<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks, Östen, for this further discussion of boundness, and for
digging into Bloomfield!<br>
<br>
I'm not saying that Bloomfield was right, but he was the first to
propose a serious definition of "word" – so even though he failed,
it's still instructive to read him.<br>
<br>
In any event, his "bound vs. free" distinction survived, and I think
we need it for the definition of some key concepts in typology:<br>
<br>
– auxiliary verb vs. tense-aspect marker<br>
– adposition vs. relational noun<br>
– person index vs. free person pronoun <br>
<br>
Linguists often try to define grammatical elements in terms of their
"grammatical" meanings, but it seems to me that a grammatical marker
in general is best defined as "an element that cannot occur in
isolation".<br>
<br>
(Of course, this is paradigmatic in the sense that it relies on
"trans-utterance equivalence", but this applies to every concept in
grammar, as far as I can see.)<br>
<br>
The nice thing about Bloomfield's "bound vs. free" distinction is
that it's a single criterion (rather than a battery of criteria, so
that the issue of disjunctive definitions doesn't apply), and that
it's universally applocable, because all languages have free forms
and bound forms (of course with some questionable cases in the
middle, as is always the case).<br>
<br>
The term "bound" is also often used in a phonological sense
("phonologically bound"), but there are many different ways in which
this can be interpreted, so I find the Bloomfieldian sense much more
readily applicable.<br>
<br>
(Strangely, I often read linguists talk about "bound morphology", or
"bound affixes" – I wonder whether this means anything, or whether
it's just sloppy usage.)<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18.11.17 18:31, Östen Dahl wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1849537f12604652b7f736a20a70823a@ebox-prod-srv10.win.su.se"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML - förformaterad Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
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.HTML-frformateradChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML - förformaterad Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML - förformaterad";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.E-postmall22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.E-postmall23
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">I want to comment on the notion of "boundness",
in particular in its Bloomfieldian version. Matthew has
already expressed some doubts about the applicability of
this notion, and I was thinking of some further problems --
then I went to the source (Bloomfield's Language from 1933)
and found that (perhaps not unexpectedly) Bloomfield had
already considered those problems. In fact, in addition to
the definition on p. 160, he devotes at least seven pages to
discussing them (177-184). But the way he does so does not
really solve the problems with his definitions, they rather
confound them even more.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">The definitions of "bound" and "free" given on
p. 160 are clear enough: "A linguistic form which is never
spoken alone is a *bound* form; all others (as, for
instance, *John ran* or *John* or *run* or *running*) are
*free* forms." Furthermore, we learn on p. 178 that a word
is a "minimum free form", i.e. a free form which does not
consist entirely of two or more lesser free forms.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">It is not quite clear, however, what Bloomfield
really wants to say about boundness and wordhood. On p. 179,
he says that "[i]n the case of many languages, it is
impossible to distinguish consistently, on the one hand,
between phrases and words and, on the other hand, between
words and bound forms." On p. 181, he likewise notes that
"many forms lie on the border-line between bound forms and
words, or between words and phrases; it is impossible to
make a rigid distinction between forms that may and forms
that may not be spoken in absolute position". Depending on
how rigid we want our distinctions to be, this may seem to
be a more or less serious objection to the notions of
boundness and wordhood, but I find the cases more
problematic where Bloomfield seems to want to diss his own
definitions. Sometimes, he says, "the general structure of a
language may make one classification more convenient for our
purpose" (179). Thus the English definite article *the*
fills the same syntactic slot as the demonstratives *this*
and *that*. Therefore, even if *the* only occurs alone in
"far-fetched situations", the parallelism with the
demonstratives, which "freely occur as sentences", "leads us
to class *the* as a word". Another example mentioned by
Bloomfield concerns French pronouns such as *je* and *il*
which usually do not appear in "absolute use", but which
again, due to the parallelism with strong forms such as
*moi* and *lui*, "have the status of words" (180).
(Bloomfield does not say if this means that they also have
the status of free forms, but given that wordhood was
previously defined in terms of boundness, this is a
plausible inference.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">What this shows is that Bloomfield had a rather
pragmatic attitude to his notions and it is questionable if
we should speak of "Bloomfieldian" concepts if it means that
we want to be more Bloomfieldian than Bloomfield himself.
