[Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
Maia Ponsonnet
maia.ponsonnet at uwa.edu.au
Thu Nov 3 18:26:41 UTC 2022
Hello,
I would probably gloss it with REFL rather than REC
t'inquiète
REFL-worry(:IMPR:SG)
This is from the verb "s'inquiéter", which lexically includes a "bleached" reflexive/middle marker.
So "je m'inquiète", "tu t'inquiètes", "elle s'inquiète", etc.
These pronouns do not index a second argument.
Cheers, Maïa
Dr Maïa Ponsonnet
Chargée de Recherche, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire Dynamique Du Language
Adjunct Researcher, Discipline of Linguistics, The University of Western Australia
________________________________
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Jocelyn Aznar <contact at jocelynaznar.eu>
Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2022 2:55 PM
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
Thanks for this very interesting example. I really the fact that this
sentence "t'inquiète", even though it contains only affirmative
morphemes, can only be interpreted as negative.
I'm not so sure about the glossing though:
/t'inquiète!/ (REC-worry) 'do worry'
and explained it as to actually mean /*ne* t'inquiète *pas*/ (NEG
REC-worry-NEG)
I guess here REC stands for "recent, recent past". I'm not sure why you
glossed it like this instead of "2SG.ACC-worry" or "2SG.ACC=worry".
For a French speaker, event without the negation, this expression is not
ambiguous, as the affirmative form would be:
"inquiète-toi". "worry=2SG.tonic¹
The "tonic" pronoun should be at the end for an affirmative imperative
sentence. Thus when one starts by saying : "t'inquiète [...]", a French
speaker already knows it's a negative form. But I would add that the
shortening is not really happening on /*ne*/ in /*ne* t'inquiète *pas*/
but on /*pas*/, as in /t'inquiète *pas*/, as the "ne" is not really
often used².
Thus here, I would say that we don't have to deal with the case of a
first word removal, but (mostly) of the last one.
Best regards,
¹: I'm actually not sure how should be described "toi" using
descriptive/typological terms, if someone has a suggestion. The French
grammatical tradition calls it "pronom tonique", but I haven't look at
how to render this in English.
²: Maybe somehow the deletion of "ne" is related to this whole deletion
discussion, but has already been grammaticalized. I would be interested
to know about when French-speaking children are actually learning to use
the "ne", but that's another topic.
Le 03/11/2022 à 13:57, MARINE vuillermet a écrit :
> French speakers very systematically use/t'inquiète!/ (REC-worry) 'do
> worry' to actually mean /*ne* t'inquiète *pas*/ (NEG REC-worry-NEG)
> 'don't worry'. Here the entire negation is ellipsed, and I see it as a
> confirmation of it being a very pragmatic phenomenon where very
> predictable elements can be left unspoken without leading to confusion.
>
> Best,
>
> Marine
>
> Marine Vuillermet
> <https://www.comparativelinguistics.uzh.ch/en/staff/vuillermet.html>
> Postdoctoral fellow//
> -----
> University of Zürich
> Department of Comparative Linguistics
> <https://www.comparativelinguistics.uzh.ch/en/ma.html>
> /Out Of Asia <https://www.outofasia.uzh.ch/en.html>: Linguistic
> Diversity and Population History/
> /
> /
> "Humans and flies diverged from a common ancestor about 600 million
> years ago." (Baum & Smith 2013:5)
>
>
>
> Le jeudi 3 novembre 2022 à 13:01:56 UTC+1,
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org> a écrit :
>
>
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (Christian Lehmann)
> 2. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (David Gil)
> 3. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (Randy J. LaPolla)
> 4. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (David Gil)
> 5. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (Marianne Mithun)
> 6. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (Riccardo Giomi)
> 7. Re: query: 1st syllable deletion (Daniel Ross)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:06:08 +0100
> From: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de
> <mailto:christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID: <fb9ff7eb-68fc-b271-1c92-32e80e14e33f at Uni-Erfurt.De
> <mailto:fb9ff7eb-68fc-b271-1c92-32e80e14e33f at Uni-Erfurt.De>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Am 02.11.22 um 11:33 schrieb Randy LaPolla:
> > Good question, David!
> > Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> > Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> > especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> > Common in many languages.
> > Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is changing.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> Judging from German, Randy seems to be on the right track here. See:
>
> Lehmann, Christian 1991, ?Grammaticalization and related changes in
> contemporary German?. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.),
> /Approaches to grammaticalization/. Vol. II: Focus on types of
> grammatical markers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins (Typological
> Studies in Language, 19:2); 2:493-535. [ download
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246338410_Grammaticalization_and_related_changes_in_contemporary_German <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246338410_Grammaticalization_and_related_changes_in_contemporary_German>>
> ]; section 5.2.
>
> Best,
> Christian
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
>
> Tel.: +49/361/2113417
> E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de <mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>
> Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu <https://www.christianlehmann.eu>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/f2927f9c/attachment-0001.htm <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/f2927f9c/attachment-0001.htm>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 13:29:50 +0200
> From: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>
> To: Randy LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>
> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID: <dc6abfdc-5feb-7acd-e9d0-044ed0a45809 at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:dc6abfdc-5feb-7acd-e9d0-044ed0a45809 at shh.mpg.de>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
>
> Randy,
>
> Thanks for your comment.? The last couple of days I've received a flurry
> of very helpful references and pointers concerning the phenomenon in
> question, which seem to point to it not being "a simple pragmatic
> phenomenon" of the kind you suggest.? Also, with the possible exception
> of a reference to German, nobody so far has offered examples of similar
> processes in other languages, and indeed, I can't think of anything like
> it in the other languages I am familiar with.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>
> On 02/11/2022 12:33, Randy LaPolla wrote:
> > Good question, David!
> > Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> > Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> > especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> > Common in many languages.
> > Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is changing.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> --
> David Gil
>
> Senior Scientist (Associate)
> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
>
> Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:35:36 +0800
> From: "Randy J. LaPolla" <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>
> To: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>
> Cc: LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID: <CE016982-3138-4F01-8D72-BE23BD24D804 at gmail.com
> <mailto:CE016982-3138-4F01-8D72-BE23BD24D804 at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi David,
> I don?t like the term ?prodrop?, as it takes English, which is
> typologically actually the odd man out, as the norm, and all of the many
> languages that have not grammaticalised the grammatical mood
> constructions that require pronouns to be retained in English are seen
> as aberrant, but for languages that do not have such constructions, e.g.
> Chinese, the kind of pattern we have been talking about is the norm.
>
> All the best,
> Randy
>
>
> > On 2 Nov 2022, at 7:29 PM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Randy,
> >
> > Thanks for your comment. The last couple of days I've received a
> flurry of very helpful references and pointers concerning the phenomenon
> in question, which seem to point to it not being "a simple pragmatic
> phenomenon" of the kind you suggest. Also, with the possible exception
> of a reference to German, nobody so far has offered examples of similar
> processes in other languages, and indeed, I can't think of anything like
> it in the other languages I am familiar with.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On 02/11/2022 12:33, Randy LaPolla wrote:
> >> Good question, David!
> >> Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> >> Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> >> Common in many languages.
> >> Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is changing.
> >>
> >> Randy
> >>
> > --
> > David Gil
> >
> > Senior Scientist (Associate)
> > Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> > Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
> >
> > Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> > Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> > Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:03:21 +0200
> From: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>
> To: "Randy J. LaPolla" <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>
> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID: <3f157863-42bc-a66d-4dad-9ad7bd7081b0 at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:3f157863-42bc-a66d-4dad-9ad7bd7081b0 at shh.mpg.de>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> I share your dislike of the term "prodrop" and for probably the same
> reasons.
>
> But I will dig my heels in and insist that the kind of phenomenon that
> I'm asking about bears little resemblance to the much more pervasive and
> across the board East and Southeast Asian practice of optional
> expression of various categories that might be obligatory in some
> Standard Average European languages.
>
> Since writing (below) to the effect that I have not seen anything
> similar to this outside of English and possibly German, the discussion
> has produced some possibly similar constructions in Italian (from
> Riccardo) and Finnish (an offline response) - but nothing so far further
> afield.
>
> David
>
> On 02/11/2022 14:35, Randy J. LaPolla wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > I don?t like the term ?prodrop?, as it takes English, which is
> typologically actually the odd man out, as the norm, and all of the many
> languages that have not grammaticalised the grammatical mood
> constructions that require pronouns to be retained in English are seen
> as aberrant, but for languages that do not have such constructions, e.g.
> Chinese, the kind of pattern we have been talking about is the norm.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >> On 2 Nov 2022, at 7:29 PM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Randy,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comment. The last couple of days I've received a
> flurry of very helpful references and pointers concerning the phenomenon
> in question, which seem to point to it not being "a simple pragmatic
> phenomenon" of the kind you suggest. Also, with the possible exception
> of a reference to German, nobody so far has offered examples of similar
> processes in other languages, and indeed, I can't think of anything like
> it in the other languages I am familiar with.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02/11/2022 12:33, Randy LaPolla wrote:
> >>> Good question, David!
> >>> Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> >>> Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> >>> Common in many languages.
> >>> Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is changing.
> >>>
> >>> Randy
> >>>
> >> --
> >> David Gil
> >>
> >> Senior Scientist (Associate)
> >> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> >> Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
> >>
> >> Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> >> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> >> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
> >>
> --
> David Gil
>
> Senior Scientist (Associate)
> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
>
> Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:31:48 -0700
> From: Marianne Mithun <mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu
> <mailto:mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu>>
> To: "Randy J. LaPolla" <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>
> Cc: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>,
> LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID:
> <CAKvd2fD=WtVBYEG1ufHf5-zM8X7sxv+SD8qfOO4EinYJSuCCmw at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:SD8qfOO4EinYJSuCCmw at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Bravo, Randy!
>
> Marianne
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 5:35 AM Randy J. LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> > I don?t like the term ?prodrop?, as it takes English, which is
> > typologically actually the odd man out, as the norm, and all of the many
> > languages that have not grammaticalised the grammatical mood
> constructions
> > that require pronouns to be retained in English are seen as aberrant, but
> > for languages that do not have such constructions, e.g. Chinese, the kind
> > of pattern we have been talking about is the norm.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > > On 2 Nov 2022, at 7:29 PM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Randy,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comment. The last couple of days I've received a
> flurry
> > of very helpful references and pointers concerning the phenomenon in
> > question, which seem to point to it not being "a simple pragmatic
> > phenomenon" of the kind you suggest. Also, with the possible
> exception of
> > a reference to German, nobody so far has offered examples of similar
> > processes in other languages, and indeed, I can't think of anything
> like it
> > in the other languages I am familiar with.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > On 02/11/2022 12:33, Randy LaPolla wrote:
> > >> Good question, David!
> > >> Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> > >> Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> > especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> > >> Common in many languages.
> > >> Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is
> changing.
> > >>
> > >> Randy
> > >>
> > > --
> > > David Gil
> > >
> > > Senior Scientist (Associate)
> > > Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> > > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> > > Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
> > >
> > > Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> > > Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> > > Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/33d00445/attachment-0001.htm <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/33d00445/attachment-0001.htm>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:35:46 +0100
> From: Riccardo Giomi <rgiomi at campus.ul.pt <mailto:rgiomi at campus.ul.pt>>
> To: "Randy J. LaPolla" <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>>
> Cc: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>,
> LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID:
> <CA+KJqQErJFfghBRf927r_FYHBcxGb6FnncOYHtSoHd8LGHLWpA at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:KJqQErJFfghBRf927r_FYHBcxGb6FnncOYHtSoHd8LGHLWpA at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear David and all,
>
> For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Randy and Christian. One possible
> argument against a rule-based deletion/ellipsis account comes from central
> varieties of Italian (including my own), and concerns, once again, emphatic
> *wh-*questions -- suggesting a cross-linguistic pattern that, I suspect,
> may also be found in other languages.
>
> The "full" version of the type of question I have in mind makes use of the
> emphatic element *cazzo *(slang for 'penis', but functionally largely
> equivalent to English *fuck*), postponed to the clause-initial *wh-*word,
> e.g.
