<div dir="ltr">Dear David,<div><br></div><div>I don't know how many and what type of consultants you consulted about <span style="font-size:12.8px">examples that you offered of unmarked property words in argument position in Mandarin, but I think that the fact that they consistently rejected your examples is not a very valid argument to say that the examples were grammatically incorrect. In my experience, it happens all the time in fieldwork that native speakers reject example utterances during elicitation, even though they use them all the time in real, unchecked life; they are just not aware of it. Due to any number of reasons, when confronted with certain utterances, they reject them. For example, speakers may reject an utterance because it deviates from some kind of perceived standard, and that they feel that, in order to show their knowledge of the standard, they should reject them, especially when the person asking them is a very learned person. The point is that, in my opinion, elicitation alone should not be taken as the basis of a grammatical description. Elicitation should only be used as a tool to gain some deeper insight into the language after ample un-elicited, or spontaneous speech has been collected and analysed.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Seino</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dr. Seino van Breugel<br><a href="https://independent.academia.edu/SeinovanBreugel" target="_blank">https://independent.academia.edu/SeinovanBreugel</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:17 PM, David Gil <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Randy,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the very nice presentation of textual examples involving
the various combinations of <i>de</i> with the word for 'red'. Of
the examples that you cite, it is (2) which constitutes an apparent
counterexample to my WALS-map classification of Mandarin as
requiring a marker in order for a property-denoting word to occur in
argument position. Note, however, that in the given context, a
similar construction is possible also for English: you could perhaps
have translated (2) as 'See red before giving birth'. Given the
existence of constructions such as the latter translation, some have
questioned my characterization of English in the same WALS map,
arguing that adjectives can indeed occur in unmarked form in
argument position in English too. This is the typologist's
predicament, and why typologists often get as much flack as they do
from language specialists. Sure, constructions such as these occur
in English, however, they are significantly more constrained than in
a language such as Italian, Hebrew, or Malay, in which they occur
much more freely. To do typology, you need to posit arbitrary
cut-off points, and for better or worse, I chose to classify
languages which allow unmarked adjectives to occur in limited
contexts such as English as belonging to the same type as languages
which do not allow them at all, rather than as belonging to the same
type as languages that allow them freely. In large part this was
for practical reasons; I felt more confident in my ability to get
the facts right using this cut-off point than the alternative one.
And indeed, your data from Mandarin vindicate my decision. My
Mandarin data was based on elicitation, and perhaps because I am not
an expert in Mandarin, I did not encounter, and hence was not aware
of, constructions such as that in (2). Now if I had chosen a simple
yes/no cut-off point, I would now, on the basis of your comments,
have to amend my classification of Mandarin, and, much worse, I
would be increasingly suspicious of my classification of many other
languages in the sample. However, given that my Mandarin
consultants consistently rejected the examples that I offered them
of unmarked property words in argument position, I remain confident
that my classification of Mandarin in the WALS map is the correct
one.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<div>On 23/06/2016 16:55, Randy John LaPolla
(Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Hi David,
<div>Sorry to take so long to get back you. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, it is fine to "observe two entities, call them
A and B, and then say Hey, A and B are alike <b>with
respect to</b> property X”, but my argument was that they are
not alike in terms of property X. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In terms of what you said about word classes, <i>de</i> is not required in Mandarin for an adjective
(stative verb) or any other verb to be used as a referential
phrase; as I argued in my paper arguing for a constructionalist
approach to Chinese,* it is simply a matter of where it appears
in the construction. In the case of adjectives, there is a
difference in the use or not of <i>de</i> with the
adjective: without it it would probably be more often used to
refer to the quality as an entity, but with it it would probably
be used to refer to an object with that quality. Below are five
natural examples are each type. In 1 we have it without <i>de,</i> used to refer to a type of red. In 2, also
without de, it refers to a red object, blood. In 3 it is used
with de as a headless relative clause, referring to the hands.
