<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Martin Haspelmath has written (Jan.18.): “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.” </DIV>
<DIV>I agree. All the subsequent interventions in the discussion seem to ignore
the concepts of ‘prototype’ and ‘tertium comparationis’. As I tried to argue in
my 1999 article on <SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-FAMILY: ; mso-ansi-language: en-us"><SPAN
style="mso-list: ignore"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="dir: ltr"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-FAMILY: ; mso-ansi-language: en-us"><EM>Linguistic categories and
linguists’ categorizations</EM>. “Linguistics” 37: 157-80, there are
semantic/functional concepts which are universal (e.g. ‘attribution of a quality
to an X’ : you may call it “ADJ”). These concepts (‘tertia comparationis’) may
be implemented in different languages via different strategies (e.g. via a
relative clause) and it is by no means said that the category ADJ is present in
language A or B [see Rijkhoff’s ex. from Ross : </SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face=Arial><U><SPAN style="mso-no-proof: yes"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Kiribati </FONT></SPAN></U><SPAN
style="mso-no-proof: yes"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">(Ross 1998:
90)</FONT></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="mso-no-proof: yes"><FONT face=Arial><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">(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)</FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style='mso-no-proof: yes; mso-bidi-font-family: "American Typewriter"'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN
style='mso-no-proof: yes; mso-bidi-font-family: "American
typewriter"'><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 2"><FONT style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">art</FONT><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"><FONT style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style='mso-no-proof: yes; mso-bidi-font-family: "American Typewriter"'><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">flower <SPAN><FONT
style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">rel </FONT></SPAN>3<SPAN><FONT
style="FONT-VARIANT: small-caps">sg.s </FONT><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 2"></SPAN></SPAN>be.pretty</FONT><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><SPAN style="mso-no-proof: yes"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="mso-no-proof: yes"><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 2"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </FONT></SPAN><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">‘a pretty flower’ (lit. ‘a flower that
pretties’)</FONT><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> ]</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="mso-no-proof: yes"><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style="mso-no-proof: yes"><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">On its turn a prototypical ADJ will be formally defined
by a series of properties (‘features’ having different <EM>values</EM>), like
+/- agreement with its head, Consequently, there are forms which are more or
less adjectival, according to the grammars of individual
languages.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P>
<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=haspelmath@shh.mpg.de
href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">Martin Haspelmath</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 18, 2016 9:20 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'>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: " 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">
<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="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: #000000; DIRECTION: ltr">
<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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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-no-proof: yes; mso-bidi-font-family: "American Typewriter"'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN
style='FONT-VARIANT: small-caps; mso-no-proof: yes; mso-bidi-font-family: "American
typewriter"'><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 2"> </SPAN>art<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style='mso-no-proof: yes; mso-bidi-font-family: "American Typewriter"'>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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="PAGE-BREAK-AFTER: avoid; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: widow-orphan
lines-together"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="mso-ansi-language: 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 lang=EN-GB style="mso-ansi-language: 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="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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 lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: en-gb">Heaviness Serialization
Principle</SPAN></I>.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 13.75pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: 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; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-pagination: none"><FONT
size=2><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Times
new roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: AdvP497E2; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US'>Rijkhoff,
J. 2009a. </SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Times
new roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt'>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-AUTOSPACE: ; TEXT-INDENT: -14.2pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none"><FONT
size=2><SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-family: advp497e2; mso-bidi-font-size: 8.0pt; 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-AUTOSPACE: ; TEXT-INDENT: -14.2pt; tab-stops: 65.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: 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="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: calibri"></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-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma"></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; COLOR: #000000">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<DIV id=divRpF867311 style="DIRECTION: ltr"><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face=Tahoma><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
href="wlmailhtml:redir.aspx?REF=sGl5RomnpE-BF3Bt1foWHNs4EZ9sLFpNokQs5Y0pxDO6ZjPcAyDTCAFodHRwOi8vam91cm5hbC5mcm9udGllcnNpbi5vcmcvYXJ0aWNsZS8xMC4zMzg5L2Zwc3lnLjIwMTUuMDE5NjQvYWJzdHJhY3Q."
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract</A></DIV></SPAN>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> </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)"> </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> </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>
<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>