[Lingtyp] non-present lexemes (Jack Rueter)
Jack Rueter
rueter.jack at gmail.com
Sat Dec 3 05:46:55 UTC 2022
Dear Tom,
In Erzya (<Mordvin < Uralic) the adverb ikele-pel-e 'in.front-side-Loc' is
used by some speakers to indicate 'at a time in the future' while other
speakers use the same expression to indicate 'at a time in the past'. The
tendency can be best observed when comparing printed media from the 1930s
and the present. Nowadays, future reference prevails in printed media.
Jack Rueter, Ph.D.
Jack.rueter at helsinki.fi
rueter.jack at gmail.com
pe 2. jouluk. 2022 klo 18.32 <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
kirjoitti:
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Non-present lexemes (Christian Lehmann)
> 2. Re: Non-present lexemes (D?britz)
> 3. Re: Non-present lexemes (Mike Klein)
> 4. Re: Non-present lexemes (Wiemer, Bjoern)
> 5. Re: Non-present lexemes (Seino van Breugel)
> 6. Re: Non-present lexemes (Sebastian Nordhoff)
> 7. Re: Non-present lexemes (Christian Lehmann)
> 8. Re: spectrograms in linguistic description and for language
> comparison (Juergen Bohnemeyer)
> 9. Re: Non-present lexemes (Johanna Laakso)
> 10. Re: spectrograms in linguistic description and for language
> comparison (Christian Lehmann)
> 11. Re: Non-present lexemes (Alex Francois)
> 12. Re: spectrograms in linguistic description and for language
> comparison (Eitan Grossman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 14:24:53 +0100
> From: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID: <3487962a-a71c-1b9e-9380-d078064fba69 at Uni-Erfurt.De>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
>
> German examples include some adverbs like /einmal/,
> (/der/(/mal/))/einst/, all meaning 'one day, at one point in time'.
> --
>
> 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/20221202/b5aa1d3e/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:34:40 +0000
> From: D?britz, Dr. phil. Chris Lasse
> <chris.lasse.daebritz at uni-hamburg.de>
> To: Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be>, Lingtyp list
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID: <ba8b970ad4164d2a8b2c6d0320675c03 at uni-hamburg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Tom, dear all,
>
>
> Nganasan (< Samoyedic < Uralic) has the adverb "talu" meaning both
> 'tomorrow' and 'yesterday'. See the following paper for a complete
> description:
>
>
> Szever?nyi, S?ndor 2012. The systems of the deictic day names in the
> Samoyed languages.
> In: Tiina Hyyti?inen, Tiina, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman
> (eds): Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift
> till?gnad
> Juha Janhunen p? hans sextio?rsdag den 12 februari 2012. (M?moires de la
> Soci?t?
> Finno-Ougrienne 264). 465?479, Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
>
>
> Best
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> im Auftrag von
> Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 12:15:19
> An: Lingtyp list
> Betreff: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
>
> Dear all,
> I?m looking for any kind of linguistic item (TMA markers, particles,
> adverbials etc.) that can convey both past- and future-time reference but
> that do not appear in present contexts.
> The items I?m looking for do not have to be ?non-present tense? markers in
> the strict sense, i.e., bound morphemes which have non-present time
> reference as their core meaning - even though this would be most
> interesting of course. They can also be more loosely connected to the verb
> phrase, have additional, more specific meanings, and/or be compatible with
> other tense markers.
> The only criterion is that the items in question allow for both past and
> future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the choice between
> the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context), while a
> present interpretation is generally not possible. I would also be
> interested in languages where the expression of a certain grammatical
> category is similar in the past and future tense(s), while the present
> tense behaves differently in some way (see e.g. the Awa Pit example below).
> Below are a few examples for the phenomenon I am referring to:
>
> * Nez Perce (Sahaptian) has a lexeme watiisx ?one day away? that can
> mean ?tomorrow? or ?yesterday?, depending on the tense marking in the
> respective clause (Deal 2010: 120). The same thing seems to happen with the
> lexeme kel in Hindi (Indo-Aryan) (Kachru 1997: 95) and with ejo in
> Kinyarwanda (Bantu) (Nkusi 1995: 580). All three languages have separate
> lexemes meaning ?today?.
> * The lexeme hibajata in Jarawara (Araw?) is interpreted as ?later
> today? in the absence of tense marking, and as ?just now? in combination
> with the immediate past marker -ra (Dixon 2004: 224). There are no examples
> given where it is translated as ?right now? or ?at this moment?.
> * Awa Pit (Barbacoan) has several strategies to mark clausal negation.
