text:
मुख्य Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung Morphology: an international..
Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung Morphology: an international handbook on inflection and word-formation (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and communication science, Ban
Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Stavros Skopeteas (editors)
Morphology is the study of linguistic forms, more precisely, of the inflected forms and stems of words. Consequently it is that part of grammar whose rules refer to units of at most word level. At the same time, it is also a part of the lexicon to the extent that complex stems are not formed regularly. The handbook informs the reader equally on fundamental concepts and theoretical approaches of the discipline and on morphological structures of diverse languages. Presupposing the current state of the art in morphology its goal is to represent this in a comprehensive fashion at a general level and to illustrate it with a sufficient number of examples. Priority is given to thorough explanation of established concepts and insights, complemented, if necessary, by an unbiased report on alternate problem solutions. Demonstration of contemporary trends and innovative approaches is more backgrounded.
Categories: Linguistics\\Linguistics
प्रकाशक: Walter de Gruyter
पन्ने: 1028 / 1038
डाउनलोड (pdf, 8.90 MB)
पुस्तक ऑनलाइन पढ़ें
morphological933
verbs895
noun879
nouns859
plural765
suffix724
semantic660
werden620
lexical615
auf588
sich583
grammatical581
grammar579
wird575
singular561
suffixes560
nicht559
durch532
sind496
vgl472
linguistics439
zur423
inflectional413
marking411
verbal395
marker388
sie388
tab387
morpheme384
einer376
nominal364
derivational354
syntactic353
passive348
sprachen344
hrsg338
morphemes326
pronouns318
morphologischer317
stems302
affixes300
adjectives288
quechua286
Towards a Global Tree Conservation Atlas: Mapping the Status and Distribution of the World's Threatened Tree Species (UNEP_WCMC biodiversity series)
a. C Newton
Alltagsleben nach 1945 : Die Nachkriegszeit am Beispiel der Stadt Göttingen
Maren Büttner, Sabine Horn
Morphologie / Morphology
HSK 17.2
Handbücher zur
Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft
Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science
Manuels de linguistique et
des sciences de communication
Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer (†)
Mitherausgegeben 1985⫺2001 von Hugo Steger
Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par
Herbert Ernst Wiegand
Band 17.2
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und
Wortbildung
An International Handbook on Inflection and
Word-Formation
Herausgegeben von / Edited by
Geert Booij · Christian Lehmann · Joachim Mugdan ·
Stavros Skopeteas
in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim
2. Halbband / Volume 2
앝 Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die
앪
US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt.
ISBN 3-11-017278-X
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet
über ⬍http://dnb.ddb.de⬎ abrufbar.
" Copyright 2004 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin.
Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der
engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das
gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und
Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Printed in Germany
Satz: META Systems GmbH, Wustermark
Druck: Tutte Druckerei GmbH, Salzweg
Einbandgestaltung und Schutzumschlag: Rudolf Hübler, Berlin
Inhalt / Contents
2. Teilband / Volume 2
Semantische Kategorien und Operationen in der
Morphologie I: Entitätsbegriffe
Semantic categories and operations in morphology I:
Entity concepts
J. Lachlan Mackenzie, Entity concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theo A. J. M. Janssen, Deixis and reference . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jeffrey Heath, Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Colette Grinevald, Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Gender and noun class . . . . . . . .
Peter Bakema & Dirk Geeraerts, Diminution and augmentation
José Luis Iturrioz-Leza & Stavros Skopeteas, Numerus . . . .
Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Mass and collection . . . . . . . . .
Barry Blake, Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fritz Serzisko, Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Morphologie II:
Sachverhalts-, Eigenschafts- und verwandte Begriffe
Semantic categories and operations in morphology II:
State-of-affairs, property and related concepts
Kees Hengeveld, State-of-affairs concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sandra A. Thompson, Property concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Charles J. Fillmore, Circumstance concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Martin Haspelmath & Thomas Müller-Bardey, Valency change .
Masayoshi Shibatani, Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ronny Boogaart, Aspect and Aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Östen Dahl, Tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kees Hengeveld, Illocution, mood, and modality . . . . . . . . . .
Ger P. Reesink, Interclausal relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. N. S. Bhat, Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pierluigi Cuzzolin & Christian Lehmann, Comparison and
gradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Morphologische Typologie und Universalien
Morphological typology and universals
Theodora Bynon, Approaches to morphological typology . . . .
John Haiman, Types of morphological structure . . . . . . . . . .
Sebastian Kempgen & Werner Lehfeldt, Quantitative Typologie .
