Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

There are several reasons for not using tree diagrams or other methods of
representing detailed hierarchical phrase structure in this dissertation. The most important
reason is that the kind of relatively subtle and contrastive semantic and pragmatic
differences that would—under normal circumstances—provide the basis for choosing one
tree diagram over another (types of syntactic binding, quantifier scope, etc.) are simply
unavailable. Given the empirical constraints on an archaeologically recovered language,
we can never be sure of the precise semantic or pragmatic features of any sentence—all
the glosses and translations in this and all other investigations of Sumerian morphosyntax
are only approximations. There is no way of producing additional examples, introducing
measured variation in form and testing for grammaticality through elicitation with a
native speaker. Thus, in a special sense, any tree diagram or other formal representation
is deceptive in that it suggests that we know more about Sumerian syntax than we
actually do. Although generic formal representations would, at least in certain places
along the way, have made the argumentation more precise, they would also have
remained entirely meaningless to the vast majority of those who investigate the Sumerian
text-artifactual record.
Instead of attempting to import a huge amount of linguistic theory and its associated
terminology and formalism into the Assyriological discussion, I have chosen to follow a
rather different method in presenting my findings. Since the most important component
of any investigation of Sumerian morphosyntax is the identification of formal criteria that
differentiate distributional classes in Sumerian (rather than the scholarly metalanguage of
translations and glosses that are applied to the Sumerian forms), the description of each
7