<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>I agree with Martin that Boye and Harder's criterion offers
perhaps the best way to understand the notion of "grammatical".<br>
</p>
<p>With that in mind, I am a little surprised that the well-known
class of sentence-terminal (usually -final) "discourse particles"
so common in many mainland and insular Southeast Asian languages
has not figured more prominently in this discussion.</p>
<p>Such particles satisfy Martin's second and third criteria for
being "grammatical", and to a lesser extent also the first.</p>
<p>And while they are associated with a variety of functions ranging
from "logical" to "discourse", some of them also do appear to
express emotions. For example, in Papuan Malay, <i>(m)ba</i>
seems to express irritation, while <i>ji</i>[low tone] expresses
disgust.</p>
<p>David</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/03/2023 16:04, Martin Haspelmath
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4dd4cc86-ceea-c22d-3d61-62fb5726aacf@eva.mpg.de">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" 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" 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>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Senior Scientist (Associate)
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
</pre>
</body>
</html>