<div dir="ltr"><div>(Might I just add as a sidenote that this discussion is very interesting, and that what Dryer puts forward here is very much what I was taught in my typological undergrad program in Stockholm and practice. </div><div><br></div><div>All emails on this mailing list are stored in a public archive that anyone can access, and I'd like to recommend fellow junior diversity linguists/typologists to read this thread. </div><div><br></div><div>For other fellow junior researchers I wrote up some advice on where to turn when terminologically confused that deals with some of the issues raised here. Perhaps your students would also find it useful: <a href="http://humans-who-read-grammars.blogspot.com.au/p/help-linguistics-is-hard.html">http://humans-who-read-grammars.blogspot.com.au/p/help-linguistics-is-hard.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Also, I once made up a word that might fit in here, "typologese" - it's when you get language specific descriptions very influenced by certain typological works and categories so that you start to doubt their bottom-upness and worry that just like translation grammars from french they are translation grammars from "typologese". )<br></div><div><br></div>/Hedvig</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt"><b>Hedvig Skirgård</b><br>PhD Candidate<br><span style="color:rgb(196,89,17)">The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity</span><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt">ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language</span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt">School of Culture, History and Language<br>College of Asia and the Pacific<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt">Rm 4203, H.C. Coombs Building (#9)<br>The Australian National University<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt">Acton ACT 2601<u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt">Australia<br><br>Co-char of Public Relations</span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt">International Olympiad of Linguistics</span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:9pt"><a href="http://www.ioling.org" target="_blank">www.ioling.org</a></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 January 2016 at 14:35, Matthew Dryer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">dryer@buffalo.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div>
      
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Randy,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">I
          am more than willing to adopt the rhetorical stance that if I
          think I disagree
          with you, the default is that it is that I am misunderstanding
          what you are
          saying. As a rhetorical move, I will argue why I think you are
          mistaken when
          you say something, not to prove you are wrong, but to provide
          you with the
          opportunity to clarify what you mean.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However,
          I suspect that we are in broad agreement about what is the
          right thing to do at
          the level of describing individual languages. To me,
          describing or analysing a
          particular language is a completely different enterprise from
          classifying the
          language typologically, except that the former is a necessary
          prerequisite for
          the latter. The former should be describing the language
          entirely in its own
          terms, rather than trying to fit it into some typology. I am
          also strongly
          opposed to questionnaire-based typology, since if one is
          classifying phenomenon
          X in a set of languages, one needs to see how phenomenon X in
          a given language
          fits into the overall grammatical system of the language. I
          suspect we are
          broad agreement on those issues.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Second,
          since the number of possible types is presumably infinite,
          typology necessarily
          lumps together languages which are some level are clearly
          different. Even if I
          lump together types of languages which differ in some crucial
          way in their
          grammatical system, I feel obligated to justify grouping them
          together. That is
          the basis for my grouping together languages in which there is
          a grammatical
          rule that defines the language as what I would call SVO and
          languages where
          there are no syntactic rules governing clause word order, but
          where the
          pragmatic factors governing word order and the frequency in
          discourse in which
          those different pragmatic factors arise result in more
          frequent SVO order at
          the level of frequency in usage.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Third,
          it is important to distinguish terminological “disagreements”
          (which are not
          really disagreements) from substantive disagreements. Part of
          the difference in
          our discussion is based on our using the terms “subject” and
          “object”
          differently. I use it these terms as they are used in the vast
          majority of
          grammatical descriptions produced in the past 100 years, one
          which is roughly equivalent
          to the A and P in “basic” constructions (like active as
          opposed to passive). I recognize, however, that there are many
          linguists who use these terms differently.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">When
          you say “</span><span lang="UZ-CYR">Simply lumping them
          together under a single rubric does nothing but categorise
          them, and doesn’t
          explain anything”, the first part is not really true, on my
          view, if the basis
          for lumping them together is that they behave the same with
          respect to some
          explanatory enterprise. I.e. lumping them together is a
          necessary step towards
          explanation. You are right<span>  </span>that
          lumping
          them together explains nothing. But NOT lumping together in
          the case we are
          discussing only leads, in my view, to mistaken explanations,
          since if we
          restricted our attention to languages in which the VO order
          reflected a
          syntactic rule in the language, we might be lead to
          explanations in terms of
          grammatical rules of the sort that are popular in some
          versions of generative
          grammar. The fact that languages which are VO in my terms only
          due to frequency
          in usage tend to exhibit the word order characteristics
          associated with VO word
          order means that we can rule out those lines of explanation
          that depend
          crucially on syntactic rules. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="UZ-CYR"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
      <span lang="UZ-CYR">Matthew</span>
      <br>
      <br>
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      On 1/19/16 9:44 AM,
      Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      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.
