[Lingtyp] Evaluative morphology expressing "authenticity/prototypicality"
Joseph Brooks
brooks.josephd at gmail.com
Tue Jul 9 21:16:44 UTC 2024
Dear Francesca,
In the Chini language (Papuan, Lower Sepik-Ramu family) the nominal prefix
gwu- is used (<g> = voiced velar approximant). Its meaning is essentially
the same as authenticity/prototypicality but in Chini this almost always
means the traditional/ ancestral (vs modern/post-contact) version of
something.
For ex mbarɨ 'canoe', gwumbarɨ 'ancestral-style canoe'. Or: ɨrkng'ɨ
'language', gwɨrkng'ɨ 'traditional/ancestral language'. Cognate forms of
the prefix are found throughout Chini's subgroup but do not necessarily
derive the same nouns. In Mɨnkach/Kominimo the prefix is cwc- (<c> = open
o), in Sketa/Igana it's w-. Mɨnkach and Sketa both being spoken on the Guam
River, in both languages the word for the Guam is just 'water' plus the
prefix (so, cwenmi & wanmɨ respectively).
Other languages in the Ramu family have this as well. Rao, though very
distantly related, has ye-. For ex ndru 'mosquito net (factory made) vs
yendru 'ancestral-style mosquito net (cone-shaped "net" made of palm bark,
big enough for a whole family to sleep in)'.
Cheers
Joseph
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:21 PM <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
wrote:
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 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
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 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: Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic
> adjuncts (Zygmunt Frajzyngier)
> 2. Evaluative morphology expressing
> "authenticity/prototypicality" (Francesca Masini)
> 3. Re: Evaluative morphology expressing
> "authenticity/prototypicality" (Larry M Hyman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 15:28:42 +0000
> From: Zygmunt Frajzyngier <zygmunt.frajzyngier at colorado.edu>
> To: "chao.li at aya.yale.edu" <chao.li at aya.yale.edu>, Juergen Bohnemeyer
> <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> Cc: "<LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>"
> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and
> semantic adjuncts
> Message-ID:
> <
> CH0SPR01MB0009522C11B060C23B80A97C94DB2 at CH0SPR01MB0009.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Chao,
> You may find the following paper relevant to your query.
> Frajzyngier, Zygmunt; Natalia Gurian; Sergei Karpenko. 2023. Minimal
> participant structure and the emergence of the argument/adjunct
> distinction. Studies in Language https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22029.fra |
> Published online: 24 August 2023
>
> All best,
> Zygmunt
>
> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Chao Li via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 6:14 AM
> To: Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic
> adjuncts
> [External email - use caution]
>
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your further response. I?ll certainly check out your paper
> on cutting and breaking. With respect to ?oblique?, Robert Van Valin Jr.,
> in his An Introduction to Syntax (2001), uses ?oblique argument? instead of
> the former longer ?oblique core argument?. (Also, originally via Martin
> Haspelmath?s paper on ?Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular
> Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts? (2014), a paper focusing
> on the use of argument and adjunct as ?syntactic elements?, I learned that
> in the same book Van Valin treats the English by-phrase containing the
> A(gent) argument of a passive construction as an ?optional adjunct?.)
>
>
>
> Thanks again and best regards,
>
> Chao
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:15?AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu
> <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
> Hi Chao ? I don?t know who introduced the term ?oblique argument.? It may
> well have been derived from or at least influenced by the model of ?oblique
> case?. But oblique case does not play a definitional role in the notion of
> oblique arguments.
>
> Also, there is obviously a great deal of variation in how different
> scholars use the term ?oblique (argument)?. E.g., Dryer & Gensler (2013)
> use ?oblique phrase? expressly synonymously with ?adjunct?. My own use
> corresponds closely to that in Role & Reference Grammar. For instance, here
> is Van Valin (1993):
>
> ?All arguments which appear in the core of a simple clause must be linked
> to argument positions in the LS [?logical structure?, a representation of
> lexical meaning in terms of predicate calculus without variable binding;
> JB] of the predicate in the nucleus, and in the default situation, all
> arguments in the LS of the predicate must appear in the core of the clause.