> One of them, the negative suffix -ma, indicates past-time reference in the
> absence of tense marking, and future-time reference in combination with the
> future marker -ni (Curnow 1997: 332/33). In my assessment, it cannot
> combine with the imperfective suffix -mtu, which is the default marker to
> express present-time reference in the language.
>
> If you can think of similar examples in languages you are familiar with, I
> would be very interested in knowing more about them, so as to get a better
> idea about how common such items with non-present semantics are
> cross-linguistically, and what their distribution might be. So far, I have
> mostly found them in the Americas.
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Best wishes,
> Tom Koss
> PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/f1325c1a/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 08:36:16 -0500
> From: Mike Klein <kdogg36 at gmail.com>
> To: LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAC8Q02fCYQwGf8pAXeWw4mZQPTfCiWPdBnKGxv4ZjEVvxHc63g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Tom,
>
> Mandarin adverb ?? (zu?j?n) can mean either ?recently? or ?in the near
> future,? but not ?now.?
>
> Mike Klein
> Ph.D., George Mason University
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:15 AM Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I?m looking for any kind of linguistic item (TMA markers, particles,
> > adverbials etc.) that can convey both past- and future-time reference but
> > that do not appear in present contexts.
> >
> > The items I?m looking for do not have to be ?non-present tense? markers
> in
> > the strict sense, i.e., bound morphemes which have non-present time
> > reference as their core meaning - even though this would be most
> > interesting of course. They can also be more loosely connected to the
> verb
> > phrase, have additional, more specific meanings, and/or be compatible
> with
> > other tense markers.
> >
> > The only criterion is that the items in question allow for both past and
> > future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the choice between
> > the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context), while a
> > present interpretation is generally *not* possible. I would also be
> > interested in languages where the expression of a certain grammatical
> > category is similar in the past and future tense(s), while the present
> > tense behaves differently in some way (see e.g. the Awa Pit example
> below).
> >
> >
> > Below are a few examples for the phenomenon I am referring to:
> >
> > - Nez Perce (Sahaptian) has a lexeme *watiisx *?one day away? that can
> > mean ?tomorrow? or ?yesterday?, depending on the tense marking in the
> > respective clause (Deal 2010: 120). The same thing seems to happen
> with the
> > lexeme *kel *in Hindi (Indo-Aryan) (Kachru 1997: 95) and with *ejo *in
> > Kinyarwanda (Bantu) (Nkusi 1995: 580). All three languages have
> > separate lexemes meaning ?today?.
> > - The lexeme *hibajata* in Jarawara (Araw?) is interpreted as ?later
> > today? in the absence of tense marking, and as ?just now? in
> > combination with the immediate past marker *-ra *(Dixon 2004: 224).
> > There are no examples given where it is translated as ?right now? or
> ?at
> > this moment?.
> > - Awa Pit (Barbacoan) has several strategies to mark clausal negation.
> > One of them, the negative suffix *-ma*, indicates past-time reference
> > in the absence of tense marking, and future-time reference in
> combination
> > with the future marker *-ni *(Curnow 1997: 332/33). In my assessment,
> > it cannot combine with the imperfective suffix *-mtu*, which is the
> > default marker to express present-time reference in the language.
> >
> >
> > If you can think of similar examples in languages you are familiar with,
> I
> > would be very interested in knowing more about them, so as to get a
> better
> > idea about how common such items with non-present semantics are
> > cross-linguistically, and what their distribution might be. So far, I
> have
> > mostly found them in the Americas.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Tom Koss
> >
> > PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/490de7e0/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:48:22 +0000
> From: "Wiemer, Bjoern" <wiemerb at uni-mainz.de>
> To: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>,
> "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID: <d6ec871c45ac49c9aecc5bc8134330d8 at uni-mainz.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Tom,
> adding to Christian Lehmann's (quite obvious) comment: when I read your
> only criterion - "The only criterion is that the items in question allow
> for both past and future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the
> choice between the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context),
> while a present interpretation is generally not possible" - it seems that
> any adverb or clause connective marking sequence (or anteriority,
> posteriority) would fit, such as, e.g., Germ. dann 'then', danach 'after
> (that)'.
>
> Best,
> Bj?rn.
>
>
> Von: Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] Im
> Auftrag von Christian Lehmann
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 14:25
> An: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Betreff: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
>
> German examples include some adverbs like einmal, (der(mal))einst, all
> meaning 'one day, at one point in time'.
> --
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/78383853/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 14:52:08 +0100
> From: Seino van Breugel <seinobreugel at gmail.com>
> To: "LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAKnHSrGAO5qFz6O+Szwzg05HWrJyWkGN-xb7mQdwTBUKuFjBEg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> In Hindi, the word *?? */kal/ means both 'today' and 'yesterday'.