In 4, with de, it refers to the quality of being red. In 5, with
de, it refers to the red ring of skin, which might also be seen
as a headless relative.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(243,245,249)">1 中国红到底是什么红？</span><a href="http://daxianggonghui.baijia.baidu.com/article/49119" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://daxianggonghui.baijia.baidu.com/article/49119" target="_blank">http://daxianggonghui.baijia.baidu.com/article/49119</a></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(243,245,249)">Zhongguo hong
daodi shi shenme hong </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(243,245,249)">China
red afterall cop what red</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(243,245,249)"><font color="#333333">‘So what is China
red?'</font></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">2</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"> 产前见红 </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"><a href="http://www.yaolan.com/zhishi/chanqianjianhong/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.yaolan.com/zhishi/chanqianjianhong/" target="_blank">http://www.yaolan.com/zhishi/chanqianjianhong/</a></span></div>
<div>chan qian jian hong</div>
<div>give.birth before see red</div>
<div>‘See blood before giving birth’</div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
</span></div>
<h3 style="margin:0px;padding:12px 0px 0px;color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:32px;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap;overflow:hidden"> <font size="4"><span style="font-weight:normal">3 </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-weight:normal">白的雪，青的葱，红红的是她的小手</span> </span><font color="#333333"><a href="http://tiku.21cnjy.com/quest/gzN2U__QMT4O.html" style="font-weight:normal" target="_blank">http://tiku.21cnjy.com/quest/gzN2U__QMT4O.html</a></font></font></h3>
<div><font color="#333333"><br>
</font></div>
<div>bai-de xue, qing-de cong, hong-hong-de shi ta-de
xiaoshou</div>
<div>white-de snow, green-de scallion, red-red-de cop
3sg-de small-hand</div>
<div>‘White snow, green scallions, the red one is her
small hand’</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<h4 style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0.5em 0px 0px;word-break:break-all;border:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> <span style="font-weight:normal">4 </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:32px;white-space:nowrap">关羽脸为什
么是红的?</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:32px;white-space:nowrap;font-weight:normal"> <a href="http://iask.sina.com.cn/b/10634327.html" target="_blank">http://iask.sina.com.cn/b/10634327.html</a></span></h4>
<div><span style="font-weight:normal">Guan
Yu lian weishenme shi hong-de</span></div>
<div><span style="font-weight:normal">PN
face why cop red-de</span></div>
<div>‘Why is Guan Yu’s face red?'</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">5</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-weight:bold;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
宝宝嘴巴周围一圈红红的是怎么回事? </span><font color="#333333"><a href="http://www.babytree.com/ask/detail/42954" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.babytree.com/ask/detail/42954" target="_blank">http://www.babytree.com/ask/detail/42954</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#333333">Baobao zuiba zhouwei
yi-quan hong-hong-de shi zenme hui shi?</font></div>
<div><font color="#333333">baby mouth around
one-ring red-red-de cop how CL thing</font></div>
<div><font color="#333333">‘What is the deal
with the ring of redness around the baby’s mouth?’</font></div>
<div><font face="Microsoft Yahei, Microsoft
Jhenghei" color="#333333"><span style="font-size:20px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div>*<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:12pt;line-height:16pt;text-align:justify">LaPolla, Randy J. 2013.