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>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><br>
      </div>
      <div>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><br>
      </div>
      <div>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><br>
      </div>
      <div>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><br>
      </div>
      <div>Randy</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
        <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>
              <br>
              <div>
                <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                  <div>
                    
                    <p class="MsoNormal">My point is actually
                      independent of the question of whether there are
                      crosslinguistic categories.<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></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal">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 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></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
                    <span>Matthew
                    </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 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 face="Verdana" size="4">Dan’s
                          point is very important. For example, most
                          people describing languages do not know how to
                          distinguish agents, topics, and syntactic
                          pivots (“subject”), and just call anything
                          that occurs initially as “subject”. Sometimes
                          even when the linguist is clear on the
                          difference, they still use the word “subject”.
                          E.g. Y. R. Chao, in his grammar of spoken
                          Chinese, clearly stated there is nothing like
                          what is referred to as “subject” in English,
                          as all clauses are simply topic-comment, but
                          he still used the term “subject” for what he
                          said was purely a topic. This has confused
                          generations of linguists, and they call
                          Chinese SVO, which not only implies that
                          Chinese has such categories, but also that
                          these categories either determine or are
                          determined by word order. See the following
                          paper arguing against the use of such
                          shortcuts, and arguing for more careful
                          determination of the factors determining word
                          order in a language:</font>
                        <div><font face="Verdana" size="4"><br>
                          </font></div>
                        <div>
                          <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3pt;margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify;line-height:15pt">
                            <span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-AU">LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory
                              Poa. 2006. On describing word order.
                              <i>Catching Language: The
                                Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, </i>ed.
                              by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, & Nicholas
                              Evans, 269-295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.</span></p>
                          <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:3pt;margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify;line-height:15pt">
                            <span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-AU">      </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-AU"></span></a><a href="http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf" target="_blank"></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 style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-AU"></span></p>
                          <div>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div><font face="Verdana" size="4">Randy</font></div>
                            <div>
                              <div>
                                <div>
                                  <div style="letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
                                    <div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><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="color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white;font-size:13px"><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-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><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="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="background-color:white"> | </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><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 |
                                                        <a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank">
                                                        </a><a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank"></a><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>
                                <br>
                                <div>
                                  <blockquote type="cite">
                                    <div>On 19 Jan 2016, at
                                      10:21 am, Everett, Daniel <<a href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu" target="_blank">DEVERETT@bentley.edu</a>>
                                      wrote:</div>
                                    <br>
                                    <div>
                                      <div dir="auto">
                                        <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><br>
                                        </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"></a><a href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">dryer@buffalo.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
                                          <br>
                                        </div>
                                        <blockquote type="cite">
                                          <div>
                                            <div>
                                              <p class="MsoNormal">I
                                                agree entirely with Jan
                                                on the need to
                                                distinguish semantic
                                                categories and formal
                                                categories. In fact, in
                                                a paper of mine that is
                                                I have nearly completed
                                                revising, I have an
                                                entire section arguing
                                                that generative
                                                approaches fail to note
                                                the fact that a given
                                                semantic category often
                                                has many different
                                                formal expressions over
                                                different languages and
                                                that this is problematic
                                                for implicit assumptions
                                                that equate semantic
                                                categories with formal
                                                categories.</p>
                                              <div> <br>
                                              </div>
                                              <p class="MsoNormal">But
                                                Jan seems to think that
                                                this presents some sort
                                                of problem for the work
                                                I have done in word
                                                order typology.<span> 
                                                </span>He says “<span style="font-family:Times" lang="UZ-CYR">When
                                                  these authors
                                                  subsequently formulate
                                                  rules and principles
                                                  on the basis of the
                                                  data they collected,
                                                  the semantic category
                                                  labels (Adjective,
                                                  Genitive, Relative
                                                  Clause, but also e.g.