>
> I Dutch, the exprssions *eens / een keer *can both refer to an unknown
> point of time in the past or future.
> Verbs in Dutch can indicate past or non-past tense. The non-past tense can
> be interpreted as referring to either present or future time. However, when
> one of these expressions is used with the non-past tense, the
> interpretation can only be future time.
> Examples of Dutch:
> Er was *eens *een prinses. 'Once upon a time, there was a princess.'
> Ik wil *eens* naar Zwitserland met vakantie gaan. 'One day, I want to go on
> holiday in Switzerland.'
> Ik was* een keer* in een kroeg, en toen werd er gevochten. 'Once, I was in
> a pub, and people were fighting.'
> Ik kom *een keer* bij je eten. 'One day, I'll come and have dinner at your
> place.'
>
> Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
>
> Seino
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:36 PM Mike Klein <kdogg36 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > Mandarin adverb ?? (zu?j?n) can mean either ?recently? or ?in the near
> > future,? but not ?now.?
> >
> > Mike Klein
> > Ph.D., George Mason University
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:15 AM Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I?m looking for any kind of linguistic item (TMA markers, particles,
> >> adverbials etc.) that can convey both past- and future-time reference
> but
> >> that do not appear in present contexts.
> >>
> >> The items I?m looking for do not have to be ?non-present tense? markers
> >> in the strict sense, i.e., bound morphemes which have non-present time
> >> reference as their core meaning - even though this would be most
> >> interesting of course. They can also be more loosely connected to the
> verb
> >> phrase, have additional, more specific meanings, and/or be compatible
> with
> >> other tense markers.
> >>
> >> The only criterion is that the items in question allow for both past and
> >> future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the choice between
> >> the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context), while a
> >> present interpretation is generally *not* possible. I would also be
> >> interested in languages where the expression of a certain grammatical
> >> category is similar in the past and future tense(s), while the present
> >> tense behaves differently in some way (see e.g. the Awa Pit example
> below).
> >>
> >>
> >> Below are a few examples for the phenomenon I am referring to:
> >>
> >> - Nez Perce (Sahaptian) has a lexeme *watiisx *?one day away? that
> >> can mean ?tomorrow? or ?yesterday?, depending on the tense marking
> in the
> >> respective clause (Deal 2010: 120). The same thing seems to happen
> with the
> >> lexeme *kel *in Hindi (Indo-Aryan) (Kachru 1997: 95) and with *ejo
> *in
> >> Kinyarwanda (Bantu) (Nkusi 1995: 580). All three languages have
> >> separate lexemes meaning ?today?.
> >> - The lexeme *hibajata* in Jarawara (Araw?) is interpreted as ?later
> >> today? in the absence of tense marking, and as ?just now? in
> >> combination with the immediate past marker *-ra *(Dixon 2004: 224).
> >> There are no examples given where it is translated as ?right now? or
> ?at
> >> this moment?.
> >> - Awa Pit (Barbacoan) has several strategies to mark clausal
> >> negation. One of them, the negative suffix *-ma*, indicates past-time
> >> reference in the absence of tense marking, and future-time reference
> in
> >> combination with the future marker *-ni *(Curnow 1997: 332/33). In my
> >> assessment, it cannot combine with the imperfective suffix *-mtu*,
> which
> >> is the default marker to express present-time reference in the
> language.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can think of similar examples in languages you are familiar with,
> >> I would be very interested in knowing more about them, so as to get a
> >> better idea about how common such items with non-present semantics are
> >> cross-linguistically, and what their distribution might be. So far, I
> have
> >> mostly found them in the Americas.
> >>
> >> Many thanks in advance!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Tom Koss
> >>
> >> PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/f1926ef3/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 14:58:09 +0100
> From: Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID: <64854eb1-c771-032a-28ba-b4a17035c7cb at glottotopia.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 12/2/22 12:15, Tom Koss wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I?m looking for any kind of linguistic item (TMA markers, particles,
> > adverbials etc.) that can convey both past- and future-time reference
> > but that do not appear in present contexts.
>
> Dear Tom,
> the Qu?bec French temporal adverb "tant?t" can refer to both close past
> and close future, but not to the present
>
> https://regardsurlefrancais.com/2020/01/13/le-tantot-au-quebec/
>
> European speakers are regularly completely puzzled ;)
> Best
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The items I?m looking for do not have to be ?non-present tense? markers
> > in the strict sense, i.e., bound morphemes which have non-present time
> > reference as their core meaning - even though this would be most
> > interesting of course. They can also be more loosely connected to the
> > verb phrase, have additional, more specific meanings, and/or be
> > compatible with other tense markers.
