[Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"

Thu Mar 9 06:22:20 UTC 2023

Dear all – Please allow me to briefly chime in here:

Background: (As both Christian and Kasper know,) I’ve been working on a typology of functional expressions that attempts to account for their typological distribution in terms of selective evolutionary mechanisms driving their grammaticalization.

The classification is heavily influenced by the Boye & Harder theory. In particular, it envisions an overall continuum stretching from discourse-primary to discourse-secondary expressions. I adopt the focalizability criterion, but interpret discourse-primary status as resulting from the expression (typically) rendering part of the speaker’s primary intended message, whereas discourse-secondary expressions are to varying degrees redundant vis-à-vis the intended message and instead serve to facilitate the hearer’s processing.

There are several important points of departure from the Boye-Harder model:

  *   While the focalizability criterion is dichotomous, I assume an underlying continuum in terms of communicative primacy vs. redundancy.
  *   Discourse status does not directly determine grammatical status in my model, but merely motivates it. Briefly, I treat an expression as functional to the extent that there are morphosyntactic = combinatorial patterns/constructions/rules that refer to the individual expression as opposed to a larger (lexical) category it belongs to.
  *   Discourse status is not the only property that motivates grammatical status on my account. As a result, there are both discourse-secondary and discourse-primary functional expressions. The latter of course include many of the traditional types of functional expressions that B&H argue should be relegated to the lexicon, such as demonstratives, pronouns, modals, numerals, and quantificational expressions. What motivates the functional status of these kinds of expressions is (i) their abstract, syncategorematic, and often partly metalinguistic semantics and (ii) the frequency with which they are used.

This contrast between discourse-primary and discourse-secondary functional expressions is in fact the key explanans of the theory I’m working on for the explanandum of typological distribution: whereas the various classes of discourse-primary functional expressions occur near-universally in the languages of the world, the distribution of the communicatively redundant, discourse-secondary expressions such as tense, case, and gender/noun class is much more variable across languages.

I hope I’ve now made it somewhat clear how I think my view occupies something of a middle ground between those articulated by Christian and Kasper.

Now let me briefly turn to the subject of interjections. Interjections are of course discourse-primary, as Kasper and Martin pointed out: if interjections can constitute entire turns, which one might consider a definitional property, then they must of course express the speaker’s primary communicative intention.

However, per the above, this does not immediately preclude them of having a (quasi-)functional = grammatical status on my account.

On closer inspection, I think we’ll find that interjections do not participate in what we traditionally consider the combinatorial system of grammar (unsurprisingly, it seems, if they can constitute entire turns and may have illocutionary force of their own). However, they seem to participate, and in fact to be key players, in a larger interactional combinatorial system of which the traditional morphosyntax is merely something of a “hard core:” an “outer” combinatorial system, if you will.

This outer combinatorial system may or may not be a part of what David Wilkins (p. c.) has often referred to as the ‘usage grammar’ (as opposed to the competence grammar).

Apologies for the long and self-promoting post! – Best – Juergen

Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
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<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/

Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
(Leonard Cohen)
--

From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Kasper Boye <boye at hum.ku.dk>
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 12:03 PM
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Cc: Peter Harder <rgl226 at hum.ku.dk>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded"
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://nam12.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%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kPfGBvrBN3H4W%2F%2BB5z9wx0So4pQeT3I45S7gNuM6TZg%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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2012.10.007&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bCgd5AOInvULvIBb8NM0V3aQFvCKrjEofB4A3rqD9kg%3D&reserved=0> <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007><https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2012.10.007&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bCgd5AOInvULvIBb8NM0V3aQFvCKrjEofB4A3rqD9kg%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQz5u%2BBJhLl03zp9zRU06AXyXpG3jn0yMbqnBKq22t8%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQz5u%2BBJhLl03zp9zRU06AXyXpG3jn0yMbqnBKq22t8%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________

Lingtyp mailing list

Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>

https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQz5u%2BBJhLl03zp9zRU06AXyXpG3jn0yMbqnBKq22t8%3D&reserved=0>
--

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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C5c3833cffd73427469d608db1ff71965%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638138918393947958%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JNvn%2FiO9WkNHq4xBgOHZbvIDQM%2Bf6njTqiOcQDx%2F928%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230309/21568b7d/attachment.htm>