Johannes Helmbrecht, Cross-linguistic generalizations and their
explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Systeme morphologischer Struktur: Sprachskizzen
Systems of morphological structure: Illustrative sketches
Andrew Spencer, English (Indo-European: Germanic) . . . . .
Elke Ronneberger-Sibold, Deutsch (Indogermanisch:
Germanisch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
† Danielle Corbin, Français (Indo-européen: Roman) . . . . . .
Helmut Jachnow, Russisch (Indogermanisch: Slawisch) . . . . .
Helena Kurzová, Altgriechisch (Indogermanisch) . . . . . . . .
Fred Karlsson, Finnish (Finno-Ugric) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yishai Tobin, Hebrew (Semitic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Armin Bassarak & Gerd Jendraschek, Türkisch (Turk) . . . . .
† Helma van den Berg, Hunzib (North-East Caucasian) . . . .
Margarita Wall & Igor Kanakin, Ketisch (Jenisseisch)
(Beispielanalyse: Heinrich Werner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Michael Fortescue, West Greenlandic (Eskimo) . . . . . . . . . .
Michael Fortescue, Koyukon (Athapaskan) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sandra Clarke & Marguerite MacKenzie, Montagnais/
Innu-aimun (Algonquian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maura Velázquez-Castillo, Guaranı́ (Tupi-Guaranı́) . . . . . . .
Michel Launey, Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Willem F. H. Adelaar, Quechua (Quechua) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doris L. Payne, Yagua (Peba-Yaguan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Tagalog (Austronesian) . . . . . . .
Peter Austin, Diyari (Pama-Nyungan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lourens de Vries, Wambon (Awyu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gerrit Dimmendaal & Manuela Noske, Turkana (Nilotic) . . .
Brigitte Reineke, Twi (Kwa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alexandre Kimenyi, Kinyarwanda (Bantu) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Valerij S. Panfilov, Vietnamesisch (Viet-Muong) (Übersetzung:
Holger Baumann & Martin Haspelmath) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Renate Fischer & Regina Leven, Deutsche Gebärdensprache .
Detlev Blanke, Plansprachen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Morphologischer Wandel I: Theoretische Probleme
Morphological change I: Fundamental issues
Geert Koefoed & Jaap van Marle, Fundamental concepts . . . . . 1574
Scott DeLancey, Grammaticalization: from syntax to
morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1590
† Wolfgang U. Wurzel, Morphologisierung: von der Phonologie
zur Morphologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jeroen van de Weijer, Analogical change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alwin Fill, Remotivation and reinterpretation . . . . . . . . . . .
Hans Sauer, Lexicalization and demotivation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Suzanne Romaine, Change in productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Norbert Boretzky, Morphologische Entlehnung und
Lehnübersetzung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pieter Muysken, Pidginization, creolization, and language death
Brian D. Joseph, Morphological reconstruction . . . . . . . . . .
Morphologischer Wandel II: Fallstudien
Morphological change II: Case studies
Klaus Faiß, From Old English to Modern English . . . . . . .
Hans-Joachim Solms, Vom Althochdeutschen zum
Neuhochdeutschen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Franz Rainer, From Latin to French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
George Cardona, From Vedic to modern Indic languages . .
Edwin G. Pulleyblank, From Archaic Chinese to Mandarin .
Kees Versteegh, From Classical Arabic to the modern Arabic
vernaculars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peter Mühlhäusler, Tok Pisin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1668
Psycholinguistische Perspektiven
Psycholinguistic perspectives
Hartmut Günther, Mentale Repräsentation morphologischer
Strukturen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jean Aitchison, Speech production and perception . . . . . . . . . .
† Victoria A. Fromkin, Speech errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eve V. Clark & Ruth A. Berman, First language acquisition . . .
Peter Jordens, Second language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chris Schaner-Wolles & Wolfgang U. Dressler, Sprachstörungen
Morphologie in der Praxis
Morphology in practice
Ursula Wiesemann, Field work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christian Lehmann, Interlinear morphemic glossing . . . . .
Christian Lehmann & Elena Maslova, Grammaticography
Howard Jackson, Lexicography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Walter Daelemans, Computational linguistics . . . . . . . . .
Morphologie und Nachbardisziplinen
Morphology and related fields
Rüdiger Harnisch & Damaris Nübling, Namenkunde . . . . . . . . 1901
Elmar Seebold, Etymologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910
Hartmut Günther, Schriftsysteme . . . . . . . . . . .