                                                  Demonstrative and
                                                  Numeral) appear to
                                                  stand for <u>formal</u>
                                                  categories, i.e.
                                                  categories whose
                                                  members are defined on
                                                  the basis of
                                                  structural or
                                                  morphosyntactic
                                                  criteria</span>”. But
                                                this is false. They
                                                stand for semantic
                                                categories.</p>
                                              <div> <br>
                                              </div>
                                              <p class="MsoNormal">Jan
                                                seems to think that it
                                                is somehow a problem
                                                that a given semantic
                                                category may have many
                                                different formal
                                                realizations across
                                                different languages.
                                                However, neither in his
                                                email nor in his 2009
                                                paper in LT does he
                                                explain why he sees this
                                                as a problem.</p>
                                              <div> <br>
                                              </div>
                                              <p class="MsoNormal">There
                                                is, I admit, a <i>potential</i>
                                                problem.<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.</p>
                                              <div> <br>
                                              </div>
                                              <span>Matthew</span>
                                              <br>
                                              <br>
                                              On 1/18/16 4:41 AM, Jan Rijkhoff wrote:<br>
                                            </div>
                                            <blockquote type="cite">
                                              
                                              <div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">
                                                
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">I think the
                                                  last word has not been
                                                  said about
                                                  Greenbergian word
                                                  order correlations,
                                                  mainly because
                                                  semantic categories
                                                  and formal categories
                                                  have not always been
                                                  clearly distinguished
                                                  in post-Greenberg
                                                  (1963) word order
                                                  studies (Rijkhoff
                                                  2009a).* For example,
                                                  both Hawkins (1983:
                                                  12) and Dryer (1992:
                                                  120) claimed that they
                                                  followed Greenberg
                                                  (1963: 74) in
                                                  ‘basically applying
                                                  semantic criteria’ to
                                                  identify members of
                                                  the same category
                                                  across languages, but
                                                  in practice these
                                                  semantically defined
                                                  forms and
                                                  constructions are
                                                  treated as formal
                                                  entities. </p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">If Hawkins
                                                  and Dryer applied
                                                  semantic criteria in
                                                  their cross-linguistic
                                                  studies, this implies,
                                                  for example, that
                                                  their semantic
                                                  category Adjective
                                                  must also have
                                                  included verbal and
                                                  nominal expressions of
                                                  adjectival notions
                                                  (such as relative
                                                  clauses and
                                                  genitives), which are
                                                  typically used in
                                                  languages that lack a
                                                  dedicated class of
                                                  adjectives:</p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><u><span>Kiribati
                                                    </span></u><span>(Ross
                                                    1998: 90)</span></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span>(1)<i>
                                                    </i><i>te<span>      </span>uee<span>     
                                                      </span>ae<span>    </span>e<span>         
                                                      </span>
                                                      tikiraoi</i><span>        
                                                    </span>(relative
                                                    clause)</span><span></span></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span><span>    
                                                    </span>art<span> 
                                                    </span></span><span>flower 
                                                    <span style="font-variant:small-caps">rel 
                                                    </span>3<span style="font-variant:small-caps">sg.s
                                                       
                                                      <span></span></span>be.pretty<span>      
                                                    </span>
                                                  </span><span></span></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span><span>  
                                                       
                                                    </span>‘a pretty
                                                    flower’ (lit. ‘a
                                                    flower that
                                                    pretties’)<span>             
                                                    </span></span></p>
                                                <div><span> </span><br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span>Makwe</span></u><span>
                                                    (Devos 2008: 136)</span></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal"><span>(2)<span></span><i>  
                                                      muú-nu<span>     
                                                      </span>w-á=ki-búúli</i><span>                
                                                    </span>(genitive)</span></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span>    
                                                    </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"><span>   
                                                    ‘a silent person’
                                                    (lit. ‘person of
                                                    silence’)</span></p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">Relative
                                                  Clause and Genitive
                                                  are, however, also
                                                  semantic categories in
                                                  their own right in
                                                  word order studies by
                                                  Dryer and Hawkins.</p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:13.75pt;text-autospace:none">
                                                  Hawkins defined
                                                  ‘heaviness’ in terms
                                                  of such non-semantic
                                                  criteria as (a) length
                                                  and quantity of
                                                  morphemes, (b)
                                                  quantity of words, (c)
                                                  syntactic depth of
                                                  branching nodes, and
                                                  (d) inclusion of
                                                  dominated
                                                  constituents.
