<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I think my last email answered this.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
On 1/18/16 11:24 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3EEC99AA-4882-4D7E-BE7F-5F8A83F111B4@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<font class="" face="Verdana" size="4">Hi Matthew, </font>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4">Are you
kidding me? Do you really think that when people read a
characterisation of word order in a language which says the
language is Subject-Verb-Object that readers are not going to
assume that the language not only has those categories, but
that they must be significant in the determination of the word
order (or vice versa) for such a characterisation to be used?
Why else would anyone use such a characterisation? And if it
doesn’t imply the existence of these syntactic categories or
their relation to word order, why use such a characterisation?</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4">It also seems
like you are making something like the argument the Chomskyans
made against Nick Evans & Levinson's and Vyv Evans’
typological arguments against universals, that </font><span
style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;" class="">typological
facts have no relevance to </span><font class=""
face="Verdana" size="4">the sort of things they are talking
about in your abstract model. You are saying the categorical
labels you use in your typological classifications have no
relation to the actual typological facts of the language. So,
for example, we apply the category label “subject" to a
language, even though we know it doesn’t have anything like a
subject</font><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4">. Do you
really want to say that? My own view has always been to stick
with the actual facts of the languages. I don’t know what use
a typological classification that was not based on the facts
of the languages would have.</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4">Randy</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4"> <br class="">
</font>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 19 Jan 2016, at 2:52 pm, Matthew Dryer
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu" class="">dryer@buffalo.edu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Randy says that calling
Chinese SVO implies that Chinese has such
categories. I am surprised that he would say that. I
would have thought it was obvious that classifying
languages typologically does not entail that the
terms employed in the typological classification
correspond to categories in the language. Nor does
it mean that these categories determine or are
determined by word order. I have certainly made that
clear in my work that classifying a language as SVO
makes no claim about the categories in the language,
nor that these categories determine word order even
if the language has such categories.<br class="">
<br class="">
Matthew<br class="">
<br class="">
On 1/18/16 7:42 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A374FEB-177D-460A-80CF-C11D256CEE24@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite" class="">
<font class="" face="Verdana" size="4">Dan’s point
is very important. For example, most people
describing languages do not know how to
distinguish agents, topics, and syntactic pivots
(“subject”), and just call anything that occurs
initially as “subject”. Sometimes even when the
linguist is clear on the difference, they still
use the word “subject”. E.g. Y. R. Chao, in his
grammar of spoken Chinese, clearly stated there is
nothing like what is referred to as “subject” in
English, as all clauses are simply topic-comment,
but he still used the term “subject” for what he
said was purely a topic. This has confused
generations of linguists, and they call Chinese
SVO, which not only implies that Chinese has such
categories, but also that these categories either
determine or are determined by word order. See the
following paper arguing against the use of such
shortcuts, and arguing for more careful
determination of the factors determining word
order in a language:</font>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana" size="4"><br
class="">
</font></div>
<div class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3pt;
margin-left:18pt; text-align:justify;
text-indent:-18pt; line-height:15pt">
<span class="" style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-AU">LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa.
2006. On describing word order.
<i class="">Catching Language: The Standing
Challenge of Grammar Writing, </i>ed. by
Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, & Nicholas Evans,
269-295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3pt;
margin-left:18pt; text-align:justify;
text-indent:-18pt; line-height:15pt">
<span class="" style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-AU"> </span><span class=""
lang="EN-US"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf"
class=""><span class=""
style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-AU">http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf</span></a></span><span
class="" style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-AU"></span></p>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Verdana"
size="4">Randy</font></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word;">
<div class=""><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"><span
class="" style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white">-----</span></span>
<div class="" style="orphans:2;
widows:2; word-wrap:break-word">
<span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
border-spacing:0px">
<div class=""
style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
border-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:separate;
border-spacing:0px">
<div class=""
style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
class=""
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white"><b
class="">Prof. Randy
J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA</b> （羅</span><span
class=""
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white;
font-size:13px"><font
class="Apple-style-span"
face="Song">仁 地</font></span><span
class=""
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34);
background-color:white">）|
Division of Linguistics
and Multilingual Studies
| Nanyang Technological
University</span><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
font-size:15px"><span
class=""
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br
class="">
<span class=""
style="background-color:white">HSS-03-45,
14 Nanyang Drive,
Singapore 637332</span></span></span><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:13px"><span
class=""
style="background-color:white"> | </span></span><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
font-size:15px"><span
class=""
style="font-size:10pt;
font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span
class=""
style="background-color:white">Tel:
(65) 6592-1825
GMT+8h | Fax: (65)
6795-6525 | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://randylapolla.net/" class="">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://randylapolla.net/"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://randylapolla.net/">http://randylapolla.net/</a></a></span></span></span></div>
</span></span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 19 Jan 2016, at 10:21
am, Everett, Daniel <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu">DEVERETT@bentley.edu</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div class="">One of the biggest
problems in this regard that I
have noticed is in grammars of
individual languages. Fieldworkers
sometimes confuse semantic and
formal categories in the grammars,
classifying as a syntactic
structure a semantic category. If
typologists are not careful
writers/readers of grammars they
may bring such confusions into
their typological studies. Sounds
obvious. But not always so. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Dan<br class="">
<br class="">
Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
On Jan 18, 2016, at 21:11, Matthew
Dryer <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu">dryer@buffalo.edu</a></a>>
wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree
entirely with Jan on the
need to distinguish semantic
categories and formal
categories. In fact, in a
paper of mine that is I have
nearly completed revising, I
have an entire section
arguing that generative
approaches fail to note the
fact that a given semantic
category often has many
different formal expressions
over different languages and
that this is problematic for
implicit assumptions that
equate semantic categories
with formal categories.</p>
<div class=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But Jan
seems to think that this
presents some sort of
problem for the work I have
done in word order typology.<span
class="" style="">
</span>He says “<span
class=""
style="font-family:Times"
lang="UZ-CYR">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
class="">formal</u>
categories, i.e.