Jeanette M. Pugh & Juan C. Sager, Terminology in
languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reiner Schmidt, Sprachunterricht . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1915
Verzeichnisse und Sprachenkarten
Indices and language maps
Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen / List of abbreviations
Sprachenkarten / Language maps . . . . . . . . . . . .
Namenregister / Index of names . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sprachenregister / Index of languages . . . . . . . . . .
Sachregister / Index of subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Morphologie als Disziplin
Morphology as a discipline
Wolfgang U. Wurzel, Der Gegenstand der Morphologie . . . . . .
Paul Salmon, The term morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vladimir A. Plungian, Die Stellung der Morphologie im
Sprachsystem (Übersetzung: Robert Hammel) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geschichte der morphologischen Forschung I:
von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert
History of morphological research I:
From antiquity to the 19th century
Jeremy Black, The Ancient Near East . . . . . .
George Cardona, Old Indic grammar . . . . . .
Robert H. Robins, Classical Antiquity . . . . .
Jonathan Owens, Traditional Arabic grammar
Vivien Law, The Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . .
Von der Renaissance bis ca. 1800 . . . . . . . . .
Sabine Ziegler, Das 19. Jahrhundert . . . . . . .
Geschichte der morphologischen Forschung II:
Forschungstraditionen im 20. Jahrhundert
History of morphological research II:
Research traditions in the 20th century
Clemens Knobloch, Schulgrammatik als Modell linguistischer
Beschreibung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Henry M. Hoenigswald, Historical-comparative grammar . . . . .
Überblick: die europäische Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sebastian Kempgen, Osteuropa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Françoise Kerleroux, France and Switzerland (Translation:
Rachel Pankhurst) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Even Hovdhaugen, Scandinavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Francis Katamba, Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wolfgang Motsch, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Henk Schultink, The Netherlands (Translation: Geert Booij)
John Fought, American Structuralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ruth M. Brend, Tagmemics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Aronoff, Generative grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pierre Swiggers, Linguistic sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jaap van Marle, Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations . . .
José Luis Iturrioz Leza & Stavros Skopeteas, Variation und
Invarianz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laurie Bauer, Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
William Croft, Lexical and grammatical meaning . . . . . . .
Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Category and feature . . . . . .
Linda R. Waugh & Barbara A. Lafford, Markedness . . . . .
John Haiman, Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wolfgang U. Dressler, Naturalness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ferenc Kiefer, Regularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geert Koefoed & Jaap van Marle, Productivity . . . . . . . .
Die Rolle der Morphologie in Grammatik und
The role of morphology in grammar and lexicon
Andrew Spencer, Morphology and syntax . . . . . . . . . . .
Geert Booij, Morphology and phonology . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Aronoff, Morphology between lexicon and grammar
Pius ten Hacken, Derivation and compounding . . . . . . .
Geert Booij, Inflection and derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Einheiten der morphologischen Struktur
Units of morphological structure
Joan Bybee, Lexical, morphological and syntactic symbolization
Hans Basbøll, Word boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joel A. Nevis, Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rochelle Lieber & Joachim Mugdan, Internal structure of words
Elena S. Kubrjakova, Submorphemische Einheiten (Übersetzung
und Bearbeitung: Joachim Mugdan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Edmund Gussmann & Bogdan Szymanek, Phonotactic
properties of morphological units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Henning Bergenholtz & Joachim Mugdan, Nullelemente in der
Morphologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Allomorphie
Allomorphy
Hans Christian Luschützky, Morphem, Morph und Allomorph .
Martin Neef, Phonologische Konditionierung . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Martin Neef, Morphologische und syntaktische Konditionierung
Henriette Walter, Fluctuation and free variation (Translation:
Marie Landick) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tsutomu Akamatsu, Generalized representations . . . . . . . . . . .
Edmund Gussmann, Underlying forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Igor Mel'čuk, Suppletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formale Prozesse
Formal processes
Igor Mel'čuk, Morphological Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christopher J. Hall, Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation
Edith A. Moravcsik, Infixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ellen Broselow, Transfixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Caroline Wiltshire & Alec Marantz, Reduplication . . . . . . . .
Rochelle Lieber, Substitution of segments and features . . . . . .
Thomas Becker, Metathesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wolfgang U. Dressler, Subtraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Larry M. Hyman & William R. Leben, Suprasegmental
processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Lexeme, word-form, paradigm .
Aleksandr V. Bondarko, Meaning vs. use in inflection . . . . .