> >
> > The only criterion is that the items in question allow for both past and
> > future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the choice between
> > the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context), while a
> > present interpretation is generally *not* possible. I would also be
> > interested in languages where the expression of a certain grammatical
> > category is similar in the past and future tense(s), while the present
> > tense behaves differently in some way (see e.g. the Awa Pit example
> below).
> >
> > Below are a few examples for the phenomenon I am referring to:
> >
> > * Nez Perce (Sahaptian) has a lexeme /watiisx /?one day away? that can
> > mean ?tomorrow? or ?yesterday?, depending on the tense marking in
> > the respective clause (Deal 2010: 120). The same thing seems to
> > happen with the lexeme /kel /in Hindi (Indo-Aryan) (Kachru 1997:
> > 95)and with /ejo /in Kinyarwanda (Bantu) (Nkusi 1995: 580). All
> > three languages have separate lexemes meaning ?today?.
> > * The lexeme /hibajata/in Jarawara (Araw?) is interpreted as ?later
> > today? in the absence of tense marking, and as ?just now? in
> > combination with the immediate past marker /-ra /(Dixon 2004: 224).
> > There are no examples given where it is translated as ?right now? or
> > ?at this moment?.
> > * Awa Pit (Barbacoan) has several strategies to mark clausal negation.
> > One of them, the negative suffix /-ma/, indicates past-time
> > reference in the absence of tense marking, and future-time reference
> > in combination with the future marker /-ni /(Curnow 1997: 332/33).
> > In my assessment, it cannot combine with the imperfective suffix
> > /-mtu/,//which is the default marker to express present-time
> > reference in the language.
> >
> >
> > If you can think of similar examples in languages you are familiar with,
> > I would be very interested in knowing more about them, so as to get a
> > better idea about how common such items with non-present semantics are
> > cross-linguistically, and what their distribution might be. So far, I
> > have mostly found them in the Americas.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Tom Koss
> >
> > PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 15:01:11 +0100
> From: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID: <c790a875-ad4b-9113-8d43-97fb6fc8ab2c at Uni-Erfurt.De>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
>
> A LingTyp discussion on 'since/until, from/up to' launched by John
> Peterson on 05/12/2009 may also be relevant.
>
> --
>
> 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/20221202/56e9ac8c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 14:52:14 +0000
> From: Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> To: Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>, Cat Butz
> <Cat.Butz at hhu.de>
> Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and for
> language comparison
> Message-ID:
> <
> SJ0PR15MB4696C5247B71690D274C3071DD179 at SJ0PR15MB4696.namprd15.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Adam et al. ? First, a couple of disclaimers:
>
>
> * I don?t mean to hijack this important discussion. I just want to
> point out that from where I look at things, what you?re raising is a
> classic tip-of-the-iceberg problem.
> * I suspect what I?m about to say isn?t going to win me any popularity
> contests around here ?
>
> And here it is: Contemporary descriptive and documentary linguistics has
> *no* standards or criteria, not even qualitative ones (whatever that might
> mean), for assessing how well the examples we use to illustrate the
> phenomena we document and describe represent the speech community, or
> indeed *which* community they represent.
>
> None.
>
> I?d like to call this practice ?epistemological pretend-naivete?.
>
> When people start using spectrograms or pitch tracks, which are
> meaningless unless interpreted quantitatively, like examples, the
> deficiencies of epistemological pretend-naivete become obvious.
>
> But that?s just the tip of the iceberg. Even if it?s a pretty fat tip. The
> broader problem concerns the status of *all* the examples we cite,
> regardless of whether they concern phonetic, morphosyntactic, lexical, or
> ethnographic phenomena.
>
> Now that much of linguistics is being dragged kicking and screaming into a
> quantitative turn, I think it?s way past time that we have a discussion of
> the status of examples in documentary and descriptive linguistics in
> general.
>
> Best -- Juergen
>
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585
> 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>
> There?s A Crack In Everything - That?s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
> --
>
>
> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
> Date: Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:51 AM
> To: Cat Butz <Cat.Butz at hhu.de>
> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and for
> language comparison
> Hello Cat,
>
> That's what I think as well,
>
> But I'm not so sure this view is widely held ... I've had papers where
> reviewers ask for "phonetic evidence" and what they seem to mean is a
> single spectrogram or pitch track as if those are informative by themselves
> - even aggregated statistical data of acoustic measurements doesn't count.
>
> Adam
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:41 AM Cat Butz <Cat.Butz at hhu.de<mailto:
> Cat.Butz at hhu.de>> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> if I saw a single spectrogram in a description of a phenomenon, I'd
> assume it was there for illustrative purposes and nothing else. If we're
> going to conduct empirical research on a phonological phenomenon, we
> have to back it up with statistics, no? Otherwise, why even bother?
>
> Best,
> ---
> Cat Butz (she)
> HHU D?sseldorf, general linguistics
>
> Cat Butz (sie)
> HHU D?sseldorf, allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
>
>
> Am 2022-11-27 11:24, schrieb Adam James Ross Tallman:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I would like to start a conversation about something and I?m taking
> > a shot at lingtyp as a potential starting point for this discussion
> > (perhaps not the right venue, because the issue is perhaps specific to
> > phonological typology).
> >
> > One thing I?ve been confused and/or frustrated about since I started
> > investigating tone and stress has been the use of spectrograms and/or
> > pitch tracks in language description. It seems to me that linguists
> > have very different views about what spectrograms and/or pitch tracks
> > are for, but it has never been brought out in the open, to my
> > knowledge.
> >
> > When I was an MA student, I was basically taught that the main purpose
> > of a spectrogram was to show how one went about measuring some
> > phenomena in the acoustic signal. A pitch track could be an
> > expositional device to show variation in the signal perhaps related to
> > speaker differences or intonation (Cruz & Woodbury 2014). However,
> > spectrograms and pitch tracks are not ?phonetic evidence? for a
> > phonological claim. Due to the variability of the phonetic signal,
> > acoustic phonetic data only really becomes phonetic evidence when it
> > is aggregated for the purpose of statistical analysis (Tallman 2010).
> >
> > At least that?s what I thought in 2011, but I realized later that
> > this was not the view shared by many linguists and, at least among
> > non-phoneticians, my position is perhaps a minority one. In grammars
> > and descriptive works, linguists often present individual spectrograms
> > and pitch tracks as one off data points that support a claim. In the
> > vast majority of the cases (except perhaps when vastly different
> > intonational contours are being compared), I often struggle to know
> > what the purpose of these displays or pictures are. How do we know
> > they are not cherry picked? How do we know that these displays are
> > representative?
> >
> > The differences of opinion about the use of spectrograms have emerged
> > for me in the reviewing process ? one reviewer says this spectrogram
> > is useless, another says it's informative etc. one reviewer demands a
> > pitch track, another says it does not communicate anything . etc.
> > Opinions are simultaneously contradictory but aggressive and
> > definitive.
> >
> > Sometimes the subtlety of the pitch phenomena the linguist is
> > describing is way out of step with the ability of the pitch track to
> > represent. I look at the pitch track and I think: ?I cannot
> > distinguish between pitch phenomena associated with tones and
> > microprosody in this example so it is unclear what the purpose of the
> > pitch track is or what it adds? or ?if you were to tell me what
> > tones the language had and give me this spectrogram / pitch track, I
> > would not be able to associate them with any of the syllables in any
> > consistent way?. Or perhaps the algorithm used to draw pitch isn?t
> > appropriate and it's very difficult to understand what is being
> > communicated by the display.
> >
> > I have started to wonder whether there were any guidelines or
> > conventions for the use of spectrograms and whether others perhaps had
> > any thoughts on the issue. Specifically I am interested in the idea
> > that a single spectrogram could serve as ?phonetic evidence?. I
> > still find this view strange in light of the well known
> > ?stochastic? and ?multivariate? relationship between
> > phonological categories and phonetic realization (Pierrehumbert,
> > Beckman, Ladd 2000; Mazaudon 2014, among many others), but it still
> > seems to be widely held in our field.
> >
> > Cruz, E. & Woodbury, A. C. 2014. Finding a way into a family of tone
> > languages: The story and methods of the Chatino Language Documentation
> > Project. _Language Documentation & Conservation _8:490-524.
> >
> > Mazaudon, M. 2014. Studying emergent tone-systems in Nepal: Pitch,
> > phonation and word-tone in Tamang. _Language Documentation &
> > Conversation _8:587-612.
> >
> > Pierrehumbert, J., Beckman, M. and Ladd, D. 2000. Conceptual
> > foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. _Phonological
> > knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues. _Oxford: Oxford University
> > Press.
> >
> > Tallman, Adam. J.R. 2010. Acoustic correlates of Lenis and Fortis
> > Stops in Manitoba Saulteaux. MA Thesis: University of Manitoba.
