<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I generally have nothing against introducing a new term that covers both gender/noun-class markers and all sorts of (other) classifiers (numeral classifiers, class nouns, possessive classifiers, verbal classifiers, etc. see Sasha's comments) but I would
still like to add a few comments after a long and busy day:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On Martin's definition:</p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">>>>A <b>genifier system</b> is a system of grammatical markers which occur on nominal modifiers, predicates or anaphoric pronouns, and each of which expresses (i.e. normally reflects, but sometimes contributes) a broad
property other than person and number of the controlling noun (i.e. for nominal modifiers: the modificatum, for predicates: an argument, for anaphoric pronouns: the antecedent).<<<</span><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
This definition actually excludes what is called a “noun classifier” by Sasha Aikhenvald. Noun classifiers can occur with the noun alone [CL N] (e.g. in Jacaltec as described by Craig 1986) for marking definiteness. In many Sinitic languages and mainland Southeast
Asian languages, bare classifier constructions of the type [CL N] also mark definiteness, indefiniteness or both (cf. Li & Bisang 2012 in Lingua).
<br>
<br>
Moreover, I think that the new terminology does not really contribute much to the understanding of the phenomenon (or phenomena?) itself (themselves). Even though there is a certain functional overlap between gender and the other classification devices, we
don't really have a good understanding of many details of cross-linguistic variation at the borderline between gender/class-noun systems and other classifier systems.<br>
<br>
Let me highlight one problem by comparing Thai and Swahili:<br>
<br>
(1) Thai:<br>
rót [khan yàj] [khan níi]<br>
car CL big CL DEM<br>
‘this big car’<br>
<br>
(2) Swahili:<br>
ki-tabu ki-kubwa hi-ki<br>
CL7-book CL7-big this-CL7<br>
‘this big book’<br>
<br>
At first glance, one may want to argue that Thai has agreement like Swahili but there is a big difference. In Thai, the classifier is not obligatory and adds additional grammatical meaning: With stative verbs, it marks contrastive focus and with demonstratives
it tends to express singular. This is not the case with the Swahili example. This begs the question of when exactly we can say that a language has gender/noun classes in the traditional sense and when it does have a classifier system.<br>
<br>
If one looks at processes of grammaticalization, it is very hard to find examples of a classifier system (in the traditional sense) that has grammaticalized into a gender/noun class system. If one does not want to claim that this is a historical coincidence,
gender/noun class systems and other classifier systems may be more different than linguists generally think at the moment. As I have actually argued in Bisang (2002), the reason for this may be that gender/noun class is used as an indicator of syntactic structure
to the human parser (agreement), which is not the case with the other classifier systems.
<br>
In this context, I would also like to refer to an extremely interisting PhD thesis by Matthias Passer (<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:
1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN" lang="EN-US">Passer,
Matthias Benjamin. 2016. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Typology and Diachrony of Nominal Classification</i>. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Published in Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School in Linguistics (LOT).
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:
1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN" lang="EN-US">
<div><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:
1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN" lang="EN-US">Passer (2016) distinguishes two types of criteria
for measuring the degree of grammaticalization, i.e. criteria of linguistic form and criteria of semantic transparency. Based on a sample of some 40 languages, he presents good evidence that gender/noun class systems are characterized by a uniformly high degree
of morphosyntactic integration on the form side, while their semantic side reaches from high arbitrariness to full transparency. In contrast, the other classifier types are semantically more transparent and they show less formal integration.</span>
</div>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:
1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN" lang="EN-US"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-kerning:
1.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN" lang="EN-US"><span></span></span><br>
So, these are a few ideas late in the evening.<br>
<br>
With best wishes,<br>
Walter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff@glottotopia.de><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">> And the term “gen-ifier” is completely parallel to “class-ifier” – it’s<br>
> a marker that puts a noun in a genus.<br>
<br>
if "genifier" is used to put a noun in a *genus*, it is out as a marker<br>
for the superordinate concept encompassing both noun class and gender.<br>
Best<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
> <br>
> (Actually, since English distinguishes between “gender” and “genus”, one<br>
> might even introduce “genus” as a new feature term, a cover term for<br>
> gender and classifierhood. That would certainly be found more acceptable<br>
> to neophobics than "clender".)<br>
> <br>
> Martin<br>
> <br>
> On 21.03.17 20:38, Sebastian Nordhoff wrote:<br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>> as someone who has not worked extensively on either of these concepts, I<br>
>> still have to say that the term "genifier" strikes me as odd. My first<br>
>> thought upon seeing the subject of the mail was "OK, this will be about<br>
>> making something a gender, or a gene, or a knee-like thing maybe, let's<br>
>> see". I was misled by terms such as "intensifier", used to make<br>
>> something more intense, and certainly also, albeit more on phonological<br>
>> grounds, by "gentrification", which is a widely debated topic where I<br>