But a question of greater theoretical significance is to
what extent considerations of what Bloomfield refers to as
the general structure of the language, or of questions
regarding the optimal description of an individual language
system, is allowed to influence the application of
comparative concepts. Martin's work on those concepts seems
to imply that there should be no such influence. He says
(Haspelmath 2010:680f.): "Comparative concepts are motivated
and defined in a way that is quite independent of linguistic
categories (though of course not independent of the facts of
languages)" and "[i]n practice, typologists do not
generalize over the categories of languages, but over
properties of languages that they identify regardless of the
categories that speakers seem to have internalized and that
structural analysis reveals". I think that what "structural
analysis reveals" is precisely what Bloomfield was talking
about.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">In my opinion, what is crucial here is that the
Bloomfieldian definitions of boundness and wordhood are
paradigmatic in the sense that they demand the consideration
of more than one utterance, and thus involve making
judgments about trans-utterance and trans-construction
identity and equivalence. Thus, we have to make up our mind
about whether *je* and *moi* are the same entity or not. If
we think the answer to that question is clear, there are
many similar cases which are tougher to decide. And the way
we usually make such decisions is to consider what is the
best way to capture the general structure of the language,
or what "structural analysis reveals". In other words,
Bloomfieldian boundness is dependent on language-particular
descriptions and categories. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language,. New York:
H. Holt and Company.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts
and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies.
</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Language
86(3). 663–687.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: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>Från:</b> Lingtyp
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org">mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>]
<b>För </b>William Croft<br>
<b>Skickat:</b> den 18 november 2017 17:38<br>
<b>Till:</b> Volker Gast <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:volker.gast@uni-jena.de"><volker.gast@uni-jena.de></a>;
Linguistic Typology
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Ämne:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] wordhood: bonded vs. bound<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Volker,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I think most typologists are aware that
(i) defining categories for coding is very hard, especially
across languages -- hence all the discussions about
comparative concepts on Lingtyp (some of which have
subsequently been published in some form in Linguistic
Typology), of which this discussion of ‘word’ is only the
latest; and (ii) that typologists must usually
operationalize those criteria and make the
operationalizations as explicit as possible. I think that
(i) and (ii) are fairly common practice in typology, despite
my previous comments about essentialism and methodological
opportunism (cherry-picking of criteria).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> On the other hand, your point about
mono-annotator annotation is well taken. Nevertheless, the
operational factor is this one:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And
I'm not saying that mono-annotator projects are useless,
sometimes you just don't have the manpower for
multi-annotator projects <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I have recently been working on
computational projects that involve annotation, and even
there, where there is a lot more large-scale funding than in
typology, it is very expensive to hire and train annotators,
and in the end there are maybe two annotators and a third
person acting as adjudicator for a pilot annotation at most.
(In fact, most of the effort in computational linguistics is
towards training classifiers to do the annotation
automatically on large corpora, and in my small experience
those are often worse than mono-annotator annotations.)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In typology, there is virtually no
funding for any sort of multi-annotator annotation
whatsoever. This is especially true for graduate students
doing typological dissertations, but also for faculty doing
typological research. I would guess that many typologists
are aware that multi-annotator annotation is preferable, but
impractical. But we don’t normally add a statement like “We
are aware that engaging multiple annotators would improve
the reliability of our coding and hence of the results of
our crosslinguistic study; but due to lack of funding, all
annotation of the data was performed by the author.” Perhaps
we typologists should starting adding such statements.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 18, 2017, at 6:32 AM, Volker
Gast <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:volker.gast@uni-jena.de">volker.gast@uni-jena.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
Johanna, even if I could do this diplomatically, I
wouldn't, and I think it wouldn't make much sense, as
my point is not about specific publications or
authors; it's about common practice (and common
practice is reflected in the publications of 'major
authorities'). But I think I get your point; so let me
be a bit more specific.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">A
lot of (quantitative) typological work relies on
'coding': Information is extracted from grammars and
transformed into a data matrix. Now, it is common
practice (and I'm not excluding myself here) for the
coding to be done by the analyst him/herself, and by
no one else. But that's considered bad practice in
other fields. Ideally, you'd need a team of annotators
coding independently, on the basis of annotation
guidelines. The team codes a sample, determines
inter-annotator agreement, and adjusts/specifies the
annotation guidelines where necessary. This is done
until the inter-annotator agreement is satisfactory.
