Editor for this issue: Sarah Murray <sarah
linguistlist.org>
David Gil's claim (as reported in Linguist 15.163) that Riau Indonesian has no 'parts of speech' may or may not be well-founded. However, its validity is a matter for empirical investigation, and cannot be decided by theoretical fiat. In her rejoinder (Linguist 15.163) Whitney Anne Postman argues, effectively, that all languages must distinguish reference and predication grammatically (and hence contain distinct 'noun' and 'verb' classes) because reference and predication are universal semantic categories, fundamental to the way in which we perceive the world and communicate about it. But 'part of speech' categories are formal, not semantic entities, and cannot be posited to exist on the basis of purely semantic considerations. Conceptual universals do not necessarily find expression in the grammars of all languages; they may be expressed lexically, or left to be inferred pragmatically. Time and number are obvious cases in point. The presence in Riau, or any other language, of a grammatical counterpart of the reference-predication distinction can therefore only be established by linguistic investigation. For 'nouns' and 'verbs' to exist as distinguishable word-classes in Riau, there must be observable differences between them. If this is not the case, the classes cannot be magicked into being by the unfalsifiable claim that they exist at an ill-defined 'deeper level'. -Michael SwanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue