<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:MingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi Dan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">My point was not to argue for a particular view of science, just to explain where the current view held by many comes from. I agree that Popper’s view is simplistic
and unrealistic, as Kuhn pointed out. In fact, although he was trying to refute induction, the end result of his falsification is actually no better than an inductive generalization. And yes, after establishing pragmatism (as James got the word from him),
Peirce changed to using pragmaticism because he didn’t like what James and others were doing under the original name.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What Feynman spouts is largely nonsense, but the reality we deal with (particularly as I am at a technological university) is that people with power think like
him, and we can’t just say “He’s wrong”. It is their game, and if we want to play it, we have to make them think we are playing by their rules, or at least convince them that we are playing by rigorous rules. This is why I think people should think about the
issues of methodology, and why I push complexity science so much: not only is it more useful for us than simple science, it is something those in power recognize as science.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Randy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (</span></b><span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:SimSun;color:#222222;background:white">羅仁地</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">)</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">
| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#222222"><br>
<span style="background:white">HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 |</span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<span style="background:white">Tel: (65) 6592-1825 | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Everett, Daniel [mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 14, 2014 3:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Randy John LaPolla (Prof)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Edge and universalism vs. particularism<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Randy, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I agree more or less with your brief summary here. I would add that Peirce didn’t like the direction that James and Royce, among others, were taking Pragmatism and he insisted on Pragmaticism to keep his ideas distinct
from theirs (though it really only puzzled and slightly annoyed James, who helped support Peirce financially since no university would hire him and thought that Peirce was largely making a mountain out of a molehill).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Popper’s ideas I find less interesting, however. I held a long discussion on LinguistList years ago (still in their archives) on problems with Falsificationism in any form, though I think as a heuristic it can strengthen
an argument. I think Quine, Dewey, James, Rorty, and others’s ideas were better - the idea of utility and well-constructed theories and arguments outweighing falsifying. I remember an interesting conversation I had with Pike in 1978 in Brazil. I said something
like “The problem with Tagmemics is that it is not falsifiable.” Pike’s response was vintage Pragmatism - “I am not interested in having a falsifiable theory, but a useful one.” Often this perspective is rejected as “nonsense” but in fact, the reasoning behind
it is rich and subtle and there is a long literature on the subject, though of course no one need be convinced by it. On philosophical matters there is always a long literature. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I reiterate, though, that “microscope envy,” the desire for linguistics to be a science makes little sense, unless one means by that that it constructs arguments that lead to results that a community finds useful.
We reject bad arguments in linguistics because they simply do not provide any useful insights or are poorly informed. I refer the reader to the LinguistList discussion since that brought out remarks from a wide variety of linguists on why they accept or reject
the notion. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">/<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">One fascinating proposal that people regularly bring up to dispute the notion that Truth is an ever-receding mirage is that technology shows that there is Truth. As Nigel did with the Blackburn quote on the list
the other day. Technology shows nothing related to truth, unless you believe that there is a “true iPhone” or that “planes are constructed on True principles” (instead of principles that satisifice, in Simon’s sense). <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Truth is not inherent in nature. It is an adjective that some cultures use. And especially professors when they want to sound important.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">As to linguistics as a science, I include this link to Feynman on the social sciences. It is irritating and wrong in many details. But overall, I think it illustrates why many (at least many physicists) do not consider
social sciences, linguistics, etc. to be “science.” Unfortunately, the US Congress now has members who agree with this and are trying very hard to cut funding to psychology, linguistics, anthropology, and others from the National Science Foundation’s budget.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Feynman: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Dan<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) <<a href="mailto:RandyLaPolla@NTU.EDU.SG">RandyLaPolla@NTU.EDU.SG</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">1.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">2. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">“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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> “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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Randy<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">-----</span></span><span class="apple-style-span">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white"> </span></span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:MingLiU;color:#222222;background:white">（</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"PMingLiU","serif";color:#222222;background:white">罗仁地</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:MingLiU;color:#222222;background:white">）</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">|
Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222"><br>
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background:white">HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332</span></span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white"> | </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">Tel:
(65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | <a href="http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/">
http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/</a></span></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:11 PM, William Croft wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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 href="mailto:dryer@BUFFALO.EDU">dryer@BUFFALO.EDU</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Matthew<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">_______________________<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Matthew Dryer, Professor<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Department of Linguistics<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">616 Baldy Hall<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">University at Buffalo (SUNY)<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Buffalo NY 14260<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Phone: 716-645-0122<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> FAX: 716-645-3825<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu">dryer@buffalo.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On 3/10/14 11:30 AM, Prof. Dr. Christian Lehmann wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Dear Frans and fellow typologists,<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I would like to second Frans in every respect. Some specialists have<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">been confounding the theory of universal grammar with linguistic<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">universal research. As far as empirically based knowledge goes, there is<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">no universal grammar. But since grammar does not exhaust language, that<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">does not entail that nothing about language is universal.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Apparently the history of our discipline is doomed to follow the motion<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">of a pendulum: after North American structuralism ("languages could<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">differ from each other without limit and in unpredictable ways" [Martin<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Joos 1957]), we have had Generative Grammar ("Grammatica una et eadem<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">varietur" [Roger Bacon 1244]); and apparently it is now time to swing<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">back to Joos. Wilhelm von Humboldt had already gotten it right: The task<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">of science in the field of the humanities, especially linguistics, is to<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">seek the unity in the diversity (thus, sinngemäß, Humboldt 1836). This<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">task requires abstraction. In some fundamental sense, linguistic<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">particularism alias relativism is a refusal of abstraction. Maybe some<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">colleages have to be asked to take our task as scientists more seriously.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Best wishes to all of you,<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Christian Lehmann<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">-----<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Prof. Dr. Christian Lehmann<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Universität<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">D - 99092 Erfurt<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="http://www.christianlehmann.eu/">www.christianlehmann.eu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:center">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>