<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
It's great to see all these contributions to the discussion, because
the issue is important – we use traditional terms all the time and
we think that they are generally understood. But often, they do not
have a clear definition for everyone.<br>
<br>
Mark Post wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:578EB48A-2EB6-4FDF-8CD8-11FDDAD87BE4@sydney.edu.au">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I really think that this is a good illustration of how, in
practice, that principle yields irreconcilably confusing results.
One cannot help but develop a “comparative concept” on the basis
of languages that one knows best, and structural definitions of
“passive” tend strongly to favour a viewpoint from European
languages. Hold this line too strongly, and one either misses or,
potentially, includes and thereby distorts the properties of,
constructions that evolved in response to the same sorts of
functional pressures, but in different types of languages. Where
does one draw lines in cases like this ...? I don’t see that we
yet have an agreed set of principles for determining this, nor do
we seem content with the uncertainties that can result. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And David Gil, too, says that my definition is "Eurocentric" because
it excludes elements that are not affixes (like Riau Indonesian <i>kena</i>,
which can occur on its own and thus is not a bound form, i.e. it
cannot be a prefix).<br>
<br>
However, "passive" is a term that originates from European
languages, so I wouldn't say that a definition that is close to its
origins is Eurocentric. (Likewise, "classifier" originates in East
Asia, and it would be odd to say that a definition that excludes
unit nouns like English "bottle", in "three bottles of water", would
be "Asiacentric".)<br>
<br>
Bill Croft quite rightly emphasizes the distinction between
"function/construction" and "strategy" (which plays a big role in
his forthcoming book "Morphosyntax":
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/WACpubs.html">https://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/WACpubs.html</a>), and he notes that some
traditional terms have been extended to be used for
"functions/constructions" generally, while others have been
restricted to (formal) "strategies".<br>
<br>
Is there a general principle for choosing between these options? I
think that the main principle for scientific terminology should be
"anti-polysemy": A term should keep its meaning, to the extent
possible. When a new concept arises, e.g. when a discovery is made
(such as Givón's insight that passives play an important role in
discourse patterns), a new term should be created. (I say more about
principles of terminology in §4 of this paper:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005489">https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005489</a>)<br>
<br>
So the reason I would opt for the form-based definition of "passive"
(as opposed to the function-based definitions favoured by Bohnemeyer
and Givón-Croft) is that the term "passive" is generally used for a
strategy, in actual usage. It would be very odd to say that a
sentence with a fronted object and focused subject like German "Den
Mann hat der LÖWE gesehen" (= 'The man was seen by the LION') is a
passive construction. Typologists may be happy with such usage, but
they will not be understood by linguists more generally if they
adopt it. (Likewise, Keenan & Comrie's purely functional
definition of "relative clause" led to the very odd consequence that
all adnominal adjectives are relative clauses; this did not bother
them, because they were concerned only with accessibility, but we
want to have a definition of the legacy term "relative clause" that
conforms better to actual usage.)<br>
<br>
Maybe what distinguishes my thinking about these matters that I ask
not only what the best concepts are (which need labels to be
attached to them), but also how we could arrive at a situation where
we no longer talk past each other all the time. We will no doubt
continue using terms like "morph", "affix" and "passive" (because we
have strong intuitions about them), so regardless of whether these
are good concepts, we need definitions of the terms that largely
conform to our intuitions.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522">https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522</a></pre>
</body>
</html>