<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Jan Rijkhoff and Randy LaPolla are completely right that word order
studies have sometimes been based on formally defined comparative
concepts. This has long been recognized (but perhaps not emphasized
sufficiently), e.g. in Dryer's (2005) WALS chapter on relative
clauses, he defines a relative clause as follows: "
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
A construction is considered a relative clause for the purposes of
this map if it is a clause which, either alone or in combination
with a noun, denotes something and if the thing denoted has a
semantic role within the relative clause"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wals.info/chapter/90">http://wals.info/chapter/90</a>). Thus, relative clauses must be
clauses, i.e. simple adnominal adjectives do not count. <br>
<br>
(This is in contrast with Comrie's (1981) definition of relative
clause, which is purely semantic and thus (counterintuitively)
includes adnominal adjectives. This worked for Comrie's purposes,
because he was not interested in the ordering possibilities of
relative clauses, and for the generalizations that he considered,
the inclusion of adnominal adjectives did not make a difference.)<br>
<br>
By contrast, Dryer indeed includes relative clauses in his chapter
on the order of adjective and noun. For example, he says about
Ojibwa, which lacks a dedicated class of adjectives: "Because words
expressing adjectival meaning are really verbs iin Ojibwa, instances
in which such words modify nouns, like (6a), are, strictly speaking,
relative clauses" (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wals.info/chapter/87">http://wals.info/chapter/87</a>).<br>
<br>
Here it might have been better to use the term "property word"
rather than "adjective", but in practice, it is often very hard to
say whether a language has a "dedicated" class of adjectives (Dixon
2004 even claims that all languages have one, even if the
distributional differences may be very small). Thus, it is not the
terms that count, but the definitions, and these are generally very
clear in Dryer's WALS chapters.<br>
<br>
When Dryer says that adjectives are non-branching elements, as
opposed to relative clauses which are branching elements, he
evidently means the most frequent types of adnominal property words
and adnominal clauses. Adjective phrases can be long ("very proud of
his achievements"), and relative clauses can be short ("who left"),
but it is clear that overall, relative clauses (a formally defined
concept) tend to be longer than property-word modifiers (a
semantically defined concept).<br>
<br>
In general, I find it important to recognize that typology works
with a heterogeneous class of comparative concepts, which may be
defined in a variety of ways (formally, functionally, with respect
to discourse, with respect to translation equivalence, etc.).
Typology does not (necessarily) work in terms of the descriptive
categories that are the most useful in analyzing languages, and it
need not define its concepts in a uniform way.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18.01.16 13:41, Jan Rijkhoff wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBCB141063E9C040A28A5B906370F04851453991@SRVUNIMBX05.uni.au.dk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Arial}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman"}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Calibri}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
-->
</style>
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Arial;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"American Typewriter";
panose-1:2 9 6 4 2 0 4 2 3 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610612625 25 0 0 273 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:AdvP497E2;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:77;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:⁄ê∏Ôˇølæ—;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:77;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
tab-stops:14.2pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
tab-stops:14.0pt 28.0pt 43.0pt 57.0pt 71.0pt 85.0pt 99.0pt 113.0pt 128.0pt 142.0pt 156.0pt 170.0pt 184.0pt 198.0pt 213.0pt 227.0pt 241.0pt 255.0pt 269.0pt 283.0pt 298.0pt 312.0pt 326.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Courier;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.p-match
{mso-style-name:p-match;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 841.0pt;
margin:70.9pt 70.9pt 70.9pt 70.9pt;
mso-header-margin:35.45pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.45pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">I think the last
word has not been said about Greenbergian word order
correlations, mainly because semantic categories and formal
categories have not always been clearly distinguished in
post-Greenberg (1963) word order studies (Rijkhoff 2009a).*
For example, both Hawkins (1983: 12) and Dryer (1992: 120)
claimed that they followed Greenberg (1963: 74) in ‘basically
applying semantic criteria’ to identify members of the same
category across languages, but in practice these semantically
defined forms and constructions are treated as formal
entities.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">If Hawkins and
Dryer applied semantic criteria in their cross-linguistic
studies, this implies, for example, that their semantic
category Adjective must also have included verbal and nominal
expressions of adjectival notions (such as relative clauses
and genitives), which are typically used in languages that
lack a dedicated class of adjectives:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">
<u><span style="mso-no-proof:yes">Kiribati </span></u><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes">(Ross 1998: 90)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-no-proof:yes">(1)<i> </i><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">te<span
style="mso-tab-count:2">
</span>uee<span style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span>ae<span
style="mso-tab-count:2">
</span>e<span style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span>tikiraoi</i><span
style="mso-tab-count:4">
</span>(relative clause)</span><span
