<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Hello everyone,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Thanks for the replies and thanks for the papers Christian!<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">To a certain extent I agree with you, Juergen, but I wonder if there are standards in some areas of morphosyntax even if they are not made explicit and even if they are vague and rough around the edges because of the difficulty of defining what a speech community is. It's just that they are so trivial we don't think about them.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Standard 1: Do not make claims about the ordering of morphemes / groupings of morphemes that are refuted by data in your corpus that you claim to represent language of the same speech community.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">I suspect variation comes in when we consider what to do with elicitation data that cannot be corroborated or lined up with data in the corpus...<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Standard 2: Tell the reader whether data come from natural speech and what data were elicited (even better say how they were elicited)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">And then in cases where there are strong statistical tendencies, there is another vaguer and perhaps more problematic norm about saying that certain patterns are more or less frequent in descriptive grammars, sometimes with specific reports of frequency.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">For the phonetic realization of phonological categories, at least in terms of suprasegmentals, it's less clear to me whether there are any standards that relate to spectrograms or pitch displays. You can easily claim that H is realized with a higher or rising pitch or longer duration on the vowel or syllable that hosts in relation to L, even if that is not obvious from every example in your corpus. For apparent counterexamples, you just have to claim that there is fast speech phenomena or that the rise is undershot, realized with some other phonetic correlate (after all there could be changes in progress) etc. So I think there's a sense in which examples purporting to illustrate something about morphosyntax can be data while the analogy doesn't easily extend to pitch tracks / spectrograms. I was more thinking about whether there could be a way of choosing which examples are illustrative based on finding those that are closest to some central tendency in the data.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">best,<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Adam<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"> <br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:32 PM Eitan Grossman <<a href="mailto:eitan.grossman@mail.huji.ac.il">eitan.grossman@mail.huji.ac.il</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thanks Adam for raising this issue and thanks especially to Christian for for pointing us to his article. <div><br></div><div>Just as an anecdote about examples and what they illustrate - I am going through spontaneous conversational Hebrew corpora right now, and am having a very hard time locating examples that one could use to illustrate basic grammatical relations in the language, i.e., clauses that are the equivalent of the standard ones that we can all produce in our languages and which populate linguistic discussions of GRs. So even if one does occasionally find something like "I used avocado cream mask" or "She fell asleep," one would hardly find them representative of hours of language as actually used.<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Back to spectrograms and pitch tracks etc., I wonder what your impression is of the very qualitative type of work done in interactional linguistics, where typically not much is claimed in terms of generalizations but each utterance is analyzed pretty exhaustively in terms of, inter alia, prosody. My own impression of this kind of work is that it does not make fancy claims with respect to science, but the reader does get a good idea of what the range of variation is and how the prosody of each utterance relates to this.</div><div><br></div><div>Eitan</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:16 PM Christian Lehmann <<a href="mailto:christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de" target="_blank">christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Dear Jürgen,<br>
<br>
to mitigate a bit your pessimist opinion of the methodological
situation of our discipline, let me mention, as a contribution to
the discussion you are requiring, my web page<br>
<a href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/representations/?open=example.inc" target="_blank">https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/representations/?open=example.inc</a><br>
which advocates a distinction between <br>
<ol>
<li>a probatory example (which is data used as scientific
evidence)</li>
<li>and an illustrative example (or pedagogical example, which is
only meant to render a descriptive statement more concrete and,
thus, to help understanding).</li>
</ol>
Methodological standards for these two kinds of examples are
completely different. On #1, I may recommend:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249931781_Data_in_linguistics" target="_blank">Lehmann,
Christian 2004, “Data in linguistics.” <i>The Linguistic Review</i>
21(3/4):275-310.</a><br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Christian<br>
<div>-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de" target="_blank">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu" target="_blank">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Adam J.R. Tallman</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Post-doctoral Researcher <br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Friedrich Schiller Universität<br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif">Department of English Studies<br></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>