From mcginnis at ucalgary.ca  Sun Sep  2 16:38:19 2001
From: mcginnis at ucalgary.ca (Martha McGinnis)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 10:38:19 -0600
Subject: Alec Marantz: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Mark Volpe)
Message-ID: <SUN.2.SEP.2001.103819.0600.DMLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>

I agree with Mark that "Expressive Derivations" (I assume "Expessive"
was a typo) are of great interest to morphological theory.  For
example, cases of double plural marking cross-linguistically seem to
involve interactions of plural with diminutives, probably not an
accident.  I fail to see, however, why any assumptions of DM cause it
particular problems with the sorts of data Mark describes.  DM
endorses the claim of the "Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis" that
derivation doesn't occur before inflection (and that in fact the
derivation/inflection split is a false dichotomy) -- cases of mixed
derivation and inflection, then, don't by themselves challenge DM.
Most versions of strong lexicalism assume strong versions of
compositionality for morphology, so they are parallel to DM claims
that all morphology is syntactic, with the syntactic structures
determining morpheme position also determining interpretation.

So what precisely is the problem with these expressive derivations,
other than that they call for an account?  If the problem is
compositionality, that's a problem for everyone, not a special
problem for DM.  On the other hand, of course, not making any strong
claims about a particular set of data is nothing for a theory to brag
about.

And what's Sells (1995)?  (It's not listed on his web site.)

--Alec Marantz

>Dear DM-ers,
>    I would like to inquire about the status of
>so-called "Expessive Derivations" (ED) (Beard,1995),
>e.g., Honorifics, Diminutives, Perjoratives, etc.
>Since the main focus of my research is Japanese and
>its distant cousins, the status of such is crucial.
>The simple fact of the matter is that any and every
>finite sentence in Japanese, for example, must make a
>choice on the matter.
>    Some of the salient features of EDs are that they
>seem to be pragmatically-based, deitic, and features
>may apply recursively, e.g., so-called Subject
>Honorification ('sonkei-go'), where an honorific Verb
>stem ('renyoukei'), can be resubmitted to the
>paradigm: "o-V-Stem-ni naru", e.g., 'o-nasari-ni naru'
>('to do' Honorific).
>    While Japanese has the reputation of being a polite
>language, it can be as equally frank and brutal as
>English is with "infixed F-ings". As an example
>consider the suffix '-agaru' ('to rise'). An important
>concept in Japanese levels is the direction, either up
>or down. When attached to a V-Stem, the effect is "you
>down there, what are you trying to do to me way up
>here", e.g. "o-mae-wa nani ii-agatten da yo?" (What
>the F- are you talking about?!). Here the verb stem of
>'iu' ('to say') is suffixed.
>    In my mind, a significant lacuna in the DM
>literature is the non-response to Sells (1995), where
>in he adopts "The Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis", using
>the Lexicon for both inflectional and derivational
>attachment prior to syntax. I've come to believe that
>without an approach to EDs, there unfortunately can be
>no response. Any ideas, comments, critiques
>appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time.
>                 Mark Volpe, Stony Brook
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
>http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

--
marantz at mit.edu


From mcginnis at ucalgary.ca  Sun Sep  2 20:29:14 2001
From: mcginnis at ucalgary.ca (Martha McGinnis)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 14:29:14 -0600
Subject: Dan Everett: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Alec Marantz)
Message-ID: <SUN.2.SEP.2001.142914.0600.DMLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>

  Folks,

  Just a couple of comments on Alec's posting:

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martha McGinnis" <mcginnis at ucalgary.ca>
> > To: <DM-LIST at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:38 AM
> > Subject: Alec Marantz: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Mark Volpe)
> >
> >
> > > DM endorses the claim of the "Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis" that
> > > derivation doesn't occur before inflection (and that in fact the
> > > derivation/inflection split is a false dichotomy)
> >

 Isn't this self-contradictory? Its understanding must depend on some
 assumed background information.

> > > DM claims
> > > that all morphology is syntactic, with the syntactic structures
> > > determining morpheme position also determining interpretation.

 Are there references someone could provide for me as to how DM handles the
 kind of semantic constraints on morpheme ordering that Bybe (over many
 years) and Keren Rice (her recent CUP book on Athapaskan), among many
 others, have shown to be relevant in many languages?

> > > On the other hand, of course, not making any strong
> > > claims about a particular set of data is nothing for a theory
> > > to brag about.

 Why not? Boas would most certainly have taken pride in/bragged about this,
 as would any pragmatist of the James-Peirce-Dewey tradition. The love of
 'strong' claims is, to me at least, a residue of Cartesian/Platonic
 'essentialism' and is questionable at the very least. The point of
 mentioning this is that readers of this list and practitioners of DM and
 other structure-based theories (though this applies to, howbeit with less
 novelty, to semantic-based theories as well) ought to be aware that making
 'strong, falsifiable hypotheses', while seemingly a matter of 'common
 sense' after so many years of Popperian influence in Linguistics, is not
 necessarily the best way to go about the business of science. Certainly it
 is not the only way. Likely it is often the least enlightening way. (For an
 interesting perspective, see the recent issue of Current Anthropology's
 discussion of Boas and Pragmatism. For more general reading, try out some
 Rorty. Perhaps the best evaluation of the typical view of knowledge in
 Linguistics is presented in Lakoff & Johnson (1999, 469ff). And I have some
 work on progress on this as well.)

  -- Dan Everett


From mcginnis at ucalgary.ca  Sun Sep  2 21:31:08 2001
From: mcginnis at ucalgary.ca (Martha McGinnis)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 15:31:08 -0600
Subject: Mark Volpe: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Alec Marantz)
Message-ID: <SUN.2.SEP.2001.153108.0600.DMLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>

Dear Prof. M. and DM-listers,
   Thanks for your comments. Certainly, there is
nothing that causes a particular problem for DM, other
than its not having a story on some very interesting
morphological phenomena. A 'story' would need to take
a position on the feature-types one might want to
introduce into a morpho-syntactic framework, e.g.,
+Subj Honor, +Perjor, +Dimin, etc., preferably
something much more imaginative. This, in my view, is
where the difficulty lies.
   In some ways, a parallel can be drawn with
syntactic "left dislocations" such as Focus and Topic.
Are features such as [+Topic] or [+Focus] part of a
constrained universal theory of morpho-syntax? There
are various viewpoints.
   Again, in agreement with what you say, Prof. M.,
there is a strongly syntactic aspect to Japanese
subject honorification, which a framework must be able
to handle. What I have in mind is the feature
agreement which seems to occur between subject-verb.
Additionally, there is a "de-agentivizing" process
which is reminiscent of Passivization, though without
changes in valence or case-marking morphology, e.g.,
'o-kaki-ni naru', lit. "become writing".
   One last point, for now, while the expression
"object honorification" ('kenjoo-go')is popular in
Japanese linguistics, I think it is better thought of
as "subject humbling". Partial motivation for my view
is the fact that the surface subjects are triggers for
"subject humbling" in unaccusative verbs of
inherently-directed motion, such as 'to go', e.g.,
'mairu'. Such an analysis could claim that all
Japanese Honorification involves subject-verb
agreement. Additionally, this is much less marked
cross-linguistically.(cf. Korean which has only
Subject-oriented honorification processes)
    If you or anyone have some comments on the
features which could be reasonably added to a
framework, I am all ears!
BTW, Are you just putting me on about Sells (95), the
LI article? In the unlikely event that you really
don't know it, I'll briefly summarize. Basically, all
morphology is attached in a Lexicon, the data is
exclusively from Korean and Japanese, and the specific
"morphological framework" he argues against is "the
mirror principle". He argues, if I recall rightly,
that because Korean has honorific DP-particles (also
allomorphy makes up a big part of his rejection of the
Mirror Princ.),  the mirror principle can not account
for the morpho-syntactic properties of
Japanese/Korean. His claim is that honorific particles
cannot occupy syntactic heads, contrary to what one
might argue for case-marking particles.
   For this reason, I've been thinking an account of
EDs is needed . Thanks for the time!

