[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

Sun Jun 9 03:45:34 UTC 2019

I was at that meeting too and, as I recall, the terms were used in free
variation with some of us preferring grammaticization simply because it's
shorter.
Bill's feeling that there are two terms with different nuances makes sense,
but it seems to emerge from a natural process of attempting to assign
contrasting meanings to apparent synonyms.

Dan

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 8:39 PM Marianne Mithun <mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> That's an interesting take.
>
> As I know it, a group of us congregated for those early
> grammatic(al)ization conferences that turned into the two 1991 volumes, and
> discussed it. Most people agreed that grammaticization was really more
> appropriate, because things become part of grammar, not that they become
> grammatical. But everyone also recognized that there was a long tradition
> of calling it grammaticalization/grammaticalisation, and generally figured
> there was no point in fighting about it.
>
> Best,
> Marianne
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 6:11 PM Bill Palmer <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Juergen's email prompts me to ask a question I'd be interested to get
>> people's thoughts on.
>>
>> What is the relationship between the terms grammaticalized and
>> grammaticized? I use them to refer to different things, but I don’t know to
>> what extent my usage corresponds to others' understandings.
>>
>> I use grammaticized to refer to a synchronic situation, and
>> grammaticalized to refer to a diachronic process. For example, I would say
>> that the category of auditory evidentiality ("I heard [X happen]") is
>> grammaticized in language X, meaning that the category is expressed in the
>> language by a grammatical form; and I would say that the verb 'hear' has
>> grammaticalized as an evidential marker in language X, meaning that a form
>> with a lexical meaning has developed into a grammatical marker of some kind.
>>
>> Does this accord with anyone else's understanding of these terms?
>> Apologies if there's some obvious literature on this I have missed.
>>
>> Best
>> Bill Palmer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of
>> Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>> Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2019 12:26 AM
>> To: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de>
>> Cc: Stephanie Evers <saevers at buffalo.edu>;
>> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Glossed corpora of languages w/o grammaticalized
>> definiteness marking
>>
>> Dear David — Good point! We use ‘definiteness’ to denote a variety of
>> similar language-specific semantic categories that characterize the
>> discourse status of a nominal in terms of its referent being discourse-old,
>> previously mentioned (etc.), and/or otherwise uniquely identifiable to the
>> interlocutors. Since unique identifiability may be conferred by the speech
>> situation, we require that candidate devices not be restricted to exophoric
>> (spatial) reference in their regular uses.
>>
>> What we mean by ‘grammaticalized’ is that the language has a particle,
>> function word, or inflection that is routinely used by the speakers of the
>> language to express the semantic category in question. For illustration, I
>> would assume (perhaps wrongly so) that it is possible in any language to
>> use demonstratives to indicate ‘definiteness’, including in Russian - but
>> Russian speakers, so far as I know (and so far as Stephanie Evers, the
>> student working on this project, was able to show in her Qualifying Paper),
>> do not regularly use demonstratives for this purpose, at least not unless
>> they wish to place contrastive narrow focus on the nominal in question.
>>
>> Why the restriction to particles, function words, and inflections? Well,
>> it is hard for me to see how expressions that are for all intents and
>> purposes regular content words could be used to indicate the ‘definiteness’
>> of another expression. But, the ultimate goal of the project is to test
>> hypotheses about the conditions under which dedicated definiteness marking
>> emerges vs. does not emerge in a language (family) or area. So if such
>> borderline cases exist, I suppose they would in fact be of great interest
>> to the project, even if they do not meet the criteria laid out above.
>>
>> Best — Juergen
>>
>> > On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:32 AM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Juergen,
>> >
>> > Ian Joo mentioned our Indonesian corpus; a better way of accessing a
>> more complete version is described at
>> https://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-2007.html.
>> >
>> > However, I am puzzled by your criteria, specifically by the notion of
>> "grammaticalized definiteness (marking)", and a bit surprised nobody so far
>> in this thread has picked up on it.
>> >
>> > Both terms are problematic, as can be exemplified via Indonesian.
>> "Definiteness": well, Indonesian has a couple of nominal markers, =nya and
>> itu, that are sometimes described as marking definiteness, though I believe
>> that they are more appropriately analyzed otherwise, namely as marking
>> possession/association and deixis respectively.  So does Indonesian fail to
>> meet criterion 1, or does it in fact offer a nice example of "alternative
>> strategies" for marking definiteness?  Depends on your analysis.
>> >
>> > Then there's the notion of "grammaticalized":  what does it mean to say
>> that  =nya and itu are grammaticalized?  The former marker, =nya, exhibits
>> some properties that suggest that it might be a clitic, but otherwise,
>> these markers would seem to exhibit grammatical behaviour similar to most
>> other content words in the language.  So are they "grammaticalized"?  Well
>> it depends on what you mean by "grammaticalized".
>> >
>> > I use Indonesian here merely as an illustration; similar issues arise
>> in very many other languages.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > On 06/06/2019 22:02, Bohnemeyer, Juergen wrote:
>> >> Dear colleagues — An advisee of mine is looking for glossed texts to
>> investigate the use of strategies alternative to grammaticalized
>> definiteness marking. Basically, she’s trying to identify about half a
>> dozen genealogically and areally unrelated languages each of which meets
>> all of the following criteria:
>> >>
>> >> 1. The language lacks grammaticalized definiteness marking.
>> >>
>> >> 2. A text or corpus of texts is available for the language that has
>> Leipzig-standard interlinear glosses and translations in English or Spanish.
>> >>
>> >> 3. The text (corpus) comprises at least about 1000 clauses, but
>> ideally twice that or more.
>> >>
>> >> 4. The individual texts should be long-ish and their referring
>> expressions shouldn’t be predominately proper names.
>> >>
>> >> If you’re aware of a language so resourced, please let me know!
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks! — Juergen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juergen Bohnemeyer, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>> >> Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science University
>> >> at Buffalo
>> >>
>> >> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy
>> >> Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>> >> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>> >> Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email:
>> >> jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Office hours M 12:30 – 1:30pm / W 1:00 – 1:50 / F 12:30 – 1:50pm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In (Leonard
>> >> Cohen)
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Lingtyp mailing list
>> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> Juergen Bohnemeyer, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies Department
>> of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science University at Buffalo
>>
>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy
>> Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>> Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web:
>> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>
>> Office hours M 12:30 – 1:30pm / W 1:00 – 1:50 / F 12:30 – 1:50pm
>>
>>
>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In (Leonard
>> Cohen)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>

-- 

*<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *

*Dan I. Slobin *

*Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics*

*University of California, Berkeley*

*email: slobin at berkeley.edu <slobin at berkeley.edu>*

*address: 2323 Rose St., Berkeley, CA 94708*

*http://ihd.berkeley.edu/members.htm#slobin
<http://ihd.berkeley.edu/members.htm#slobin>*

*<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190608/5d116467/attachment.htm>