<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I think that to use A(gent) and P(atient) for ‘subject’ and, respectively,
‘object’ is misleading: A and P refer to actance roles (in Lazard’s sense)
whereas SUBJ, OBJ and the like belong to the syntactic domain. A syntactic
subject may be a P or even a ‘pivot’.</DIV>
<DIV>“<FONT face=Arial><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">if humans do the
categorization, we decide what is contained in the category <SPAN
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><FONT style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">Table,
Linguist</FONT></SPAN> or <SPAN style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><FONT
style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">Adjective</FONT></SPAN>. How we define these
categories or which features count as ‘relevant’ or ‘necessary’ depends on one’s
goals, method, data and various (cognitive, cultural, theoretical etc.)
factors”,<FONT size=3> <FONT face=Calibri>as Rijkhoff rightly says in his
comment to the wonderful quote from John Locke –but different layers of analysis
have to be kept apart from each other.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ciao, Chao.</DIV>
<DIV>Paolo </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=chao.li@aya.yale.edu
href="mailto:chao.li@aya.yale.edu">Chao Li</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 19, 2016 6:43 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Lingtyp] Structural congruence</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>I just want to quickly add the following, which, I believe, is very
relevant to the ongoing discussion. I think it is important to recognize that
Prof. Dryer’s subject is (more or less) equivalent to A and his object to P, as
he himself explained (<A
href="http://wals.info/chapter/81">http://wals.info/chapter/81</A>). As a
result, when he claimed, for example, that Chinese has the SVO order, he was
actually claiming that the language has the AVP order. Therefore, definitions
and explanations of the terms used do matter at lot (in this respect, the use of
“subject” to mean “pivot” is another use of the term “subject”, a usage that, I
think, is also quite different from the traditional notion of “subject”).
<BR><BR></DIV>Best,<BR></DIV>Chao<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Everett, Daniel <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu"
target=_blank>DEVERETT@bentley.edu</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">Randy’s position sounds pretty reasonable
to me.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Typological categories, like the phonetic categories of the IPA are
idealizations, though based on data collected from a wide variety of
languages. Thus a “p” in the IPA is a voiceless bilabial stop. However, a [p]
in Pirahã is a voiceless bilabial stop with closure and flattening across the
entire length of the lips. It is not the same as the “p” of the IPA. But
clearly it is related to it as an individual dog is to the noun “dog.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But we cannot call an alveolar stop a “p” nor a cat a dog. Idealizations
do not mean that there is no empirical connection between a specific language
and the typological category. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is possible that we might have something that fails to correspond to
any syntactic notion of subject in a particular language. But if the
grammar-writer refers to it as a “subject” on semantic grounds this could be
the equivalent of calling a “t” a “p” because it is the frontmost voiceless
occlusive in a given language. So the grammar-writer would have introduced an
error which could potentially be propagated throughout the typological
literature. By the same token, calling that language SVO might not only
obscure the actual facts of the language, but it would also be a disservice to
typology.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In Pirahã, for example, the surface variants/allophones of /g/ are [n], a
unique double-flap laminal, and [g] (which was historically a [d]). The n is
not a velar simply because it is an allophone of a velar. And care needs to be
used in describing the segmental phonology of the language. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Subtleties missed only confuse the field.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dan</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Jan 19, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) <<A
href="mailto:RandyLaPolla@ntu.edu.sg"
target=_blank>RandyLaPolla@ntu.edu.sg</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FLOAT: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline !important; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">Sorry,
Matthew, no. I am arguing it is an empirical question, and am against the a
priori assumption and imposition of categories on languages without any
basis. This is what I have been fighting against for almost 30 years.</SPAN>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">We
seem to be talking past each other, as we each have our own way of
understanding things, and assume the others are saying something they
aren’t. <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It seems impossible to post to this list without
being misunderstood. </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">This is nice
evidence for the theory of communication I’ve been flogging for 20 years,
but it is very frustrating.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">I
was talking about the inductive analysis of individual languages. You are
talking about cross-linguistic characterisations. I also argue there are no
universal categories, and I think we need to understand each language on its
own terms, and in a description of an individual language, which is what I
am talking about, you need to give the facts of that language, not a
cross-linguistic category that also happens to have the same name as a
category that many people ascribe to individual languages, such that people
reading that description will assume the language has that category.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">Also,
what does the category “subject” mean to you such that it would be
cross-linguistically useful, to the point of even saying languages that
don’t have such a category are subject-verb-object languages? </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">In
terms of the correlations you talk about among languages that manifest what
