[Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of language complexity/simplicity
Matthew Dryer
dryer at buffalo.edu
Tue Jan 19 13:03:18 UTC 2016
I think my last email answered this.
Matthew
On 1/18/16 11:24 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> Are you kidding me? Do you really think that when people read a
> characterisation of word order in a language which says the language
> is Subject-Verb-Object that readers are not going to assume that the
> language not only has those categories, but that they must be
> significant in the determination of the word order (or vice versa) for
> such a characterisation to be used? Why else would anyone use such a
> characterisation? And if it doesn’t imply the existence of these
> syntactic categories or their relation to word order, why use such a
> characterisation?
>
> It also seems like you are making something like the argument the
> Chomskyans made against Nick Evans & Levinson's and Vyv Evans’
> typological arguments against universals, that typological facts have
> no relevance to the sort of things they are talking about in your
> abstract model. You are saying the categorical labels you use in your
> typological classifications have no relation to the actual typological
> facts of the language. So, for example, we apply the category
> label “subject" to a language, even though we know it doesn’t have
> anything like a subject. Do you really want to say that? My own view
> has always been to stick with the actual facts of the languages. I
> don’t know what use a typological classification that was not based on
> the facts of the languages would have.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>> On 19 Jan 2016, at 2:52 pm, Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu
>> <mailto:dryer at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Randy says that calling Chinese SVO implies that Chinese has such
>> categories. I am surprised that he would say that. I would have
>> thought it was obvious that classifying languages typologically does
>> not entail that the terms employed in the typological classification
>> correspond to categories in the language. Nor does it mean that these
>> categories determine or are determined by word order. I have
>> certainly made that clear in my work that classifying a language as
>> SVO makes no claim about the categories in the language, nor that
>> these categories determine word order even if the language has such
>> categories.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 1/18/16 7:42 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:
>>> Dan’s point is very important. For example, most people describing
>>> languages do not know how to distinguish agents, topics, and
>>> syntactic pivots (“subject”), and just call anything that occurs
>>> initially as “subject”. Sometimes even when the linguist is clear on
>>> the difference, they still use the word “subject”. E.g. Y. R. Chao,
>>> in his grammar of spoken Chinese, clearly stated there is nothing
>>> like what is referred to as “subject” in English, as all clauses are
>>> simply topic-comment, but he still used the term “subject” for what
>>> he said was purely a topic. This has confused generations of
>>> linguists, and they call Chinese SVO, which not only implies that
>>> Chinese has such categories, but also that these categories either
>>> determine or are determined by word order. See the following paper
>>> arguing against the use of such shortcuts, and arguing for more
>>> careful determination of the factors determining word order in a
>>> language:
>>>
>>> LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. On describing word order.
>>> /Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, /ed.
>>> by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, & Nicholas Evans, 269-295. Berlin:
>>> Mouton de Gruyter.
>>>
>>> http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_and_Poa_2006_On_Describing_Word_Order.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Randy
>>> -----
>>> *Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* （羅仁 地）| Division of
>>> Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University
>>> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825
>>> GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 |
>>> <http://randylapolla.net/>http://randylapolla.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 19 Jan 2016, at 10:21 am, Everett, Daniel <DEVERETT at bentley.edu
>>>> <mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One of the biggest problems in this regard that I have noticed is
>>>> in grammars of individual languages. Fieldworkers sometimes confuse
>>>> semantic and formal categories in the grammars, classifying as a
>>>> syntactic structure a semantic category. If typologists are not
>>>> careful writers/readers of grammars they may bring such confusions
>>>> into their typological studies. Sounds obvious. But not always so.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2016, at 21:11, Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree entirely with Jan on the need to distinguish semantic
>>>>> categories and formal categories. In fact, in a paper of mine that
>>>>> is I have nearly completed revising, I have an entire section
>>>>> arguing that generative approaches fail to note the fact that a
>>>>> given semantic category often has many different formal
>>>>> expressions over different languages and that this is problematic
>>>>> for implicit assumptions that equate semantic categories with
>>>>> formal categories.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Jan seems to think that this presents some sort of problem for
>>>>> the work I have done in word order typology.He says “When these
>>>>> authors subsequently formulate rules and principles on the basis
>>>>> of the data they collected, the semantic category labels
>>>>> (Adjective, Genitive, Relative Clause, but also e.g. Demonstrative
>>>>> and Numeral) appear to stand for _formal_ categories, i.e.