Richard Coates, Exponence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Inflection classes . . . . . . . . . .
Silvia Luraghi, Synkretismus (Übersetzung: Simona Fabellini)
Fred Karlsson, Defectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Martin Haspelmath, Periphrasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Word classes
Kjell-Åke Forsgren, Wortart, syntaktische Funktion, syntaktische
Kategorie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clemens Knobloch & Burkhard Schaeder, Kriterien für die
Definition von Wortarten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Barbara Kaltz, Wortartensysteme in der Linguistik . . . . .
Nicholas Evans, Word classes in the world's languages . . .
Christian Lehmann & Edith Moravcsik, Noun . . . . . . . .
D. N. S. Bhat & Regina Pustet, Adjective . . . . . . . . . . .
Joseph H. Greenberg, Numeral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Linda Schwartz, Pronoun and article . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joan Bybee, Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John M. Anderson, Auxiliary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Casper de Groot, Minor word classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wortbildung I: Grundprobleme
Word formation I: Fundamental problems
Laurie Bauer, System vs. norm: coinage and institutionalization
Wiecher Zwanenburg, Correspondence between formal and
semantic relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jacob Hoeksema, Compositionality of meaning . . . . . . . . . .
Geert Booij, Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Claudio Iacobini, Base and direction of derivation . . . . . . . .
Franz Rainer, Produktivitätsbeschränkungen . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wortbildung II: Prozesse
Word formation II: Processes
Wolfgang Fleischer, Die Klassifikation von
Wortbildungsprozessen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Susan Olsen, Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marianne Mithun, Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bernd Naumann & Petra M. Vogel, Derivation . . . . . . . . . .
Jan Don & Mieke Trommelen & Wim Zonneveld, Conversion
and category indeterminacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Garland Cannon, Blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Charles W. Kreidler, Clipping and acronymy . . . . . . . . . . .
Philip Baldi & Chantal Dawar, Creative processes . . . . . . . .
XIII. Semantische Kategorien und Operationen
in der Morphologie I: Entitätsbegriffe
Semantic categories and operations in
morphology I: Entity concepts
94. Entity concepts
Four orders of entities
The hypostatization of qualities
Morphological signalling of orders of
First-order entities
Higher-order entities
Hypostatized qualities
The cognitive structure of a situation can be
described as a set of ⫺ possibly imaginary or
abstract ⫺ entities and a set of static or dynamic relations between them. In this article
we shall be concerned with the orders of entities that are distinguished in natural languages and the main categories of entity concepts which can be marked morphologically.
The article will thus serve partially as a
preparation for articles 95⫺103, which deal
with various subcategorizations of entity and
their morphological consequences.
The situations to which entities belong are
invoked linguistically through the co-operative, interpersonal process of reference. Reference involves a fourfold relation between a
speaker S, an addressee A, a referent (or set
of referents) E, and a referring expression R:
{S, A, E, R}. The referents referred to by a
speaker are not phenomena of the real world,
but "mental phenomena", phenomena in the
mental world. They are introduced into the
ongoing discourse, and referred to and talked
about irrespective of their status in reality. Illusory, hallucinatory or imaginary phenomena can in principle be talked about just as
easily as veridical phenomena, i.e. those corresponding to phenomena in the real world,
and without any consequences for the form
of the referring expression itself.
What is more, the linguistic codification of
reality is often at odds with phenomena in
the real world. One of the most striking aspects of this disparity is the linguistic distinction between countable and uncountable referents, a distinction to which we shall have
occasion to return in 6 (see also Art. 101).
There is ultimately no basis in external reality
for this opposition: to give but one example,
the English collective furniture denotes an uncountable entity yet corresponds to a plurality of entities in the real world (chairs, tables,
bookcases, etc.).
All such referents, be they real or imaginary, countable or uncountable, will in this
chapter be termed entities. "Entity" will thus
here be used to identify the mental unit E
that the speaker S, by using a referring expression R, wishes the addressee A to either
construe (in the case of first mention) or reidentify (in the case of subsequent mention)
⫺ for details, see Dik (1989: 114). This approach entails a broader understanding of
the word entity than is normal in ordinary
discourse since, as Lyons (1977: 297 f.) points
out for pre-theoretical use, "'entity' ... covers
only countable nouns ... [and there] is no lexeme which is superordinate to all abstract
nouns, or all concrete nouns, or all mass
nouns, or all the members of any of the major subclasses of nouns ...". In this article,
however, entity will be employed, in a manner that has become standard practice in linguistics, in the general sense outlined above.
