[Lingtyp] Optional determination?
Martin Haspelmath
martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
Mon Sep 2 12:34:50 UTC 2024
I certainly didn't want to "argue that determination is uninteresting
and not worthy of attention" – all I said was that we don't know how to
identify it cross-linguistically. Of course these phenomena are on our
agenda!
The "finiteness/determination" parallels are indeed intriguing, and it
is understandable that generative grammarians have often tried to
systematize them, e.g. by drawing parallels between DP and TP, between
KP and CP, and so on. (Parallels have also been noted in other
traditions, of course, e.g. in Functional Grammar by Rijkhoff.)
But it's also well-known that "finiteness" is not identifiable across
languages using uniform criteria (see e.g. Cristofaro 2007; Nikolaeva
2010), and this experience may be reason to be cautious when it comes to
"determination".
Now what about "weak determiners" and "strong determiners"? I wasn't
very familiar with this distinction, but I found the following in a 2014
lecture handout by Barbara Partee (
https://people.umass.edu/partee/HSE_Web_14/materials/HSE144.pdf
<https://people.umass.edu/partee/HSE_Web_14/materials/HSE144.pdf>):
Weak determiners: Determiners that can occur "normally" in existential
sentences (Milsark 1977): /a, some, one, two, three, …, at most/at
least/exactly/more than/nearly/only one,//two, three, …, many, how many,
a few, several, no /
Strong determiners: Determiners which cannot "normally" occur in
existential sentences:/every, each, the, all, most, both, neither, which
of the two, all but two/
These lists of forms, as well as the criterion (occurrence in
Existential Clauses) are English-specific, so it's unclear how these
notions could form the basis of a general approach to "determination".
Outside of formal semantics, forms meaning 'many' or 'all' are generally
regarded as quantifiers, not as determiners.
Jürgen Bohnemeyer also mentions "clitic possessive pronouns", but these
are not generally treated as determiners either (except in English, the
Bloomfieldian tradition).
So it seems that we need more terminological clarity in order to avoid
talking past each other.
Best,
Martin
On 01.09.24 16:18, Juergen Bohnemeyer wrote:
>
> Dear all – As I said before, languages vary in where they draw the
> line between weak and strong determiners. Weak ones are those that
> combine with other determiners, including strong determiners, whereas
> strong determiners combine only with weak ones. For example, Italian
> and Yucatec treat clitic possessive pronouns as weak determiners,
> whereas possessive pronouns are strong in most Germanic and Romance
> languages afaik.
>
> Martin seems to claim that in most languages (in fact, he seems to
> imply that it may be all languages save English), there is no
> distinction between weak and strong determiners, i.e., all determiners
> are weak.
>
> And here I am, not being aware of even a single example of such a
> language. Please release me from my ignorance, those who have the
> facts, whatever they may be.
>
> Lastly, Martin seems to want to argue that determination is
> uninteresting as a phenomenon and not worthy of the attention of
> typologists. Apologies if I’m overstating. But, fwiw., it seems to me
> that such questions of interest are matters of personal taste and it
> isn’t obvious to me what their role in scientific discourse should be.
>
> To me, the parallels between determination in the nominal domain and
> finiteness in the verbal domain have long been intriguing. In both
> cases, some languages have grammaticalized a rather robust contrast,
> others a more porose one, and yet others none at all. As long as we
> have no explanation for why this is, nor even a precise mapping of the
> relevant distributions, it seems to me that these phenomena are by
> necessity on the typological agenda, whether some of us like it or not.
>
> 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 Martin Haspelmath via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Sunday, September 1, 2024 at 01:35
> *To: *lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Optional determination?
>
> 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>
> <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 11:31
> *To: *LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> <mailto: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/
--
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/20240902/5e58de12/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list