                                                </p>
                                                <div style="margin-right:13.75pt"> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;text-autospace:none">
                                                  <span lang="EN-GB">(3)<span><i>   </i>
                                                    </span><i>Heaviness
                                                      Serialization
                                                      Principle</i></span><span lang="EN-GB"><span>:
                                                    </span>Rel<span> 
                                                    </span>≥<sub>R</sub><span> 
                                                    </span>Gen<span> 
                                                    </span>≥<sub>R</sub><span> 
                                                    </span>A<span> 
                                                    </span>≥<sub>R </sub><span> </span>Dem/Num</span>
                                                </p>
                                                <div style="margin-right:13.75pt"> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:13.75pt;text-autospace:none">
                                                  Thus a member of the
                                                  (semantic? formal?)
                                                  category Relative
                                                  Clause is ‘heavier’
                                                  than a member of the
                                                  (semantic? formal?)
                                                  category Adjective.
                                                  But Hawkins’s semantic
                                                  category Adjective
                                                  must also have
                                                  included members of
                                                  the ‘heavy’ formal
                                                  categories Genitive
                                                  and Relative Clause
                                                  (see (1) and (2)
                                                  above). It is not
                                                  clear whether the
                                                  original members of
                                                  the single semantic
                                                  category Adjective
                                                  were later
                                                  ‘re-categorized’ and
                                                  distributed over the
                                                  formal categories
                                                  Adjective, Genitive
                                                  and Relative Clause in
                                                  the
                                                  <i><span lang="EN-GB">Heaviness
                                                      Serialization
                                                      Principle</span></i>.</p>
                                                <div style="margin-right:13.75pt"> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">Dryer’s
                                                  ‘Branching Direction
                                                  Theory’ refers to a
                                                  structural feature of
                                                  the internal syntactic
                                                  organization of a
                                                  constituent. According
                                                  to the ‘Branching
                                                  Direction Theory’,
                                                  relative clauses and
                                                  genitives are phrases,
                                                  i.e. members of a
                                                  branching category,
                                                  whose position
                                                  relative to the noun
                                                  correlates with the
                                                  relative order of Verb
                                                  and Object, whereas
                                                  adjectives are
                                                  non-branching
                                                  elements, whose
                                                  position relative to
                                                  the noun does not
                                                  correlate with OV or
                                                  VO order (Dryer 1992:
                                                  107-8, 110-1). In this
                                                  case, too, one may
                                                  assume that the
                                                  semantic category
                                                  Adjective also
                                                  included members of
                                                  the formal categories
                                                  Genitive and Relative
                                                  Clause (see examples
                                                  above). Again we do
                                                  not know what happened
                                                  to the
                                                  branching/phrasal
                                                  members of the
                                                  erstwhile(?) semantic
                                                  category Adjective
                                                  (relative clauses,
                                                  genitives) when this
                                                  category was turned
                                                  into the formal
                                                  (non-branching)
                                                  category Adjective
                                                  that is part of the
                                                  ‘Branching Direction
                                                  Theory’.</p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">So as to
                                                  avoid categorial
                                                  confusion in
                                                  cross-linguistic
                                                  research (and so as to
                                                  make it possible to
                                                  produce more reliable
                                                  results), it is
                                                  necessary to keep
                                                  formal and semantic
                                                  categories apart, as
                                                  members of these two
                                                  categories have their
                                                  own ordering rules or
                                                  preferences. I also
                                                  think it is an
                                                  illusion to think we
                                                  can give a
                                                  satisfactory account
                                                  of the grammatical
                                                  behaviour of
                                                  linguistic units
                                                  -including word order-
                                                  without taking into
                                                  consideration
                                                  functional
                                                  (interpersonal)
                                                  categories or
                                                  ‘discourse units’
                                                  (Rijkhoff 2009b,
                                                  2015). </p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal">* Greenberg
                                                  (1963: 88) made it
                                                  clear that he
                                                  sometimes used formal
                                                  criteria to remove
                                                  certain members of a
                                                  semantic category
                                                  before he formulated a
                                                  universal, as in the
                                                  case of his Universal
                                                  22.</p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2"><b>References</b></font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">Devos,
                                                    M. 2008. <i>
                                                      A Grammar of Makwe</i>.
