<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">there are obviously several different understandings of the
terms emic and etic at work here.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If one considers only the description of a particular
language, I would argue that the emic and etic distinction applies to, e.g., a
morpheme and its variant realizations. Thus the a morpheme indicating “plural” in English
is syst-emic and its various realizations as [s] (bats) or [z] (mugs) are etic allomorphs,
i.e. as an observer would hear them ‘objectively’ without meaning attached. The
speaker ‘hears’ ‘plural’, or rather ‘multitude of’ and in some contexts maybe
some other concepts e.g. “a collective of’. All of whose meanings are then
subsumed as plural by the analyst. (It should be noted here that the choice to
subsume the different semantic notions indicated by this morpheme is not based
on emic conceptions, but on a notion that things like this are usually called
plural in languages (no matter if the exact circumstances vary)).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This understanding shares with emic and etic as they are applied
to different research approaches the change in perspective (from inside vs.
from outside) but lacks the preeminence of the notion of subjectivity and
preestablished notions. Etic designates an approach that uses an outside
framework or outside comparative concepts and emic designates an approach that
lets the patterns emerge during research, which in relation to linguistics, if
understood very narrowly would preclude elicitative fieldwork and require a
focus on varied discourse data (hence documentary linguistics cf. Woodbury
2003, cited in previous contribution). However, these need not be considered to
be mutually exclusive approaches in fact it is probably impossible to achieve solely
etic or absolutely emic perspectives. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">In this sense to be a little bit more precise since any linguist
(even an native speaker) comes with their own either explicit or implicit
notions to his/her research there is always an etic element in any linguistic
description owing to the subjectivity of the research. An analysis is never
solely based on simply emerging patterns. In some cases it is possible to get
closer to emic views as Conklin (1962) did for Hanunóo, but this in practice does
not hold for a grammatical description as a whole. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are, of course many more understandings as the term
has spread through many disciplines.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Conklin, Harold. 1962. Lexicographical Treatment of Folk
Taxonomies. In Fred W. Housholder and Sol Saporta (eds), Problems in
Lexicography. Bloomington: Indinana. (I think this is the correct reference,
couldn’t look it up properly)</p>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Martin Haspelmath <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</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">
Thanks to Doris for bringing up the etic/emic contrast. Yes, there
are important similarities, as I briefly note in my 2010 paper (§7,
referring to Reesink's 2008 paper in Studies in Language: "
<span><span>Lexicon and
syntax from an emic viewpoint").<br>
<br>
I agree with Bill and Matthew that not all comparative concepts
are etic, but all etic concepts can probably be used for
comparison. In general, I would use the term "comparative
concept" very broadly. The nonverbal stimuli as used in
comparative lexical research by fieldworkers (e.g. Meira,
Levinson et al. 2003, and much related work) are kinds of
comparative concepts (called "etic grids" by these authors), but
so are more abstract concepts like "root" (e.g. as defined in my
2012 paper on word-classes) or serial verb construction (as
defined in my 2016 paper). The latter are of course not etic.<br>
<br>
Matthew's example of Ian Maddieson's WALS chapters on sound
distinctions is interesting, because it's actually somewhat
questionable to what extent phonemes can be compared across
languages. In APiCS, we decided to compare segments at the level
of "salient allophones", not phonemes (see
<a href="http://apics-online.info/parameters" target="_blank">http://apics-online.info/parameters</a>, select feature type:
segment). These are closer to etic distinctions.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
</span></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<div>On 27.01.16 21:35, William Croft wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
There are definitely similarities between etic and emic on the one
hand, and comparative concepts and language-specific categories on
the other. I would say there are some differences as well.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Etic categories, in the morphosyntactic domain, are more like
"purely semantic/functional" comparative concepts. For example,
the property concept classes of dimension, value, age. But
Martin argued for some comparative concepts that are hybrids,
including (crosslinguistically valid) formal properties. So for
instance for me, "adjective" is a hybrid comparative concept
that is whatever construction expresses modification of a
referent by a property concept such as one of those classes just
named. (Or more accurately, the head of such a construction,
with 'head' defined functionally as in Croft 2001, ch. 7.) And
perhaps that construction instantiates a particular formal
strategy, say the linker strategy, for adjectives. This is
another hybrid comparative category. Neither adjective nor
linker strategy are etic categories in the usual sense.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Emic categories look a lot more like language-specific
categories. But I would say that language-specific categories
are construction-specific as well. So we might identify an
adjective construction using a linking strategy in the language
we're describing, based on modification by certain property
concepts. Then we can ask, what other lexical concepts can be
used in this construction for modification? We'll come up with a
set of lexical concepts, possibly not all the property concepts,
possibly including non-property concepts, that can be used in
this construction for modification. Then we could use the
capitalized term Adjective to describe this
construction-specific word class, because we used the
comparative concept adjective to single out this
language-specific construction. This would make it easier for
someone else reading our language description to find the
adjective (lower-case, comparative concept) construction in that
language, for comparative typological or other purposes. As