> > --
> >
> > Adam J.R. Tallman
> > Post-doctoral Researcher
> >
> > Friedrich Schiller Universit?t
> >
> > Department of English Studies
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C10c46d6269e04d4bff4708dad45324ce%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638055750816478031%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0fE72aKUvZEHIM%2BuYXLYcA5Yag15KnCjjRoDzfWxWUg%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
> --
> Adam J.R. Tallman
> Post-doctoral Researcher
> Friedrich Schiller Universit?t
> Department of English Studies
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/e90ae0af/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:03:06 +0100
> From: Johanna Laakso <johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at>
> To: Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be>
> Cc: Lingtyp list <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID: <A33ECC9A-1E5A-4259-BBB0-A1E9959019C9 at univie.ac.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
>
> in Finland, prescriptivist laypeople often point out that the Finnish
> expression "l?hiaikoina" (l?hi-aiko-i-na near-time-PL-ESSIVE) "should" mean
> ?in the near future, soon? (this is how normative dictionaries define its
> meaning) but is sometimes "wrongly" used in the meaning ?recently, in the
> near past? ? which some people seem to find exceptionally annoying.
>
> Best
> Johanna
> --
> Univ.Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso
> Universit?t Wien, Institut f?r Europ?ische und Vergleichende Sprach- und
> Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL)
> Abteilung Finno-Ugristik
> Campus AAKH Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7
> A-1090 Wien
> johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at ? http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/
> Project ELDIA: http://www.eldia-project.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > D?britz, Dr. phil. Chris Lasse <chris.lasse.daebritz at uni-hamburg.de>
> kirjoitti 02.12.2022 kello 14.34:
> >
> > Dear Tom, dear all,
> >
> > Nganasan (< Samoyedic < Uralic) has the adverb "talu" meaning both
> 'tomorrow' and 'yesterday'. See the following paper for a complete
> description:
> >
> > Szever?nyi, S?ndor 2012. The systems of the deictic day names in the
> Samoyed languages.
> > In: Tiina Hyyti?inen, Tiina, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika
> Sandman
> > (eds): Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift
> till?gnad
> > Juha Janhunen p? hans sextio?rsdag den 12 februari 2012. (M?moires de la
> Soci?t?
> > Finno-Ougrienne 264). 465?479, Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
> >
> > Best
> > Chris
> > Von: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:
> lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> im Auftrag von Tom Koss <
> Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be <mailto:Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be>>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 12:15:19
> > An: Lingtyp list
> > Betreff: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I?m looking for any kind of linguistic item (TMA markers, particles,
> adverbials etc.) that can convey both past- and future-time reference but
> that do not appear in present contexts.
> >
> > The items I?m looking for do not have to be ?non-present tense? markers
> in the strict sense, i.e., bound morphemes which have non-present time
> reference as their core meaning - even though this would be most
> interesting of course. They can also be more loosely connected to the verb
> phrase, have additional, more specific meanings, and/or be compatible with
> other tense markers.
> >
> > The only criterion is that the items in question allow for both past and
> future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the choice between
> the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context), while a
> present interpretation is generally not possible. I would also be
> interested in languages where the expression of a certain grammatical
> category is similar in the past and future tense(s), while the present
> tense behaves differently in some way (see e.g. the Awa Pit example below).
> >
> > Below are a few examples for the phenomenon I am referring to:
> >
> > Nez Perce (Sahaptian) has a lexeme watiisx ?one day away? that can mean
> ?tomorrow? or ?yesterday?, depending on the tense marking in the respective
> clause (Deal 2010: 120). The same thing seems to happen with the lexeme kel
> in Hindi (Indo-Aryan)(Kachru 1997: 95) and with ejo in Kinyarwanda (Bantu)
> (Nkusi 1995: 580). All three languages have separate lexemes meaning
> ?today?.
> > The lexeme hibajata in Jarawara (Araw?) is interpreted as ?later today?
> in the absence of tense marking, and as ?just now? in combination with the
> immediate past marker -ra (Dixon 2004: 224). There are no examples given
> where it is translated as ?right now? or ?at this moment?.
> > Awa Pit (Barbacoan) has several strategies to mark clausal negation. One
> of them, the negative suffix? <>-ma, indicates past-time reference in the
> absence of tense marking, and future-time reference in combination with the
> future marker -ni (Curnow 1997: 332/33). In my assessment, it cannot
> combine with the imperfective suffix -mtu, which is the default marker to
> express present-time reference in the language.
