[Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ e" in this instance

[Françoise Rose]

Dear all,
in my database on categorical genderlects, there is indeed a number of languages where men and women used different forms for the type of morphemes that have been called in this thread vocatives and sentence-final particles used to emphasize the contact between speaker and addressee (just to repeat Arnold Zwicky’s formulation), or morphemes that do the two jobs. In more general terms, gender indexicality is often found in items encoding various type of (inter)subjectivity.
I very much welcome data on gender indexicality in this domain (as well as in any other linguistic domain!).
Best,
Françoise

PS. For those interested, a questionnaire on gender indexicality can be found online (http://tulquest.huma-num.fr/en/node/136) in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese.


De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> De la part de fcosw5
Envoyé : mardi 11 mai 2021 09:52
À : Gilles Authier <gilles.authier at gmail.com>
Cc : Linguistic Linguistic Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ e" in this instance

There seems to be a somewhat similar element in at least Mandarin Chinese.  I've noticed that the suffix (?) -a tends to be attached to various words -- not only nouns, but e.g. adverbs (`dui-a' = `that's right!') -- apparently to highlight them.

(I have sometimes wondered if this usage is more prevalent in women's speech than in men's.)

Best,
Steven

-----Original message-----
From:Gilles Authier<gilles.authier at gmail.com<mailto:gilles.authier at gmail.com>>
To:Arnold M. Zwicky<zwicky at stanford.edu<mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
Cc:Linguistic Linguistic Typology<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:32:45
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this instance
Hi,

A similarly ambiguous morph is found in Georgian:

- vocative 'case' -o

- clause final quotative =o

GA

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu<mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>> wrote:
meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu<mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this instance
Date: May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
To: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu<mailto:tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>>




On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu<mailto:tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>> wrote:

Hello all,

I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a vocative function as in the two following examples.

boi=o!
boy=VOC
'hey, boy!'

Tawaks=o!
tawaks=VOC
'hey, Tawaks!'

Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from my article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf

(The distinction is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons" vs. "term of address".)

From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's attention, addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker and addressee.`

But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how to classify, characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o! You seem to be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of "basically") an adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used attached to verbs (or, perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or clause-finally) with some related function. But maybe it should be treated as a sentence-final clitic with an attention-getting function ('listen to this!'). Or other imaginable possibilites (even that there are two homophonous clitics here, related only historically). All that's for you to work out.

Arnold

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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/20210511/404118da/attachment.htm>