[Lingtyp] orthography in formatted examples

[John Du Bois]

Hi Christian,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
     I would argue for including punctuation, because it may be significant
as a representation of prosody, or it may serve as its near equivalent,
either of which is meaningful. The current glossing conventions seem to
carry the implicit assumption that language is purely segmental.
     You can even gloss the punctuation. For example, in Discourse
Functional Transcription (DFT), a comma signals "continuing" intonation,
while a period signals "final" intonation.
Best,
Jack

==============================
John W. Du Bois
Professor of Linguistics
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106
USA
dubois at ucsb.edu

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 4:15 AM Christian Lehmann <
christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> here is a little methodological problem which some may dismiss as trivial
> but which needs to be solved if we care for standardizing linguistic
> methodology. It concerns the orthographic representation of linguistic
> data, esp. such as are provided with an interlinear gloss.
>
> In the past decades, it has become customary in linguistic publications to
> omit punctuation in data which are formatted as examples and provided by
> a gloss, like this:
>
>
> quo
>
> usque
>
> tandem
>
> abutere
>
> Catilina
>
> patientia
>
> nostra
>
> whither
>
> continually
>
> finally
>
> abuse:FUT:MID.2.SG
>
> Catilina:VOC.SG
>
> patience(F):ABL.SG
>
> our:F.ABL.SG
>
> “ How far will you continue to abuse our patience, Catiline?” (Cic. *Cat*.
> I, 1)
>
> The example is actually taken from a text; and there it is, of course,
> provided with initial capitalization, with commas in between and with a
> final question mark. Many of us have gotten accustomed to omitting these
> things in formatted examples. My own guidelines for interlinear glosses
>
> (
> christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/grammaticography/gloss/)
>
>
> also recommend the omission. The practice seems inevitable for a
> representation of a piece of text which is not in orthography but in some m
> ore formal representation, say phonetic or morphophonemic. Here I am
> talking about *orthographic representations*.
>
> There are some reasons for the practice of omitting punctuation and
> sentence-initial capitalization in glossed examples:
>
>    1.
>
>    These orthographic marks may not figure in the original source:
>
>
>    1.
>
>       There is no published orthographic version which would need to be
>       cited literally; it is just a transcription of a recording. Omission of
>       punctuation signals this.
>       2.
>
>       The quoted stretch of text is not (necessarily) a sentence, be it
>       in its original context, be it in the language system.
>       1.
>
>    These orthographic marks would confuse the mapping of symbols
>    structuring the interlinear gloss onto the original text line:
>    1.
>
>       Punctuation symbols like ‘.’, ‘:’ have a special function in
>       glosses which they do not have in a fully orthographic text line. Others
>       like ‘,’ and ‘!’ are inadmissible in the gloss. If such symbols
>       appeared in the original text line, they would map on nothing in
>       the gloss line.
>       2.
>
>       Punctuation symbols like ‘-’ should have the same function in the
>       original text and in the gloss.
>
> (Ad (1b): We are not talking about examples which are just syntagmas
> below clause level. In some linguistic publications, such examples are provided
> with a final full stop, too. This is plainly unthinking.)
>
> Here are some reasons for abandoning the ban on punctuation and initial c
> apitalization:
>
>    1.
>
>    It makes the language exemplified appear as one which lacks an
>    orthography, thus dangerously evoking the attitude towards „an idiom
>    which does not even have a grammar“.
>    2.
>
>    Punctuation, of course, fulfills a sensible function in established
>    orthographies: it reflects the syntactic or prosodic structure of a piece
>    of text. Omitting it from an example renders this less easily intelligible.
>    3.
>
>    Whenever a linguistic example is, in fact, quoted from a text noted in
>    established orthography, the quotation should be faithful, including
>    the punctuation.
>    4.
>
>    Current practice allows for exceptions to the principle of suppression
>    of punctuation: at least question marks are commonly set.
>
> You may know of more reasons for or against the practice of suppression of
> punctuation and of initial capitalization in linguistic examples, or you may
> be able to invalidate some of the above. I would be grateful for some
> discussion which helps to bring this closer to a recommendation that most
> of us could share and that would have a chance to find its way into style
> sheets.
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200325/b28701b5/attachment.htm>