>
> - *Che cazzo fai? *'What the fuck are you doing?'
>
> I often hear (and probably produce myself) "reduced" versions of similar
> questions, including the following:
>
> - *Cazzo fai?*
> -* Azzo fai?*
> *- Zzo fai?*
>
> In the first case, it is only the first word and syllable *che *that would
> be deleted; in the second, it's this word/syllable plus the onset of the
> second syllable (which belongs to the second syntactic word); in the third
> the first word/syllable plus the whole second syllable (i.e. the first
> syllable of the second syntactic word). And I also recognize the forms *Zzo
> vai? *and *Azzo vai? *for *Dove cazzo vai? *('Where the fuck are you
> going?'), where the (by hypothesis) elided part consists of two and a half
> and three syllables, respectively, again cutting across syntactic domains.
>
> What this all suggests to me is that, if the correct explanation was indeed
> one in term of deletion or ellipsis, then either it is a composite rule
> that cuts across phonology and syntax, or it would be a merely phonological
> rule allowing deletion of phonological strings that do not necessarily
> coincide with syllables (which sounds kind of weird, at least for Italian),
> and may stretch over three entire syllables (and maybe more, but this is
> what I could think of for the moment). Rather than postulating such a
> complex rule, which for more I don't think is found in any other type of
> utterance in Italian, I find it much more economical and
> psycholinguistically plausible (but the latter is of course quite a shot in
> the dark) to assume that the point is precisely the omission of the
> predictable elements from this specific type of emphatic question. The
> constraint appears to be that only the most distinctive (and perceptually
> salient) element, i.e. the second syllable of *cazzo*, must be retained for
> the utterance-type in question to be easily identified.
>
> Sorry for my stream of consciousness!
>
> Best,
> Riccardo
>
> Randy J. LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>> escreveu no dia quarta,
> 2/11/2022 ?(s) 13:35:
>
> > Hi David,
> > I don?t like the term ?prodrop?, as it takes English, which is
> > typologically actually the odd man out, as the norm, and all of the many
> > languages that have not grammaticalised the grammatical mood
> constructions
> > that require pronouns to be retained in English are seen as aberrant, but
> > for languages that do not have such constructions, e.g. Chinese, the kind
> > of pattern we have been talking about is the norm.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > > On 2 Nov 2022, at 7:29 PM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Randy,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comment. The last couple of days I've received a
> flurry
> > of very helpful references and pointers concerning the phenomenon in
> > question, which seem to point to it not being "a simple pragmatic
> > phenomenon" of the kind you suggest. Also, with the possible
> exception of
> > a reference to German, nobody so far has offered examples of similar
> > processes in other languages, and indeed, I can't think of anything
> like it
> > in the other languages I am familiar with.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > On 02/11/2022 12:33, Randy LaPolla wrote:
> > >> Good question, David!
> > >> Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> > >> Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> > especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> > >> Common in many languages.
> > >> Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is
> changing.
> > >>
> > >> Randy
> > >>
> > > --
> > > David Gil
> > >
> > > Senior Scientist (Associate)
> > > Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> > > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> > > Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
> > >
> > > Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> > > Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> > > Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> >
>
>
> --
> Riccardo Giomi, Ph.D.
> University of Li?ge
> D?partement de langues modernes : linguistique, litt?rature et traduction
> Research group *Linguistique contrastive et typologie des langues*
> F.R.S.-FNRS Postdoctoral fellow (CR - FC 43095)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/a6684bdc/attachment-0001.htm <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/a6684bdc/attachment-0001.htm>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:20:38 -0700
> From: Daniel Ross <djross3 at gmail.com <mailto:djross3 at gmail.com>>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] query: 1st syllable deletion
> Message-ID:
> <CAAm4d-5K7KnvBt3C-uX3Sx5Ny_TeHNZPktoy5GkvTN0KdF4BXg at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:CAAm4d-5K7KnvBt3C-uX3Sx5Ny_TeHNZPktoy5GkvTN0KdF4BXg at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Interesting discussion, everyone!