>>>>> categories whose members are defined on the basis of structural or
>>>>> morphosyntactic criteria”. But this is false. They stand for
>>>>> semantic categories.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan seems to think that it is somehow a problem that a given
>>>>> semantic category may have many different formal realizations
>>>>> across different languages. However, neither in his email nor in
>>>>> his 2009 paper in LT does he explain why he sees this as a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is, I admit, a /potential/ problem.Namely, it might be the
>>>>> case that for the purposes of word order correlations, the
>>>>> syntactic realization of a semantic category makes a major
>>>>> difference and that lumping the different syntactic realizations
>>>>> together is obscuring these differences. That is why I have spent
>>>>> considerable time over the years collecting data, not only on word
>>>>> order in particular languages, but also on the syntactic
>>>>> realization in these languages, precisely to examine empirically
>>>>> whether the syntactic realization makes a difference. The result
>>>>> is that while the syntactic realization sometimes makes a small
>>>>> difference, it is overall irrelevant: by and large,
>>>>> generalizations over semantic categories apply the same,
>>>>> regardless of the syntactic realization.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/16 4:41 AM, Jan Rijkhoff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the last word has not been said about Greenbergian word
>>>>>> order correlations, mainly because semantic categories and formal
>>>>>> categories have not always been clearly distinguished in
>>>>>> post-Greenberg (1963) word order studies (Rijkhoff 2009a).* For
>>>>>> example, both Hawkins (1983: 12) and Dryer (1992: 120) claimed
>>>>>> that they followed Greenberg (1963: 74) in ‘basically applying
>>>>>> semantic criteria’ to identify members of the same category
>>>>>> across languages, but in practice these semantically defined
>>>>>> forms and constructions are treated as formal entities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Hawkins and Dryer applied semantic criteria in their
>>>>>> cross-linguistic studies, this implies, for example, that their
>>>>>> semantic category Adjective must also have included verbal and
>>>>>> nominal expressions of adjectival notions (such as relative
>>>>>> clauses and genitives), which are typically used in languages
>>>>>> that lack a dedicated class of adjectives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Kiribati _(Ross 1998: 90)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1)///teueeaeetikiraoi/(relative clause)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> artflower rel 3sg.s be.pretty
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘a pretty flower’ (lit. ‘a flower that pretties’)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Makwe_(Devos 2008: 136)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2)/muú-nuw-á=ki-búúli/(genitive)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nc1-person pp1-gen=nc7-silence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘a silent person’ (lit. ‘person of silence’)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Relative Clause and Genitive are, however, also semantic
>>>>>> categories in their own right in word order studies by Dryer and
>>>>>> Hawkins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When these authors subsequently formulate rules and principles on
>>>>>> the basis of the data they collected, the semantic category
>>>>>> labels (Adjective, Genitive, Relative Clause, but also e.g.
>>>>>> Demonstrative and Numeral) appear to stand for _formal_
>>>>>> categories, i.e. categories whose members are defined on the
>>>>>> basis of structural or morphosyntactic criteria. This apparent
>>>>>> change of category is not explained, but can be seen in the case
>>>>>> of the ‘Heaviness Serialization Principle’ (Hawkins 1983: 90-91)
>>>>>> and the ‘Branching Direction Theory’ (Dryer 1992).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hawkins defined ‘heaviness’ in terms of such non-semantic
>>>>>> criteria as (a) length and quantity of morphemes, (b) quantity of
>>>>>> words, (c) syntactic depth of branching nodes, and (d) inclusion
>>>>>> of dominated constituents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3)// /Heaviness Serialization Principle/: Rel≥_R Gen≥_R A≥_R
>>>>>> Dem/Num
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus a member of the (semantic? formal?) category Relative Clause
>>>>>> is ‘heavier’ than a member of the (semantic? formal?) category
>>>>>> Adjective. But Hawkins’s semantic category Adjective must also
>>>>>> have included members of the ‘heavy’ formal categories Genitive
>>>>>> and Relative Clause (see (1) and (2) above). It is not clear
>>>>>> whether the original members of the single semantic category
>>>>>> Adjective were later ‘re-categorized’ and distributed over the
>>>>>> formal categories Adjective, Genitive and Relative Clause in the
>>>>>> /Heaviness Serialization Principle/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dryer’s ‘Branching Direction Theory’ refers to a structural
>>>>>> feature of the internal syntactic organization of a constituent.