                Mark Volpe, Stony Brook









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com


From mcginnis at ucalgary.ca  Sun Sep  2 16:38:19 2001
From: mcginnis at ucalgary.ca (Martha McGinnis)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 10:38:19 -0600
Subject: Alec Marantz: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Mark Volpe)
Message-ID: <SUN.2.SEP.2001.103819.0600.DMLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>

I agree with Mark that "Expressive Derivations" (I assume "Expessive"
was a typo) are of great interest to morphological theory.  For
example, cases of double plural marking cross-linguistically seem to
involve interactions of plural with diminutives, probably not an
accident.  I fail to see, however, why any assumptions of DM cause it
particular problems with the sorts of data Mark describes.  DM
endorses the claim of the "Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis" that
derivation doesn't occur before inflection (and that in fact the
derivation/inflection split is a false dichotomy) -- cases of mixed
derivation and inflection, then, don't by themselves challenge DM.
Most versions of strong lexicalism assume strong versions of
compositionality for morphology, so they are parallel to DM claims
that all morphology is syntactic, with the syntactic structures
determining morpheme position also determining interpretation.

So what precisely is the problem with these expressive derivations,
other than that they call for an account?  If the problem is
compositionality, that's a problem for everyone, not a special
problem for DM.  On the other hand, of course, not making any strong
claims about a particular set of data is nothing for a theory to brag
about.

And what's Sells (1995)?  (It's not listed on his web site.)

--Alec Marantz

>Dear DM-ers,
>    I would like to inquire about the status of
>so-called "Expessive Derivations" (ED) (Beard,1995),
>e.g., Honorifics, Diminutives, Perjoratives, etc.
>Since the main focus of my research is Japanese and
>its distant cousins, the status of such is crucial.
>The simple fact of the matter is that any and every
>finite sentence in Japanese, for example, must make a
>choice on the matter.
>    Some of the salient features of EDs are that they
>seem to be pragmatically-based, deitic, and features
>may apply recursively, e.g., so-called Subject
>Honorification ('sonkei-go'), where an honorific Verb
>stem ('renyoukei'), can be resubmitted to the
>paradigm: "o-V-Stem-ni naru", e.g., 'o-nasari-ni naru'
>('to do' Honorific).
>    While Japanese has the reputation of being a polite
>language, it can be as equally frank and brutal as
>English is with "infixed F-ings". As an example
>consider the suffix '-agaru' ('to rise'). An important
>concept in Japanese levels is the direction, either up
>or down. When attached to a V-Stem, the effect is "you
>down there, what are you trying to do to me way up
>here", e.g. "o-mae-wa nani ii-agatten da yo?" (What
>the F- are you talking about?!). Here the verb stem of
>'iu' ('to say') is suffixed.
>    In my mind, a significant lacuna in the DM
>literature is the non-response to Sells (1995), where
>in he adopts "The Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis", using
>the Lexicon for both inflectional and derivational
>attachment prior to syntax. I've come to believe that
>without an approach to EDs, there unfortunately can be
>no response. Any ideas, comments, critiques
>appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time.
>                 Mark Volpe, Stony Brook
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
>http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

--
marantz at mit.edu


From mcginnis at ucalgary.ca  Sun Sep  2 20:29:14 2001
From: mcginnis at ucalgary.ca (Martha McGinnis)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 14:29:14 -0600
Subject: Dan Everett: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Alec Marantz)
Message-ID: <SUN.2.SEP.2001.142914.0600.DMLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>

  Folks,

  Just a couple of comments on Alec's posting:

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martha McGinnis" <mcginnis at ucalgary.ca>
> > To: <DM-LIST at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:38 AM
> > Subject: Alec Marantz: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Mark Volpe)
> >
> >
> > > DM endorses the claim of the "Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis" that
> > > derivation doesn't occur before inflection (and that in fact the
> > > derivation/inflection split is a false dichotomy)
> >

 Isn't this self-contradictory? Its understanding must depend on some
 assumed background information.

> > > DM claims
> > > that all morphology is syntactic, with the syntactic structures
> > > determining morpheme position also determining interpretation.

