[Lingtyp] languages without feet?

Wed May 10 03:25:11 UTC 2023

Yes, Mark is right. Sorry for getting carried away and spamming your
inboxes!

Adam

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:33 AM Mark Post <mark.post at sydney.edu.au> wrote:

> Adam
>
> This is getting a bit complex and away from your original query, so
> perhaps we should take this convo off-list to avoid overloading inboxes.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From: *Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 May 2023 at 17:14
> *To: *Mark Post <mark.post at sydney.edu.au>,
> LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] languages without feet?
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> There are actually philosophers who question Popper et al.’s view on
> falsification as a criterion, so I was wondering whether this might be
> underlying what you were saying. These issues were brought up in the
> context of the “Linguistics Wars” (Harris *The Linguistics Wars *2021).
> Here’s Lakoff, in an interview with Huck & Goldsmith (a passage that I
> always floats through my mind in these discussions)
>
> “There was another major difference. Chomsky held a view about the
> philosophy of science that we did not hold - the Quine-Duhem thesis. Quine
> assumed that a scientific theory was a finite list of axioms in first
> order predicate calculus, and used the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem to argue
> that no finite number of counterexamples could falsify any finite number of
> axioms since a finite number of auxiliary hypotheses could always be added
> to handle the counterexamples. As Chomsky has said, in the Quine-Duhem
> spirit, only the theory as whole, once completed with no additional
> auxiliary hypotheses, can be falsified.
> We of course did not subscribe to the Quine-Duhem thesis, since the role
> of generalization played no role in it. That is, no auxiliary hypotheses,
> from our perspective, could be adequate if they failed to capture
> generalizations about content. But, as Chomsky knew well, the theory of
> formal
> systems could only state generalizations about form and not content. Since
> we were concerned with generalizations about content, the Quine-Duhem
> thesis made no sense to us. But for Chomsky, the Quine-Duhem thesis was
> important, since it shielded his theories from possible counterexamples.”
> (Huck & Goldsmith *Ideology and Linguistic Theory,* 115)
>
> While I do not want to suggest that we should all become philosophers of
> science, I think thinking about philosophical issues might help us be able
> to articulate the differences underlying our views. It might actually help
> us understand what we are talking about, whether we are talking past each
> other, and what is actually at stake. Perhaps we just have 'cognitive'
> commitments that make research programs incompatible ... but maybe despite
> initial biases, we can still work together to test competing claims.
>
> One could, I imagine, argue that while the notion of ‘foot’ is not
> directly testable assuming a foot makes a number of other statements and
> perhaps universals coherent: a sort of Lakatosian view that the foot forms
> part of the core of a scientific paradigm not subject to direct empirical
> scrutiny. Or perhaps it is a useful assumption for discovery – we learn so
> much by assuming something like a foot is actually there.
>
> Or perhaps the problem is not falsifiability itself, but the way we’re
> putting it into practice: falsifiability need not refer to structural facts
> from a single language – you need to have a broad sample of languages and
> show that the ‘foot’ is *not *a regulative principle in language
> structure, even if its evidence is weak or absent in some cases.
>
> These arguments do not frustrate me. What frustrates me is the assertion
> on the part of some lingusits that a concept is well empirically supported,
> but then at the same time the same linguist can’t give me a single case
> where the hypothesis was put under serious empirical scrutiny and not just
> assumed.
>
> I think though the criterion of “workability” (is the foot ever
> unworkable), or the criterion of “bad idea” (is it ever a bad idea to adopt
> the foot?) is hard for me to square with how I view science. All purposes
> are ultimately “workable”. McCawley’s comments I think are pertinent here
> (in his summary of his article ‘Language Universals in Linguistic
> Argumentation’:
>
> “It [the article] deals with the role that the notion ‘language universal’
> has played in the argumentation of transformational grammarians, especially
> with arguments in which conclusions are justified on the basis of the claim
> that they allow one to maintain anguage universals that alternative
> analyses would conflict with. I find the bulk of such arguments worthless,
> since the putative universals generally are merely features accidentally
> shared by analyses that the investigator or some reason happens to like. *The
> investigator’s preferred type of analysis is always available at a price,
> and in advancing the putative universal he* [sic] *is only expressing his
> commitment to pay that price and to bully his fellow linguists into paying
> it too*….” (McCawley *Thirty Million Theories of Grammar, *p.4).
>
> I think similar issues arise with the “bad idea” argument… “bad” according
> to what standards? If a linguist has staked their career on the assumption
> that foot are universals, then the universal foot just becomes
> self-justifying: the foot is never a bad idea, because its never a bad idea.
>
> I understand there are some people that will never be convinced. But if we
> can convince others in the field that they are in the same epistemic world
> as defenders of flat earth theory (an obviously “good idea” which is always
> “workable” for its practitioners), then insisting on testability has
> merits.
>