And then you can start with the actual coding.
Ideally, the analyst shouldn't be involved in the
coding process, as her annotation decisions might be
(subconsciously) influenced by her working hypotheses.
(Note that this might be a viable solution to the
question of how comparative concepts can reliably be
defined, for a given study; you can just measure how
much inter-annotator variation there is; whether or
not the operationalizations make sense is a different
question, of course, one of validity. When you use a
set of criteria disjunctively, the question is what
exactly your operationalizations are intended to
represent.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Note
that I'm not saying that there are no multi-annotator
projects in typology (I'm actually involved in two
such projects, though one of them is actually a
comparative corpus linguistics project); but as far as
I can tell, it is 'basically' comon practice for
analysts to code the data themselves. And I'm not
saying that mono-annotator projects are useless,
sometimes you just don't have the manpower for
multi-annotator projects (and one of the
multi-annotator projects I'm involved in was really
painful; but it was instructive to see that even for
categories that we thought we had defined rather
clearly, inter-annotator agreement was rather low in
some cases). But as I said earlier, it would be nice
to have some standards or at least general guidelines
for coding typological data. Minimally, I think, the
data should be published, along with at least some
information on the operational tests that were
applied, even if done by a single annotator.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
hope this clarifies my (too general) remarks in my
previous post.<br>
Volker<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 18.11.2017 um 13:27 schrieb
Johanna NICHOLS:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Volker, <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there's a way to do this
diplomatically, could you cite an example or two
of "important publications by major authorities
of the field where these criteria are simply not
applied"? In linguistics we don't have as much
technical comment on publications as some other
fields do, and maybe we should. In journals
where I see technical comments sections those
comments are refereed, edited, brief, and
focused on factual and methodological matters,
i.e. about empirical fundamentals and not debate
on theoretical frameworks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there's no way to do it
diplomatically, never mind.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Johanna<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:37
PM, Volker Gast <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:volker.gast@uni-jena.de"
target="_blank">volker.gast@uni-jena.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Matthew
-- are you saying that "one cannot rule out
disjunctively defined comparative concept"
because this is what you did?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
am not convinced by "disjunctive comparative
concepts". Now, that's nothing for you to
worry about -- I'm just one reader
(actually, audience of your ALT/2015-talk)
who doesn't buy your conclusions because he
doesn't accept your operationalizations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">But
if we want "to talk TO each other (not only
PAST each other)", as Martin writes, it
would be good to have what other fields call
"standards of empirical research". We have
copied a lot of statistical methods from
fields such as the social sciences and
biology. I think it would also be beneficial
to take a look at their standards at the
"lower" level -- for instances, wrt how data
is gathered, processed and classified, how
hypotheses are operationalized, etc., to
make sure that the results obtained by
somebody are also accepted by others (just
think of the 5%-threshold for statistical
significance, which is just a matter of
convention).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I'm
aware that this type of remark is annoying
for some of you. I teach both corpus
linguistics and typology. In corpus
linguistics our students deal with very
basic questions of empirical research --
like the traditional 'quality criteria' --
e.g. (external, internal) validity,
objectivity, reliability -- and then, in
typology, we read important publications by
major authorities of the field where these
criteria are simply not applied, sometimes
the statistics are faulty, and students do
enquire about this. What can I say? There
are no research standards in typology? There
is an ongoing discussion about
"arbitrary/subjective/random/disjunctive
comparative concepts" on the Lingtype-list?
I'm afraid it wouldn't convince them. What I
say is that typology still has some way to
go to in terms of research methods. There
are many non-trivial problems, as we have
seen in various discussions on this list,
and we should be aware that linguistic data
is sui generis (for instance, I think we
can't adopt just any method/software package
from genetics). But we shouldn't use
"authority" as a criterion in our
methodological choices, and the choices
shouldn't be made in such a way to
legitimize our own research 'ex post'.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Volker<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 18.11.2017 um 07:36
schrieb Dryer, Matthew:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">With
respect to Martin’s comment<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">“<span
style="font-size:14.0pt">It is my
impression that such ortho-affixes (=
forms written as affixes) are perhaps
even more common than “phonologically
weak” ortho-affixes, but this is an
empirical question (in his 2015 ALT
abstract, Matthew mentions 248
languages with weak affixes, but 308
languages with only affixes of the
Tauya type, apparently confirming my
impression).</span>”<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
realize that this is a reasonable
inference from my abstract, but one
often has to simplify things for the
purposes of an abstract. My definition
of a weak affix is very narrow and many
if not most affixes that are not weak
affixes by my narrow criteria can still
be shown to be attached phonologically
by broader criteria. Furthermore, I also
treat a morpheme as an affix for the
purposes of this study if it triggers
phonologically conditioned allomorphy in
stems it attaches to and it is clear
from Macdonald’s description of Tauya
that some of the ortho-affixes Martin
mentions do trigger phonologically
conditioned allomorphy in stems they
attach to (pp 54, 72, 74, 79).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
counted an affix as weak for the
purposes of the study in my 2015 ALT
talk only if the description of it in a
grammar makes clear that it is
nonsyllabic (or has nonsyllabic
allomorphs) or that it exhibits
phonologically allomorphy or triggers
phonologically conditioned allomorphy in
adjacent stems. But in many grammars, it
is only in the discussion of phonology
that it becomes clear that a given affix
exhibits phonologically conditioned
allomorphy or that it triggers
phonologically conditioned allomorphy in
adjacent stems. But because I wanted to
include a large sample of languages and
because it is often unclear from
discussions of phonology whether
particular rules apply to particular
affixes or stems such affixes combine
with, I adopted the procedure of not
consulting the discussions of phonology
in classifying ortho-affixes as weak.
This made sense for my 2015 ALT talk
since I was examining whether there is a
suffixing preference and restricting
attention to weak affixes so defined
applies equally to prefixes and
suffixes. For a different type of
typological study, this would have been
inappropriate. This illustrates how
comparative concepts are specific to
particular typological studies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Furthermore,
there are other factors that I did not
examine that are relevant to whether a
given ortho-affix is attached
phonologically. There may be clear
evidence from allophonic rules, but it
is often very unclear from grammatical
descriptions whether particular
allophonic rules apply to particular
ortho-affixes or stems to which
ortho-affixes are attached. And even if
the information is there in the
grammatical description, it may take a
lot of work to see whether they apply to
a particular affix. For example, careful
examination of Macdonald’s description
of Tauya implies that the benefactive
ortho-affix
<i>-pe</i> that Martin mentions is
attached phonologically, since she gives
examples of phonetic representations of
forms containing this morpheme where it
takes the form [-be] after /m/ ([tembe]
on page 54).<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">There
might also be evidence from stress, but
still be unclear how stress is assigned
to forms including ortho-affixes. For
example, Tauya has word-final stress,
but it is not clear from Macdonald’s
description whether this means that
nouns bearing the ortho-affixes that
Martin mentions take stress on the
ortho-affix.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Some
of you may have noticed that what I say
here contradicts what I said in my
earlier email about comparative concepts
needing to be exhaustive. The
comparative concept I used in my 2015
ALT talk was not exhaustive and was in
fact disjunctive. Since that seemed
appropriate for that study, this
suggests that one cannot rule out
disjunctively defined comparative
concepts. I sympathize with Martin’s
objecting to disjunctive comparative
concepts as a way to continue to use
confusing and ambiguous terms and I
agree that there is something odd about
arbitrary disjunctive comparative
concepts, but it is a mistake to simply
rule out disjunctive comparative
concepts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
should note finally that while it is
clear that the ortho-affixes that Martin
mentions are attached phonologically,
they are actually not affixes by either
his criteria or mine since they are
clitics that attach to postnominal
modifiers. [Martin has written about
problems with the use of the term
“clitic”. I am in complete agreement
with him about this. But I use the term
here and elsewhere in my research
(including my upcoming ALT talk on the
encliticization preference) as a label
for a comparative concept for
grammatical morphemes that are
phonologically attached but attach to
stems of more than one stem class.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Matthew<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From: </b>Lingtyp
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>
on behalf of Martin Haspelmath <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de"
