<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<big><br>
Dear all,<br>
when I studied Linguistic Typology in the 1990s (with W. Bisang),
one of the first things I learned was that, for non-nativists,
linguistic categories are language-specific, and that the
definition of 'tertia comparationis' for language comparison is
one of the major difficulties of the discipline. Twenty years
later, I think the problem is still with us. (Paradoxically,
typology has been rather successful, however.)<br>
<br>
Personally, I have to say that I don't regard Martin's
"comparative concepts", Paolo's "linguists' categorizations" or
Gilbert Lazard's ''cadres conceptuels arbitraires" as the ultimate
solution to the problem. In my view, they fail to meet one of the
three widely recognized quality criteria of empirical research,
objectivity (the other two criteria are validity and reliability).
Note that objectivity issues may multiply in the process of data
collection: Grammar writers interpret the raw data in a specific
way, and typologists interpret the grammars in their own ways
(unless they have acces to the primary data). That introduces a
lot of subjectivity into the data.<br>
<br>
Anyone who has ever tried to build a typological database would
probably agree that this is not just an 'academic' problem, but a
very practical one. I remember spending hours and hours discussing
the appropriate classification of reciprocal strategies with
colleagues when we created BURS
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://languagelink.let.uu.nl/burs/database/">http://languagelink.let.uu.nl/burs/database/</a>). I assume that word
order typology is seemingly simpler than semantic typology -- but
probably the adverb 'seemingly' is important here.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Volker <br>
</big><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19.01.2016 um 10:25 schrieb Paolo
Ramat:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:97425B90C9AE43EAAE7F87C805152C66@PaoloPC"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 style="FONT-FAMILY: ; mso-ansi-language:
en-us" lang="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 style="FONT-FAMILY: ;
mso-ansi-language: en-us" lang="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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
style="mso-ansi-language: en-gb" lang="EN-GB">(3)<span
style="mso-tab-count: 2"><i> </i></span><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Heaviness
Serialization Principle</i></span><span
style="mso-ansi-language: en-gb" lang="EN-GB"><span
style="mso-tab-count: 2">: </span>Rel<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>≥<sub>R</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Gen<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>≥<sub>R</sub><span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>≥<sub>R </sub><span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Dem/Num</span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="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 style="mso-ansi-language: en-gb"
lang="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>
</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: times new
roman; COLOR: #000000">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF867311" style="DIRECTION: ltr"><font
size="2" color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
Lingtyp [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</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>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 18, 2016 12:23 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><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 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</p>
<hr>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Prof. Volker Gast
English and American Studies
Ernst-Abbe-PLatz 8
D-07743 Jena
Fon: ++49 3641 9-44546
Fax: ++49 3641 9-44542</pre>
</body>
</html>