<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1895699314;
mso-list-template-ids:1489821842;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2066096605;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1055371236 657213100 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2080204798;
mso-list-template-ids:-1485388020;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear all – Please allow me to briefly chime in here:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Background: (As both Christian and Kasper know,) I’ve been working on a typology of functional expressions that attempts to account for their typological distribution in terms
of selective evolutionary mechanisms driving their grammaticalization. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The classification is heavily influenced by the Boye & Harder theory. In particular, it envisions an overall continuum stretching from discourse-primary to discourse-secondary
expressions. I adopt the focalizability criterion, but interpret discourse-primary status as resulting from the expression (typically) rendering part of the speaker’s primary intended message, whereas discourse-secondary expressions are to varying degrees
redundant vis-à-vis the intended message and instead serve to facilitate the hearer’s processing.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There are several important points of departure from the Boye-Harder model:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">While the focalizability criterion is dichotomous, I assume an underlying continuum in terms of communicative primacy
vs. redundancy.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Discourse status does not directly determine grammatical status in my model, but merely motivates it. Briefly, I treat
an expression as functional to the extent that there are morphosyntactic = combinatorial patterns/constructions/rules that refer to the individual expression as opposed to a larger (lexical) category it belongs to.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Discourse status is not the only property that motivates grammatical status on my account. As a result, there are both
discourse-secondary and discourse-primary functional expressions. The latter of course include many of the traditional types of functional expressions that B&H argue should be relegated to the lexicon, such as demonstratives, pronouns, modals, numerals, and
quantificational expressions. What motivates the functional status of these kinds of expressions is (i) their abstract, syncategorematic, and often partly metalinguistic semantics and (ii) the frequency with which they are used.
<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This contrast between discourse-primary and discourse-secondary functional expressions is in fact the key explanans of the theory I’m working on for the explanandum of typological
distribution: whereas the various classes of discourse-primary functional expressions occur near-universally in the languages of the world, the distribution of the communicatively redundant, discourse-secondary expressions such as tense, case, and gender/noun
class is much more variable across languages. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I hope I’ve now made it somewhat clear how I think my view occupies something of a middle ground between those articulated by Christian and Kasper.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Now let me briefly turn to the subject of interjections. Interjections are of course discourse-primary, as Kasper and Martin pointed out: if interjections can constitute entire
turns, which one might consider a definitional property, then they must of course express the speaker’s primary communicative intention.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">However, per the above, this does not immediately preclude them of having a (quasi-)functional = grammatical status on my account.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">On closer inspection, I think we’ll find that interjections do not participate in what we traditionally consider the combinatorial system of grammar (unsurprisingly, it seems,
if they can constitute entire turns and may have illocutionary force of their own). However, they seem to participate, and in fact to be key players, in a larger interactional combinatorial system of which the traditional morphosyntax is merely something of
a “hard core:” an “outer” combinatorial system, if you will. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This outer combinatorial system may or may not be a part of what David Wilkins (p. c.) has often referred to as the ‘usage grammar’ (as opposed to the competence grammar).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Apologies for the long and self-promoting post! – Best – Juergen
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="RU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="RU" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Kasper Boye <boye@hum.ku.dk><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 12:03 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Peter Harder <rgl226@hum.ku.dk><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We fully agree with Martin’s conclusion that based on our 2012 theory, interjections are not grammatical, but simultaneously also with Riccardo’s conclusion (on the same grounds) that they are not lexical. In fact, we recently argued that
interjections – and more generally holophrases constitute a distinct, third class of linguistic signs next to lexical and grammatical ones (pp. 146-147 in Boye, K. & P. Harder, 2020, ‘Dual processing in a functional-cognitive theory of grammar and its neurocognitive
basis’, in A. Haselow & G. Kaltenböck (eds.), <i>Grammar and cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing</i>, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133-155).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The defining feature of holophrases (including interjections) is the absence of complexity and structure: holophrases form utterances on their own, and are therefore inevitably attentional foreground (= discursively primary). The lexical-grammatical
distinction only sets in as an aspect of the rise of structural complexity. That is, it only sets in when complexity is around, and in our view, it sets in as a response to complexity, namely as a way of handling the associated issue of attentional prioritization.