This having been said, it should be pointed
out that speakers can also refer to phenomena that are not entities. In a sentence such
as (1):
(1) The South of France was where I spent
my summer.
the South of France and my summer are referring expressions that identify a place and a
period of time, respectively. As argued in
Mackenzie (1992), places are in the ontology
of the mental world distinct from entities (see
also Lyons 1977: 693). One argument for
making this distinction is that the standard
definition of physical objects, which represent the most basic order of entity (see 2) involves their being located in space, i.e. at
some place (Lyons 1977: 443; Dik 1989: 181).
If places were entities, the definition would
then be circular. Strawson (1959: 37), too, insists that entities and places are not only distinct but also mutually defining:
"[P]laces are defined only by the relations of things;
and ... one of the requirements for the identity of a
material thing is that its existence, as well as being
continuous in time, should be continuous in
space." (Strawson 1959: 37)
As is indeed also apparent from this quotation, expressions like my summer in (1),
which identify a time, similarly do not refer
to an entity. And analogous remarks apply to
those expressions, such as very badly in (2),
which identify the manner in which an action
is carried out:
(2) The way the children behaved was very
badly.
Although such referents as those discussed in
the preceding paragraph are non-entities (a
fact which has a number of grammatical consequences ⫺ see Mackenzie 1992), there is
nevertheless a tendency for places, times, and
manners to be treated linguistically as though
they were entities. This process, known as hypostatization, allows qualities, i.e. properties
of entities, themselves to be reinterpreted
(and consequently linguistically handled) as
entities (see 3).
The focus of the present chapter will be
on a typology of entity which can be marked
morphologically, generally by processes of
word formation. Since entity concepts are
predominantly designated by nouns (but see
2), this chapter will be fundamentally concerned with processes of nominalization
across the languages of the world. It behooves us first to present a typology of entities; we shall then progress to an examination
of the morphological indicators of the various orders of entity.
XIII. Entitätsbegriffe
Lyons (1977: 442⫺447) presents a three-way
typology of entities, which refines the traditional distinction between concrete and abstract nouns (cf. also Art. 73):
⫺ Entities of the first order are physical objects, i.e. persons, animals, and things.
"[U]nder normal conditions, they are relatively constant as to their perceptual
properties; ... they are located, at any
point in time, in what is, psychologically
at least, a three-dimensional space; and ...
they are publicly observable" (Lyons
1977: 443). First-order entities are evaluated in terms of their existence.
⫺ Entities of the second order are "events,
processes, states-of-affairs, etc., which are
located in time and which, in English, are
said to occur or take place, rather than
to exist" (Lyons 1977: 443). Second-order
entities are evaluated in terms of their reality.
⫺ Entities of the third order are "such abstract entities as propositions, which are
outside space and time" (Lyons
1977: 443). Third-order entities are evaluated in terms of their truth.
To this tripartition we may add, following
Hengeveld (1992: 7), a fourth order of entities, which comprises speech acts. Fourthorder entities are located in space and time,
and are evaluated in terms of their felicity.
The following table gives an overview of the
four orders of entity, with examples of corresponding nouns in English:
evaluation examples
second reality
woman, tortoise, nose,
arrival, error, excursion,
belief, idea, fact, hope
statement, question,
Tab. 94.1: Orders of entities
Correspondingly, Lyons (1977: 446) refers to
a noun such as woman as a first-order noun,
arrival as a second-order noun, etc. Firstorder nouns are universally regarded as the
prototypical examples of the category of
nouns. This is reflected, for example, in the
fact that most higher-order nouns are syn-
chronically or at least diachronically complex
in their morphology. Moreover, whereas
first-order entities are in general identified
exclusively by nouns, second- and third-order
entities are also referred to by embedded
clauses, and fourth-order entities by quoting
direct speech.
Consider now (3), in which both firstorder entities referred to are designated by a
noun, boy and goat respectively:
(3) The boy looked at the goat.
In Iroquoian languages, by contrast, there
are few true nouns (cf. Sasse 1988). Here, it
frequently occurs that first-order entities,
too, are referred to by embedded clauses, as
in (4) from Tuscarora, the translational
equivalent of (3):
(4) Ra-kwá:tihs wa-hr-Ø-atkáhto-?
m.sbj-young past-m.sbj-obj-look.at-pnct
ka-téksr-ahs.
n.sbj-stink-impf
'The boy looked at the goat. (lit. He is
young, he looked at it, it stinks.)' (Mithun
Williams 1976: 32)
Tuscarora, it should be said, represents in
this respect an extreme type across the languages of the world (cf. Hengeveld 1992: 69).
