<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Indeed, objectivity is really crucial, as emphasized by Volker Gast.
As Bill Croft said: "we must be careful to define comparative
concepts in consistent and crosslinguistically valid ways, that is,
using formal properties that are crosslinguistically valid and
consistently applied across languages". This gives us objective
comparative results.<br>
<br>
But whether we define "adjective" or "subject" in one way or another
is not a matter of subjective decisions, but a matter of
terminological choice.<br>
<br>
Some people seem to think that there is one correct set of optimal
comparative concepts, and that comparative concepts should not be
based on intuition or chosen "arbitrarily" (in Gilbert Lazard's
words). But this is wrong: There are myriad ways of comparing
languages, and thus myriad possible comparative concepts. Which
kinds of concepts are the most productive concepts, most likely to
yield deeper insights, is a matter for research. In fact, finding
good comparative concepts is one of the most important ingredients
of the creative process for successful comparative research. <br>
<br>
Thus, in Volker Gast's discussions on the typology of reciprocals,
it may well be that all sides were right, in that different ways of
comparing languages would have given different, but equally
important insights...<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19.01.16 11:19, Volker Gast wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:569E0DBE.70106@uni-jena.de" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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">
<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 face="Arial" size="2"><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 face="Arial" size="2"><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
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><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">Alan.Rumsey@anu.edu.au</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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></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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>
<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">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
Beethovenstrasse 15
D-04107 Leipzig
</pre>
</body>
</html>