The Subjectivity of the Notion of Polysynthesis

Abstract

Abstract It is argued that no quantitative measures, nor any simple structural distinctions, can accurately separate languages that we would impressionistically count as polysynthetic from those that we would not. Rather, our intuitions are influenced by the type of morphology a language presents, by the phonological and lexical facts associated with its morphology, and by the degree to which its morphology does the work of syntax. Disregarding such features, it can be argued that biblical Hebrew is more synthetic than the Inuit language Kalaallisut, a conclusion that I, and perhaps most typologists would reject. I conclude that a thorough description of the morphology of language and its relation to the other components of grammar is superior to any method of placing that language on a scale of syntheticity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.