> >
> >
> > If you can think of similar examples in languages you are familiar with,
> I would be very interested in knowing more about them, so as to get a
> better idea about how common such items with non-present semantics are
> cross-linguistically, and what their distribution might be. So far, I have
> mostly found them in the Americas.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Tom Koss
> >
> > PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/e1c7c6d4/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 16:16:42 +0100
> From: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and for
> language comparison
> Message-ID: <7db5b278-4bff-4e11-8d2b-16b64d8b5c71 at Uni-Erfurt.De>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear J?rgen,
>
> to mitigate a bit your pessimist opinion of the methodological situation
> of our discipline, let me mention, as a contribution to the discussion
> you are requiring, my web page
>
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/representations/?open=example.inc
> which advocates a distinction between
>
> 1. a probatory example (which is data used as scientific evidence)
> 2. and an illustrative example (or pedagogical example, which is only
> meant to render a descriptive statement more concrete and, thus, to
> help understanding).
>
> Methodological standards for these two kinds of examples are completely
> different. On #1, I may recommend:
>
> Lehmann, Christian 2004, ?Data in linguistics.? /The Linguistic Review/
> 21(3/4):275-310.
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249931781_Data_in_linguistics>
>
> 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/20221202/68da45ee/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:23:08 +0100
> From: Alex Francois <alex.francois.cnrs at gmail.com>
> To: Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be>
> Cc: "LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> Message-ID:
> <CAGcZC0rrdK_1R6yFX6hyL0OKBtMQ=
> T7y4egOHzeT6bZXDEYU0g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Modern French has *tout ? l'heure* /tutal?r/, which can mean
>
> - ?a while ago, earlier today? when combined with past TAM:
> *Je l'ai entendu tout ? l'heure ? la radio.*
> 'I heard it on the radio *earlier today* .'
>
> - ?in a while, later today? when combined with future TAM:
> *Je pourrai lui en parler **tout ? l'heure**.*
> 'I can tell her *later today*.'
>
> However, *tout ? l'heure* may not refer to the present tense (**elle est
> au t?l?phone tout ? l'heure*.)
>
> Incidentally, this is a contrast between Modern French and Classical
> (17th-century) French, where ?tout ? l'heure? could mean 'right now'.
> Witness, this famous line in Moli?re's *L'Avare* (acte I, sc?ne 3
> <
> https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Moli%C3%A8re_-_L%E2%80%99Avare_1669.djvu/25#:~:text=Hors%20d%E2%80%99ici%20tout%20%C3%A0%20l%E2%80%99heure%2C%20et%20qu%E2%80%99on%20ne%20r%C3%A9plique%20pas
> >),
> dated 1668:
>
> - *Hors d?ici tout ? l?heure, et qu?on ne r?plique pas !*
> 'Go away *right now*, and do not say a word!'
>
> The latter turn of phrase sounds odd to modern ears. In today's French,
> *tout
> ? l'heure* necessarily implies a temporal distance from the immediate
> present, either in the recent past or in the near future.
>
> best
> Alex
> ------------------------------
>
> Alex Fran?ois
> LaTTiCe <http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/en/alexandre-francois/> ? CNRS?
> <http://www.cnrs.fr/index.html>ENS
> <
> https://www.ens.fr/laboratoire/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-et-cognition-umr-8094
> >
> ?Sorbonne nouvelle
> <
> http://www.univ-paris3.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp
> >
> Australian National University
> <https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/francois-a>
> Personal homepage <http://alex.francois.online.fr/>
> _________________________________________
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Seino van Breugel <seinobreugel at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 at 14:52
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Non-present lexemes
> To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> In Hindi, the word *?? */kal/ means both 'today' and 'yesterday'.
>
> I Dutch, the exprssions *eens / een keer *can both refer to an unknown
> point of time in the past or future.
> Verbs in Dutch can indicate past or non-past tense. The non-past tense can
> be interpreted as referring to either present or future time. However, when
> one of these expressions is used with the non-past tense, the
> interpretation can only be future time.
> Examples of Dutch:
> Er was *eens *een prinses. 'Once upon a time, there was a princess.'
> Ik wil *eens* naar Zwitserland met vakantie gaan. 'One day, I want to go on
> holiday in Switzerland.'
> Ik was* een keer* in een kroeg, en toen werd er gevochten. 'Once, I was in
> a pub, and people were fighting.'
> Ik kom *een keer* bij je eten. 'One day, I'll come and have dinner at your
> place.'
>
> Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
>
> Seino
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:36 PM Mike Klein <kdogg36 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > Mandarin adverb ?? (zu?j?n) can mean either ?recently? or ?in the near
> > future,? but not ?now.?
> >
> > Mike Klein
> > Ph.D., George Mason University
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:15 AM Tom Koss <Tom.Koss at uantwerpen.be> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I?m looking for any kind of linguistic item (TMA markers, particles,
> >> adverbials etc.) that can convey both past- and future-time reference
> but
> >> that do not appear in present contexts.