 Are there references someone could provide for me as to how DM handles the
 kind of semantic constraints on morpheme ordering that Bybe (over many
 years) and Keren Rice (her recent CUP book on Athapaskan), among many
 others, have shown to be relevant in many languages?

> > > On the other hand, of course, not making any strong
> > > claims about a particular set of data is nothing for a theory
> > > to brag about.

 Why not? Boas would most certainly have taken pride in/bragged about this,
 as would any pragmatist of the James-Peirce-Dewey tradition. The love of
 'strong' claims is, to me at least, a residue of Cartesian/Platonic
 'essentialism' and is questionable at the very least. The point of
 mentioning this is that readers of this list and practitioners of DM and
 other structure-based theories (though this applies to, howbeit with less
 novelty, to semantic-based theories as well) ought to be aware that making
 'strong, falsifiable hypotheses', while seemingly a matter of 'common
 sense' after so many years of Popperian influence in Linguistics, is not
 necessarily the best way to go about the business of science. Certainly it
 is not the only way. Likely it is often the least enlightening way. (For an
 interesting perspective, see the recent issue of Current Anthropology's
 discussion of Boas and Pragmatism. For more general reading, try out some
 Rorty. Perhaps the best evaluation of the typical view of knowledge in
 Linguistics is presented in Lakoff & Johnson (1999, 469ff). And I have some
 work on progress on this as well.)

  -- Dan Everett


From mcginnis at ucalgary.ca  Sun Sep  2 21:31:08 2001
From: mcginnis at ucalgary.ca (Martha McGinnis)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 15:31:08 -0600
Subject: Mark Volpe: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Alec Marantz)
Message-ID: <SUN.2.SEP.2001.153108.0600.DMLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>

Dear Prof. M. and DM-listers,
   Thanks for your comments. Certainly, there is
nothing that causes a particular problem for DM, other
than its not having a story on some very interesting
morphological phenomena. A 'story' would need to take
a position on the feature-types one might want to
introduce into a morpho-syntactic framework, e.g.,
+Subj Honor, +Perjor, +Dimin, etc., preferably
something much more imaginative. This, in my view, is
where the difficulty lies.
   In some ways, a parallel can be drawn with
syntactic "left dislocations" such as Focus and Topic.
Are features such as [+Topic] or [+Focus] part of a
constrained universal theory of morpho-syntax? There
are various viewpoints.
   Again, in agreement with what you say, Prof. M.,
there is a strongly syntactic aspect to Japanese
subject honorification, which a framework must be able
to handle. What I have in mind is the feature
agreement which seems to occur between subject-verb.
Additionally, there is a "de-agentivizing" process
which is reminiscent of Passivization, though without
changes in valence or case-marking morphology, e.g.,
'o-kaki-ni naru', lit. "become writing".
   One last point, for now, while the expression
"object honorification" ('kenjoo-go')is popular in
Japanese linguistics, I think it is better thought of
as "subject humbling". Partial motivation for my view
is the fact that the surface subjects are triggers for
"subject humbling" in unaccusative verbs of
inherently-directed motion, such as 'to go', e.g.,
'mairu'. Such an analysis could claim that all
Japanese Honorification involves subject-verb
agreement. Additionally, this is much less marked
cross-linguistically.(cf. Korean which has only
Subject-oriented honorification processes)
    If you or anyone have some comments on the
features which could be reasonably added to a
framework, I am all ears!
BTW, Are you just putting me on about Sells (95), the
LI article? In the unlikely event that you really
don't know it, I'll briefly summarize. Basically, all
morphology is attached in a Lexicon, the data is
exclusively from Korean and Japanese, and the specific
"morphological framework" he argues against is "the
mirror principle". He argues, if I recall rightly,
that because Korean has honorific DP-particles (also
allomorphy makes up a big part of his rejection of the
Mirror Princ.),  the mirror principle can not account
for the morpho-syntactic properties of
Japanese/Korean. His claim is that honorific particles
cannot occupy syntactic heads, contrary to what one
might argue for case-marking particles.
   For this reason, I've been thinking an account of
EDs is needed . Thanks for the time!

                Mark Volpe, Stony Brook









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com