[Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)

Tue Mar 21 08:58:58 UTC 2017

Bernhard Waelchli wrote:
> I cannot see how "genifier" and "genification" can help us understand, 
> for instance, why "class/gender hotbeds and numeral classification 
> hotbeds almost never overlap" (Nichols 1992: 139).

This is easy to answer: Before we can ask the "why" question, we must be 
sure that the claim is true, and minimally we must have a testable 
hypothesis. Nichols (1992) refers to Corbett's (1991) definition of 
"gender", but in more recent work, Corbett has abandoned this 
definition, which distinguished strictly between gender and numeral 
classifiers.

Likewise, Greenberg (1963) has eight universals about gender -- in what 
sense of the term 'gender' might these universals be true?

I have not seen any definition of "gender" (or "noun class") in the 
recent literature that might allow us to support or refute these earlier 
claims.

Everyone agrees that technical terms should ideally have the same 
meaning across the discipline (thus allowing us to evaluate each other's 
claims), but how do we get there?

One approach is to extend the meaning of an earlier term, e.g. 
"classifier" to mean (what I called) 'genifier' (as suggested by Sasha 
Aikhenvald and Ruth Singer). But changing the meaning of an existing 
term leads to polysemy (and thus confusion), and it leads to 
discontinuity with the earlier literature. Until the new sense is 
established, one always needs to explain in which sense one uses a 
polysemous term, and because the earlier literature does not go away, 
the new sense may never catch on. (And when Sasha publishes an article 
called "Classifiers and noun classes", one wonders whether classifiers 
are really supposed to include noun classes / genders.)

Another term is "noun categorization device", which Sasha seems to use 
in the same sense as "classifier (in the broad sense)". The main problem 
with this is that it is vague in its reference (does it refer to the 
entire system? so would a gender marker be a kind of noun categorization 
device marker? or does it refer to a marker, such as a classifier?), and 
it would be nicer to have a shorter term (maybe simply "noun 
categorizor" as a cover term for classifier and gender marker?).

It seem to me that the only problem with my proposed term "genifier" is 
that it is new. Speakers often react negatively to new words 
(morphologists call this "neophobia"), which is an interesting 
phenomenon in itself.

But in science, we should not be distracted by emotional reactions 
(though they give some liveliness to Lingtyp discussions, so thanks to 
Sasha for this!). We have many more concepts than everyday life 
requires, so it is natural that we need many more terms. (And depending 
on one's taste, one may prefer abbreviations like Bernhard's SAESS -- it 
may well be that people have fewer emotional reactions to them. I prefer 
Latinate neologisms, also because they allow derivations, such as 
"genification" and "genificatory", or even the verb "genify".)

Best wishes,
Martin

> Dear typologists,
>
> Cross-linguistic terminology (comparative concepts) should be both 
> clear and conform to the tradition, in order to preserve continuity 
> with the older literature.
>
> In the case of the terms "gender" and "classifier", it seems that 
> these two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously without coining a 
> new term ("genifier").
>
> There is quite a bit of general literature on gender/classifiers (e.g. 
> Dixon 1986; Grinevald 2000; Aikhenvald 2000; Seifart 2010; Corbett & 
> Fedden 2016), but none of these works provide clear definitions of 
> these terms, and the more recent literature (e.g. Corbett & Fedden, 
> and also Seifart & Payne 2007) actually emphasizes that there is no 
> reason to say that gender markers and classifiers are distinct 
> phenomena in the world's languages.
>
> Thus, it seems to me that we need the new term "genifier", perhaps 
> defined as follows:
>
> A genifier system 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).
>
> The alternative to coining a new term, it seems to me, would be to 
> extend the meaning of the term "gender" or of the term "classifier" in 
> such a way that there would be no more continuity with the earlier 
> literature.
>
> Given the above definition of genifier, we can perhaps define "gender" 
> and "numeral classifier" as follows (as arbitrary subcategories of 
> genifiers, defined just to preserve continuity with the older literature):
>
> A gender system (= a system of gender markers) is a system of 
> genifiers which includes no more than 20 genifiers and which is not 
> restricted to numeral modifiers.
>
> A numeral classifier system is a system of genifiers which is 
> restricted to numeral (plus optionally other adnominal) modifiers.
>
> I wonder if the above definitions have any obvious defects, i.e. any 
> cases that everyone would call gender or numeral classifier and that 
> wouldn't fall under the definitions, or cases that fall under them and 
> that nobody would call gender or numeral classifier.
>
> Note that the new term "genifier" also has the advantage that the 
> whole domain can be called genification (rather than the cumbersome 
> "noun classification/nominal classification", which is also vague 
> because there are all kinds of "classes" or "classifications" of nouns 
> which have nothing to do with genifiers).
>
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin

> Then, it is actually the anaphoric use of gender which is most easily 
> amenable to functional notions - and focusing on noun classing 
> detracts us from the anaphoric use of gender. (There is, of course, 
> also the agreement vs. index debate, which does not make things 
> easier. But it is a debate for gender, not for numeral classifiers.)
>
> Best wishes
>
> Bernhard
>
> References:
>
> Hockett, C. F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
>
> Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. 
> Chicago: Chicago University Press.
>
>> Dear typologists,
>>
>> Cross-linguistic terminology (comparative concepts) should be both 
>> clear and conform to the tradition, in order to preserve continuity 
>> with the older literature.
>>
>> In the case of the terms "gender" and "classifier", it seems that 
>> these two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously without coining a 
>> new term ("genifier").
>>
>> There is quite a bit of general literature on gender/classifiers 
>> (e.g. Dixon 1986; Grinevald 2000; Aikhenvald 2000; Seifart 2010; 
>> Corbett & Fedden 2016), but none of these works provide clear 
>> definitions of these terms, and the more recent literature (e.g. 
>> Corbett & Fedden, and also Seifart & Payne 2007) actually emphasizes 
>> that there is no reason to say that gender markers and classifiers 
>> are distinct phenomena in the world's languages.
>>
>> Thus, it seems to me that we need the new term "genifier", perhaps 
>> defined as follows:
>>
>> A genifier system 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).
>>
>> The alternative to coining a new term, it seems to me, would be to 
>> extend the meaning of the term "gender" or of the term "classifier" 
>> in such a way that there would be no more continuity with the earlier 
>> literature.
>>
>> Given the above definition of genifier, we can perhaps define 
>> "gender" and "numeral classifier" as follows (as arbitrary 
>> subcategories of genifiers, defined just to preserve continuity with 
>> the older literature):
>>
>> A gender system (= a system of gender markers) is a system of 
>> genifiers which includes no more than 20 genifiers and which is not 
>> restricted to numeral modifiers.
>>
>> A numeral classifier system is a system of genifiers which is 
>> restricted to numeral (plus optionally other adnominal) modifiers.
>>
>> I wonder if the above definitions have any obvious defects, i.e. any 
>> cases that everyone would call gender or numeral classifier and that 
>> wouldn't fall under the definitions, or cases that fall under them 
>> and that nobody would call gender or numeral classifier.
>>
>> Note that the new term "genifier" also has the advantage that the 
>> whole domain can be called genification (rather than the cumbersome 
>> "noun classification/nominal classification", which is also vague 
>> because there are all kinds of "classes" or "classifications" of 
>> nouns which have nothing to do with genifiers).
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>>
>
> -- 
> Bernhard Wälchli
> Stockholms universitet
> Institutionen för lingvistik
> SE - 106 91 Stockholm
> Tel +46 8 16 23 44
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10	
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
IPF 141199
Nikolaistrasse 6-10
D-04109 Leipzig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20170321/77a88b18/attachment.htm>