>
> David, I've been thinking about this for a couple days now (but did not
> reply because I wasn't aware of specific references to suggest). My initial
> intuition was that this is not phonological, and not about syllables. But
> since English pronouns (at least the basic ones) are all monosyllabic, it's
> hard to test that. The messages from others have mostly fit with my
> intuition, with some additional points to think about too.
>
> A common (perhaps at this point strawman) functional explanation for
> "pro-drop" is that rich agreement allows recovery of the subject identity
> so the pronoun itself is optional. But rich agreement does not always
> license pro-drop, such as in German or Russian. (And even in English, we
> might assume it should be allowed in third-person singular present-tense.)
> More importantly, there are also languages such as Japanese which allow
> pronoun ellipsis but do not have rich agreement (or any agreement at all).
>
> But in this case (which as pointed out by others is not "pro-drop" in a
> strict sense), that kind of functional explanation does seem to be the
> right approach: this kind of ellipsis is only found with contextually
> salient forms.
>
> The explanation cannot be purely phonological. No English speaker would
> ever say:
>
> *Guistics is fun!
>
> That's too hard to understand. Omission of ling- is not possible, because
> Linguistics is such a rare grammatical subject. Of course I can imagine
> this could be primed, perhaps at the next ALT conference!
>
> Therefore, this phenomenon must be frequency-based. And in fact that's
> exactly what all of the examples are, such as Riccardo's in the previous
> message. Almost all of these are set phrases or common pronouns in
> contextually-relevant usage, such as questions with "you", or statements
> with "I". I haven't done a corpus search (searching for ellipsis is
> tricky!), but I assume we would find a substantial bias toward frequent
> collocations, as well as some pronouns rather than others, given the type
> of usage that is typical.
>
> At the same time, it isn't really syntactic either, and it's not full
> constituents ("...the hell", "...the fuck", "...cazzo"). I'd guess that
> pronouns and the other partial-constituent expressions are distinct types,
> but in general they seem to have similar properties, most importantly that
> they are high-frequency and predictable.
>
> What we're looking at then seems to be more a kind of *abbreviation* than
> *ellipsis*. Sound change is regular except for idioms and other frequent
> expressions (i.e. allegro speech). "God be with you" becomes "goodbye", but
> only for that expression. So this is more about lexicalization and
> frequency than a strictly phonological *or *strictly syntactic rule. The
> pronoun type may need a more syntax-based explanation, but I think this is
> still part of it.
>
> The omitted syllable is probably just reduced to the point of being
> unpronounced, because it is (extremely) unstressed, because it is
> (extremely) predictable. In fact, I would bet that at least some of the
> time the speaker actually mouths the first syllable but doesn't utter it
> audibly. David, that matches some of what you suggested, but I'm
> interpreting it differently, or at least in a restricted way. There is a
> prosodic explanation, but most importantly within a frequency explanation.
> And in a sense it's more about *morphology* than syntax or phonology.
>
> If we tie all of this together, and here's where it gets interesting, this
> seems to suggest that multi-word expressions allowing omission of the first
> syllable (or more) are actually single, frequent lexical items. And
> regarding pronoun subjects, they not only have characteristic prosodies,
> which could in itself be considered something resembling lexicalization,
> but arguably if we assume that phonologically null syntactic structure can
> also be lexicalized, we might get, for example, "Q+you" for second-person
> questions, which occurs so often that it can be omitted and still
> recovered. Or just a lexicalized prosody explanation if you prefer.
>
> Of course this can spread by analogy (but not a regular rule!) to new
> expressions, but only when those expressions are also relatively frequent
> and predictable.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:36 AM Riccardo Giomi <rgiomi at campus.ul.pt
> <mailto:rgiomi at campus.ul.pt>> wrote:
>
> > Dear David and all,
> >
> > For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Randy and Christian. One
> > possible argument against a rule-based deletion/ellipsis account
> comes from
> > central varieties of Italian (including my own), and concerns, once
> again,
> > emphatic *wh-*questions -- suggesting a cross-linguistic pattern that, I
> > suspect, may also be found in other languages.
> >
> > The "full" version of the type of question I have in mind makes use
> of the
> > emphatic element *cazzo *(slang for 'penis', but functionally largely
> > equivalent to English *fuck*), postponed to the clause-initial *wh-*word,
> > e.g.