"Arguments for a construction-based approach to the analysis
of Chinese". In </span><i>Human Language
Resources and Linguistic Typology</i><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:12pt;line-height:16pt;text-align:justify">, Papers
from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology, edited
by Tseng Chiu-yu, 33-57. Taiwan: Academia Sinica.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;text-align:justify;line-height:16pt"> <span lang="EN-US"><span><a href="http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_2013_Arguments_for_a_construction-based_approach_to_the_analysis_of_Chinese.pdf" target="_blank">http://randylapolla.net/papers/LaPolla_2013_Arguments_for_a_construction-based_approach_to_the_analysis_of_Chinese.pdf</a></span></span><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So for me there are no global word classes; we need to look
at the propositional functions of the elements in the
particular constructions in which they appear.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 13 Jun 2016, at 6:24 pm, David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Randy,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your comments. Two points:<br>
<br>
With regard to whether Mandarin <i>de</i> is a
separate word or not, your criticism is well-taken; my
only defense is that that is the way it is usually
characterized, and that in a typological survey of this
scope, there is no other way of doing things other than
to rely on extant descriptions. Except perhaps to
sidestep the issue of wordhood altogether and simply
collapse "affix" and "separate word" into a single type,
which, I suspect, is what would do now if I were doing
the chapter all over again.<br>
<br>
But I really don't see your point when you write: "I
still don’t see what lumping together language forms
that aren’t similar into categories that make them look
similar does for us." Surely this is the only way for
rational inquiry into language (or any other
phenomenological domain) to proceed. "Similar" and "not
similar" aren't binary holistic choices, they only have
meaning in the context of particular criteria or
properties. We observe two entities, call them A and B,
and then say Hey, A and B are alike <b>with
respect to</b> property X. The value of saying this
depends on how trivial or insightful the property X
turns out to be, ie. what further understandings X leads
us towards. But crucially, the value of X is not
negated by pointing to properties Y, Z, W, V etc, with
respect to which A and B differ. The existence of such
properties with respect to which A and B differ is
totally irrelevant to the value of property X, they do
not impinge on it in any way.<br>
<br>
You ask "what has lumping Mandarin and English together
in this context taught us about the languages?". Well
one of the things I've always been interested in is
cross-linguistic variation with respect to
parts-of-speech inventories. The present WALS map
addresses the issue of whether a language distinguishes
between adjectives and nouns. (Note: I'm saying
"addresses", not "answers".) Specifically, if a
language, like English or Mandarin, needs to add a
grammatical marker to an adjective in order to give it
the distributional properties of a noun, then this
provides good reason to suspect that in such languages,
adjectives and nouns constitute different word classes,
defined distributionally. Whereas if a language, like
Italian or Hebrew, doesn't need to make use of such a
marker, then perhaps it doesn't distinguish between
adjectives and nouns (as indeed is suggested by the
traditional term "substantives" that groups the two
classes together), though alternatively it could be the
case that the language in question does distinguish
between adjectives and nouns using other criteria.<br>
<br>
So all this is relevant to English and Mandarin,
regardless of the myriad other important differences
between English <i>one</i> and Mandarin <i>de.<br>
<br>
</i>Best,<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13/06/2016 17:44, Randy
John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi David,
<div>Thanks for your reply. The crux may be
the definition of Mandarin <i> de</i> as a
word (you don’t specify phonological word or
grammatical word, but since you treat
clitics—grammatical words that aren’t phonological
words—differently, I am assuming you mean
phonological word). It cannot appear on its own, and
when added to another word, like <i>hong</i>,
they are pronounced together, so it patterns like a
clitic, and so is unlike English <i>one</i>
in that way as well (people are often thrown off by
the fact that in Chinese each character is written
separately, but that doesn’t mean each character is
a phonological word). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And although I don’t want to start the
whole debate we had in January again, I still don’t
see what lumping together language forms that aren’t
similar into categories that make them look similar
does for us. Although I can see the practical
difficulties of taking the actual facts of all the
languages seriously, very concretely, what has
lumping Mandarin and English together in this
context taught us about the languages?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks very much.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 12 Jun 2016, at 1:36 pm, David
Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Randy,<br>
<br>
Yes, my chapter in WALS characterizes the
English and Mandarin constructions as "of
the same type structurally", and yes, the
two constructions are different from each
other in precisely the ways that you
describe!<br>
<br>
That's what typology does: dividing things
into classes according to one set of
criteria, thereby putting in to the same
class things that are very different
according to other sets of criteria. And
that's precisely what has happened here. My
WALS chapter asks whether an adjective can
occur on its own as a noun, without any
further morphosyntactic marking and the
answer for both English and Mandarin is the
same: no. It then further asks, for
languages that require such morphosyntactic
marking, what the formal properties of the
marking is, distinguishing between affixes
and separate words, and between forms that
occur before and after their host
adjective. And once again, Mandarin and
English come out the same, with a separate
word that occurs after its host adjective.
