[Lingtyp] Optional determination?

Sun Sep 1 05:35:37 UTC 2024

It seems to me that "determiner" in Bloomfield's (1933) sense (where it 
basically referred to articles and demonstratives) and "determination" 
in the sense of semantics are two rather different things.

Many semanticists seem to think that one needs a syntactic determiner to 
turn a nominal expression into a referential expression, but of course, 
many languages lack both definite and indefinite articles (Grambank has 
1268 languages of this type: 
https://grambank.clld.org/combinations/GB020_GB021).

Like many other types of grammatical markers, articles are often 
optional. So I don't really see a basis for distinguishing between 
"maximal projection" and "non-maximal projection" in general terms. (And 
the idea that there is a single determiner slot seems to be based on 
English alone; even languages such as Greek and Spanish allow the 
cooccurrence of demonstratives and articles.)

Finally, the term "determination" has also been used in a more general 
sense, for all nominal modifiers, as in Trubetzkoy's "Le rapport entre 
le determiné, le determinant et le defini" (1939). All this makes it 
difficult to talk about these phenomena in such a way that we 
immediately understand what is meant.

Best,

Martin

On 31.08.24 19:57, Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp wrote:
>
> Thanks again, Christian. So I take your answer to be that optional 
> determination is (i) a thing (i.e., it exists) and (ii) does indeed 
> involve a categorical difference between determined and undetermined 
> phrases, on account of the latter, but not the former, being 
> compatible with determiners. This makes sense to me.
>
> But of course, even languages with obligatory determination 
> distinguish between weak and strong determiners, where only the latter 
> strictly exclude other determiners. So it remains to be seen what 
> kinds of determiners are strictly incompatible with other determiners 
> in languages with optional determination. Maybe Zygmunt’s book has the 
> answer to that question.
>
> 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 11:31
> *To: *LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Optional determination?
>
> 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>
>     <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
>     Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>     <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>     *Date: *Saturday, August 31, 2024 at 03:57
>     *To: *lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>     <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240901/c35fa5b9/attachment.htm>