target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, November 16,
2017 at 7:14 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] wordhood:
bonded vs. bound<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matthew Dryer
thinks that wordhood is generally
understood by grammar authors in terms
of
<b>bondedness</b> (= phonological
weakness, as shown by nonsyllabicity
and phono-conditioned allomorphy), not
in terms of
<b>boundness</b> (= inability to occur
in isolation). <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t know if
this is true, but Matthew actually
recognizes that grammars often
describe grammatical markers as
“affixes” even when they do not show
the two “phonological weakness” (or
bondedness) features.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example, Tauya
(a language of New Guinea) is said to
have (syllabic) case suffixes, but
these never show any allomorphy, e.g.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">fena’a-ni
[woman-ERG]<br>
na-pe [you-BEN]<br>
wate-’usa [house-INESS]<br>
Aresa-nani [Aresa-ALL]<br>
Tauya-sami [Tauya-ABL] (MacDonald
1990: 119-126) <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is my impression
that such ortho-affixes (= forms
written as affixes) are perhaps even
more common than “phonologically weak”
ortho-affixes, but this is an
empirical question (in his 2015 ALT
abstract, Matthew mentions 248
languages with weak affixes, but 308
languages with only affixes of the
Tauya type, apparently confirming my
impression).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For this reason, I
have suggested that the stereotypical
“affix” notion should perhaps be
captured in terms of boundness
together with single-root-class
adjacency. Since the Tauya
case-markers attach only to nouns,
they count as affixes; by contrast, if
a bound role marker attaches to both
nouns (English “for children”) and
adjectives (“for older children”) as
well as to other elements (“for many
children”), we do not regard it as an
affix (but as a preposition), even if
it is bound (= does not occur in
isolation; English "for" does not). <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matthew quite
rightly points out that this notion of
boundness (which goes back at least to
Bloomfield 1933: §10.1) implies that
most function words in English are
bound, and in fact most function words
in most languages are bound – but this
is exactly what we want, I feel,
because the best way to define a
“function word” is as a bound element
that is not an affix. Linguists often
think of function words (or
“functional categories”) as defined
semantically, but it is actually very
hard to say what is the
semantic(-pragmatic) difference
between a plural marker and a word
like “several”, between a dual marker
and the word “two”, between a
past-tense marker and the expression
“in the past”, or between a comitative
marker and the word “accompany”. It
seems to me that these distinctions
are best characterized in terms of
boundness, i.e. inability to occur in
isolation.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It may be true that
occurrence in isolation is a feature
of an element that is not easy to
elicit from speakers, but in actual
language use, there are a very large
number of very short utterances, so at
least positive evidence for free
status (=non-bound status) is not
difficult to obtain. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In any event, it
seems clear to me that some key
concepts of grammatical typology such
as “flag” (= bound role marker on a
nominal) and “person index” (= bound
person marker, generally on a verb)
require the Bloomfieldian boundness
notion, and that these concepts are
much easier to work with in typology
than the traditional stereotypical
notions of “case”, “adposition”,
“agreement marker”, and “pronominal
clitic”. (For bound person forms, this
was a major lesson of Anna
Siewierska’s 2004 book “Person”.) <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best,<br>
Martin<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 14.11.17
07:02, Dryer, Matthew wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">I have
a number of problems with
Martin’s proposal:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">"<b>Here’s
a proposal for defining a
notion of “affix”, in such a
way that the results do not go
too much against our
intuitions or stereotypes:</b></span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">An
affix is a bound form that
always occurs together with a
root of the same root-class
and is never separated from
the root by a free form or a
non-affixal bound form."</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">If one
examines the notion of “bound”
from his 2013 paper, I believe
it implies a comparative concept
of affix that differs greatly
from what most linguists (at
last most non-generative
linguists) understand by the
term. That’s not a problem for
it as a comparative concept, but
it is a comparative concept that
differs considerably from the
stereotype.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Martin’s
definition of “free and “bound”
from his 2013 paper is as
follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">"But
distinguishing in a general
way between bound elements and
free elements is quite
straightforward, because there
is a single criterion: Free
forms are forms that can occur
on their own, i.e. in a
complete (possibly elliptical)
utterance (Bloomfield 1933:
160). This criterion
correlates very highly with
the criterion of contrastive
use: Only free forms can be
used contrastively."</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">First, I
find the notion of complete
utterance ambiguous. Does it
mean utterances in normal speech
or does it include
metalinguistic uses (like “What
is the last word in the sentence
“Who are you going with”? Answer
“with”). I would assume that it
does not include such
metalinguistic uses. But then
many if not most so-called
function words in English would
count as bound since they cannot
be used as complete utterances.
