244]); and apparently it is now time to swing<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">back to Joos. Wilhelm
von Humboldt had already gotten it right: The
task<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">of science in the field
of the humanities, especially linguistics, is
to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">seek the unity in the
diversity (thus, sinngemäß, Humboldt 1836).
This<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">task requires
abstraction. In some fundamental sense,
linguistic<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">particularism alias
relativism is a refusal of abstraction. Maybe
some<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">colleages have to be
asked to take our task as scientists more
seriously.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Best wishes to all of
you,<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Christian Lehmann<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">-----<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Prof. Dr. Christian
Lehmann<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Seminar für
Sprachwissenschaft<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Universität<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">D - 99092 Erfurt<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.christianlehmann.eu">www.christianlehmann.eu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font color="Gray" face="Arial" size="2"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
Towards a sustainable earth:Print only when necessary.Thank you.<br>
</font>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>