[Lingtyp] Optional determination?

[Christian Lehmann]

Oh, if that is the point, then the answer is quite different:

In many languages, a syntagma consisting of a common noun and a syntagma 
consisting of a common noun modified by an adjective attribute belong to 
the same category, viz. 'nominal', which is a category that can be 
modified by an adjectival attribute.
In most languages, a nominal and a nominal determined by a determiner 
are different categories because the former, but not the latter can be 
determined by a determiner.

I hope this fits your point better.
Christian
------------------------------------------

Am 31.08.24 um 16:12 schrieb Juergen Bohnemeyer:
>
> Dear Christian – No, I don’t share the presupposition you mention at 
> all. Rather, there is a specific role of obligatoriness vs. 
> optionality in the particular case of determination: if determination 
> is optional, then it is presumably the case that both determined 
> (i.e., maximal) and non-determined (i.e., non-maximal) noun phrases 
> can express arguments. My question is whether there is then any other 
> known reason to still treat them as belonging to distinct syntactic 
> categories. I hope this makes sense? – 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/ 
> <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 Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Saturday, August 31, 2024 at 03:57
> *To: *lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Optional determination?
>
> Dear Jürgen,
>
> before considering your specific question, let me ask about its 
> presupposition: If a process is optional, it seems doubtful to you 
> whether it can be considered a grammatical process.
>
> Now if something is (structurally) obligatory, it is grammatical. The 
> inverse does not hold, because although obligatoriness has been 
> regarded by some as the most important feature of grammaticalization, 
> it is not the only one. Moreover, there are degrees of 
> optionality/obligatoriness (s. Lehmann, /Thoughts on grammaticalization/).
>
> Thus, the grammatical rules concerning determination may say that 
> determiners are optional in certain contexts, but obligatory in 
> others; that if there is a determiner, it has to go in such and such a 
> syntagmatic position; that determiners are chosen from a small closed 
> paradigm and cannot be combined syntagmatically; etc. Compare, e.g., 
> adjectives, for which there are such rules, too; but they are less strict.
>
> During the documented history from Vulgar Latin to the modern Romance 
> languages, articles have been developping from absent to increasingly 
> obligatory. At which point has determination by articles become "a 
> grammatical process"?
>
> Best, Christian
>


-- 

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240831/4d743f58/attachment.htm>