> But you did point out a potential falsifying instance:
>
> “Perhaps the sort of counterevidence that I’m suggesting looking for might
> be a language that showed evidence for multiple units between syl and
> phrase, and in which segmental and prosodic phenomena referenced units both
> above and below one another – though I’m not aware of such a language.“
>
> I have to admit that I read this passage multiple times and just could not
> make sense of it. So, you mean a process that happens at some *kappa *between
> syllable and phrase, but that makes reference to syllables and phrases?
> Isn’t this just how all “word” level stress assignment generally works? So
> you mean a process that makes reference to syllables *and *phrase
> boundaries? That just sounds like most phonological processes…
>
> best,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:08 AM Mark Post <mark.post at sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> That’s a lot of questions, but FWIW – and freely admitting that I’m no
> philosopher of science – to the extent that a given style of argument
> basically inoculates itself from falsification through lack of positive
> evidence (you haven’t shown that it’s not *not* there…), its proponents
> are probably not going to find such efforts convincing, regardless of
> whatever you or I might think. I’m not necessarily endorsing that way of
> thinking, but to the extent that it exists, I’m asking whether we can find
> positive evidence that assuming a “foot” for a particular language is
> actually a *bad idea*.
>
>
>
> I’m interested in this because, under the assumption that “foot” is the
> focus of prosodic phenomena exclusively (not, e.g., segmental phenomena
> that could not be attributed to syl or wd; if this is wrong I’d be happy to
> be corrected), it seems useful to assume this unit of analysis for
> cross-linguistic comparison even if, for a particular language, “foot”
> turned out to be isomorphic with, for example, “word” as defined through
> segmental criteria (and assuming that most analysts would not adopt the
> reverse approach – attributing segmental phenomena to the “foot”, and doing
> away with “word” – though in principle, I suppose one could). Perhaps the
> sort of counterevidence that I’m suggesting looking for might be a language
> that showed evidence for multiple units between syl and phrase, and in
> which segmental and prosodic phenomena referenced units both above and
> below one another – though I’m not aware of such a language.
>
>
>
> I think this is a little bit different from the other types of case you
> mentioned, as at least in principle, “foot” *could* have a universal
> functional motivation in prosodic organisation (e.g. rhythm), as opposed to
> being just a formal structure.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From: *Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, 8 May 2023 at 3:17 pm
> *To: *Mark Post <mark.post at sydney.edu.au>,
> LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] languages without feet?
>
> Thanks everyone for the helpful comments
>
>
>
> Mark: this is an interesting comment, as it is typically used to argue in
> favor of the universality of structures cross-linguistically.
>
>
>
> " I’m not sure whether or not there are languages for which that would
> not be true – i.e. in which assuming a foot level not only adds nothing,
> but leads to a less insightful or unworkable analysis. To me, that’s a more
> interesting question than whether or not we *have* to identify a foot
> distinct from syllable and word for any given language to sustain a
> particular prosodic analysis (lack of positive evidence not generally being
> taken as negative evidence in theorizing about UG)."
>
>
>
> Perhaps I'm missing some crucial assumption, but I don't understand this
> formulation. Should it not be up to those *pushing *theoretical claims
> that the conditions for the falsifiability of their theories be clear? If
> someone is making a claim that some structure is universal, should it
> really be an *open question *how they could ever conceivably be wrong?
>
>
>
> Nespor & Vogel (2007:11) make a similar argument regarding layers of the
> prosodic hierarchy. They argue that if one does not find evidence for a
> given layer of the prosodic hierarchy one is not necessarily warranted in
> assuming that the layer is not present. So one of the reasons that the
> prosodic hierarchy hypothesis seems like it has wide empirical coverage is
> because it is basically let off the hook for accounting for cases where
> there seems to be no evidence for its domains. And the reverse is true as
> well it turns out (too many domains? just posit some are not related to the
> theory). I've heard the same argument used to justify the vP shell, the
> argument for binary branching in all languages, and, of course, for the
> universal foot as well. It's been insisted that if I don't want to adopt
> the foot I should provide evidence *against *its presence (... against
> the presence of something invisible).
>
>
>
> When are we justified in saying that positing a particular formal
> structure is "unworkable", especially when such structures are
> indeterminately abstract, especially if we are willing to admit that the
> structure need not have any empirical content? Are we not constructing a
> hypothesis that is fundamentally unfalsifiable? Or is the claim here that
> falsifiability is not a good criterion for scientific status?
>
>
>
> And in linguistic descriptions, in the long run, doesn't presuming
> evidence for a structure when none can be found present a misleading
> picture of typological variation?
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 6:39 AM Mark Post <mark.post at sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> Just briefly, I think Enfield’s recent analysis of prosodic structure in
> Lao
>
>
>
> https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865681.003.0007