Perhaps other speakers of
English would have different
intuitions, but if so that only
indicates the lack of clarity in
the notion. Furthermore, for
many function words in English,
I am not sure how to judge
whether they can occur alone as
utterances. Many such so-called
function words would appear to
count as bound by Martin’s
definition, though they would
not count as affixes since they
lack other properties in his
definition of “affix”.</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Second,
many languages have grammatical
morphemes that must occur
adjacent to an open class word
but which behave as separate
words phonologically. These
would all apparently count as
affixes by Martin’s definition.
Again, I have no problem with
this as a comparative concept,
only that it means his notion of
affix deviates considerably from
the stereotype.</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Third,
Martin says that his criterion
“correlates very highly with the
criterion of contrastive use”.
But by my intuitions, the
ability to occur as complete
utterances does not correlate
closely with the criterion of
contrastive use, since most
so-called function words CAN
occur with contrastive use (such
as can in this sentence!), as
can some morphemes that are
conventionally treated as
affixes, like <i>un-</i> in
“I’m not happy, I’m UNhappy”. Of
course, Martin might argue that
<i>un-</i> is more like
so-called function words and
less like morphemes
conventionally treated as
affixes. But the fact remains
that
<i>un-</i> is easily the locus
of contrast but cannot be used
as a complete utterance. I thus
see no evidence of a close
correlation between the ability
to occur as a complete utterance
and the ability to be the locus
of contrast.</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Finally, it
is my experience that languages
differ in their conventions
regarding what can be a complete
utterance. Imagine two closely
related languages that differ in
their grammatical rules
governing what is a complete
utterance. By Martin’s
definition, there might be a
large number of morphemes that
count as separate words in one
language but as affixes in the
other language. This strikes me
as odd. It seems odd to have a
criterion for what is a word and
what is an affix so dependent on
the grammatical rules in the
language for what constitutes a
complete utterance.</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Matthew</span><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm
0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From: </b>Lingtyp
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>
on behalf of Martin Haspelmath
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de"
target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, November 12,
2017 at 10:47 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp]
wordhood<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Mattis
List and Balthasar Bickel
rightly emphasize that “word”
is not a Platonic entity (a
natural kind) that exists in
advance of language learning
or linguistic analysis – few
linguists would disagree here,
not even generativists (who
otherwise liberally assume
natural-kind catgeories).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">But I
think many linguists still ACT
AS IF there were such a
natural kind, because the
“word” notion is a crucial
ingredient to a number of
other notions that linguists
use routinely – e.g. “gender”,
which is typically defined in
terms of “agreement” (which is
defined in terms of
inflectional marking on
targets; and inflection is
defined in terms of “word”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">So is
it possible to define a
comparative concept ‘word’
that applies to all languages
equally, and that accords
reasonably with our
stereotypes? Note that I
didn’t deny this in my 2011
paper, I just said that nobody
had come up with a
satisfactory definition (that
could be used, for instance,
in defining “gender” or
“polysynthesis”). So I’ll be
happy to contribute to a
discussion on how to make
progress on defining “word”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Larry
Hyman notes that other notions
like “syllable” and “sentence”
are also problematic in that
they also “leak”. However, I
think it is important to
distinguish two situations of
“slipperiness”:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">(1)
“Leakage” of definitions due
to vague defining notions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">(2)
Incoherence of definitions due
to the use of different
criteria in different
languages<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">The
first can be addressed by
tightening the defining
notions, but the second is
fatal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">To
take up Östen Dahl’s example
of the “family” notion: In one
culture, a family might be
said to be a set of minimally
three living people consisting
of two adults (regardless of
gender) living in a romantic
relationship plus all their
descendants. In another
culture, a family might be
defined as a married couple
consisting of a man and a
woman plus all their living
direct ancestors, all their
(great) uncles and (great)
aunts, and all the descendants
of all of these.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">With
two family concepts as
different as these, it is
obviously not very interesting
to ask general cross-cultural
questions about “families”
(e.g. “How often do all family
members have meals
together?”). So the use of
different criteria for
different cultures is fatal
here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">What
I find worrying is that
linguists often seem to accept
incoherent definitions of
comparative concepts (this was
emphasized especially in my
2015 paper on defining vs.