Johanna said, this is what descriptive grammarians generally do,
even if they aren't thinking about the issues in the way
described here, and so typologists generally don't have a
problem using descriptive grammars (and the prose description in
the grammar can tell us if things are different). But Adjective
is not adjective; we haven't "discovered" an adjective class in
the language, because adjective (lower case) is not a
language-specific word class; it is a type of comparative
concept.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Frank Seidel <<a href="mailto:frank.zidle@gmail.com" target="_blank">frank.zidle@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear all,<br>
</div>
Doris' point about etic and emic perspectives
clarified one more issue about comparative
concepts and language-particular categories for
me. Since two linguists working on a same
language might arrive at different analyses
about phenomena found, so-called language
particular categories are at the same time
analyst particular categories and I would thus
still consider them to be etic perspectives on a
language.
<br>
<br>
</div>
Furthermore, and I might understand Martin
Haspelmath's (2010) paper wrongly, but the way he
talked about grammatical concepts I understood
them to be more akin to 'ad hoc'
concepts/categories (e.g. things that you need to
build a house). You need them for a particular
purpose, but they are otherwise useless. In this
case they are concepts that are used to
meaningfully compare
structural-semantic/functional/communicative
aspects of languages.<br>
<br>
</div>
From a purely terminological standpoint I would
argue that the difference between a concept and a
category is that the concept helps you identify a
set of items and basically 'turns' into a category
once a set of items has been identified. So
comparative concepts 'turn' into categories once
items in different languages have been found. These
concepts are, however, somewhat useless to use as an
argument for a language particular analysis. Thus if
one finds a group of "lexemes that denote a
descriptive property and that can be used to narrow
the reference of a noun" in a particular language
the language cannot be argued to have a grammatical
category adjectives based on this. This is despite
the fact that once I identify such a group of
lexemes in a particular language, I still have a
category. This category is just useless for language
particular analysis. They can only be viewed as
adjectives for a comparative purposes. The question
here would be, if this definition of a comparative
concept adjective should be used for all comparative
purposes involving the idea of adjective?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>From a methodological standpoint, then, if I look
for a set of 'adjectives' as comparatively defined
in a language and then try to find language internal
evidence that this group of items (or at least a
part of this group) can be argued for as being its
own language specific category adjective, can I say
that I have let the language show itself to me?<br>
<br>
Thanks all for reading.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Frank <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:54
AM, Everett, Daniel <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu" target="_blank">DEVERETT@bentley.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Good point, Doris.
At the risk of harping on a single subject, in my
forthcoming Chicago press book the etic/emic
distinction plays a major role in the empiricist
theories of language and culture that I try to
develop. These are very important ideas that have
been misunderstood and under-estimated for decades
outside of some circles.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dan</div>
<div>
<div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:13 PM, <a href="mailto:Dlpayne@uoregon.edu" target="_blank">
Dlpayne@uoregon.edu</a> <<a href="mailto:dlpayne@uoregon.edu" target="_blank">dlpayne@uoregon.edu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">It
seems to me that "comparative
concept" in Martin's usage is close
(if not identical) to what is called
"etic " while language specific
"descriptve categories" are "emic
cagegories" as discussed by Keneth
Pike abd used in anthropology long
ago, with the additional
understanding that we are talking
about conceptual notions of
potential relevance to morohosyntax
/ discourse (not just to sound or
eg. "marriage" in anthropology,
etc.) </span>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">Aren't
these the same kind of distinctions
just under new names by a (somewhat)
new generation?</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">Doris
Payne</div>
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">--------
Original message --------</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">Subject:
Re: [Lingtyp] comparative concepts</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">From:
Matthew Dryer <</span><a href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">dryer@buffalo.edu</a><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">></span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">To:<span> </span></span><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">CC:
Re: [Lingtyp] comparative concepts</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria">Paolo’s
comment here illustrates very well
how wings is a comparative
concept.</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria">The
primary motivation for my arguing
against crosslinguistic categories
in my 1997 paper was that
linguists would debate for
marginal cases whether a category
in a particular language was an
instance of the crosslinguistic
category, but I argued that such
debates were merely
terminological, not substantive.</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria">Claiming
that bats don’t have wings is an
example of the same phenomenon: it
all depends on how you define
wings.<span> <span> </span></span>Paolo
is assuming one definition, but
many people would assume a
different definition.<span> <span> </span></span>There
is no “right” definition.</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"> </div>
<span style="font-size:12pt">Matthew</span><span> </span><br>
<br>
On 1/22/16 10:28 AM, Paolo Ramat
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<div>Hi David,</div>
<div>your comparison of
linguistic facts with bats
helps me to clarify (and this
will be the end of my
interventions!) my point:
actually, bats don’t have
wings but a kind of membrane
that FUNCTIONS like wings
which prototypically are
formed by an ordered
collection of plumes.