style="mso-bidi-font-family:"American Typewriter";
mso-no-proof:yes"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family:"American
Typewriter";
font-variant:small-caps;mso-no-proof:yes"><span
style="mso-tab-count:2">
</span>art<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></span><span
style="mso-bidi-font-family:
"American Typewriter";mso-no-proof:yes">flower
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">rel </span>3<span
style="font-variant:small-caps">sg.s
<span style="mso-tab-count:2"></span></span>be.pretty<span
style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span></span><span style="mso-no-proof:yes"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-no-proof:yes"><span style="mso-tab-count:
2"> </span>‘a pretty flower’ (lit. ‘a flower that
pretties’)<span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-no-proof:yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><u><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes">Makwe</span></u><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes"> (Devos 2008: 136)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes">(2)<span style="mso-tab-count:1"></span><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal"> muú-nu<span style="mso-tab-count:3">
</span>w-á=ki-búúli</i><span style="mso-tab-count:6">
</span>(genitive)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes"><span style="mso-tab-count:2">
</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps">nc1</span>-person
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
pp1-gen=nc7</span>-silence</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes"> ‘a silent person’ (lit. ‘person
of silence’)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">Relative Clause
and Genitive are, however, also semantic categories in their
own right in word order studies by Dryer and Hawkins.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">When these authors
subsequently formulate rules and principles on the basis of
the data they collected, the semantic category labels
(Adjective, Genitive, Relative Clause, but also e.g.
Demonstrative and Numeral) appear to stand for <u>formal</u>
categories, i.e. categories whose members are defined on the
basis of structural or morphosyntactic criteria. This apparent
change of category is not explained, but can be seen in the
case of the ‘Heaviness Serialization Principle’ (Hawkins 1983:
90-91) and the ‘Branching Direction Theory’ (Dryer 1992).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none">
Hawkins defined ‘heaviness’ in terms of such non-semantic
criteria as (a) length and quantity of morphemes, (b) quantity
of words, (c) syntactic depth of branching nodes, and (d)
inclusion of dominated constituents.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan
lines-together;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:
65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">(3)<span
style="mso-tab-count:2"><i>
</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Heaviness
Serialization Principle</i></span><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB"><span
style="mso-tab-count:2">:
</span>Rel<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>≥<sub>R</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Gen<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>≥<sub>R</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>A<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>≥<sub>R </sub><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Dem/Num</span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none">
Thus a member of the (semantic? formal?) category Relative
Clause is ‘heavier’ than a member of the (semantic? formal?)
category Adjective. But Hawkins’s semantic category Adjective
must also have included members of the ‘heavy’ formal
categories Genitive and Relative Clause (see (1) and (2)
above). It is not clear whether the original members of the
single semantic category Adjective were later ‘re-categorized’
and distributed over the formal categories Adjective, Genitive
and Relative Clause in the
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">Heaviness
Serialization Principle</span></i>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">Dryer’s ‘Branching
Direction Theory’ refers to a structural feature of the
internal syntactic organization of a constituent. According to
the ‘Branching Direction Theory’, relative clauses and
genitives are phrases, i.e. members of a branching category,
whose position relative to the noun correlates with the
relative order of Verb and Object, whereas adjectives are
non-branching elements, whose position relative to the noun
does not correlate with OV or VO order (Dryer 1992: 107-8,
110-1). In this case, too, one may assume that the semantic
category Adjective also included members of the formal
categories Genitive and Relative Clause (see examples above).
Again we do not know what happened to the branching/phrasal
members of the erstwhile(?) semantic category Adjective
(relative clauses, genitives) when this category was turned
into the formal (non-branching) category Adjective that is
part of the ‘Branching Direction Theory’.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">So as to avoid
categorial confusion in cross-linguistic research (and so as
to make it possible to produce more reliable results), it is
necessary to keep formal and semantic categories apart, as
members of these two categories have their own ordering rules
or preferences. I also think it is an illusion to think we can
give a satisfactory account of the grammatical behaviour of
linguistic units -including word order- without taking into
consideration functional (interpersonal) categories or
‘discourse units’ (Rijkhoff 2009b, 2015). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt">* Greenberg (1963:
88) made it clear that he sometimes used formal criteria to
remove certain members of a semantic category before he
formulated a universal, as in the case of his Universal 22.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><font size="2"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:
normal">References</b></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><font size="2"><span
style="mso-no-proof:yes">Devos, M. 2008.
