[Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Tue Mar 21 17:15:27 UTC 2017
Dear all,
Not a substantive comment on gender, numeral classifiers and their ilk,
but rather a general meta-comment on terminology. I strongly agree with
Martin when he says (as he has many times in the past) that, rather than
having too much terminology in our field, we actually have too little,
with a single term often referring to multiple concepts, while other
concepts remain orphans lacking any agreed-upon term to denote them.
Which is why I also strongly support his repeated attempts to clear up
the mess, even though it invariably involves making up funny-sounding
new words (as indeed, all words sound, when heard for the first time).
Of course, many or most of us became linguists because of a love for
language and languages, and often more specifically for words. Which is
why words often trigger emotional responses in us, just like they do in
laymen. Still, as linguists, we ought to be able to see beyond such
emotional responses when evaluating proposals for new terminology. If
you don't like the word "genifier" propose a better one, and we'll wait
and see which one wins out and gains currency. Or if you don't like the
concept behind the proposed "genifier", take up Martin's plea and
explain why his definition needs to be modified.
David
On 21/03/2017 07:00, Alexandra Aikhenvald wrote:
>
> Dear Ruth
>
>
> Are you familiar with my book Classifiers: a typology of noun
> categorization devices (OUP, 2000/2003)? It contains a comprehensive
> typology of noun categorization devices and show clearly that a
> dichotomy of genders/noun classes versus classifiers (as advocated by
> a few people) is obsolete.
>
>
> It also introduced the idea of a split gender system (different
> subsystems of genders depending on agreement targets) found in many
> languages, and outlined a typology of languiages with classifiers in
> multiple envronments (e.g. possessive, verbal, deictic - etc).
>
>
> It is a long book (Marcin Kilarski and Ellen Contini-Morava read it
> and took account of it); main points have been summarized in the
> encyclopedia article (which is enclosed).
>
>
> An additional summary is found in my Chapter on 'A typology of noun
> categorization devices' forthcoming (due March 2017) within The
> Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic typology, ed by Aikhenvald and Dixon
> (Cambridge University Press). I enclose a proof copy here. CUP is now
> thinking of organizing a launch of this book at the ALT meeting.
>
>
> The term classifier is useful (I myself and other people - Denny,
> Dixon, and further respectable scholars published a lot on it). It can
> be used to refer to phenomena other than noun categorization devices
> (as in Athabaskan linguistics, in some Australian studies, and - well,
> discussion of Thai by Mary Haas - you will find these mentioned at the
> very beginning of my book). It does not refer to a disparate set of
> phenomena - unless one engages in rather futile reinterpretation of
> terms etc.
>
>
> I also enclose the most recent version of Oxford Bibliography online
> on classifiers (if you have any comments, please send them to me - I
> will be doing another revision this year). And also the biblio on
> Arawak languages - they are excellent for lovers on noun
> categorization devices, most of them having two (rarer three) genders
> in cross-referencing/personal pronouns and largish systems of
> classifiers/noun classes in other environment. They have been
> described as such since before 2000.
>
>
> The term 'genifier' - what a horror! On the other hand, we live in a
> free world, and people are free to twist the language as they wish. A
> young relative of Bob Dixon's once suggested that a putative blend of
> a dog with a rabbit should be called either dabbit or rog. So
> 'genifier' is perhaps part of this 'roggish'/'dabbitish' exercise.
> Excellent for a six-year old!
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, PhD, DLitt, FAHA
>
> Distinguished Professor and Australian Laureate Fellow
>
> Director of the Language and Culture Research Centre
>
> James Cook University
>
> PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia
>
> http://www.jcu.edu.au/faess/JCUPRD_043649.html
>
> mobile 0400 305315, office 61-7-40421117
>
> fax 61-7-4042 1880 http://www.aikhenvaldlinguistics.com/
>
> https://research.jcu.edu.au/researchatjcu/research/lcrc
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf
> of Ruth Singer <rsinger at unimelb.edu.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 March 2017 9:25 AM
> *To:* Martin Haspelmath
> *Cc:* LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)
> Hi Martin,
>
> I agree, that the gender/classifier distinction is no longer useful.
> See also work by Kilarski and Contini-Morava in this vein:
> Contini-Morava, Ellen & Marcin Kilarski. 2013. Functions of nominal
> classification. /Language Sciences/ 40. 263–299.
> doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.002.
> Kilarski, Marcin. 2013. /Nominal Classification: a history of its
> study from the classical period to the present./ Amsterdam: John
> Benjamins.
>
> What I've done to solve this terminology issue is to extend the term
> 'classifier' to cover any kind of nominal classification device
> (Singer 2010, 2012, 2016). The term 'classifier' is used to cover a
> pretty disparate group of phenomena anyhow. The terms 'gender' and
> 'numeral classifier' can then be reserved for subsets of the general
> category 'classifier' like you suggest.
>
> This approach fits with Corbett and Fedden's recent ideas too as they
> propose gender as a special kind of nominal classification.
>
> Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2017. Canonical gender.
> Journal of Linguistics(available on CJO June 2015). 1–37.
> doi:10.1017/S0022226715000195.
>
> Fedden, Sebastian & Greville G. Corbett (forthcoming). Genders and
> classifiers as concurrent systems: a first typology.
>
> Singer, Ruth. 2010. Creativity in the use of gender agreement in
> Mawng: how the discourse functions of a gender system can approach
> those of a classifier system. Studies in Language 34. 382–416.
>
> Singer, Ruth. 2012. Do nominal classifiers mediate selectional
> restrictions? an investigation of the function of semantically-based
> nominal classifiers in Mawng (Iwaidjan, Australian). Linguistics 50.
> 955–990.
>
> Singer, Ruth. 2016. The dynamics of nominal classification: productive
> and lexicalised uses of gender agreement in Mawng. (Pacific
> Linguistics 642). Mouton de Gruyter.
> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=34mlCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22dynamics+of+nominal+classification%22&ots=X-IKgrhldm&sig=1721LueyC8yH1M2sQ6gdVvyituM.
>
> On 21 March 2017 at 02:05, Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> *************************
>
> References
>
> Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. /Classifiers: A typology of noun
> categorization devices/. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
> Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2016. Canonical gender.
> /Journal of Linguistics/ 52(3). 495–531.
> Dixon, R. M. W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classification in
> typological perspective. In Colette Grinevald Craig (ed.), /Noun
> classes and categorization/, 105–112. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
> Grinevald, Colette G. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of
> classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), /Systems of nominal
> classification/, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
> Seifart, Frank. 2010. Nominal classification. /Language and
> Linguistics Compass/ 4(8). 719–736.
> Seifart, Frank & Doris L. Payne. 2007. Nominal classification in
> the North West Amazon: Issues in areal diffusion and typological
> characterization. /International Journal of American Linguistics/
> 73(4). 381–387.
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Ruth Singer
> DECRA Postdoctoral Fellow
> Linguistics Program / Research Unit for Indigenous Language
> School of Languages and Linguistics
> Faculty of Arts
> University of Melbourne 3010
> Tel. +61 3 90353774
> http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person2621
> http://indiglang.arts.unimelb.edu.au/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20170322/19b7cede/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list