[Lingtyp] orthography in formatted examples

Wed Mar 25 17:43:08 UTC 2020

Dear colleagues

I believe that different punctuation conventions should be used in 
accordance with the type of language a given example represents 
(Christian is alluding to this possibility). Essentially, linguistic 
examples in linguistics come from three different sources and ideally, 
punctuation would be part of marking the distinction.

- originally written data (from a written source)
- transcribed data (from a recording of unscripted speech)
- invented data (including elicited data)

Representing orginally spoken data in the conventions of (European) 
written languages ignores the fundamental differences that exist between 
the two modalities and leads to many of the putatively untractable 
problems such as defining "word".

Therefore, I make point of representing spoken language differently from 
written and elicited/invented language. Not using punctuation and 
capitalization but representing intonation units. Whether it is 
worthwhile to invent a convention to distinguish the difference between 
orginally written data and invented data is an issue that may merit 
further debate.

Of course there are many additional special case problems such as 
whether one should use punctuation in representing originally written 
language where the original does not use punctuation.

Best regards
Nikolaus

On 25.03.2020 16:15, Peter Austin wrote:
> Dear colleagues
> 
> It seems to me that part of what Christian is alluding to is a failure 
> on the part of descriptive and documentary linguists to take 
> transcription (and orthographic representation) seriously and to come to 
> some agreements about how it should be handled in our various 
> representational schema. The "Leipzig glossing rules" don't discuss it 
> and this lacuna gives rise to conflicting practices, that Christian 
> observes.
> 
> Epigraphers have thought long and hard about this matter and I would 
> recommend looking at their XML schema expressed in EpiDoc 
> (https://sourceforge.net/p/epidoc/wiki/Home/) to get some idea of how a 
> whole field can approach the matter of transcription -- they don't only 
> deal with punctuation, but also with things like "missing" elements, 
> corrections, spacing etc. The Discourse Functional Transcription (DFT) 
> mentioned by Jack Du Bois could be one basis for starting a proper 
> discussion going and getting some basic agreements among researchers in 
> place. They are sorely needed.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Peter
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 14:59, Françoise Rose 
> <francoise.rose at univ-lyon2.fr <mailto:francoise.rose at univ-lyon2.fr>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear all,____
> 
>     It seems most grammars of languages without a written tradition do
>     use punctuation (although minimal) in the examples, if those are
>     full sentences. Capitalization maybe less systematically, probably
>     for the reason that Katharina has mentioned. “,” are important
>     sometimes to get an idea of the prosody, and the syntactic
>     structure, and I use “…” a lot to mark errors and hesitations.____
> 
>     I don’t see the problem of punctuation symbols being also used in
>     the gloss line: in different lines, the same symbols have different
>     meanings (and a different distribution anyway: “.” Is always used
>     after a word (i.e. before a space) in the example line and within
>     the gloss in a gloss line). The only problem me or my students have
>     been confronted with is when the “-“ is used in the orthography. If
>     in the gloss line, I usually replace it with “_”, as in
>     “grand_père”. If in the example line, I don’t have an ideal
>     solution.____
> 
>     Nice to have this discussion !____
> 
>     Keep safe,____
> 
>     Françoise____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *De :*Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> *De la part de*
>     Christian Lehmann
>     *Envoyé :* mercredi 25 mars 2020 12:15
>     *À :* LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
>     *Objet :* [Lingtyp] orthography in formatted examples____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     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 <http://MID.2.SG>____
> 
>     	
> 
>     Catilina:VOC.SG <http://VOC.SG>____
> 
>     	
> 
>     patience(F):ABL.SG <http://ABL.SG> ____
> 
>     	
> 
>     our:F.ABL.SG <http://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/
>     <http://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 more 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:____
> 
>     __a.__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.____
> 
>     __b.__The quoted stretch of text is not (necessarily) a sentence, be
>     it in its original context, be it in the language system.____
> 
>     __2.__These orthographic marks would confuse the mapping of symbols
>     structuring the interlinear gloss onto the original text line:____
> 
>     __a.__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.____
> 
>     __b.__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 capitalization:____
> 
>     __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 <mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>____
> 
>     Web:____
> 
>     	
> 
>     https://www.christianlehmann.eu____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lingtyp mailing list
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Prof Peter K. Austin
> Humboldt Researcher, Frankfurt University (Nov 2019, Jan-March 2020)
> Emeritus Professor in Field Linguistics, SOAS
> Visiting Researcher, Oxford University
> Foundation Editor, EL Publishing
> Honorary Treasurer, Philological Society
> 
> Department of Linguistics, SOAS
> Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square
> London WC1H 0XG
> United Kingdom
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 