> >>
> >> The items I?m looking for do not have to be ?non-present tense? markers
> >> in the strict sense, i.e., bound morphemes which have non-present time
> >> reference as their core meaning - even though this would be most
> >> interesting of course. They can also be more loosely connected to the
> verb
> >> phrase, have additional, more specific meanings, and/or be compatible
> with
> >> other tense markers.
> >>
> >> The only criterion is that the items in question allow for both past and
> >> future interpretations of the clauses they appear in (the choice between
> >> the two depending on non-linguistic or grammatical context), while a
> >> present interpretation is generally *not* possible. I would also be
> >> interested in languages where the expression of a certain grammatical
> >> category is similar in the past and future tense(s), while the present
> >> tense behaves differently in some way (see e.g. the Awa Pit example
> below).
> >>
> >>
> >> Below are a few examples for the phenomenon I am referring to:
> >>
> >> - Nez Perce (Sahaptian) has a lexeme *watiisx *?one day away? that
> >> can mean ?tomorrow? or ?yesterday?, depending on the tense marking
> in the
> >> respective clause (Deal 2010: 120). The same thing seems to happen
> with the
> >> lexeme *kel *in Hindi (Indo-Aryan) (Kachru 1997: 95) and with *ejo
> *in
> >> Kinyarwanda (Bantu) (Nkusi 1995: 580). All three languages have
> >> separate lexemes meaning ?today?.
> >> - The lexeme *hibajata* in Jarawara (Araw?) is interpreted as ?later
> >> today? in the absence of tense marking, and as ?just now? in
> >> combination with the immediate past marker *-ra *(Dixon 2004: 224).
> >> There are no examples given where it is translated as ?right now? or
> ?at
> >> this moment?.
> >> - Awa Pit (Barbacoan) has several strategies to mark clausal
> >> negation. One of them, the negative suffix *-ma*, indicates past-time
> >> reference in the absence of tense marking, and future-time reference
> in
> >> combination with the future marker *-ni *(Curnow 1997: 332/33). In my
> >> assessment, it cannot combine with the imperfective suffix *-mtu*,
> which
> >> is the default marker to express present-time reference in the
> language.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can think of similar examples in languages you are familiar with,
> >> I would be very interested in knowing more about them, so as to get a
> >> better idea about how common such items with non-present semantics are
> >> cross-linguistically, and what their distribution might be. So far, I
> have
> >> mostly found them in the Americas.
> >>
> >> Many thanks in advance!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Tom Koss
> >>
> >> PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/84db2082/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 18:32:14 +0200
> From: Eitan Grossman <eitan.grossman at mail.huji.ac.il>
> To: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] spectrograms in linguistic description and for
> language comparison
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAA00bNm0iFy_CmJRF7xNiEdLHJ1DUqnB5yWhz+GaHsD3ymUBUw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks Adam for raising this issue and thanks especially to Christian for
> for pointing us to his article.
>
> Just as an anecdote about examples and what they illustrate - I am going
> through spontaneous conversational Hebrew corpora right now, and am having
> a very hard time locating examples that one could use to illustrate basic
> grammatical relations in the language, i.e., clauses that are the
> equivalent of the standard ones that we can all produce in our languages
> and which populate linguistic discussions of GRs. So even if one does
> occasionally find something like "I used avocado cream mask" or "She fell
> asleep," one would hardly find them representative of hours of language as
> actually used.
>
> Back to spectrograms and pitch tracks etc., I wonder what your impression
> is of the very qualitative type of work done in interactional linguistics,
> where typically not much is claimed in terms of generalizations but each
> utterance is analyzed pretty exhaustively in terms of, inter alia, prosody.
> My own impression of this kind of work is that it does not make fancy
> claims with respect to science, but the reader does get a good idea of what
> the range of variation is and how the prosody of each utterance relates to
> this.
>
> Eitan
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 5:16 PM Christian Lehmann <
> christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear J?rgen,
> >
> > to mitigate a bit your pessimist opinion of the methodological situation
> > of our discipline, let me mention, as a contribution to the discussion
> you
> > are requiring, my web page
> >
> >
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/representations/?open=example.inc
> > which advocates a distinction between
> >
> > 1. a probatory example (which is data used as scientific evidence)
> > 2. and an illustrative example (or pedagogical example, which is only
> > meant to render a descriptive statement more concrete and, thus, to
> help
> > understanding).
> >
> > Methodological standards for these two kinds of examples are completely
> > different. On #1, I may recommend:
> >
> > Lehmann, Christian 2004, ?Data in linguistics.? *The Linguistic Review*
> > 21(3/4):275-310.
> > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249931781_Data_in_linguistics>
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221202/df1a6d9c/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 99, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221203/47e087a6/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list