Similarly, in the Lat.
construct<span> </span><em>me
poenitet<span> </span></em>the
accus.<span> </span><em>me<span> </span></em>has
the same FUNCTION as Engl.<span> </span><em>I<span> </span></em>in<span> </span><em>I‘m
sorry<span> </span></em>or
Germ.<em><span> </span>mir<span> </span></em>in <span> </span><em>Es
tut mir leid<span> </span></em>(call
it Patient or Experiencer).
Once we have established what
wings, PAT or EXP are, we can
draw more or less narrow
comparisons between bats,
bees, eagles etc. and between
the theta roles implemented by<span> </span><em>me,
I, mir<span> </span></em>etc. <span> </span></div>
<div>Consequently, I agree with
your conclusions thet
“comparative concepts [build
on linguists’ analysis of
languages] have a place in the
grammatical descriptions of
individual languages” and that
“the ontological diversity of
language-specific categories
and comparative concepts
should be present within the
grammatical descriptions of
individual languages” .<span>
The process is twofold :
from the empirical
observation of bats, bees,
eagles etc. and
Lat.,Engl.,Germ etc. to the
creation of comparative
concepts (call them abstract<span> </span><em>tertia
comparationis</em>) back
to the analysis of flying
objects and of linguistic
extant data.</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Best,</span></div>
<div><span>Paolo</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div>°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Prof.Paolo
Ramat</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Academia
Europaea<br>
Università di Pavia<br>
Istituto Universitario di
Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia)<br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(245,245,245);background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial">
<div><b>From:</b><span> </span><a title="gil@shh.mpg.de" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">David Gil</a></div>
<div><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Friday,
January 22, 2016 3:14 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b><span> </span><a title="lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></div>
<div><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re:
[Lingtyp] comparative
concepts</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">I've greatly
enjoyed following this
high-quality discussion:
thank you all.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">In
particular, I think the
discussion has helped me
to articulate an unease
that I've always felt
about the distinction
between language-specific
categories and what Martin
calls comparative
concepts.<span> <span> </span></span>I
agree wholeheartedly that
we need to distinguish
between, say, the Latin
Dative, and a
typologically-informed
concept of dative that the
Latin Dative may or may
not instantiate to
whatever degree.<span> <span> </span></span>(I
also agree that it's
unfortunate that we don't
have enough distinct terms
to assign to all of these
different things, and that
we sometimes end up
falling prey to the
resulting terminological
confusion.)<span> <span> </span></span>Where
I think I part ways with
some of my colleagues is
that I do not accept that
language-specific
categories and comparative
concepts constitute two
distinct and well-defined
ontological types.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Let's take
the wing analogy.<span> <span> </span></span>I
agree that a statement
such as "bats have wings"
may be of more interest
for somebody interested in
comparative evolution than
for a specialist in bats —
in that sense it resembles
a comparative concept in
linguistics.<span> <span> </span></span>But
still, bats do have wings,
even though they may
differ in many ways from
those of birds or bees.<span> <span> </span></span>And
yes, ontologically bat
wings are a very different
type of thing than, say,
whatever feature of bat
DNA it is that "generates"
those wings.<span> <span> </span></span>However,
these different
ontological types all have
a place within a
description of bats, even
though a bat specialist
might be more interested
in the DNA while the
comparative evolutionist
will be more interested in
the wings.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Getting back
to languages, let's
consider three
hypothetical (and somewhat
simplistic cases of)
languages that Matthew
would classify as having
SVO basic word order:</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Language A:<span> <span> </span></span>has
well-defined Ss and Os,
and specific linearization
rules that put the S
before the V and the O
after it.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Language B:<span> <span> </span></span>has
well-defined Ss and Os,
but no linearization rules
that refer to them;
instead it has specific
linearization rules that
put the A before the V and
the P after it.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Language C:<span> <span> </span></span>does
not have well-defined Ss
and Os, but has specific
linearization rules that
put the A before the V and
the P after it.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">In Matthew's
WALS chapter, all three
languages are
characterized as SVO; this
is an example of what
Martin and others call a
