[Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)

Tue Mar 21 20:34:44 UTC 2017

Yes, a “classifier” is a kind of grammatical marker, while “gender” is a 
kind of grammatical feature (Corbett 2012).

There are many well-known comparable kinds of grammatical markers, but 
only half a dozen comparable features (case, person, number, tense, 
aspect, voice). Most feature values are expressed by readily segmentable 
grammatical markers (case markers, person markers, tense markers, etc.), 
but a few are not – hence the justification to treat these differently 
(as expressed by feature value exponents, not markers).

But from a world-wide perspective, non-segmentable expressions of case, 
tense and voice are somewhat marginal (though prominent in 
Indo-European), and I think it’s legitimate to base one’s key 
terminology on the idealization that we are generally dealing with 
grammatical markers. (And for classifiers, nobody has proposed a feature 
"classifierhood".)

 From this perspective, numeral classifiers are on a par with gender 
markers (as I mentioned in my original message).

And the term “gen-ifier” is completely parallel to “class-ifier” – it’s 
a marker that puts a noun in a genus.

(Actually, since English distinguishes between “gender” and “genus”, one 
might even introduce “genus” as a new feature term, a cover term for 
gender and classifierhood. That would certainly be found more acceptable 
to neophobics than "clender".)

Martin

On 21.03.17 20:38, Sebastian Nordhoff wrote:
> Dear all,
> as someone who has not worked extensively on either of these concepts, I
> still have to say that the term "genifier" strikes me as odd. My first
> thought upon seeing the subject of the mail was "OK, this will be about
> making something a gender, or a gene, or a knee-like thing maybe, let's
> see". I was misled by terms such as "intensifier", used to make
> something more intense, and certainly also, albeit more on phonological
> grounds, by "gentrification", which is a widely debated topic where I live.
>
> The attempt to blend "GEnder" and "classiFIER" is not successful in my
> view, as "-fier" is not really the important formative here; "class" is.
>
> If there is a desire for a blend, I would rather go for "Clender" or
> "Clander", which would not lead to misparsings/misinterpretations as the
> one I had.
>
> As a final note, a "classifier" does something to an X, while "gender"
> is a property of an X.
>
> (1)  /ladida/ is of gender X
> (2) ?/ladida/ is of classifier X
> (3) ?/-dada/ is a gender
> (4)  /-dada/ is a classifier
>
> It is unclear to me whether the two concepts "gender" and "classifier"
> do actually have a superordinate concept. Possibly, one has to use
> "gender marker" and "classifier", or "noun class" and "gender" as
> subordinate concepts to arrive at a good superordinate concept.
>
> Best wishes
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 03/20/2017 04:05 PM, Martin Haspelmath 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170321/75882261/attachment.htm>