>> live.<br>
>><br>
>> The attempt to blend "GEnder" and "classiFIER" is not successful in my<br>
>> view, as "-fier" is not really the important formative here; "class" is.<br>
>><br>
>> If there is a desire for a blend, I would rather go for "Clender" or<br>
>> "Clander", which would not lead to misparsings/misinterpretations as the<br>
>> one I had.<br>
>><br>
>> As a final note, a "classifier" does something to an X, while "gender"<br>
>> is a property of an X.<br>
>><br>
>> (1) /ladida/ is of gender X<br>
>> (2) ?/ladida/ is of classifier X<br>
>> (3) ?/-dada/ is a gender<br>
>> (4) /-dada/ is a classifier<br>
>><br>
>> It is unclear to me whether the two concepts "gender" and "classifier"<br>
>> do actually have a superordinate concept. Possibly, one has to use<br>
>> "gender marker" and "classifier", or "noun class" and "gender" as<br>
>> subordinate concepts to arrive at a good superordinate concept.<br>
>><br>
>> Best wishes<br>
>> Sebastian<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 03/20/2017 04:05 PM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:<br>
>>> Dear typologists,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Cross-linguistic terminology (comparative concepts) should be both clear<br>
>>> and conform to the tradition, in order to preserve continuity with the<br>
>>> older literature.<br>
>>><br>
>>> In the case of the terms "gender" and "classifier", it seems that these<br>
>>> two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously without coining a new term<br>
>>> ("genifier").<br>
>>><br>
>>> There is quite a bit of general literature on gender/classifiers (e.g.<br>
>>> Dixon 1986; Grinevald 2000; Aikhenvald 2000; Seifart 2010; Corbett &<br>
>>> Fedden 2016), but none of these works provide clear definitions of these<br>
>>> terms, and the more recent literature (e.g. Corbett & Fedden, and also<br>
>>> Seifart & Payne 2007) actually emphasizes that there is no reason to say<br>
>>> that gender markers and classifiers are distinct phenomena in the<br>
>>> world's languages.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thus, it seems to me that we need the new term "genifier", perhaps<br>
>>> defined as follows:<br>
>>><br>
>>> A *genifier system* is a system of grammatical markers which occur on<br>
>>> nominal modifiers, predicates or anaphoric pronouns, and each of which<br>
>>> expresses (i.e. normally reflects, but sometimes contributes) a broad<br>
>>> property other than person and number of the controlling noun (i.e. for<br>
>>> nominal modifiers: the modificatum, for predicates: an argument, for<br>
>>> anaphoric pronouns: the antecedent).<br>
>>><br>
>>> The alternative to coining a new term, it seems to me, would be to<br>
>>> extend the meaning of the term "gender" or of the term "classifier" in<br>
>>> such a way that there would be no more continuity with the earlier<br>
>>> literature.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Given the above definition of genifier, we can perhaps define "gender"<br>
>>> and "numeral classifier" as follows (as arbitrary subcategories of<br>
>>> genifiers, defined just to preserve continuity with the older<br>
>>> literature):<br>
>>><br>
>>> A *gender system* (= a system of gender markers) is a system of<br>
>>> genifiers which includes no more than 20 genifiers and which is not<br>
>>> restricted to numeral modifiers.<br>
>>><br>
>>> A *numeral classifier system* is a system of genifiers which is<br>
>>> restricted to numeral (plus optionally other adnominal) modifiers.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I wonder if the above definitions have any obvious defects, i.e. any<br>
>>> cases that everyone would call gender or numeral classifier and that<br>
>>> wouldn't fall under the definitions, or cases that fall under them and<br>
>>> that nobody would call gender or numeral classifier.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Note that the new term "genifier" also has the advantage that the whole<br>
>>> domain can be called *genification* (rather than the cumbersome "noun<br>
>>> classification/nominal classification", which is also vague because<br>
>>> there are all kinds of "classes" or "classifications" of nouns which<br>
>>> have nothing to do with genifiers).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Any comments?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>> Martin<br>
>>><br>
>>> *************************<br>
>>><br>
>>> References<br>
>>><br>
>>> Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. /Classifiers: A typology of noun<br>
>>> categorization devices/. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br>
>>> Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2016. Canonical gender.<br>
>>> /Journal of Linguistics/ 52(3). 495--531.<br>
>>> Dixon, R. M. W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classification in<br>
>>> typological perspective. In Colette Grinevald Craig (ed.), /Noun classes<br>
>>> and categorization/, 105--112. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br>
>>> Grinevald, Colette G. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers.<br>
>>> In Gunter Senft (ed.), /Systems of nominal classification/, 50--92.<br>
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br>
>>> Seifart, Frank. 2010. Nominal classification. /Language and Linguistics<br>
>>> Compass/ 4(8). 719--736.<br>
>>> Seifart, Frank & Doris L. Payne. 2007. Nominal classification in the<br>
>>> North West Amazon: Issues in areal diffusion and typological<br>
>>> characterization. /International Journal of American Linguistics/ 73(4).<br>
>>> 381--387.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>> Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
>>> <a previewremoved="true" id="LPlnk195230" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>> Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
>> <a previewremoved="true" id="LPlnk806389" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
> Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
> <a previewremoved="true" id="LPlnk381376" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
> <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<a previewremoved="true" id="LPlnk894692" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>