comparative concept.<span> <span> </span></span>And
as we have found out over
the last several decades,
basic word order is a very
useful comparative concept
for us to have.<span> <span> </span></span>However,
our three hypothetical
languages arrive at their
SVO order in very
different ways, giving
rise to the impression
that the respective
bottom-up
language-specific
descriptions of the three
languages will share no
common statement to the
effect that they have SVO
word order.<span> <span> </span></span>And
indeed, adequate bottom-up
language-specific
descriptions of these
three languages should
look very different,
reflecting the very
different provenances of
their SVO word orders.<span> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">However, I
would like to suggest that
there is also a place
within the bottom-up
language-specific
description of each of the
three languages for some
kind of statement to the
effect that the language
has SVO word order (in the
sense of Matthew's WALS
chapter).<span> <span> </span></span>Of
course this is a different
kind of statement to the
ones previously posited,
making reference to
different levels of
description.<span> <span> </span></span>But
we're already used to
multiple levels of
description within
language-specific
descriptions, for example
when we talk about Ss and
Os but also As and Ps,
topics and comments, and
so forth.<span> <span> </span></span>So
there is no good reason
not to allow for a
WALS-style word-order
category such as SVO not
to be written into the
grammatical descriptions
of each of our
hypothetical three
languages, even if in some
cases it may be
"derivative" or
"epiphenomenal", and even
if in some cases it is of
relatively little interest
to language specialists.
(Though as Matthew pointed
out earlier on in this
thread, the basic word
order facts of a language
have implications
regarding other properties
of the language in
question even in those
cases where the basic word
order is "derivative" of
other factors.)</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">So what I'm
suggesting, then, is that
so-called comparative
concepts have a place in
the grammatical
descriptions of individual
languages.<span> <span> </span></span>This
is not to deny that
comparative concepts are
different kinds of
creatures, which — by
definition — are of
greater relevance to
cross-linguistic
comparison than to the
understanding of
individual languages.<span> <span> </span></span>It
follows that the
ontological diversity of
language-specific
categories and comparative
concepts should be present
within the grammatical
descriptions of individual
languages.<span> <span> </span></span>Some
will object to this, but I
have no problem with the
proposition that a good
description of a language
will be ontologically
heterogeneous, e.g.
containing some statements
that are psychologically
real and others that are
not.<span> <span> </span></span>(I
note here Eitan's
suggestion earlier in this
thread that some
comparative concepts may
also be cognitively real.)</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Finally, and
somewhat tangentially, a
practical consideration:<span> <span> </span></span>a
good reference grammar,
while describing a
language on its own terms
without imposing
categories from outside,
should at the same time
maintain a parallel
reader-friendly
typologically-informed
narrative, one of whose
major tasks is to mention
all of those
cross-linguistically
familiar typological
categories — e.g. case
marking, agreement,
gender, and so forth —
that are absent from the
language, if only to
reassure the reader that
the author didn't just
omit mention of them for
reasons of space, lack of
interest, or whatnot.</span></div>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-812-73567992" value="+6281273567992" target="_blank">+62-812-73567992</a>
</pre>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr>
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list<span> </span><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><span> </span><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<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>
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">Lingtyp
mailing list</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div>Frank Seidel, Ph.D.<br>
University of Florida<br>
Center for African Studies at the University of
Florida<br>
427 Grinter Hall - PO Box 115560<br>
Gainesville, FL 32611-5560<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:352.392.2183" value="+13523922183" target="_blank">352.392.2183</a><br>
Fax: <a href="tel:352.392.2435" value="+13523922435" target="_blank">352.392.2435</a><br>
</div>
</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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</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></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><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>
</font></span></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><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Frank Seidel, Ph.D.<br>University of Florida<br>Center for African Studies at the University of Florida<br>427 Grinter Hall - PO Box 115560<br>Gainesville, FL 32611-5560<br>Tel: 352.392.2183<br>Fax: 352.392.2435<br></div>
</div>