is (from my view problematically) subsumed under the VO or SVO rubric, my
view is that we should look for the reasons why, in terms of information
structure, structural pivots, historical development, or whatever, the
languages manifest the particular patterns they do. Simply lumping them
together under a single rubric does nothing but categorise them, and doesn’t
explain anything. </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">Randy</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On 19 Jan 2016, at 9:01 pm, Matthew Dryer <<A
href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu" target=_blank>dryer@buffalo.edu</A>>
wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">My
point is actually independent of the question of whether there are
crosslinguistic categories.<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>Even if
there are/were crosslinguistic categories, it doesn’t follow that
typological classification is based on those categories. My statement that
“<SPAN>classifying languages typologically does not entail that the terms
employed in the typological classification correspond to categories in the
language</SPAN>” is consistent with a position that classifying languages
typologically sometimes classifies them on the basis of crosslinguistic
categories and sometimes on the basis of semantically-defined notions or
other notions independent of crosslinguistic categories. Randy’s statement
that classifying a language as SVO implies that the language has
categories of subject and object seems to imply that typological
classification MUST be based on categories that exist within the
individual languages.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><U></U><U></U> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">But
there is a good argument that in the case in question, any typological
classification that was based on categories that exist in individual
languages and on languages in which word order codes subject and object
would be inadequate. As I argued in Dryer (1989), languages in which word
order does not code grammatical relations and in which the word order is
not based on grammatical relations but in which VO word order is more
common tend to have word order properties associated with
VO<SPAN> </SPAN> word order, like prepositions, while analogous
languages in which OV word order is more common tend to have word order
properties associated with OV word order, like postpositions. What this
means is that the GRAMMARS of what I classify as VO languages have nothing
in common. It is only the languages that have something in common at the
level of usage. Hence any notion of SVO language restricted to languages
in which there are subject and object categories and in which word order
is determined by grammatical relations will necessarily fail as the basis
of word order correlations.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><U></U><U></U> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">The
problem with Randy’s position (and perhaps Jan’s) is that he is making an
a priori assumption on what is actually an empirical
question.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><U></U><U></U> </DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Matthew<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN><BR><BR>On
1/18/16 11:12 PM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Unfortunately, to many people (not only
generativists) it isn't obvious at all that "classifying languages
typologically does not entail that the terms employed in the typological
classification<SPAN> </SPAN> correspond to categories in the
language" (in other words, that comparative concepts are distinct from
descriptive categories).<BR><BR>It seems that the default assumption of
many people when they hear a term like "dative" or "clitic" is that they
are concepts like "copper" or "red fox", i.e. natural kinds that exist
independently of individual language systems, just as red foxes can be
recognized independently of their habitats, and copper can even be
recognized independently of the planet on which is occurs. This is
false, but it hasn't been very widely recognized.<BR><BR>In the 1980s,
typologists discovered the important differences between agents, topics,
and syntactic pivots (as noted by Randy), but such more fine-grained
categories are still not sufficient for describing any language. Agents
can be different across languages, topics can be different, and
syntactic pivots can be different. Thus, even "agent", "topic" and
"pivot" can only be used as comparative concepts, not as universally
applicable descriptive categories that would somehow have the same
meaning in different languages.<BR><BR>Thus, it is not just confusing
terminology (like Y.R. Chao's "subject"), but also the presupposition
that categories can be carried over from one language to another that
has confused linguists.<BR><BR>Martin<BR><BR>
<DIV>On 19.01.16 07:52, Matthew Dryer wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>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><BR>Matthew<BR><BR>On 1/18/16 7:42 PM, Randy John
LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><FONT size=4 face=Verdana>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><FONT size=4 face=Verdana><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 3pt 0cm 0pt 18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-AU style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa.
2006. On describing word order.<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Catching
Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar
Writing,<SPAN> </SPAN></I>ed. by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, &
Nicholas Evans, 269-295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 3pt 0cm 0pt 18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-AU style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US><A
href="http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf"
target=_blank><SPAN lang=EN-AU style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></A><A
href="http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf"
target=_blank>http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf</A></SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-AU style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Verdana>Randy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34); BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">-----</SPAN></SPAN>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34); BACKGROUND-COLOR: white"><B>Prof.
Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA</B> （羅</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34); BACKGROUND-COLOR: white"><FONT
face=Song>仁 地</FONT></SPAN><SPAN
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
style="FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)"><BR><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive,
Singapore 637332</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white"> | </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: white">Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax:
(65) 6795-6525 |<SPAN> </SPAN><A
href="http://randylapolla.net/"
target=_blank>http://randylapolla.net/</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On 19 Jan 2016, at 10:21 am, Everett, Daniel <<A
href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu"
target=_blank>DEVERETT@bentley.edu</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>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> </DIV>
<DIV>Dan<BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Jan 18, 2016, at 21:11, Matthew Dryer <<A
href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu"
target=_blank>dryer@buffalo.edu</A>> wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">But
Jan seems to think that this presents some sort of problem for
the work I have done in word order
typology.<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>He says “<SPAN
lang=UZ-CYR style="FONT-FAMILY: times">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<SPAN> </SPAN><U>formal</U><SPAN> </SPAN>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">There
is, I admit,
a<SPAN> </SPAN><I>potential</I><SPAN> </SPAN>problem.<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV><SPAN>Matthew</SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN><BR><BR>On
1/18/16 4:41 AM, Jan Rijkhoff wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial; DIRECTION: ltr">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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.<SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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:</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><U><SPAN>Kiribati<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></U><SPAN>(Ross
1998: 90)</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN>(1)<I><SPAN> </SPAN></I><I>te<SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>uee<SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>ae<SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>e<SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>tikiraoi</I><SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>(relative
clause)</SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>art<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN>flower
<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">rel
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>3<SPAN
style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">sg.s
<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>be.pretty<SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>‘a pretty flower’ (lit. ‘a flower
that
pretties’)<SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><U><SPAN>Makwe</SPAN></U><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>(Devos
2008: 136)</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN>(2)<SPAN></SPAN><I>
muú-nu<SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>w-á=ki-búúli</I><SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>(genitive)</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>
<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">nc1</SPAN>-person
<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">pp1-gen=nc7</SPAN>-silence</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN>
‘a silent person’ (lit. ‘person of silence’)</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Relative
Clause and Genitive are, however, also semantic categories in
their own right in word order studies by Dryer and
Hawkins.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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<SPAN> </SPAN><U>formal</U><SPAN> </SPAN>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).</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 13.75pt 0pt 0cm">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.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt"><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>(3)<SPAN><I>
<SPAN> </SPAN></I></SPAN><I>Heaviness Serialization
Principle</I></SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><SPAN>:<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>Rel<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>≥<SUB>R</SUB><SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>Gen<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>≥<SUB>R</SUB><SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>A<SPAN> <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>≥<SUB>R<SPAN> </SPAN></SUB><SPAN> </SPAN>Dem/Num</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt"><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 13.75pt 0pt 0cm">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<SPAN> </SPAN><I><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Heaviness
Serialization Principle</SPAN></I>.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt"><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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’.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">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).<SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">*
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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT
size=2><B>References</B></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT
size=2>Devos, M. 2008.<SPAN> </SPAN><I>A Grammar of
Makwe</I>. München: Lincom Europa.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT
size=2>Dryer, M. S., 1992. The Greenbergian word order
correlations.<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Language</I><SPAN> </SPAN>68-1,
81-138.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14.2pt"><FONT
size=2>Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with
particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In
J. H. Greenberg (ed.),<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Universals of
Language</I>, 73-113. Cambridge MA: MIT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14.2pt"><FONT
size=2>Hawkins, J. A., 1983.<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Word Order
Universals: Quantitative analyses of linguistic structure</I>.
New York: Academic Press.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: courier; MARGIN: 0px 0cm 0px 14.2pt"><FONT
size=2><SPAN>Rijkhoff, J.
2009a.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN>On the (un)suitability
of semantic categories.<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Linguistic
Typology</I><SPAN> </SPAN>13-1,
95‑104.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14.2pt"><FONT
size=2><SPAN>Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009b.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>On
the co-variation between form and function of adnominal
possessive modifiers in Dutch and
English.<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN>In William B. McGregor
(ed.),<SPAN> </SPAN><I>The Expression of
Possession</I><SPAN> </SPAN>(</SPAN>The Expression of
Cognitive Categories [ECC] 2),<SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>51‑106.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14.2pt"><FONT
size=2><SPAN>Rijkhoff, J. 2015. Word order. In James D. Wright
(editor-in-chief),<SPAN> </SPAN><I>International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second
Edition)</I>, Vol. 25, 644–656. Oxford:
Elsevier.</SPAN><SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14.2pt"><FONT
size=2>Ross, M. 1998. Proto-Oceanic adjectival categories and
their morphosyntax.<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Oceanic
Linguistics</I><SPAN> </SPAN>37-1, 85-119.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 14.2pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"></SPAN><BR> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 14.2pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Jan
Rijkhoff</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma"></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<HR>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr"><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma><B>From:</B><SPAN> </SPAN>Lingtyp [<A
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target=_blank>lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>]
on behalf of Alan Rumsey [<A
href="mailto:Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au"
target=_blank>Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B><SPAN> </SPAN>Monday,
January 18, 2016 12:23 PM<BR><B>To:</B><SPAN> </SPAN><A
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target=_blank>lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B><SPAN> </SPAN>Re:
[Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of language
complexity/simplicity<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>
<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
href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract"
target=_blank>http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract</A></DIV></SPAN>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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> </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>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Alan</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<A href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>
<A href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>Lingtyp
mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Lingtyp
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A><BR><A
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<HR>
<FONT color=gray size=2 face=Arial>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>Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary.
Thank you.</FONT><SPAN> </SPAN><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<A href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>
<A href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<A href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>
<A href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><PRE cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<A href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target=_blank>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><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<A href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A>
<A href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Lingtyp
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A><BR><A
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FLOAT: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline !important; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FLOAT: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline !important; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">Lingtyp
mailing list</SPAN><BR
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"><A
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target=_blank>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A><BR
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"><A
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial; FONT-VARIANT: normal; WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Lingtyp
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</A><BR><A
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Lingtyp mailing
list<BR>Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<BR>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>