That's all the WALS chapter purports to say.<br>
<br>
Now clearly many constructions in different
languages with the same WALS feature values
will differ from each other in myriad other
ways, as is the case for English and
Mandarin here. You may feel that the
typology proposed in the "Adjectives without
Nouns" WALS map overlooks what's "most
important" about the constructions in
question, and you could indeed be right
about that. I suspect, however, that an
alternative "Adjective without Nouns" map
distinguishing between "English and Mandarin
types" on the basis of headedness would have
been impractical to produce, since it is too
theory dependent, and hence it would not
have been possible to glean the necessary
information from available grammatical
descriptions of a sufficiently large sample
of languages. (In fact, while I agree
entirely with your description of the
difference between English and Mandarin, I
bet that there are even grammatical
descriptions of English and Mandarin out
there that would see things differently.)<br>
<br>
I hope this clarifies matters ...<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 12/06/2016
08:20, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi David,
<div>It seems from your message
here and from your chapter in WALS that
the English construction with <i>one</i> and the Chinese
construction with <i>de </i>are
of the same type structurally. I don’t
know if I have read you right, but
although they are made up of the word
representing a property concept followed
by another word, the two constructions
are quite different (and the natures of
all of the words involved are different
as well). In the relevant use of English
<i>one</i>, it is a pro-form
(see <span lang="EN-US"> Goldberg,
Adele E. & Laura A. Michaelis.
2016. One among many: anaphoric <i> one</i> and its
relationship to numeral <i>one</i>.
</span><span><i>Cognitive
Science</i> 40.4:1–26. DOI:
10.1111/cogs.12339</span> for
interesting discussion) and clearly the
head of the phrase, but in the Chinese
example <i>de</i> is only a
nominalizer and clearly not the head of
the phrase, either in terms of
structural behaviour (e.g. in English <i>one</i> patterns like other
heads, e.g. we can say “this one”, but
this is not the case with Chinese <i>de</i>) or in terms of
speakers’ “feel” for what is the core
element of the phrase.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This sort of goes back to
the discussion on categorization we had
back in January.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white">-----</span></span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white"><b>Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA</b> （羅</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white;font-size:13px"><font face="Song">仁地</font></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white">）| Division of Linguistics and Multilingual
Studies | Nanyang
Technological
University</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br>
<span style="background-color:white">HSS-03-45,
14 Nanyang
Drive, Singapore
637332</span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="background-color:white"> | </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="background-color:white">Tel:
(65) 6592-1825
GMT+8h | Fax:
(65) 6795-6525 |
<a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank"> </a><a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank">http://randylapolla.net/</a></span></span></span></div>
</span></span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 11 Jun 2016, at
3:33 pm, David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Luigi,<br>
<br>
Unlike many of my typologist
colleagues who seek refuge from
the muddy waters of formal
criteria in the supposed clarity
of semantics, I find semantic
criteria to often be just as
problematical, if not more so,
than their formal counterparts.<br>
<br>
For the purposes of my WALS map,
I did not use headedness as a
defining criteria, and I would
not wish to take a stand on the
headedness in the examples that
you discuss. By "adjective" I
meant property-denoting word one
of whose typical functions is as
an attribute of a noun, and by
"noun" I meant thing-denoting
word. The map shows the
morphosyntactic strategies that
a language uses to allow an
adjective to occur in a noun
slot — typically, but not
criterially, heading a phrase
that occurs in an argument
position. This definition is
met, among others, by the <i>one</i> in English <i> beautiful one</i>,
the <i>de</i> in
Mandarin <i>hong de</i>,
and also by the lack of
(dedicated adjective-to-noun
conversion) marking in the
Italian <i>il bello</i>.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<div>On
10/06/2016 23:01, Luigi Talamo
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">Dear all,</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">thanks a lot
for your all answers, I
really appreciate that.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">I have found
your data very
interesting, many
comments will follow :-)</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">I begin
below with David's
answer.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">One of
the two kinds of
nominalization
mentioned in the
query ('beautiful'
> 'beautiful
one') is the
subject of my WALS
map #61
"Adjectives
without Nouns".<br>
<br>
David</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Thanks
David, I have read
your WALS map at the
beginning of my
work; maybe you
remember that we
have exchanged a
couple of e-mails
some time ago. As
you mention in the
WALS article, the
most important issue
here is whether
adjectives are
syntactic heads in
constructions such
