[Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"

[Jocelyn Aznar]

Dear all, Martin Haspelmath,

 > – secondary in discourse vs. (potentially) primary in discourse (Boye 
& > Harder 2012)

Thanks for sharing this reference, it is definitely very interesting. I 
should have been more careful on my terminology.

Best,
Jocelyn


Le 07/03/2023 à 10:04, Martin Haspelmath a écrit :
> Dear all,
> 
> Linguists tend to be particularly interested in "grammatically encoded" 
> meanings, and they give special names such as "timitive" only to 
> grammatical elements, not to ordinary words like 'fear'.
> 
> Are interjections "grammatical"? Jocelyn Aznar said yes:
>> I would say interjections are mostly used for this usage of expressing 
>> emotions toward a situation. I'm not sure though that interjections 
>> fit your definition of "grammatically encoded", in particular the bit 
>> "not easily admit new items", but it would fit mine :)
>>
>> Best regards, Jocelyn
> 
> It seems to me that we have at least three different criteria that give 
> different results:
> 
> – bound vs. free (= not occurring in isolation vs. occurring in 
> isolation; Bloomfield 1933)
> – secondary in discourse vs. (potentially) primary in discourse (Boye & 
> Harder 2012)
> – closed class vs. open class
> 
> The "closed-class" criterion is often mentioned, but languages have many 
> free forms that can be the main point of an utterance and that do not 
> (evidently) belong to open classes. For example, English "afraid" 
> belongs to a smallish class of predicative-only "adjectives". And 
> "bound" is not the same as "grammatical" either because many languages 
> have bound roots.
> 
> So I think that Boye & Harder's criterion of being "conventionally 
> secondary in discourse" corresponds best to the way "grammatically 
> encoded" is generally understood. By this criterion, interjections (or 
> words like "afraid") are not grammatical elements.
> 
> Best,
> Martin
> 
>>
>> Le 06/03/2023 à 09:29, Ponrawee Prasertsom a écrit :
>>> Dear typologists,
>>>
>>> There has been claims in the literature (Cinque, 2013) that (at least 
>>> some) speakers' emotional states toward a situation such as "fear" 
>>> and "worry" are not grammatically encoded in any language, where 
>>> "grammatically encoded" means not encoded by closed-class items 
>>> ("closed-class" in a morphosyntactic sense: a group of morphemes that 
>>> occur in the same slot that do not easily admit new items and/or have 
>>> few members).
>>> I am interested in examples of any grammaticalized marker for any 
>>> emotional states (not necessarily "fear" and "worry"). I am 
>>> interested in both markers of 1) the /speaker/'s emotional states 
>>> toward the situation being expressed as well as 2) of the /subject/'s 
>>> emotional states toward the situation. The class of the item could be 
>>> bound (clitics, affixes) or free (particles, auxiliary verbs) as long 
>>> as it could be shown to be (somewhat) closed. I am only interested in 
>>> markers specialised for specific emotions, and not, e.g., 
>>> impoliteness markers that could be used when the speaker is angry.
>>>
>>> The "(un)happy about the verb" infixes /-ei/- and -/äng-/ from the 
>>> constructed language Na'vi would be the paradigm example of what I am 
>>> looking for if they actually existed in a natural language.
>>>
>>> A potential example is Japanese /-yagatte, /which some have told me 
>>> have grammaticalised into an affix encoding anger about the action. 
>>> I'm also looking into whether there is evidence that this is actually 
>>> part of a closed-class and would appreciate any pointers/more 
>>> information.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much in advance.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ponrawee Prasertsom
>>>
>>> PhD student
>>> Centre for Language Evolution
>>> University of Edinburgh
>>>
>>> *References:*
>>> Cinque, G. (2013). Cognition, universal grammar, and typological 
>>> generalizations. Lingua, 130, 50–65. 
>>> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007 
>>> <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x17CC905465297B5D.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3151 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230307/ad8eb103/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230307/ad8eb103/attachment.sig>