> However, it is not always the case that an argument in the LS occurs in the
> core; in a passive construction, for example, the agent or experiencer, if
> overt, will be realized as an oblique constituent in the periphery. Among
> core arguments a further distinction is made between direct and oblique
> core arguments. This contrast is based on the morphological coding of the
> arguments: direct core arguments are those that are morphologically
> unmarked or coded with a direct case, as in dependent-marking languages
> like English and German, or are cross-referenced on the verb, as in
> headmarking languages like Lakhota and Tzotzil. Obl
> ique core arguments are those marked by an adposition or by an oblique
> case. Thus English give has three core arguments; in Harry gave Bill the
> key there are three direct core arguments, while in Harry gave the key to
> Bill there are two direct core arguments and one oblique core argument.?
> (Van Valin 1993: 40-41)
>
> In contrast, adjuncts are treated as modifiers, which in RRG means they
> are treated as expressing semantic predicates (Jolly 1993). This
> corresponds to conceptualizations in the Dependency Grammar tradition where
> modifiers are viewed as semantically and morphosyntactically relational,
> i.e., as opening argument positions for their heads, whereas arguments are
> dependents for which the head opens an argument position (Lehmann 1985).
> The Universal Dependencies database acknowledges this distinction, but does
> not follow it:
>
> ?The UD taxonomy is centered around the fairly clear distinction between
> core arguments (primarily subjects and objects) and other dependents. It
> does not make a distinction between adjuncts (general modifiers) and
> oblique arguments (arguments said to be selected by a head but not
> expressed as a core argument).? (link<
> https://universaldependencies.org/workgroups/core.html#:~:text=The%20UD%20taxonomy%20is%20centered,expressed%20as%20a%20core%20argument)
> .>)
>
> As to this point of yours:
>
> ?The question, however, is how to (semantically) rule out the tool used in
> a hitting action, for example, as a non-argument (maybe the tool in a
> cutting action has a different cognitive status than the one in a hitting
> action, but I?m not sure).?
>
> This question is addressed head-on in Bohnemeyer (2007). In a nutshell, I
> argue that cut-type verbs require instruments that function like bladed
> instruments, whereas break-type verbs do not require any instrument and
> certainly don?t specify a particular type of instrument.
>
> Best ? Juergen
>
> Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical Transparency and the argument
> structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2):
> 153-177.
>
> Dryer, M. S., & O. D. Gensler. (2013). Order of object, oblique, and verb.
> In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set].
> Zenodo.
> https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 (Available online at
> http://wals.info/chapter/84, Accessed on 2024-07-09.)
>
> Jolly, J. A. (1993). Preposition assignment in English. In R. D. Van Valin
> Jr. (ed), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
> 275-310.
>
> Lehmann, C. (1985). On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica 19:
> 67-109.
>
> Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1993). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In
> R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar.
> Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-166.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: Chao Li <chao.li at aya.yale.edu<mailto:chao.li at aya.yale.edu>>
> Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 at 13:10
> To: Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>>
> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic
> adjuncts
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed response. It?s clear that you use ?oblique? in
> a restrictive sense to mean oblique arguments. In my mind, ?oblique?, like
> the traditional use, refers to marked case marking (or marked flagging in
> an extended sense). I believe that?s why we find each other?s phrasing a
> bit confusing or problematic. By the way, it also shows how messy and murky
> linguistic terms are!
>
>
>
> Back to semantic arguments, if go is analyzed as a three-argument verb, as
> suggested by your example, it creates some tension or at least some
> uneasiness when it is typically analyzed as a monovalent verb. Similarly,
> back to buy and sell, a four-argument analysis of them, whether standard or
> not, also creates some tension when they are often analyzed as or assumed
> to be bivalent verbs. This also brings us to prototypical two-argument
> verbs. In the literature on linguistic typology, hit, kill, and the like
> are generally presented as prime examples of such verbs. The question,
> however, is how to (semantically) rule out the tool used in a hitting
> action, for example, as a non-argument (maybe the tool in a cutting action
> has a different cognitive status than the one in a hitting action, but I?m
> not sure). An ideal solution to me is coming up with a definition of
> semantic argument that can successfully accomplish this and also match
> (more) with our intuition (e.g. intuitively the four par
> ticipants involved in buy/sell are not equal in status).
