"simple juxtaposition"
Wolfgang Schulze
W.Schulze at LRZ.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE
Tue Nov 25 17:21:03 UTC 2008
Dear Martin,
sure, from a heuristic point of view your arguments make sense. However,
we should be aware of the fact that segmental marking is just one side
of the story: If we neglect possible (!) prosodic features,we are at
risk to ascribe functional values to segmental items that are ultimately
due to e.g. prosodics. In my humble opinion, linguistic expressions are
'gestalts', and cutting off segments from these gestalts always
conditions a loss of information (properties of the gestalt). For
instance, a feather always is a feather of a special kind of bird. If we
reduce our analysis to the properties of the feather itself without
referring to the whole gestalt of the bird and the interaction of (say)
feather and wing dynamics, we probably cannot describe (and explain!)
the properties of the feather coherently. In other words: Segmental
marking is a 'part of the whole' and isolating it from the whole means
to deprive it from its 'gestalting' properties. The fact that we have
not (yet) available 'Papuan apples' should motivate us to be cautious
with respect to the segmental features (Papuan oranges) we are
confronted with and to describe their functional values (derived from
segmental analysis) with a marked '*caveat*' in our heads....
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
Martin Haspelmath schrieb:
> I agree with Claude that prosody can be compared across languages, and
> that typologists working on syntax should make more and more use of
> phonetic information. But I would not say that gathering information
> in a phonetics lab is "easy".
>
> Easy typology consists in work that is based on reference grammars,
> and all large-scale typological work so far has been of the "easy"
> kind, for reasons of limited funding.
>
> What I'm worried about is the tendency to say that well-studied
> languages (like, say, Swedish) are different from poorly studied
> languages (like, say, Papuan Malay) because we happen to know that
> Swedish has a particular prosodic property, while we know virtually
> nothing about the prosody of Papuan Malay.
>
> Limiting ourselves to segmental information at least makes sure that
> we are not comparing (Swedish) apples with (Papuan) oranges, because
> we know enough about segmental marking in both languages and how to
> compare it.
>
> Martin
>
>
--
*Prof. Dr. Wolfgang
Schulze *
----------------------------------------------------------
/Primary contact:
/
Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft
Dept. II / F 13
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Ludwigstraße 25
Postanschrift / Postal address: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 München
Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486
(Secretary)
0049-(0)89-2180-5343
(Office)
Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-16567 //
0049-(0)89-2180-5345
Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
<mailto:W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de
<mailto:Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de>
Web: http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schulze/index.html
http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com
----------------------------------------------------------
/Second
contact:
/
Katedra Germanistiký
Fakulta humanitných
vied
Univerzita Mateja Béla / Banská
Bystrica
Tajovského
40
SK-97401 Banská
Bystrica
Tel:
(00421)-(0)48-4465108
Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512
Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk
<mailto:Schulze at fhv.umb.sk>
Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20081125/b5097c17/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list