Thus, the lexical-grammatical distinction represents a conventionalized division of labour between potential attentional foreground (= potential discursively primary status = lexical) and background (secondary status by convention = grammatical). This functionally
motivated structural division of labour is in our view the basic level of linguistic structure. Additional levels (including divisions into distributional classes) are added on top of this.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We claim in (Boye & Harder 2012) that this understanding of the lexical-grammatical distinctions is to a high extend co-extensive with traditional conceptions (otherwise, it would be an understanding of something else). As pointed out by
Riccardo and Christian (in the 2013 review of the latter), however, it is true that in some cases, classifications based on our understanding are at odds with pretheoretical classifications. As mentioned by Riccardo and Christian, for instance, some pronouns
come out as lexical. We believe that this is not a serious problem for the understanding we propose, because we believe our proposal offers a functional rationale for the status of grammar as a design feature of human languages. The fact that other features
characteristic of grammatical elements are not fully co-extensive could also be regarded as a problem for the pretheoretical classifications. We would also like to point to the fact that the idea of distinguishing between lexical and grammatical pronouns is
not entirely new and strange (cf. e.g. the distinction between weak and strong pronouns in Romance languages).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In response to Christian, then, we do not think our view of the lexical-grammatical distinction is refuted by the fact that by a stressability criterion, some pronouns are lexical (note also that stress is in some languages unreliable as
a focus marker – for instance, constituent focus needs to be distinguished for ‘verum focus’).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for Christian’s own suggestion for an understanding (‘Such aspects of linguistic expressions are grammatical whose conformation obeys constraints of the particular linguistic system’), we wouldn’t go as far as claiming to refute it,
but would like to point out that it does not seem to distinguish lexical from grammatical elements: also lexical elements are constrained by the linguistic system – otherwise, we would not have distributional classes. In our view, structural constraints are
what distinguishes both lexical and grammatical elements from holophrases.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter and Kasper<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Fra:</span></b><span lang="DA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>
<b>På vegne af </b>Christian Lehmann<br>
<b>Sendt:</b> 7. marts 2023 13:32<br>
<b>Til:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Emne:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Dear Martin and everybody,<o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F349042276_Review_of_Narrog_Heiko_Heine_Bernd_The_Oxford_handbook_of_grammaticalization_Oxford_2011&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kPfGBvrBN3H4W%2F%2BB5z9wx0So4pQeT3I45S7gNuM6TZg%3D&reserved=0">download
</a>]<o:p></o:p></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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>When defining 'grammatical', we want to exclude a set of quite incommensurable areas:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
Attention is limited to the pairing of significans with significatum. The formation of significantia (phonology) and of significata (semantics) is not at stake.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
We exclude what is lexical as opposed to grammatical.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
We want to exclude what structures the discourse and supports its interpretation without being regulated by the language system (including the whole of pragmatics).<o:p></o:p></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'.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Should anybody be interested in the operationalization of this definition, we can go on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Christian<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>------ <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 07.03.2023 um 11:19 schrieb Jocelyn Aznar:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Le 06/03/2023 à 09:29, Ponrawee Prasertsom a écrit : <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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 href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2012.10.007&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bCgd5AOInvULvIBb8NM0V3aQFvCKrjEofB4A3rqD9kg%3D&reserved=0">
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007</a> <a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2012.10.007&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bCgd5AOInvULvIBb8NM0V3aQFvCKrjEofB4A3rqD9kg%3D&reserved=0">
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007></a> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Lingtyp mailing list <br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQz5u%2BBJhLl03zp9zRU06AXyXpG3jn0yMbqnBKq22t8%3D&reserved=0">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Lingtyp mailing list <br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQz5u%2BBJhLl03zp9zRU06AXyXpG3jn0yMbqnBKq22t8%3D&reserved=0">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Lingtyp mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQz5u%2BBJhLl03zp9zRU06AXyXpG3jn0yMbqnBKq22t8%3D&reserved=0">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Tel.:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">+49/361/2113417</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">E-Post:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><a href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Web:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JNvn%2FiO9WkNHq4xBgOHZbvIDQM%2Bf6njTqiOcQDx%2F928%3D&reserved=0">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>