>
>
>
> (As a side clarificatory note not truly related to the content of your
> message, semantic arguments are not necessarily tied with verbs, as
> event-denoting nouns, for example, may also require one or more semantic
> arguments.)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chao
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:56?AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu
> <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
> Hi Chao ? Yes, _buy_ and _sell_ have four semantic arguments (standard
> analysis since Fillmore (1982?) and Jackendoff (1990?) (citing from memory
> without having checked these specific works) and _cut_ has three.
>
> But the phrase ?formally realized as an oblique? seems problematic to me.
> In my view, there is no clear morphosyntactic difference between obliques
> and adjuncts except that a proper subset of obliques are more or less
> obligatory and to that extent could be argued to be subcategorized for by
> the verb (or governed by the verb, in the traditional (pre-GB) sense of
> ?government?).
>
> But this obligatoriness should in my view not be taken to be a
> definitional property, because that would cut out the vast majority of
> obliques, which are not obligatory, yet are semantically clearly not
> modifiers. And that is, afaik, the whole point of distinguishing between
> obliques and adjuncts: to capture the fact that the latter, but not the
> former, are modifiers.
>
> The primary difference between obliques and adjuncts is not
> morphosyntactic, but semantic. To be sure, it is never a happy outcome when
> semantic properties are needed to underpin morphosyntactic categories or
> vice versa. But the closer one gets to talking about form-meaning mapping,
> the harder it becomes to avoid such hybrid definitions.
>
> Time location specifications are usually treated as adjuncts = modifiers.
> One exception (among a few) is _last_ as in (1). Locatives are usually
> treated as adjuncts = modifiers. One exception (among a few) is _live_ as
> in (2). Motion verbs commonly take path obliques, as illustrated in (3):
>
>
> (1) The meeting lasted from 9am until 10:20.
>
> (2) Sally lived in Buffalo in those days.
>
> (3) Floyd went from the Dean?s office to the library.
>
> Finally, a puzzle: every event necessarily occupies a spacetime region. So
> (2) and (3) describe eventualities that we know must have occurred during
> particular moments in time, regardless of whether these are specified. So
> how then can we say that in those days in (2) is a modifier, whereas in
> Buffalo is an oblique? This is not at all a trivial problem. I could
> imagine treatments in which all time-positional and locative expressions
> are regarded as obliques. However, I would argue that is precisely the fact
> that all eventuality designators are by necessity compatible with spacetime
> specifications that limits the predictive power of the former for the
> occurrence of the latter.
>
> HTH! ? Juergen
>
> Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of
> Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Soeul: Hanshin. 111-137.
> Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
>
>
> 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: Chao Li <chao.li at aya.yale.edu<mailto:chao.li at aya.yale.edu>>
> Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 at 07:39
> To: Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>>
> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic
> adjuncts
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
>
>
> Thank you for all your information. If semantic arguments are participants
> predictable from the verb?s meaning (regardless of how they are overtly
> realized in real use), will buy and sell have four semantic arguments to
> you? Will cut have three?
>
>
>
> (Also, were you defining obliques as semantic arguments
> (morpho)syntactically realized as an oblique? Or were you intending such
> semantic arguments as a subset of obliques as far as formal realization is
> concerned? If the former, what would you call those expressions that
> denote, for example, time or location but are also formally realized as an
> oblique?)
>
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Chao
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:31?PM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu
> <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
> Dear Chao ? In theory, true adjuncts are modifiers, meaning they are not
> predictable based on the semantics of the verb. In contrast, obliques ?
> semantic arguments that are expressed like adjuncts ? must be predictable
> from the verb?s meaning. In practice, though, predictability is a matter of
> degree. For example, Koenig et al. (2008) show that English verbs form a
> continuum in terms of predicting an instrument. Regarding specifically
> verbs of cutting, Bohnemeyer (2007) compares the argument structure
> properties of such verbs across languages. ? Best ? Juergen
>
> Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical Transparency and the argument
> structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2):
> 153-177.
> Koenig, J.-P., G. Mauner, B. Bienvenue, & K. Conklin. (2008). What with?
> The anatomy of a role. Journal of Semantics 25(2): 175-220.