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">A Grammar of Makwe</i>.
München: Lincom Europa.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"><font size="2"><span
style="mso-fareast-language:
JA">Dryer, M. S., 1992. The Greenbergian word order
correlations.
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Language</i> 68-1,
81-138.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt"><font size="2"><span
style="mso-fareast-language:JA">Greenberg, J. H. 1963.
Some universals of grammar with particular reference to
the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg
(ed.),
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Universals of
Language</i>, 73-113. Cambridge MA: MIT.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;tab-stops:
65.2pt">
<font size="2"><span style="mso-fareast-language:JA">Hawkins,
J. A., 1983. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">
Word Order Universals: Quantitative analyses of
linguistic structure</i>. New York: Academic Press.</span></font></p>
<p
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;mso-pagination:none;
tab-stops:65.2pt">
<font size="2"><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:AdvP497E2;mso-bidi-language:EN-US">Rijkhoff,
J. 2009a.
</span><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
New Roman"">On the (un)suitability of semantic
categories.
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Linguistic Typology</i>
13-1, 95‑104.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;mso-pagination:
none;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">
<font size="2"><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:AdvP497E2;mso-bidi-language:EN-US">Rijkhoff,
Jan. 2009b.
</span>On the co-variation between form and function of
adnominal possessive modifiers in Dutch and English.
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt">In William B.
McGregor (ed.), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">
The Expression of Possession</i> (</span>The Expression
of Cognitive Categories [ECC] 2),<span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
8.0pt"> 51‑106. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;mso-pagination:
none;tab-stops:65.2pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">
<font size="2"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:⁄ê∏Ôˇølæ—">Rijkhoff,
J. 2015. Word order. In James D. Wright (editor-in-chief),
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
(Second Edition)</i>, Vol. 25, 644–656. Oxford:
Elsevier.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;
color:black"></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;tab-stops:
65.2pt">
<font size="2"><span class="p-match">Ross, M. 1998.
Proto-Oceanic adjectival categories and their
morphosyntax.
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Oceanic Linguistics</i>
37-1, 85-119.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;tab-stops:
65.2pt">
<span class="p-match"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;tab-stops:
65.2pt">
<span class="p-match">Jan Rijkhoff</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:65.2pt"> </p>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF867311"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
Lingtyp [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>] on
behalf of Alan Rumsey [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au">Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 18, 2016 12:23 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a
dimension of language complexity/simplicity<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Many thanks to all of you who
responded to my posting on this topic, both online and
off. All the readings you have pointed me to have indeed
been highly relevant and very useful, including an
excellent recent publication by Jennifer Culbertson that
she pointed me to in her offline response, at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="redir.aspx?REF=sGl5RomnpE-BF3Bt1foWHNs4EZ9sLFpNokQs5Y0pxDO6ZjPcAyDTCAFodHRwOi8vam91cm5hbC5mcm9udGllcnNpbi5vcmcvYXJ0aWNsZS8xMC4zMzg5L2Zwc3lnLjIwMTUuMDE5NjQvYWJzdHJhY3Q."
target="_blank">http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract</a></div>
</span>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Thanks especially to Matthew
Dryer for pointing out that the Greenbergian ‘universal’ I
had used as an example – the putative association between
VSO and noun-adjective order — had been falsified by his
much more thorough 1992 study <span
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">“The
Greenbergian Word Order Correlations”. My reading of
that article and further correspondence with him has
confirmed that, by contrast, Greenberg’s universals no 3
and 4 were solidly confirmed by his study, namely that
SOV </span>languages are far more likely to have
postpositions than prepositions and that the reverse is
true for VSO languages. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div>Drawing on all your suggestions, Francesca and I have
now finished a draft of the paper referred to in my
posting, called '<span style="text-align:center"><span
lang="EN-US">Structural Congruence as a Dimension of
Language Complexity: </span></span><span lang="EN-US">An
Example from Ku Waru Child Language’.<b> </b></span>If
any of you would like to read it please let me know
and I’ll send it to you.</div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Times}
@font-face
{font-family:"?? ??"}
@font-face
{font-family:"?? ??"}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman"}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
-->
</style>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Arial}
@font-face
{font-family:Arial}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman"}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Arial;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alan</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
Beethovenstrasse 15
D-04107 Leipzig
</pre>
</body>
</html>