>>>>>> According to the ‘Branching Direction Theory’, relative clauses
>>>>>> and genitives are phrases, i.e. members of a branching category,
>>>>>> whose position relative to the noun correlates with the relative
>>>>>> order of Verb and Object, whereas adjectives are non-branching
>>>>>> elements, whose position relative to the noun does not correlate
>>>>>> with OV or VO order (Dryer 1992: 107-8, 110-1). In this case,
>>>>>> too, one may assume that the semantic category Adjective also
>>>>>> included members of the formal categories Genitive and Relative
>>>>>> Clause (see examples above). Again we do not know what happened
>>>>>> to the branching/phrasal members of the erstwhile(?) semantic
>>>>>> category Adjective (relative clauses, genitives) when this
>>>>>> category was turned into the formal (non-branching) category
>>>>>> Adjective that is part of the ‘Branching Direction Theory’.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So as to avoid categorial confusion in cross-linguistic research
>>>>>> (and so as to make it possible to produce more reliable results),
>>>>>> it is necessary to keep formal and semantic categories apart, as
>>>>>> members of these two categories have their own ordering rules or
>>>>>> preferences. I also think it is an illusion to think we can give
>>>>>> a satisfactory account of the grammatical behaviour of linguistic
>>>>>> units -including word order- without taking into consideration
>>>>>> functional (interpersonal) categories or ‘discourse units’
>>>>>> (Rijkhoff 2009b, 2015).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Greenberg (1963: 88) made it clear that he sometimes used
>>>>>> formal criteria to remove certain members of a semantic category
>>>>>> before he formulated a universal, as in the case of his Universal 22.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *References*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Devos, M. 2008. /A Grammar of Makwe/. München: Lincom Europa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dryer, M. S., 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations.
>>>>>> /Language/ 68-1, 81-138.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular
>>>>>> reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg
>>>>>> (ed.), /Universals of Language/, 73-113. Cambridge MA: MIT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hawkins, J. A., 1983. /Word Order Universals: Quantitative
>>>>>> analyses of linguistic structure/. New York: Academic Press.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rijkhoff, J. 2009a. On the (un)suitability of semantic
>>>>>> categories. /Linguistic Typology/ 13-1, 95‑104.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009b. On the co-variation between form and
>>>>>> function of adnominal possessive modifiers in Dutch and English.
>>>>>> In William B. McGregor (ed.), /The Expression of Possession/ (The
>>>>>> Expression of Cognitive Categories [ECC] 2),51‑106. Berlin and
>>>>>> New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rijkhoff, J. 2015. Word order. In James D. Wright
>>>>>> (editor-in-chief), /International Encyclopedia of the Social &
>>>>>> Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition)/, Vol. 25, 644–656. Oxford:
>>>>>> Elsevier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ross, M. 1998. Proto-Oceanic adjectival categories and their
>>>>>> morphosyntax. /Oceanic Linguistics/ 37-1, 85-119.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan Rijkhoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *From:* Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] on
>>>>>> behalf of Alan Rumsey [Alan.Rumsey at anu.edu.au]
>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 18, 2016 12:23 PM
>>>>>> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Structural congruence as a dimension of
>>>>>> language complexity/simplicity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks to all of you who responded to my posting on this
>>>>>> topic, both online and off. All the readings you have pointed me
>>>>>> to have indeed been highly relevant and very useful, including an
>>>>>> excellent recent publication by Jennifer Culbertson that she
>>>>>> pointed me to in her offline response, at
>>>>>> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964/abstract
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks especially to Matthew Dryer for pointing out that the
>>>>>> Greenbergian ‘universal’ I had used as an example – the putative
>>>>>> association between VSO and noun-adjective order — had been
>>>>>> falsified by his much more thorough 1992 study “The Greenbergian
>>>>>> Word Order Correlations”. My reading of that article and further
>>>>>> correspondence with him has confirmed that, by contrast,
>>>>>> Greenberg’s universals no 3 and 4 were solidly confirmed by his
>>>>>> study, namely that SOV languages are far more likely to have
>>>>>> postpositions than prepositions and that the reverse is true for
>>>>>> VSO languages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Drawing on all your suggestions, Francesca and I have now
>>>>>> finished a draft of the paper referred to in my posting, called
>>>>>> 'Structural Congruence as a Dimension of Language Complexity: An
>>>>>> Example from Ku Waru Child Language’.**If any of you would like
>>>>>> to read it please let me know and I’ll send it to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy,
>>> use, or disclose its contents.
>>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160119/1fc108e8/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list