>
> 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<mailto:
> lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Chao Li via
> Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Date: Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 21:12
> To: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Distinction between semantic arguments and semantic
> adjuncts
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> The distinction between argument and adjunct is crucial for many
> linguistic analyses and much linguistic theorizing. However, how to define
> the argument and the adjunct and how to clearly distinguish between the two
> are controversial. Further complicating the issue is the existence of two
> related levels, semantic and (morpho)syntactic (e.g. what is semantically
> considered an argument may be (morpho)syntactically realized as an adjunct,
> as evidenced by passive formation in English). To be clear, this query is
> about the distinction between semantic arguments and semantic adjuncts (or
> semantic non-arguments). Specifically, in the case of verbs like buy and
> sell and in the context of a business transaction that generally involves a
> buyer, a seller, a transfer of goods, and a transfer of money, how many
> semantic arguments does each verb have, what are they, and what is the
> rationale behind the analysis? Similarly, in the case of cut, how many
> semantic arguments does it have and will that
> include the tool used in the cutting too? After all, isn?t the tool a
> necessary participant of the cutting action and how often do we cut
> something without using any tool? Likewise, how many semantic arguments in
> the case of bring?
>
>
>
> Particularly, without looking at the different syntactic frames and
> constructions where these verbs occur or without paying any attention to
> how they are really used, on what (semantic) grounds can we say that
> Participant X is an argument of buy, sell, cut, or bring or that
> Participant Y is an adjunct of the same verb? For colleagues who?d like to
> make a further distinction between core arguments and peripheral arguments
> in addition to the distinction between arguments and adjuncts, then the
> following questions arise. Namely, if without looking at the different
> syntactic frames and constructions where these verbs occur, on what
> (semantic) grounds can we say that Participant X is a core argument, a
> peripheral argument, or an adjunct (of buy, sell, cut, or bring) and what
> is the difference between a peripheral argument and an adjunct?
>
>
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much in advance for
> your time and help!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chao
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240709/4c98ebda/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:08:24 +0000
> From: Francesca Masini <francesca.masini at unibo.it>
> To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Evaluative morphology expressing
> "authenticity/prototypicality"
> Message-ID:
> <
> AM9PR01MB745776B31D7608C6695CDB3CE5DB2 at AM9PR01MB7457.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Lingtyp community,
>
> I?m looking for examples of evaluative word-formation processes
> (affixation, compounding, reduplication, etc.) conveying
> ?authenticity/prototypicality? (Grandi & K?rtv?lyessy 2015: 11). Some
> relevant examples would be:
>
> (1)
> Kwaza (van der Voort 2015: 608)
> kanwa-tete
> canoe-INT
> ?real canoe?
>
> (2)
> Warlpiri (Bowler 2015: 439)
> warna-nyayirni
> snake-AUG
> ?poisonous snake? [?[i]n central Australia, the characteristic of being
> poisonous or dangerous is a highly salient feature of many indigenous
> snakes?]
>
> (3)
> Kikuyu (Komu 2008: 50; quoted in Mattiola & Barotto 2023: 150)
> irio > irioirio
> ?food? > ?real food (not junk food)?
>
> I would be extremely grateful for your help!
>
> Best,
> Francesca
>
> REFERENCES
>
> Bowler, Margit. 2015. Warlpiri. In Nicola Grandi & Livia K?rtvelyessy
> (eds.), The Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 438?447.
> Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
>
> Grandi, Nicola & L?via K?rtvelyessy. 2015. Introduction: Why evaluative
> morphology? In Nicola Grandi & L?via K?rtvelyessy (Eds.), The Edinburgh
> handbook of evaluative morphology, 3-20. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
> Press.
>
> Komu, Mary W. 2008. An analysis of Gikuyu reduplication in the light of
> prosodic morphological approach. Nairobi: Kenyatta University MA thesis.
>
> Mattiola, Simone & Alessandra Barotto. 2023. Nominal reduplication in
> cross-linguistic perspective. From PLURALITY to CHANGE OF REFERENTS?
> SPECIFICITY. Studies in Language 47(1). 135?189.
>
> van der Voort, Hein. 2015. Kwaza. In Nicola Grandi& Livia K?rtvelyessy
> (eds.), The Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 606?615.
> Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> Prof. Francesca Masini
> Rector?s Delegate for Open Science and Research Data
> Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit? di Bologna
> Dipartimento di Lingue, Letterature e Culture Moderne (LILEC)
> Via Cartoleria 5, 40124 Bologna
> http://www.unibo.it/docenti/francesca.masini
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?
> Editor-in-chief of Constructions and Frames<
> https://benjamins.com/catalog/cf>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240709/c3dbcc23/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:20:10 -0700
> From: Larry M Hyman <hyman at berkeley.edu>
> To: Francesca Masini <francesca.masini at unibo.it>
> Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Evaluative morphology expressing
> "authenticity/prototypicality"
> Message-ID:
> <CAMQd4M1=b2DMXEV9gcjXzYqrqoA=
> BTrto4PPF+Fst8Xrm2JcFg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Francesca -
>
> Kinande has the same as Kikuyu. although my impression is that
> reduplication generally has the opposite meaning in Bantu language, "a
> lousy/defective example of X".
> I'm pasting in example from the following article, which dealt more with
> the form side of reduplication (including verb stem reduplication). If you
> want to see more let me know.
>
> Best, Larry
>
> Mutaka, Ngessimo & Larry M. Hyman. 1990. Syllable and morpheme integrity in
> Kinande reduplication.* Phonology *73-119.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:08?AM Francesca Masini via Lingtyp <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Lingtyp community,
> >
> >
> >
> > I?m looking for examples of evaluative word-formation processes
> > (affixation, compounding, reduplication, etc.) conveying
> > ?authenticity/prototypicality? (Grandi & K?rtv?lyessy 2015: 11). Some
> > relevant examples would be:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1)
> >
> > Kwaza (van der Voort 2015: 608)
> >
> > kanwa-tete
> >
> > canoe-INT
> >
> > ?real canoe?
> >
> >
> >
> > (2)
> >
> > Warlpiri (Bowler 2015: 439)
> >
> > warna-nyayirni
> >
> > snake-AUG
> >
> > ?poisonous snake? [?[i]n central Australia, the characteristic of being
> > poisonous or dangerous is a highly salient feature of many indigenous
> > snakes?]
> >
> >
> >
> > (3)
> >
> > Kikuyu (Komu 2008: 50; quoted in Mattiola & Barotto 2023: 150)
> >
> > irio > irioirio
> >
> > ?food? > ?real food (not junk food)?
> >
> >
> >
> > I would be extremely grateful for your help!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Francesca
> >
> >
> >
> > REFERENCES
> >
> > Bowler, Margit. 2015. Warlpiri. In Nicola Grandi & Livia K?rtvelyessy
> > (eds.), *The Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology*, 438?447.
> > Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
> >
> > Grandi, Nicola & L?via K?rtvelyessy. 2015. Introduction: Why evaluative
> > morphology? In Nicola Grandi & L?via K?rtvelyessy (Eds.), The Edinburgh
> > handbook of evaluative morphology, 3-20. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
> > Press.
> >
> > Komu, Mary W. 2008. An analysis of Gikuyu reduplication in the light of
> > prosodic morphological approach. Nairobi: Kenyatta University MA thesis.
> >
> > Mattiola, Simone & Alessandra Barotto. 2023. Nominal reduplication in
> > cross-linguistic perspective. From PLURALITY to CHANGE OF REFERENTS?
> > SPECIFICITY. *Studies in Language *47(1). 135?189.
> >
> > van der Voort, Hein. 2015. Kwaza. In Nicola Grandi& Livia K?rtvelyessy
> > (eds.), *The Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology*, 606?615.
> > Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
> >
> >
> >
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> > *Prof. Francesca Masini*
> > *Rector?s Delegate for Open Science and Research Data*
> >
> > Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit? di Bologna
> > Dipartimento di Lingue, Letterature e Culture Moderne (LILEC)
> > Via Cartoleria 5, 40124 Bologna
> >
> > http://www.unibo.it/docenti/francesca.masini
> >
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?
> > Editor-in-chief of *Constructions and Frames
> > <https://benjamins.com/catalog/cf>*
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
>
>
> --
> Larry M. Hyman, Distinguished Professor of the Graduate School
> & Director, France-Berkeley Fund, University of California, Berkeley
> https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240709/563e34fc/attachment.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 147717 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240709/563e34fc/attachment.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 118, Issue 10
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240709/e09dcefd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list