<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Contrary to Östen (below), I am not quite ready to concede to Martin
the impossibility of defining a comparative concept of "word" that
will enable typologists to distinguish between isolating and
polysynthetic languages (as well as various intermediate types). I
am currently working on a paper that will provide such a
definition. An extended abstract of the paper is attached here. <br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/2017 02:23, Östen Dahl wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4869ee110a2d4a109263a17ae544c310@ebox-prod-srv10.win.su.se"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Oformaterad text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.OformateradtextChar
{mso-style-name:"Oformaterad text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Oformaterad text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.E-postmall20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">OK,
we should forget about word boundaries in typology, but
should we also do so when writing grammars? Could you write
a grammar of a stereotypical polysynthetic grammar and make
it look like an isolating one without using procrustean
methods?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">(Didn’t
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Skalička
have a rather idiosyncratic definition of polysynthesis?)</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Östen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:SV">Från:</span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:SV"> Martin
Haspelmath [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>]
<br>
<b>Skickat:</b> den 11 november 2017 19:01<br>
<b>Till:</b> Östen Dahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se"><oesten@ling.su.se></a><br>
<b>Kopia:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<b>Ämne:</b> Re: SV: [Lingtyp] wordhood: responses to
Haspelmath<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">It's not
crazy at all to say that isolating languages could be
described as polysynthetic, and vice versa. (In fact,
Skalička described Modern Chinese as polysynthetic in
1946.)</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:SV"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The
problem is that archetypes like isolating and
polysynthetic are mostly stereotypes. They are not clearly
defined, at least not without reference to a "word"
concept (itself only based on intuition, i.e.
stereotypes). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Of course,
morphosyntactic patterns are often more complex than
simple strings of morphemes. But we don't really know in
which ways these complexities cluster. Is it the case that
languages with tense-person cumulation (to give just one
example of a complexity) also tend to show case-number
cumulation? Is it the case that languages with special
bare-object constructions ("incorporation") tend to show
phonological interactions between object and verb? We
don't know yet, I think. By merely labeling languages
according to a few archetypes, we won't find out. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">So yes,
let's forget about word boundaries in typology until we
have a very good way to draw them consistently (using the
same criteria in all languages).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
Am 11.11.2017 um 18:40 schrieb Östen Dahl <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se">oesten@ling.su.se</a></a>>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Martin, I wonder if your views on these
matters imply that a polysynthetic language could
equally well be described as being an isolating one, and
vice versa. That is, one should just forget about word
boundaries and describe utterances as consisting of
strings of morphemes. If you think this is not feasible,
why?</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Best,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Östen</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</body>
</html>