[Lingtyp] Resources on glossing choices

[Randy J. LaPolla]

Thanks very much for this, Christian, very helpful!

Best always and happy Chinese New Year,
Randy
-----
Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA （羅仁地）
Professor of Linguistics, with courtesy appointment in Chinese, School of Humanities 
Nanyang Technological University
HSS-03-45, 48 Nanyang Avenue | Singapore 639818
http://randylapolla.net/
Most recent books:
The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd Edition (2017)
https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324 <https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324>
Sino-Tibetan Linguistics (2018)
https://www.routledge.com/Sino-Tibetan-Linguistics/LaPolla/p/book/9780415577397 <https://www.routledge.com/Sino-Tibetan-Linguistics/LaPolla/p/book/9780415577397>



> On 25 Jan 2020, at 1:15 AM, Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
> 
> 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 mapping of 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 <mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>
> Web:	https://www.christianlehmann.eu <https://www.christianlehmann.eu/>_______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> 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/20200125/24155381/attachment.htm>