Alec Marantz: Honorifics, etc. (reply to Mark Volpe)

[Martha McGinnis]

I agree with Mark that "Expressive Derivations" (I assume "Expessive"
was a typo) are of great interest to morphological theory.  For
example, cases of double plural marking cross-linguistically seem to
involve interactions of plural with diminutives, probably not an
accident.  I fail to see, however, why any assumptions of DM cause it
particular problems with the sorts of data Mark describes.  DM
endorses the claim of the "Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis" that
derivation doesn't occur before inflection (and that in fact the
derivation/inflection split is a false dichotomy) -- cases of mixed
derivation and inflection, then, don't by themselves challenge DM.
Most versions of strong lexicalism assume strong versions of
compositionality for morphology, so they are parallel to DM claims
that all morphology is syntactic, with the syntactic structures
determining morpheme position also determining interpretation.

So what precisely is the problem with these expressive derivations,
other than that they call for an account?  If the problem is
compositionality, that's a problem for everyone, not a special
problem for DM.  On the other hand, of course, not making any strong
claims about a particular set of data is nothing for a theory to brag
about.

And what's Sells (1995)?  (It's not listed on his web site.)

--Alec Marantz

>Dear DM-ers,
>    I would like to inquire about the status of
>so-called "Expessive Derivations" (ED) (Beard,1995),
>e.g., Honorifics, Diminutives, Perjoratives, etc.
>Since the main focus of my research is Japanese and
>its distant cousins, the status of such is crucial.
>The simple fact of the matter is that any and every
>finite sentence in Japanese, for example, must make a
>choice on the matter.
>    Some of the salient features of EDs are that they
>seem to be pragmatically-based, deitic, and features
>may apply recursively, e.g., so-called Subject
>Honorification ('sonkei-go'), where an honorific Verb
>stem ('renyoukei'), can be resubmitted to the
>paradigm: "o-V-Stem-ni naru", e.g., 'o-nasari-ni naru'
>('to do' Honorific).
>    While Japanese has the reputation of being a polite
>language, it can be as equally frank and brutal as
>English is with "infixed F-ings". As an example
>consider the suffix '-agaru' ('to rise'). An important
>concept in Japanese levels is the direction, either up
>or down. When attached to a V-Stem, the effect is "you
>down there, what are you trying to do to me way up
>here", e.g. "o-mae-wa nani ii-agatten da yo?" (What
>the F- are you talking about?!). Here the verb stem of
>'iu' ('to say') is suffixed.
>    In my mind, a significant lacuna in the DM
>literature is the non-response to Sells (1995), where
>in he adopts "The Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis", using
>the Lexicon for both inflectional and derivational
>attachment prior to syntax. I've come to believe that
>without an approach to EDs, there unfortunately can be
>no response. Any ideas, comments, critiques
>appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time.
>                 Mark Volpe, Stony Brook
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
>http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

--
marantz at mit.edu