                                                    München: Lincom
                                                    Europa.</font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">Dryer,
                                                    M. S., 1992. The
                                                    Greenbergian word
                                                    order correlations.
                                                    <i>Language</i>
                                                    68-1, 81-138.</font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: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.),
                                                    <i>Universals
                                                      of Language</i>,
                                                    73-113. Cambridge
                                                    MA: MIT.</font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt">
                                                  <font size="2">Hawkins, J.
                                                    A., 1983. <i>Word
                                                      Order Universals:
                                                      Quantitative
                                                      analyses of
                                                      linguistic
                                                      structure</i>. New
                                                    York: Academic
                                                    Press.</font></p>
                                                <p style="margin-left:14.2pt">
                                                  <font size="2"><span>Rijkhoff,
                                                      J. 2009a. </span><span>On
                                                      the
                                                      (un)suitability of
                                                      semantic
                                                      categories.
                                                      <i>Linguistic
                                                        Typology</i>
                                                      13-1, 95‑104.</span></font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-autospace:none">
                                                  <font size="2"><span>Rijkhoff,
                                                      Jan. 2009b. </span>On
                                                    the co-variation
                                                    between form and
                                                    function of
                                                    adnominal possessive
                                                    modifiers in Dutch
                                                    and English.
                                                    <span>In
                                                      William B.
                                                      McGregor (ed.), <i>The
                                                        Expression of
                                                        Possession</i> (</span>The
                                                    Expression of
                                                    Cognitive Categories
                                                    [ECC] 2),<span>
                                                      51‑106. Berlin and
                                                      New York: Mouton
                                                      de Gruyter.</span></font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-autospace:none">
                                                  <font size="2"><span>Rijkhoff,
                                                      J. 2015. Word
                                                      order. In James D.
                                                      Wright
                                                      (editor-in-chief),
                                                      <i>International
                                                        Encyclopedia of
                                                        the Social &
                                                        Behavioral
                                                        Sciences (Second
                                                        Edition)</i>,
                                                      Vol. 25, 644–656.
                                                      Oxford: Elsevier.</span><span></span></font></p>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt">
                                                  <font size="2">Ross, M.
                                                    1998. Proto-Oceanic
                                                    adjectival
                                                    categories and their
                                                    morphosyntax.
                                                    <i>Oceanic
                                                      Linguistics</i>
                                                    37-1, 85-119.</font></p>
                                                <div style="margin-left:14.2pt">
                                                  <span> </span><br>
                                                </div>
                                                <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt">
                                                  <span>Jan
                                                    Rijkhoff</span></p>
                                                <div> <br>
                                                </div>
                                                <div>
                                                  <div style="font-family:Tahoma;font-size:13px">
                                                  </div>
                                                </div>
                                                <div>
                                                  <hr>
                                                  <div style="direction:ltr"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
                                                      Lingtyp [<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank"></a><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"></a><a href="mailto:Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au" target="_blank">Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au</a>]<br>
                                                      <b>Sent:</b>
                                                      Monday, January
                                                      18, 2016 12:23 PM<br>
                                                      <b>To:</b>
                                                      <a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">
                                                      </a><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">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>
                                                      <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"></a><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><br>
                                                    </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><br>
                                                    </div>
                                                    <div>Drawing
                                                      on all your
                                                      suggestions, Francesca
                                                      and I have now
                                                      finished a draft
                                                      of the paper
                                                      referred to in my
                                                      posting, called '<span style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US">Structural
                                                          Congruence as
                                                          a Dimension of
                                                          Language
                                                          Complexity: </span></span><span lang="EN-US">An
                                                        Example from Ku
                                                        Waru Child
                                                        Language’.<b> </b></span>If
                                                      any of you would
                                                      like to read it
                                                      please let me know
                                                      and I’ll send it
                                                      to you.</div>
                                                    
                                                    
                                                    <div><br>
                                                    </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"></a><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"></a><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>
                                <br>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                        <hr>
                        <font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="2">CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is
                          intended solely for the person(s) named and
                          may be confidential and/or privileged. If you
                          are not the intended recipient, please delete
                          it, notify us and do not copy, use, or
                          disclose its contents.<br>
                          Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when
                          necessary. Thank you.</font> <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>
          <br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </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><br></div>