> >
> > - *Che cazzo fai? *'What the fuck are you doing?'
> >
> > I often hear (and probably produce myself) "reduced" versions of similar
> > questions, including the following:
> >
> > - *Cazzo fai?*
> > -* Azzo fai?*
> > *- Zzo fai?*
> >
> > In the first case, it is only the first word and syllable *che *that
> > would be deleted; in the second, it's this word/syllable plus the
> onset of
> > the second syllable (which belongs to the second syntactic word); in the
> > third the first word/syllable plus the whole second syllable (i.e. the
> > first syllable of the second syntactic word). And I also recognize the
> > forms *Zzo vai? *and *Azzo vai? *for *Dove cazzo vai? *('Where the fuck
> > are you going?'), where the (by hypothesis) elided part consists of
> two and
> > a half and three syllables, respectively, again cutting across syntactic
> > domains.
> >
> > What this all suggests to me is that, if the correct explanation was
> > indeed one in term of deletion or ellipsis, then either it is a composite
> > rule that cuts across phonology and syntax, or it would be a merely
> > phonological rule allowing deletion of phonological strings that do not
> > necessarily coincide with syllables (which sounds kind of weird, at least
> > for Italian), and may stretch over three entire syllables (and maybe
> more,
> > but this is what I could think of for the moment). Rather than
> postulating
> > such a complex rule, which for more I don't think is found in any other
> > type of utterance in Italian, I find it much more economical and
> > psycholinguistically plausible (but the latter is of course quite a
> shot in
> > the dark) to assume that the point is precisely the omission of the
> > predictable elements from this specific type of emphatic question. The
> > constraint appears to be that only the most distinctive (and perceptually
> > salient) element, i.e. the second syllable of *cazzo*, must be retained
> > for the utterance-type in question to be easily identified.
> >
> > Sorry for my stream of consciousness!
> >
> > Best,
> > Riccardo
> >
> > Randy J. LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com
> <mailto:randy.lapolla at gmail.com>> escreveu no dia quarta,
> > 2/11/2022 ?(s) 13:35:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >> I don?t like the term ?prodrop?, as it takes English, which is
> >> typologically actually the odd man out, as the norm, and all of the many
> >> languages that have not grammaticalised the grammatical mood
> constructions
> >> that require pronouns to be retained in English are seen as
> aberrant, but
> >> for languages that do not have such constructions, e.g. Chinese, the
> kind
> >> of pattern we have been talking about is the norm.
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >> Randy
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 2 Nov 2022, at 7:29 PM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de
> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Randy,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your comment. The last couple of days I've received a
> >> flurry of very helpful references and pointers concerning the
> phenomenon in
> >> question, which seem to point to it not being "a simple pragmatic
> >> phenomenon" of the kind you suggest. Also, with the possible
> exception of
> >> a reference to German, nobody so far has offered examples of similar
> >> processes in other languages, and indeed, I can't think of anything
> like it
> >> in the other languages I am familiar with.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> >
> >> > David
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 02/11/2022 12:33, Randy LaPolla wrote:
> >> >> Good question, David!
> >> >> Not a matter of phonetics or morphology, though.
> >> >> Possibly a simple pragmatic phenomenon where predictable elements,
> >> especially topics, can be left unspoken.
> >> >> Common in many languages.
> >> >> Not considered ?grammatical? in English, but maybe English is
> changing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Randy
> >> >>
> >> > --
> >> > David Gil
> >> >
> >> > Senior Scientist (Associate)
> >> > Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> >> > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> >> > Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
> >> >
> >> > Email: gil at shh.mpg.de <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> >> > Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> >> > Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> >> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Riccardo Giomi, Ph.D.
> > University of Li?ge
> > D?partement de langues modernes : linguistique, litt?rature et traduction
> > Research group *Linguistique contrastive et typologie des langues*
> > F.R.S.-FNRS Postdoctoral fellow (CR - FC 43095)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/0a9ea9e5/attachment-0001.htm <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221102/0a9ea9e5/attachment-0001.htm>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 98, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20221103/667facfd/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list