[Lingtyp] Resources on glossing choices

[Christian Lehmann]

Dear Danny et al.,

let me briefly comment on one issue that is obviously controversial. 
Some think that the basic principle of consistency of glossing requires 
that there be a biunique mappingof morpheme to gloss. Others think that 
the basic principle of transparency (viz. enabling the reader to grasp 
the [morphological] structure of the glossed text) requires that the 
gloss of a morpheme be context-dependent, i.e. that it show its specific 
function in the particular grammatical context. We are, thus, faced with 
a conflict between two well-motivated principles.

The primary purpose of a gloss is to represent the morpheme for a reader 
who knows linguistics, but does not know the language. The notion of the 
identity of morphemes presupposes, as I said in my previous message in 
this thread (31/12/2019), a distinction between homonymy and polysemy. 
The reader does not want the same gloss for homonymous morphs, nor does 
she want the unity of a polysemous morpheme to be obfuscated by variant 
glosses.

As everybody agrees, glosses fulfill a practical purpose. They 
presuppose a theory and a methodology which precede them; and they 
cannot possibly represent all the theoretical and methodological 
decisions underlying them. The practical function includes their 
context-dependency in a wider sense: the form of a useful gloss depends 
partly on the kind of (metalinguistic) text that the glossed text is 
embedded in. If the glossed text is an example in a grammar, then this 
may contain the entire information concerning the morphemes and their 
glosses, arranged in chapters on morphology and indices of morphemes, 
glosses and terms. In such an environment, the requirement of 
consistency becomes secondary, because the metalinguistic context 
explains what each gloss means. If, on the contrary, there is, in the 
metalinguistic context of the glossed text, no grammatical comment, then 
the glosses and the index of glosses are the only clue the reader has to 
the identity of morphemes. Making glosses context-dependent in such an 
environment means misleading the reader about the identity of morphemes. 
Which contradicts the primary purpose of the gloss. In such an 
environment, I submit, glosses should be consistent, i.e. unique for 
each morpheme.

Best,

Christian

-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200124/3ee50210/attachment.htm>