[Lingtyp] Universal constraints on lexicalisation

[Martin Haspelmath]

Dear Masha and others,

In addition to "cognitive complexity", one may also consider frequency 
of use as constraining lexification.

For example, 'female wolf' is not more cognitively complex than 'female 
horse' (English /mare/, contrasting with /stallion/), but gender/sex is 
less commonly mentioned in connection with wild animals than with 
domestic animals, so English does not dislexify 'male wolf' and 'female 
wolf'.

In my 2023 /Frontiers/ paper, I suggested that some important 
lexification tendencies can be explained with reference to root length 
possibilities: Roots are typically 1-2 syllables long, so when a meaning 
is not frequent enough, it needs more syllables and hence multiple morphs:

Haspelmath, Martin. 2023. Coexpression and synexpression patterns across 
languages: Comparative concepts and possible explanations. /Frontiers in 
Psychology/ 14. (doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236853)

(The paper also cites David Gil's 1992 paper.)

Incidentally, it seems that "lexification" is clearer than 
"lexicalization", because the latter is used in multiple meanings (see 
my 2024 paper, §7: https://www.peren-revues.fr/lexique/1737).

Best,

Martin


On 01.02.25 12:40, David Gil via Lingtyp wrote:
> Hi Masha,
>
> Some examples from the semantic domain of quantification can be found 
> here:
>
> Gil, David (1992) "Scopal Quantifiers: Some Universals of Lexical 
> Effability", in M. Kefer and J. van der Auwera eds., /Meaning and 
> Grammar, Cross-Linguistic Perspectives/, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 
> 303-345.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:29 PM Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm via Lingtyp 
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I am involved in a handbook chapter in which I would like to give
>     a few examples of suggested universal constraints on
>     lexicalisation, e.g., those primarily concerning meanings that
>     should not be expressible in a word (a stem, root or whatever),
>     preferably not from the domain of colour terms. To give an
>     example, Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010) argue that no verb
>     encodes both manner and result simultaneously, which has been
>     contested by Beavers and Koontz-Garbodens.
>
>     Or,  a definition of a term covering both ‘father’ and ‘mother’s
>     brother’ would be cognitively very complex since it will require
>     disjunction (‘father’ or ‘mother’s brother’, cf. ‘male relative of
>     one’s patriline’ for ‘father’ and ‘father’s brother’) (Evans 2001)
>     – I don’t know if this constraint still holds.
>
>     Many thanks and all the best,
>     Masha
>
>     Prof. Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm
>     Dept. of linguistics, Stockholm university, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
>     Editor-in-chief of “Linguistic Typology”
>     President-Elect of Societas Linguistic Europaea
>     www.ling.su.se/tamm <http://www.ling.su.se/tamm>
>     tamm at ling.su.se
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lingtyp mailing list
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> -- 
> David Gil
>
> Senior Scientist (Associate)
> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
>
> Email:dapiiiiit at gmail.com
> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250201/4c144fd0/attachment.htm>