diagnosing categories).
Different diagnostics in
different languages would not
be fatal if “word” were a
Platonic (natural-kind)
concept, but if we are not
born with a “word” category,
typologists need to use the
SAME criteria for all
languages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">So
here’s a proposal for defining
a notion of “simple
morphosyntactic word”:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">A
simple morphosyntactic word
is a form that consists of
(minimally) a root, plus any
affixes.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Here’s
a proposal for defining a
notion of “affix”, in such a
way that the results do not go
too much against our
intuitions or stereotypes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">An
affix is a bound form that
always occurs together with
a root of the same
root-class and is never
separated from the root by a
free form or a non-affixal
bound form.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">These
definitions make use of the
notions of “root” and
“root-class” (defined in
Haspelmath 2012) and “bound
(form)” vs. “free (form)”
(defined in Haspelmath 2013).
All these show leakage as in
(1) above, but they are
equally applicable to all
languages, so they are not
incoherent. (I thank Harald
Hammarström for a helpful
discussion that helped me to
come up with the above
definitions, which I had not
envisaged in 2011.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">(What
I don’t know at the moment is
how to relate “simple
morphosyntactic word” to
“morphosyntactic word” in
general, because I cannot
distinguish compounds from
phrases comparatively; and I
don’t know what to do with
“phonological word”.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Crucially,
the definitions above make use
of a number of basic concepts
that apply to ALL languages in
the SAME way. David Gil’s
proposal, to measure “bond
strength” by means of a range
of language-particular
phenomena, falls short of this
requirement (as already hinted
by Eitan Grossman). Note that
the problem I have with
David’s proposal is not that
it provides no categorical
contrasts (recall my
acceptance of vagueness in (1)
above), but that there is no
way of telling which phenomena
should count as measuring bond
strength.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">David’s
approach resembles Keenan’s
(1976) attempt at defining
“subject” (perhaps not by
accident, because Ed Keenan
was David’s PhD supervisor),
but I have a similar objection
to Keenan: If different
criteria are used for
different languages, how do we
know that we are measuring the
same phenomenon across
languages? Measuring X by
means of Y makes sense only if
we know independently that X
and Y are very highly
correlated. But do we know
this, for subjects, or for
bond strength?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Martin Haspelmath (<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Kahlaische Strasse 10 <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-07745 Jena <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>&<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Leipzig University <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>IPF 141199<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nikolaistrasse 6-10<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-04109 Leipzig <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Martin Haspelmath (<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Kahlaische Strasse 10 <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-07745 Jena <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>&<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Leipzig University <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>IPF 141199<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nikolaistrasse 6-10<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-04109 Leipzig <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Lingtyp mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><span class="hoenzb"><span style="color:#888888"><o:p></o:p></span></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#888888"><br>
<br>
</span><span class="hoenzb"><span
style="color:#888888"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">-- <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Prof. Volker Gast<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">English and American Studies<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Ernst-Abbe-PLatz 8<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">D-07743 Jena<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Fon: ++49 3641 9-44546<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:#888888">Fax: ++49 3641 9-44542</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Prof. Volker Gast<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>English and American Studies<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Ernst-Abbe-PLatz 8<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-07743 Jena<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Fon: ++49 3641 9-44546<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Fax: ++49 3641 9-44542<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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">--
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
IPF 141199
Nikolaistrasse 6-10
D-04109 Leipzig
</pre>
</body>
</html>