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/guwzCq71mwf1kKJlGiZlZRX?domain=doi.org>
>
>
>
> …which I think also holds for Thai, suggests that while it may be
> *possible* to handle prosodic phenomena at the word level – basically by
> proliferating word “types” – it’s more *desirable* to handle prosodic
> phenomena at the sub-word level – so it’s not really a case of shoehorning
> the data into a particular model for at least those lgs.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure whether or not there are languages for which that would not
> be true – i.e. in which assuming a foot level not only adds nothing, but
> leads to a less insightful or unworkable analysis. To me, that’s a more
> interesting question than whether or not we *have* to identify a foot
> distinct from syllable and word for any given language to sustain a
> particular prosodic analysis (lack of positive evidence not generally being
> taken as negative evidence in theorizing about UG).
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Kirsten <kirstenculhane at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 00:03
> *To: *Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
> *Cc: *LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] languages without feet?
>
> Hi Adam and everyone else,
>
> The Strict Layer Hypothesis assumes that foot structure —as for other
> prosodic domains — is present in all languages. I get the impression,
> however, that the lack of evidence or foot structure in many languages
> hasn't been problematised in the same way as for the syllable and word -
> e.g. Hyman's analysis of Gokana, Sheiring et al's re: Vietnamese (one
> exception is Özçelik 2017's paper The Foot is not an obligatory constituent
> of the Prosodic Hierarchy: “stress” in Turkish, French and child English).
>
> Anyway, underlying much of the discussion here is ultimately the question
> of what constitutes evidence for foot structure, and what is the
> relationship between foot structure and stress. I think there's good
> reasons not to treat stress as evidence for foot structure (you can account
> for stress without foot structure, and empirical evidence for stress both
> complex and lacking for many languages). This issue is the focus of my
> current paper in Linguistic typology, and is discussed in more detail in my
> forthcoming PhD thesis.
>
> All the best,
> Kirsten
>
>
>
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 at 11:21, Adam James Ross Tallman <
> ajrtallman at utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for your responses (Ian and David + private responders),
>
>
>
> Great leads to look at!
>
>
>
> Here's another question ... have there been any phonologists who have
> proposed or assume that *all languages have feet*. I ask because I've had
> reviewer questions and conference questions that seem to presuppose this to
> be the case. I'd like to see the original arguments, if there are any.
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 7:20 AM Ian Maddieson <ianm at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> There must be many languages in which the concept of a foot is not found
> to be relevant
>
> (see Sun-Ah Jun’s chapter "Prosodic Typology: By Prominence Type, Word
> prosody, and Macro-rhythm" in
>
> *Prosodic Typology II* (edited by Sun-Ah) for some discussion. The notion
> of a foot does not seem to
>
> useful for (standard)  French, Korean, Yorùbá, among many others, though
> it can be pressed into service
>
> in languages such as Thai and Mandarin. Since it’s an abstract notion, I’m
> not sure what phonetic
>
> data would be capable of providing direct evidence either for or against
> the notion of a foot, though
>
> if for example, vowel length was considered important in foot
> construction, data could confirm the
>
> presence of greater length where it’s presence had been invoked to justify
> foot structure.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2023, at 09:16, Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> In Caroline Féry's excellent *Prosodic Structure and Intonation*, she
> describes a class of "phrase languages", identified as languages whereby
> there isn't much going on at the level of the prosodic word.
>
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone had *described* explicitly a language where the
> same thing could be said of feet (neither iambic or trochaic)? Or perhaps
> even more radically, not just that the feet don't do much, but that they
> aren't there at all?
>
>
>
> Perhaps there's lots  of cases where feet haven't been proposed, are there
> any cases where they had been proposed, but then further research (perhaps
> some phonetic study) found that there was no evidence for them?
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
> --
>
> Adam J.R. Tallman
>
> Post-doctoral Researcher
>
> Friedrich Schiller Universität
>
> Department of English Studies
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/kMvZCr81nytrnP4oXizqpVj?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
>
>
> Ian Maddieson
>
>
>
> Department of Linguistics
>
> University of New Mexico
>
> MSC03-2130
>
> Albuquerque NM 87131-0001
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam J.R. Tallman
>
> Post-doctoral Researcher
>
> Friedrich Schiller Universität
>
> Department of English Studies
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/kMvZCr81nytrnP4oXizqpVj?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam J.R. Tallman
>
> Post-doctoral Researcher
>
> Friedrich Schiller Universität
>
> Department of English Studies
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam J.R. Tallman
>
> Post-doctoral Researcher
>
> Friedrich Schiller Universität
>
> Department of English Studies
>

-- 
Adam J.R. Tallman
Post-doctoral Researcher
Friedrich Schiller Universität
Department of English Studies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230510/4c4e78a9/attachment.htm>