Editor for this issue: Elyssa Winzeler
<elyssalinguistlist.org>
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
Date: 18-Dec-2009 From: Daniel Everett <dlevereilstu.edu> Subject: Query on Structural Properties and Corpora E-mail this message to a friend
I am interested in beginning a statistical study on the relative rarity of the following patterns (this query will not be the basis for the study! Just a tool to start gathering data). I am first interested discovering languages that have any one of the specific properties below. Next I am interested in information on any languages that are described by a larger subset of these. Please respond to me individually, rather than to the list as a whole. I will post a summary if there are enough responses. I would particularly appreciate any suggestions for particular corpora to consult in rarer languages.
Thanks very much in advance for your answers.
Dan Everett dlevereilstu.edu
1. The language lacks independent factive verbs and epistemic verbs (not counting the verb 'to see'). 2. The language has no morphosyntactic marker of subordination. 3. It has no coordinating disjunctive particles (no words like 'or'). 4. It has no coordinating conjunctive particle (no words like 'and'). 5. No unambiguous complement clauses (no strong evidence for embedding as opposed to juxtaposition). 6. No multiple possession (no structures like 'John's father's son' - whether pre or postnominal) . 7. No multiple modification (no structures like 'two big red apples'). 8. No scope from one clause into another: 'John does not believe you left' (where 'not' can negate 'believe' or 'left', as in 'It is not the case that John believes that you left' vs. 'It is the case that John believes that you did not leave') 9. No long-distance dependencies: 'Who do you think John believes __ (that Bill saw__)?' 'Ann, I think he told me he tried to like ___'
linguistlist.org>
E-mail this message to a friend