categories whose members
are defined on the basis
of structural or
morphosyntactic criteria</span>”.
But this is false. They
stand for semantic
categories.</p>
<div class=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jan seems
to think that it is somehow
a problem that a given
semantic category may have
many different formal
realizations across
different languages.
However, neither in his
email nor in his 2009 paper
in LT does he explain why he
sees this as a problem.</p>
<div class=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is,
I admit, a <i class=""
style="">potential</i>
problem.<span class=""
style="">
</span>Namely, it might be
the case that for the
purposes of word order
correlations, the syntactic
realization of a semantic
category makes a major
difference and that lumping
the different syntactic
realizations together is
obscuring these differences.
That is why I have spent
considerable time over the
years collecting data, not
only on word order in
particular languages, but
also on the syntactic
realization in these
languages, precisely to
examine empirically whether
the syntactic realization
makes a difference. The
result is that while the
syntactic realization
sometimes makes a small
difference, it is overall
irrelevant: by and large,
generalizations over
semantic categories apply
the same, regardless of the
syntactic realization.</p>
<div class=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<span class="" style="">Matthew</span>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<style class="">
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Arial}
@font-face
{font-family:Times}
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
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}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
div.WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>On 1/18/16 4:41 AM, Jan Rijkhoff wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<style class="">
<!--
@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>
<div class=""
style="direction:ltr;
font-family:Arial;
font-size:10pt">
<style class="">
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:"American Typewriter"}
@font-face
{font-family:AdvP497E2}
@font-face
{font-family:⁄ê∏Ôˇølæ—}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman"}
p
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Courier}
span.p-match
{font-family:"Times New Roman"}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:70.9pt 70.9pt 70.9pt 70.9pt}
div.WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-autospace:none"><u
class=""><span class=""
style="">Kiribati
</span></u><span
class="" style="">(Ross
1998: 90)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-autospace:none"><span
class="" style="">(1)<i
class="">
</i><i class="" style="">te<span
class="" style="">
</span>uee<span
class="" style="">
</span>ae<span
class="" style="">
</span>e<span class=""
style=""> </span>
tikiraoi</i><span
class="" style="">
</span>(relative clause)</span><span
class="" style=""></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-autospace:none"><span
class="" style=""><span
class="" style="">
</span>art<span class=""
style=""> </span></span><span
class="" style="">flower
<span class=""
style="font-variant:small-caps">rel
</span>3<span class=""
style="font-variant:small-caps">sg.s
<span class=""
style=""></span></span>be.pretty<span
class="" style="">
</span>
</span><span class=""
style=""></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-autospace:none"><span
class="" style=""><span
class="" style="">
</span>‘a pretty flower’
(lit. ‘a flower that
pretties’)<span class=""
style="">
</span></span></p>
<div class="" style=""><span
class="" style=""> </span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><u class=""><span
class="" style="">Makwe</span></u><span
class="" style="">
(Devos 2008: 136)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><span class=""
style="">(2)<span
class="" style=""></span><i
class="" style="">
muú-nu<span class=""
style="">
</span>w-á=ki-búúli</i><span
class="" style="">
</span>(genitive)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><span class=""
style=""><span class=""
style="">
</span><span class=""
style="font-variant:small-caps">nc1</span>-person
<span class=""
style="font-variant:small-caps">
pp1-gen=nc7</span>-silence</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><span class=""
style=""> ‘a silent
person’ (lit. ‘person of
silence’)</span></p>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">Relative Clause
and Genitive are, however,
also semantic categories
in their own right in word
order studies by Dryer and
Hawkins.</p>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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
class="">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>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;
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>
<div class=""
style="margin-right:13.75pt"> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify;
text-justify:inter-ideograph;
page-break-after:avoid;
text-autospace:none">
<span class="" style=""
lang="EN-GB">(3)<span
class="" style=""><i
class=""> </i>
</span><i class=""
style="">Heaviness
Serialization
Principle</i></span><span
class="" style=""
lang="EN-GB"><span
class="" style="">:
</span>Rel<span class=""
style=""> </span>≥<sub
class="">R</sub><span
class="" style="">
</span>Gen<span class=""
style=""> </span>≥<sub
class="">R</sub><span
class="" style="">
</span>A<span class=""
style=""> </span>≥<sub
class="">R </sub><span
class="" style=""> </span>Dem/Num</span>
</p>
<div class=""
style="margin-right:13.75pt"> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:13.75pt;
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 class="" style=""><span
class="" style=""
lang="EN-GB">Heaviness
Serialization
Principle</span></i>.</p>
<div class=""
style="margin-right:13.75pt"> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">* 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>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><font class=""
size="2"><b class=""
style="">References</b></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><font class=""
size="2">Devos, M. 2008.
<i class="" style="">
A Grammar of Makwe</i>.
München: Lincom Europa.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><font class=""
size="2">Dryer, M. S.,
1992. The Greenbergian
word order correlations.
<i class="" style="">Language</i>
68-1, 81-138.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt">
<font class="" size="2">Greenberg,
J. H. 1963. Some
universals of grammar
with particular
reference to the order
of meaningful elements.
In J. H. Greenberg
(ed.),
<i class="" style="">Universals
of Language</i>,
73-113. Cambridge MA:
MIT.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt">
<font class="" size="2">Hawkins,
J. A., 1983. <i
class="" style="">Word
Order Universals:
Quantitative analyses
of linguistic
structure</i>. New
York: Academic Press.</font></p>
<p class=""
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt">
<font class="" size="2"><span
class="" style="">Rijkhoff,
J. 2009a. </span><span
class="" style="">On
the (un)suitability of
semantic categories.
<i class="" style="">Linguistic
Typology</i> 13-1,
95‑104.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt;
text-autospace:none">
<font class="" size="2"><span
class="" style="">Rijkhoff,
Jan. 2009b. </span>On
the co-variation between
form and function of
adnominal possessive
modifiers in Dutch and
English.
<span class="" style="">In
William B. McGregor
(ed.), <i class=""
style="">The
Expression of
Possession</i> (</span>The
Expression of Cognitive
Categories [ECC] 2),<span
class="" style="">
51‑106. Berlin and New
York: Mouton de
Gruyter.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt;
text-autospace:none">
<font class="" size="2"><span
class="" style="">Rijkhoff,
J. 2015. Word order.
In James D. Wright
(editor-in-chief),
<i class="" style="">International
Encyclopedia of the
Social &
Behavioral Sciences
(Second Edition)</i>,
Vol. 25, 644–656.
Oxford: Elsevier.</span><span
class="" style=""></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt">
<font class="" size="2">Ross,
M. 1998. Proto-Oceanic
adjectival categories
and their morphosyntax.
<i class="" style="">Oceanic
Linguistics</i> 37-1,
85-119.</font></p>
<div class=""
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt">
<span class="p-match"> </span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:14.2pt;
text-indent:-14.2pt">
<span class="p-match">Jan
Rijkhoff</span></p>
<div class="" style=""> <br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:13px">
</div>
</div>
<div class=""
style="font-family:'Times
New Roman';
font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF867311"
class=""
style="direction:ltr"><font
class="" face="Tahoma"
size="2"><b class="">From:</b>
Lingtyp [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></a>]
on behalf of Alan
Rumsey [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au">Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au</a></a>]<br
class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b>
Monday, January 18,
2016 12:23 PM<br
class="">
<b class="">To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b>
Re: [Lingtyp]
Structural congruence
as a dimension of
language
complexity/simplicity<br
class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span
id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"
class="" style="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
class="">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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract">http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract</a></a></div>
</span>
<div class="" style=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="">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
class=""
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 class="" style=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">Drawing on
all your
suggestions, Francesca
and I have now
finished a draft of
the paper referred to
in my posting, called
'<span class=""
style="text-align:center"><span
class=""
lang="EN-US">Structural
Congruence as a
Dimension of
Language
Complexity: </span></span><span
class=""
lang="EN-US">An
Example from Ku Waru
Child Language’.<b
class=""> </b></span>If
any of you would like
to read it please let
me know and I’ll send
it to you.</div>
<style class="">
<!--
@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 class="">
<!--
@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-arrow-color:undefined}
-->
</style>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">Alan</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><span class="">_______________________________________________</span><br
class="">
<span class="">Lingtyp mailing
list</span><br class="">
<span class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></a></span><br
class="">
<span class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></a></span><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Lingtyp mailing list<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
class="">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr class="">
<font class="" face="Arial" color="Gray" size="2">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 class="">
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when
necessary. Thank you.</font> <br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
Lingtyp mailing list<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
class="">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br
class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>