[Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)

Fri Mar 24 12:56:51 UTC 2017

I have nothing against arbitrariness when arbitrariness is needed. But 
is it ?
When it comes to counting noun classes in African languages for example, 
I don't know of any general overview in the litterature. Since I have 
access to (nearly) all existing data on Atlantic languages, it took me 
about an hour to put together
all the figures (available on request of course). If every specialist 
does the same for every area, we will soon be able to propose a 
non-arbitrary threshold, if such a thing exists.

Martin's comparison with SME definition is unfortunate : in France, 
there are specific constraints for companies with more than 50 
employees. As a result, when companies grow, they tend to split in 
smaller entities to avoid such constraints. Here the arbitrary threshold 
influences the observed reality. Along this line, the risk would be that 
"typologically-oriented" descriptions might be influenced by the 
arbitrary threshold posited by typologists.

Guillaume

Le 24/03/2017 à 09:36, Martin Haspelmath a écrit :
> On 23.03.17 19:21, Alan Rumsey wrote:
>>
>> Those of us who have worked on languages with 2-5 such classes (in my 
>> case Ungarinyin) have sometimes called them ‘genders’, while those 
>> who have worked on languages with more have called them ‘noun classes’.
>>
>
> I had presupposed in my earlier messages that there is no distinction 
> between these two types, and that they should be called "genders" – I 
> took this as established by Corbett (1991). As Johanna Nichols noted, 
> the term "noun class" is vague, so for cross-linguistic purposes, 
> "gender" is surely better.
>
> (One might feel that neglecting the sex-based vs. non-sex-based 
> distinction is not such a good idea, as in Bernhard Wälchli's message, 
> but it seems to me that one really shouldn't use the term "gender" 
> anymore for sex-based distinctions, at least in typology. I take 
> Corbett (1991) as foundational for all of us.)
>
> But the problems with Corbett (1991) are
>
> – that his definition of gender is based on the notion of "agreement" 
> (for which there is no clear definition, cf. Corbett (2006), who only 
> provides a definition of canonical agreement)
>
> – that the distinction between "gender" and "numeral classifier" is 
> (in part) based on the idea that gender markers are affixes and 
> numeral classifiers are free forms, but there is no clear definition 
> of "affix" (there is a definition of "free form", as occurring on its 
> own in a complete utterance – and numeral classifiers are surely bound 
> by this criterion)
>
> – that the distinction between "features" (like gender) and markers 
> (like classifiers) is far from clear-cut
>
> Moreover, Corbett himself has given up the distinction between gender 
> and other classifiers (there's only a canonical definition of gender 
> now), as have others such as Ruth Singer, Sasha Aikhenvald, and Frank 
> Seifart. But I still want to talk about "gender" as a comparative 
> concept (as well as about "numeral classifiers" – a student of mine 
> just wrote a nice MA thesis about this topic).
>
> Guillaume Segerer points out that some Atlantic languages have up to 
> 31 classes, and it would seem odd to exclude them from having gender 
> on the basis of a definition that arbitrarily stops at 20. I agree 
> that this would seem odd, but I need to point out that *it wouldn't 
> matter*. Comparative concepts are not designed to give the same 
> results in all cases that seem similar enough to us (or some of us), 
> but *to allow rigorous, intersubjective cross-linguistic comparison*. 
> Comparative concepts must sometimes be arbitrary, because the world 
> consists of many continuities, and if we still want to discuss 
> differences with words, we need to make arbitrary cuts (think of the 
> importance of SMEs in economics – small and medium-size enterprises, 
> defined arbitrarily as having fewer than 250 employees).
>
> Maybe it will turn out that some other, less arbitrary concept will 
> give even better cross-linguistic generalizations. But for the time 
> being, we have the term "gender" as a comparative concept (especially 
> in legacy works such as Corbett's WALS maps), and my definition ("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") seems to be the only definitional 
> proposal currently available.
>
> Best wishes,
> Martin
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
Guillaume Segerer
/LLACAN UMR 8135 - CNRS INALCO/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20170324/71750c4c/attachment.htm>