as 'the white one',
which translates in
Italian as 'quello
bianco'. As you
probably noticed, I
did not consider
these constructions
in my study, as they
appear to me to be
more 'predicative'
than 'referential',
at least in Italian;
moreover, the
syntactic head of
the Italian
construction is most
likely the deictic
quello 'this'. But
what about the
Mandarin example
that is reported in
your map, Wǒ yào
hóng de. ? Is </font><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">hóng
a property concept
with referential
function ?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thanks</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Luigi</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">On
09/06/2016
21:14, Luigi
Talamo wrote:<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Dear
all,</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">I
am conducting
a research on
the lexical
nominalisation
of property
concepts in
contemporary
Italian. My
study involves
two types of
nominalisation
strategy,
affixation
such as bello
`beautiful'
->
bell-ezza
`beauty
(abstract
concept)' and
zero-marking
('conversion'),
such as bello
(adj) ->
`(il) bello'
-> `the
beautiful
person',
`beauty
(abstract
concept)' and
`what is
beautiful
about
something'. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Drawing
mostly from
'Leipzig
Questionnaire
On
Nominalisation
and mixed
Categories'
(Malchukov et
alii (2008))
and studies on
adjectival and
mixed
categories, I
have
elaborated a
series of
morpho-syntactic
and semantic
parameters,
which I have
employed to
study
de-adjectival
nominalizations
in actual,
corpus-based
contexts.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">I
would like to
insert in my
study some
cross-linguistic
notes on the
phenomenon,
which I hope
to further
study from a
typological
perspective. I
will be glad
if you can
provide me
some examples
from your
languages of
expertise. I
have found
some examples
of
de-adjectival
nominalizations
here and there
in grammars,
but I was not
able to
exactly figure
out which are
the parameters
involved;
moreover, some
recent works
(among others,
Roy (2010),
Alexiadou et
alii (2010),
Alexiadou
&
Iordachioaia
(2014)) give
interesting
insights on
de-adjectival
nominalization,
but examples
are limited to
European
languages.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">I
am
particularly
interested in
non-European
languages
showing a
distinct class
of adjectives;
morpho-syntatic
parameters
include case,
number,
gender,
definiteness
and
specificity,
degree,
external
argument
structure and,
possibly,
verbal
parameters,
which are
however not
very
significant
for Italian
de-adjectival
nominalisation;
semantic
parameters
include
referent
animacy, the
distinction
between the
nominalisation
of the
adjectival
'argument' vs.
the
nominalisation
of the
adjective
itself e.g.,
softie `a
thing which is
soft' vs.
softness and
the semantic
type of
property
concepts e.g.,
PHYSICAL
PROPERTY or
HUMAN
PROPENSITY.<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">So,
possible
questions are
as following:</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">1.
Can property
concepts be
turned into
nouns?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">2.
Which
strategies are
employed for
this purpose?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">3.
Which
parameters do
de-adjectival
nouns display?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">4.
Are there any
missing values
for a given
parameter? For
instance,
de-adjectival
nouns can be
only singular
or definite or
restricted to
the subject
position.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">5.
Are
de-adjectival
nouns found in
both semantic
types of
nominalization?
For instance,
I have
observed that
European
languages
focus on the
nominalisation
of the
adjective
itself, while
argument
nominalizations
are scarcely
attested,
limited to
certain
language
varieties and
not stable in
the lexicon.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">(needless
to say,
questions 2 to
4 can have
multiple
answers,
helping to
describe
different
patterns of
property
nominalisation)<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Thanks
in advance for
your help, all
the best.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Luigi</font></div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br clear="all">
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">--
<br>
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">PhD
Program in
Linguistics
('Scienze
Linguistiche')<br>
University of
Bergamo and
University of
Pavia - Italy</font></div>
</div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"> <br>
</font></div>
</div>
<span><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</font></span></blockquote>
<span><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif" color="#888888"><br>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
<br clear="all">
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">-- <br>
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">PhD
Program in Linguistics
('Scienze
Linguistiche')<br>
University of Bergamo
and University of
Pavia - Italy</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<hr> <font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="2">CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the
person(s) named and may be confidential
and/or privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it,
notify us and do not copy, use, or
disclose its contents.<br>
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only
when necessary. Thank you.</font> </blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>