[Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)

Wed Mar 22 05:07:39 UTC 2017

Where, oh where, is the generation that gave us terms like "pied piping"?
We need that kind of creativity now.

Johanna Nichols

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Randy John LaPolla (Prof) <
RandyLaPolla at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

> Hi All,
> Thanks to Sebastian, Walter, and Mark for bringing up important points. I
> also feel there are structural and functional differences between genders
> and “noun classifiers”. I put the latter in scare quotes because it is as
> Mark said, they aren’t really classifying the noun, but are specifying the
> referent of the noun, and so the same noun can take different classifiers
> in many cases depending on the referent involved. In some uses they are
> actually referential themselves, and so can also be modified in some
> languages.
>
> But my main reason for writing is to mention that this discussion is
> relevant to our discussion last year about classification in typology and
> language description.
>
> Whenever we make a higher abstraction we are moving one more step away
> from the facts of the languages. The terms “gender” and “noun classifier”
> are already abstractions across a range of different phenomena, and so
> there is some loss of information about the diversity of forms when we use
> such terms, and if we then make a categorial merger of these two forms, as
> suggested, we then lose even more information. It may be that some
> typologists find this useful, and are willing to pay this price to be able
> to make grand generalisations, but the loss of information must be kept in
> mind, and there is also the danger that this usage filters back into
> descriptions of languages. We already have the case of the introduction of
> “converb”, which was a categorial merger of different types of non-finite
> verb constructions that may have been useful for some people, but what
> happened is that some people doing descriptions of languages now feel it is
> enough to say something is a converb construction without going into the
> details of what sort of converb it is. So we have a loss of information in
> the descriptions as well.
>
> As a number of people said, it may be we don’t have enough terminology in
> linguistics, but for me it is a lack of terms for doing fine-grained
> analysis of actual linguistic structures, not a lack of terms for high
> level abstractions that obscure the diversity of actual structures.
>
> If one wants to talk about these types together, I recommend keeping
> something like “noun classification devices” (even though as I said they
> aren’t necessarily classifying the noun, but the referent) because it is
> transparent and also has the plural marker, keeping us aware that we are
> talking about a plurality of devices and not one single type. The fact that
> it is not short and catchy will also help prevent the problem of it being
> used as a descriptive label.
>
> Randy
> -----
> *Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* （羅仁地）| Division of Linguistics and
> Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University
> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825
> GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/
> Most recent book:
> https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-
> Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324
>
>
>
>
> On 22 Mar 2017, at 7:25 AM, Mark W. Post <markwpost at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Martin/All -
>
> As others have already pointed out, there are two related issues here, one
> terminological and the other typological. I consider the terminological
> issue pretty trivial - I certainly agree that we have less terminology than
> we need for the number of concepts that we want to talk about in a
> more-or-less contrastive way, and while I'm willing to bet that even those
> of us who share this view probably blanched (at least initially) at the
> sight of the term "genifier", at the end of the day it doesn't matter -
> "grammaticalization" has more suffixes than it needs, and if you unpack
> them all they don't actually add up to what we use the term to mean, but
> the world keeps turning regardless.
>
> But I'd take issue with the motivation for a categorical merger in the
> first place (which is what I take the introduction of a superordinate label
> to amount to - if that's wrong, then I've misunderstood something). It
> seems to me that most of the literature on classifiers focuses on the
> semantic dimension of classification, probably because this is what stands
> out as exotic from a European perspective - and, indeed, the label
> "classifier" itself suggests this. And it's the semantic dimension that is
> mostly being focused on when an alignment between gender systems and
> classifier systems is proposed - even, and especially, when superordinate
> labels like "noun classification" are proposed. But this is only part of
> the story. The *function* of classifiers - and here, I *only* mean the
> "numeral classifiers" of Greater Mainland Southeast Asia - is not
> classification, but referential specification. They function, that is, to
> individuate entities as instances of types. That is why the most
> frequently-used classifier by far in Mandarin Chinese, for example, is
> (almost) semantically empty, and cliticizes to demonstratives and the
> numeral 'one' in most mentions. Other languages take matters further, by
> deputizing the generic classifier itself as a de facto indefinite article -
> consider, for example, Nuoso Yi (data from Liu and Gu 2011 DOI:
> 10.1075/tsl.96.11liu <http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.11liu> - apologies
> if the glosses don't align properly).
>
> i33ti34  gu33    ʑo33       si44        la33 .
> coat       CL        catch       take        come
> ‘Bring a coat (to me).’
>
> Hence the frequent observation that languages with classifiers tend to
> lack articles (though it's true that they don't always).
>
> Given these facts, it seems that there's an at least equal argument in
> favor of merging classifiers with other referential markers, and in
> particular articles, so: clarticles? classicles? artifiers? Hmmm...
>
> It seems to me that what we're really talking about here is the same thing
> that we usually talk about, which is that there are no cross-linguistically
> watertight categories, but we want to do typology anyway, so what do we do?
> We can select a semantic parameter (a "comparative concept") in terms of
> which categories may be similar across languages, but they will differ in
> other respects. If we focus on those other respects, we can end up with a
> different typology. It may be that the real difficulty here is that our
> traditional category-labels, and the categories they are designed to
> capture, are multi-dimensional.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 22/03/2017 8:34 AM, Sebastian Nordhoff wrote:
>
> And the term “gen-ifier” is completely parallel to “class-ifier” – it’s
> a marker that puts a noun in a genus.
>
> if "genifier" is used to put a noun in a *genus*, it is out as a marker
> for the superordinate concept encompassing both noun class and gender.
> Best
> Sebastian
>
>
> (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 listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
> may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose
> its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20170321/0f46bc4d/attachment.htm>