[Lingtyp] Underlying principles of interlinearization

[Enrique L. Palancar]

Dear Emily,

As far as my knowledge goes it is a sort of a tacit, unspoken convention of best practices that has been building up slowly by learning from how other people do it, which often involves implementing changes here in there to better accommodate the peculiarities of the language of study, the changes may catch on or not. I see it a self-evolving enterprise in the scientific community of linguistic typology.

In this connection, by the way, at the CNRS department “Structure et Dynamique des Langues” in Paris-Villejuif, we will start in 2019 a 5-year research programme precisely on theoretical, analytical and practical issues connected to glossing and interlinearization.

Very best,

Enrique

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Enrique L. Palancar

SeDyL(UMR8202), CNRS
7 rue Guy Môquet, 94801 Paris-Villejuif, France
<cnrs.academia.edu/EnriquePalancar>


De: Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] En nombre de g.corbett at surrey.ac.uk
Enviado el: 05 November 2016 08:41
Para: ebender at uw.edu
CC: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Asunto: Re: [Lingtyp] Underlying principles of interlinearization

There’s a brief discussion, following LGR and Lehmann, in Features (CUP 2012), pages 8-11. There I make the point that glossing has to be relevant to the particular purpose. Linguists typically provide a morphosyntactic gloss; that is, morphological forms are interpreted according to the syntax of the given example. But in an account of morphology, things have to be different. For instance, in work on syncretism you wouldn’t resolve the syncretisms in the glossing, since that belongs in the discussion. (BTW, suggestions for conventions for paradigms are offered at: https://www.academia.edu/9055930/Paradigm_conventions.)
Very best, Grev

On 4 Nov 2016, at 20:32, Emily M. Bender <ebender at uw.edu<mailto:ebender at uw.edu>> wrote:

Dear LingTyp,

Forwarding the question below for a student not on the list:

Thank you for any thoughts,
Emily

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Inman <davinman at uw.edu<mailto:davinman at uw.edu>>
Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Subject: Question to LingTyp
To: "Emily M. Bender" <ebender at uw.edu<mailto:ebender at uw.edu>>

When deciding how to create IGT for a particular language, a linguist has to make decisions about where and how to segment morphemes that may not have a standard form in the Leipzig Glossing Rules or elsewhere. There's a lot of work on interlinearization strategies for particular phenomena, but has anyone written on the underlying principals that guide interlinearization decisions?


--
Emily M. Bender
Professor, Department of Linguistics
Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

—
Greville G. Corbett

Surrey Morphology Group
English (I1)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Surrey
Guildford
Surrey, GU2 7XH
Great Britain
email: g.corbett at surrey.ac.uk<mailto:g.corbett at surrey.ac.uk>
www.smg.surrey.ac.uk<http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk>


Features
Available now through all good bookshops,
or direct from Cambridge University Press at: www.cambridge.org/9781107661080
<http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/grammar-and-syntax/features>
Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Also available through all good bookshops, or direct from Oxford University Press at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199604326.do




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20161105/f3d4d021/attachment.htm>