<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Martin and everybody,</p>
<p>while I am not going to doubt that the article by Boye &
Harder is interesting, I may be allowed to draw attention to my
refuting their thesis:</p>
<p>Lehmann, Christian 2013, [Review of: Narrog, Heiko & Heine,
Bernd (eds.) 2011, <i>The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization.</i>
Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics)]
<i>Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur</i>
135:442-456. [<a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349042276_Review_of_Narrog_Heiko_Heine_Bernd_The_Oxford_handbook_of_grammaticalization_Oxford_2011">download
</a>]</p>
<p>Taken by itself, the characterization of grammatical expressions
as "discursively secondary" is vague and not easily amenable to
operationalization. One criterion offered by the authors
themselves is stressability, but that does not work (s. my
review).</p>
<p>When defining 'grammatical', we want to exclude a set of quite
incommensurable areas:</p>
<ol>
<li>Attention is limited to the pairing of significans with
significatum. The formation of significantia (phonology) and of
significata (semantics) is not at stake.</li>
<li>We exclude what is lexical as opposed to grammatical.</li>
<li>We want to exclude what structures the discourse and supports
its interpretation without being regulated by the language
system (including the whole of pragmatics).</li>
</ol>
<p>Taking #1 for granted, conditions #2 and #3 can be met by the
following definition: Such aspects of linguistic expressions are
grammatical whose conformation obeys constraints of the particular
linguistic system. Needless to say, this definition feeds directly
into a definition of 'grammaticalization'.</p>
<p>Should anybody be interested in the operationalization of this
definition, we can go on.</p>
<p>Christian<br>
</p>
<p>------ <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 07.03.2023 um 11:19 schrieb Jocelyn
Aznar:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:44f72961-6d8e-d76e-7bf9-2555bef3cca2@jocelynaznar.eu">Dear
all, Martin Haspelmath, <br>
<br>
> – secondary in discourse vs. (potentially) primary in
discourse (Boye & > Harder 2012) <br>
<br>
Thanks for sharing this reference, it is definitely very
interesting. I should have been more careful on my terminology. <br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Jocelyn <br>
<br>
<br>
Le 07/03/2023 à 10:04, Martin Haspelmath a écrit : <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all, <br>
<br>
Linguists tend to be particularly interested in "grammatically
encoded" meanings, and they give special names such as
"timitive" only to grammatical elements, not to ordinary words
like 'fear'. <br>
<br>
Are interjections "grammatical"? Jocelyn Aznar said yes: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I would say interjections are mostly
used for this usage of expressing emotions toward a situation.
I'm not sure though that interjections fit your definition of
"grammatically encoded", in particular the bit "not easily
admit new items", but it would fit mine :) <br>
<br>
Best regards, Jocelyn <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It seems to me that we have at least three different criteria
that give different results: <br>
<br>
– bound vs. free (= not occurring in isolation vs. occurring in
isolation; Bloomfield 1933) <br>
– secondary in discourse vs. (potentially) primary in discourse
(Boye & Harder 2012) <br>
– closed class vs. open class <br>
<br>
The "closed-class" criterion is often mentioned, but languages
have many free forms that can be the main point of an utterance
and that do not (evidently) belong to open classes. For example,
English "afraid" belongs to a smallish class of predicative-only
"adjectives". And "bound" is not the same as "grammatical"
either because many languages have bound roots. <br>
<br>
So I think that Boye & Harder's criterion of being
"conventionally secondary in discourse" corresponds best to the
way "grammatically encoded" is generally understood. By this
criterion, interjections (or words like "afraid") are not
grammatical elements. <br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Martin <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
Le 06/03/2023 à 09:29, Ponrawee Prasertsom a écrit : <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear typologists, <br>
<br>
There has been claims in the literature (Cinque, 2013) that
(at least some) speakers' emotional states toward a
situation such as "fear" and "worry" are not grammatically
encoded in any language, where "grammatically encoded" means
not encoded by closed-class items ("closed-class" in a
morphosyntactic sense: a group of morphemes that occur in
the same slot that do not easily admit new items and/or have
few members). <br>
I am interested in examples of any grammaticalized marker
for any emotional states (not necessarily "fear" and
"worry"). I am interested in both markers of 1) the
/speaker/'s emotional states toward the situation being
expressed as well as 2) of the /subject/'s emotional states
toward the situation. The class of the item could be bound
(clitics, affixes) or free (particles, auxiliary verbs) as
long as it could be shown to be (somewhat) closed. I am only
interested in markers specialised for specific emotions, and
not, e.g., impoliteness markers that could be used when the
speaker is angry. <br>
<br>
The "(un)happy about the verb" infixes /-ei/- and -/äng-/
from the constructed language Na'vi would be the paradigm
example of what I am looking for if they actually existed in
a natural language. <br>
<br>
A potential example is Japanese /-yagatte, /which some have
told me have grammaticalised into an affix encoding anger
about the action. I'm also looking into whether there is
evidence that this is actually part of a closed-class and
would appreciate any pointers/more information. <br>
<br>
Thank you very much in advance. <br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
Ponrawee Prasertsom <br>
<br>
PhD student <br>
Centre for Language Evolution <br>
University of Edinburgh <br>
<br>
*References:* <br>
Cinque, G. (2013). Cognition, universal grammar, and
typological generalizations. Lingua, 130, 50–65. <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007"><https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Lingtyp mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Lingtyp mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>