[Lingtyp] Universal constraints on lexicalisation

Wed Feb 5 22:45:01 UTC 2025

 Dear Masha and all,

Thanks for sharing these thoughts about lexicalization. Along with
collaborators I've recently developed a project testing the hypothesis that
frequency influences lexicalization (ie the idea that Martin proposed). Our
results suggest that frequency predicts lexicalization better than do other
potential predictors such as concreteness.

An initial write up is here:

Khishigsuren et al. 2025. Usage frequency predicts lexicalization across
languages (preprint: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fqdjv_v1 )

I'd love to consider "cognitive complexity" as an alternative predictor but
am not sure how this might be operationalized. I do consider age of
acquisition, which seems related to complexity, but these two variables are
not quite the same. If anyone has thoughts about the best way to measure
complexity, please let me know.

Best,
Temuulen

PhD candidate
Complex Human Data Hub
University of Melbourne

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:12 AM Edith A Moravcsik via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:

> In Hungarian, too, the words for eggwhite and protein are the same. The
> word is* fehérje - *literally 'its white'.
>
> Edith Moravcsik
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Hartmut Haberland via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:11 PM
> *To:* Zygmunt Frajzyngier <zygmunt.frajzyngier at colorado.edu>; Maria Tamm <
> tamm at ling.su.se>
> *Cc:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Universal constraints on lexicalisation
>
>
> Another curious colexification in most forms of Standard German is
> *Eiweiß* meaning both protein and eggwhite. In some regional variants two
> distinct words exist, *Eiweiß* for protein and *Weißei* for white of egg,
> possibly due to contact with Polish, Czech and possibly Yiddish which all
> make a similar distinction.
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk>
> *Sendt:* 2. februar 2025 09:31
> *Til:* Zygmunt Frajzyngier <zygmunt.frajzyngier at colorado.edu>; Maria Tamm
> <tamm at ling.su.se>
> *Cc:* Östen Dahl <oesten at ling.su.se>; lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Emne:* Re: [Lingtyp] Universal constraints on lexicalisation
>
>
>
> Some interesting colexifications:
>
> Greek νύφη both sister- and daughter-in-law.
>
> German Schlagsahne both whipped cream and whipping cream (Danish flødeskum
> and piskefløde, resp.)
>
> German Tante and English aunt are both father’s sister, mother’s sister,
> wife of father’s brother and wife of mother’s brother, where Danish has
> faster, moster and (for the last two, but occasionally also loosely for all
> four) tante. German Tante can be used in at least two more, increasingly
> loose senses (female good friend of the parents, any unrelated female of
> the parents generation), but with some syntactic restrictions (*meine
> Tante).
>
> I am not sure if νύφη really is a colexification comparable to
> Schlagsahne, and not rather means ‘in-law of same or immediately younger
> generation’.
>
>
>
> Den 1. feb. 2025 kl. 17.39 skrev Zygmunt Frajzyngier via Lingtyp <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:
>
> 
>
> Dear all,
>
> In support of Östen’s note.
>
> In several Chadic languages the same lexical item denotes entities denoted
> by English ‘father’ and ‘mother’s brother’.
>
> Zygmunt
>
>
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Östen Dahl via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 9:18 AM
> *To: *lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Universal constraints on lexicalisation
>
> [External email - use caution]
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> With regard to the claim that 'father' and 'mother's brother' cannot be
> colexified, consider the following quotation from the Wikipedia article on
> "Matrilineality":
>
>
>
> "While a mother normally takes care of her own children in all cultures,
> in some matrilineal cultures an "uncle-father" will take care of his nieces
> and nephews instead: in other words *social fathers* here are uncles."
>
>
>
> That is, fathers and maternal uncles are similar in that they can both
> play the role of "social fathers"; it is not unthinkable that a language
> spoken in a society on the borderline between patrilineality and
> matrilineality will lexify the concept "social father". What this shows is
> that the criterion of cognitive complexity can lead you in the wrong
> direction. In fact, kinship terms sometimes unite relationships which are
> tricky to give a common definition, such as "brother-in-law" in English.
>
>
>
>    1. Östen
>
>
>
>
>
> *Från:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *För *Martin
> Haspelmath via Lingtyp
> *Skickat:* den 1 februari 2025 16:40
> *Till:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Ämne:* Re: [Lingtyp] Universal constraints on lexicalisation
>
>
>
> 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
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250206/0663bc08/attachment.htm>