<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 25.07.18 11:51, David Gil wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:566687e3-7131-e132-c948-545e3cc95e86@shh.mpg.de"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
But it's the nature of the scientific enterprise that one person's
hair-splitting is another person's crucial distinction.
Ultimately, nobody's trying (or at least should be trying) to
impose their terminology on anybody else; rather, what we should
be doing is using reasoned argumentation to convince other people
that one's proposed terminology is better, and to lead by example.
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I guess one could find me guilty of "trying to impose my
terminology" when I suggested that one should talk about
agent/source coexpression (rather than "polysemy").<br>
<br>
Unlike other fields, linguists have no tradition of codifying agreed
terminology, so there is no way in which a committee could impose a
term on anyone. And David's parenthetical remark ("no one should be
trying") suggests that linguists would not be happy to have such
authoritative bodies.<br>
<br>
But then how do we improve the terminological situation? I mean
cases where we all agree that there are conceptual distinctions that
are worth making, but we don't have a way of agreeing on a term?<br>
<br>
How do we "work harder" to address Mattis's desideratum:?<br>
<br>
On 22.07.18, Mattis List wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:566687e3-7131-e132-c948-545e3cc95e86@shh.mpg.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
We should all work harder in establishing a purely descriptive
terminology in our field. Explanatory terminology should be
restricted
to the situations where we really know what happened. </blockquote>
<br>
There have never even been conference workshops or plenary talks
about linguistic terminology, as far as I know. We seem to think
that the terminology will somehow sort itself out once we gain more
knowledge.<br>
<br>
And when someone makes a proposal for a new term, people sometimes
start objecting without proposing better solutions (I realize that
"coexpression" does not immediately please everyone, but I have not
heard an alternative suggestion).<br>
<br>
There seems to be a general reluctance to accept new terms, maybe
simply because new words often sound strange when one first
encounters them. I recently published a paper about "adpossessive
constructions" (specifically about alienability contrasts, in open
access, see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zfsw.2017.36.issue-2/zfs-2017-0009/zfs-2017-0009.xml">https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zfsw.2017.36.issue-2/zfs-2017-0009/zfs-2017-0009.xml</a>).<br>
<br>
I first submitted the paper to "Glossa", where one reviewer objected
to the neologism "adpossessive" (short for "adnominal possessive"),
as well as other neologisms found in the paper. There were no
substantive objections – s/he simply didn't see the need for these
new terms. I refused to address this "reviewer's concern" because I
find it important to enrich our terminology, and in the end the
paper was rejected by "Glossa" because of my stubbornness.<br>
<br>
So I think it's really nice that LINGTYP is engaging in this kind of
discussion of terminology, and maybe ALT might consider organizing a
workshop or discussion of this topic at some point. After all, most
ALT members are not committed to finding universal categories, so
one could try to have some kind of standard set of terms even before
solving all our problems (somewhat like the IPA, which is a standard
set of symbols that we agree on even though we have not solved all
issues in phonology, see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1000">https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1000</a>).<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<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>