[Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"

Wed Mar 8 17:27:07 UTC 2023

In older literature ideophones were generally thought of as interjections.
They also foreground (often with excess prosody) and (at least in their
prototypical state) stand apart from predicates. I started calling their
creation 'antigrammar' (not to be confused with the syntactic theory of
that name). Most (all?) of the processes that take place during normal
grammaticalization are reversed- even the localization of processing in the
brain seems to involve a lot of right-hemisphere activity. Perhaps that
jibes with the fact that in many languages ideophones often co-occur with
manual and other gestural accompaniments.

Since in many languages one can break down ideophones into meaningful
segments below the level of the lexical root (including individual phonemes
and even distinctive features), I like to think of them as akin to the
'exploded diagram' illustrations one often sees in manuals for cars and
other machines. Also, ideophones are often used as a kind of 'punctuation'
in event structure. So unlike normal grams, which zip elements of discourse
TOGETHER, ideophones instead break down growing wholes. Note also the fact
that the largest numbers of ideophones in inventories are strongly
associated with languages in the early stages of synthesis (with little in
the way of fusion)- they often abound in agglutinative languages (Korean is
said to have at least 29 THOUSAND such forms, if one pools all bare roots,
lexical derivations, compounds, and light verb constructions). Thus
languages with a good balance between syntacitc, morphological and
phonological transparency.

Jess Tauber

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:03 PM Kasper Boye <boye at hum.ku.dk> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> We fully agree with Martin’s conclusion that based on our 2012 theory,
> interjections are not grammatical, but simultaneously also with Riccardo’s
> conclusion (on the same grounds) that they are not lexical. In fact, we
> recently argued that interjections – and more generally holophrases
> constitute a distinct, third class of linguistic signs next to lexical and
> grammatical ones (pp. 146-147 in Boye, K. & P. Harder, 2020, ‘Dual
> processing in a functional-cognitive theory of grammar and its
> neurocognitive basis’, in A. Haselow & G. Kaltenböck (eds.), *Grammar and
> cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing*,
> Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133-155).
>
>
>
> The defining feature of holophrases (including interjections) is the
> absence of complexity and structure: holophrases form utterances on their
> own, and are therefore inevitably attentional foreground (= discursively
> primary). The lexical-grammatical distinction only sets in as an aspect of
> the rise of structural complexity. That is, it only sets in when complexity
> is around, and in our view, it sets in as a response to complexity, namely
> as a way of handling the associated issue of attentional prioritization.
> Thus, the lexical-grammatical distinction represents a conventionalized
> division of labour between potential attentional foreground (= potential
> discursively primary status = lexical) and background (secondary status by
> convention = grammatical). This functionally motivated structural division
> of labour is in our view the basic level of linguistic structure.
> Additional levels (including divisions into distributional classes) are
> added on top of this.
>
>
>
> We claim in (Boye & Harder 2012) that this understanding of the
> lexical-grammatical distinctions is to a high extend co-extensive with
> traditional conceptions (otherwise, it would be an understanding of
> something else). As pointed out by Riccardo and Christian (in the 2013
> review of the latter), however, it is true that in some cases,
> classifications based on our understanding are at odds with pretheoretical
> classifications. As mentioned by Riccardo and Christian, for instance, some
> pronouns come out as lexical. We believe that this is not a serious problem
> for the understanding we propose, because we believe our proposal offers a
> functional rationale for the status of grammar as a design feature of human
> languages. The fact that other features characteristic of grammatical
> elements are not fully co-extensive could also be regarded as a problem for
> the pretheoretical classifications. We would also like to point to the fact
> that the idea of distinguishing between lexical and grammatical pronouns is
> not entirely new and strange (cf. e.g. the distinction between weak and
> strong pronouns in Romance languages).
>
>
>
> In response to Christian, then, we do not think our view of the
> lexical-grammatical distinction is refuted by the fact that by a
> stressability criterion, some pronouns are lexical (note also that stress
> is in some languages unreliable as a focus marker – for instance,
> constituent focus needs to be distinguished for ‘verum focus’).
>
>
>
> As for Christian’s own suggestion for an understanding (‘Such aspects of
> linguistic expressions are grammatical whose conformation obeys constraints
> of the particular linguistic system’), we wouldn’t go as far as claiming to
> refute it, but would like to point out that it does not seem to distinguish
> lexical from grammatical elements: also lexical elements are constrained by
> the linguistic system – otherwise, we would not have distributional
> classes. In our view, structural constraints are what distinguishes both
> lexical and grammatical elements from holophrases.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Peter and Kasper
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *På vegne af *Christian
> Lehmann
> *Sendt:* 7. marts 2023 13:32
> *Til:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Emne:* Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"
>
>
>
> Dear Martin and everybody,
>
> while I am not going to doubt that the article by Boye & Harder is
> interesting, I may be allowed to draw attention to my refuting their thesis:
>
> Lehmann, Christian 2013, [Review of: Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.)
> 2011, *The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization.* Oxford: Oxford
> University Press (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics)] *Beiträge zur
> Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur* 135:442-456. [download
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F349042276_Review_of_Narrog_Heiko_Heine_Bernd_The_Oxford_handbook_of_grammaticalization_Oxford_2011&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609323934235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FJsbUY3dRshfKAeq%2F57D0poSl%2FDruAIQhmI0HH34BmM%3D&reserved=0>
> ]
>
> Taken by itself, the characterization of grammatical expressions as
> "discursively secondary" is vague and not easily amenable to
> operationalization. One criterion offered by the authors themselves is
> stressability, but that does not work (s. my review).
>
> When defining 'grammatical', we want to exclude a set of quite
> incommensurable areas:
>
>    1. Attention is limited to the pairing of significans with
>    significatum. The formation of significantia (phonology) and of significata
>    (semantics) is not at stake.
>    2. We exclude  what is lexical as opposed to grammatical.
>    3. We want to exclude what structures the discourse and supports its
>    interpretation without being regulated by the language system (including
>    the whole of pragmatics).
>
> Taking #1 for granted, conditions #2 and #3 can be met by the following
> definition: Such aspects of linguistic expressions are grammatical whose
> conformation obeys constraints of the particular linguistic system.
> Needless to say, this definition feeds directly into a definition of
> 'grammaticalization'.
>
> Should anybody be interested in the operationalization of this definition,
> we can go on.
>
> Christian
>
> ------
>
> Am 07.03.2023 um 11:19 schrieb 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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2012.10.007&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609323934235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mTlRubwU2LGxwbLpuQ0weDQuSD48RbBBCLKgA055AFY%3D&reserved=0>
> <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007>
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2012.10.007&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609323934235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mTlRubwU2LGxwbLpuQ0weDQuSD48RbBBCLKgA055AFY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609323934235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gF6Bf4i%2Bl5qou4GzsOpDolmvgSuNMY4j3V9e8G%2BcTzs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609323934235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gF6Bf4i%2Bl5qou4GzsOpDolmvgSuNMY4j3V9e8G%2BcTzs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lingtyp mailing list
>
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609323934235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gF6Bf4i%2Bl5qou4GzsOpDolmvgSuNMY4j3V9e8G%2BcTzs%3D&reserved=0>
>
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
>
> Tel.:
>
> +49/361/2113417
>
> E-Post:
>
> christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>
> Web:
>
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7Ca3788f4c5b684ad07db308db1faf2495%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638138609324090459%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BrMCAeTz4MTpFyhT6GYTMUyMKXaMO6%2ByLKBDmRzZsOk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230308/dabd0852/attachment.htm>