The possibility of choosing, in reference to
higher-order entities, between nominal and
clausal expression is familiar from many languages. Consider such pairs as (5a) and (5b),
or (6a) and (6b):
(5) (a) I witnessed John refuse the offer.
(b) I witnessed John's refusal of the offer.
(6) (a) I heard that John had refused the offer.
(b) I heard about John's refusal of the offer.
In (5a), the second-order entity, the event of
John's refusing the offer, is presented as a
(non-finite) clause, but in (5b) as a noun
phrase; similarly, in (6a) the third-order entity, the fact of John's refusing the offer, is
presented as a (finite) clause, but in (6b) as
a noun phrase (identical to the noun phrase
in (5b)).
Languages differ from one another in the
extent to which nominalizations, such as refusal in (5b) and (6b), can be involved in reference to higher-order entities. Mackenzie
(1987) distinguishes four "degrees of nominalization" in the 30-language sample he examines:
Degree 1: partial deverbalization, i.e. the
loss of otherwise expected verbal proper-
ties or their replacement by indicators of
embedded or dependent status;
Degree 2: external trappings of noun phrase
status, i.e. some indication (e.g. adpositions, affixes) of the semantic, syntactic or
pragmatic function of the referring expression;
Degree 3: optional presence of a possessor or
some other dependent term within the referring expression;
Degree 3 (optional): optional or required presence of term operators, i.e. articles, demonstratives, etc. within the referring expression;
Degree 4: high degree of nouniness, i.e. optional presence of adjectives, gender,
countability.
The four degrees of nominalization identified
by Mackenzie (1987) can be presented as an
implicational hierarchy, in the sense that any
language displaying the characteristics of degree n also displays the characteristics of degree n-1:
(7) nouniness (> operators) > possessor/dependent > function marking > deverbalization
Even across languages that display the same
degree of nominalization, there may be considerable differences in the uses to which nominalizations with reference to higher-order
entities are put in discourse. Whereas nominalizations in English are typically used
in reference to discoursally backgrounded
events, facts, etc., Nichols (1988) has shown
that Russian (also a degree 4 language)
readily nominalizes asserted, foregrounded
information, such that a literal translation
into English, preserving Russian nominalizations as English ones, yields prose that fails
to get the point across (because the English
reader assumes that the nominalized material
is backgrounded).
What is more, within one and the same
language, different registers may employ nominal reference to higher-order entities to different extents: in German, for example, officialese makes frequent use of the "Nominalstil", as in (8):
(8) Zur Wiederholung der Aufführung dieses
Stückes ist von unserer Seite keine Veranlassung gegeben.
The same ideas can be expressed without any
use of higher-order nouns such as Wiederholung, Aufführung, and Veranlassung:
(9) Wir sehen uns nicht veranlaßt, dieses
Stück noch einmal aufzuführen. (example
adapted from Duden 1965: 456)
In one and the same language, there may be
a range of strategies for reference to higherorder entities that recapitulates the implicational hierarchy shown in (7) above. In English, for example, it has been recognized at
least since Ross (1973) that there is a nouniness squish in this area which leads from fully
verbal to fully nominal expression, through
three kinds of gerund (V-ing) with a partially
verbal, partially nominal character:
(10) (a) That John refused the offer (came as
a great surprise).
(b) John refusing the offer ...
(c) John's refusing the offer ...
(d) John's refusing of the offer ...
(e) John's refusal of the offer ...
In (10a) and (10b), both arguments of refuse,
namely John (Agent) and the offer (Patient),
are obligatory, in (10c) only the Patient is
grammatically required, and in (10d) and
(10e) neither argument is required (cf. Art. 83
on the optionality of inherited arguments). In
(10a), the verb can have all finiteness, tense,
and aspect properties, whereas in (10b) and
(10c) only the tense opposition between Past
(having refused) and Unspecified (refusing) is
possible; (10d) and (10e) cannot take any
marking for verbal categories. As for markers
of nouniness, these are completely lacking in
(10a); (10b) can be associated with a preposition (surprised about John refusing the offer;
cf. Degree 2 above); (10c) accepts a demonstrative (that refusing the offer of John's; cf.
Degree 3 (optional) above); (10d) allows a
definite article (the/*a refusing of the offer),
adjectives, and relative clauses; and (10e), finally, shows all the characteristics of a noun
phrase (cf. Degree 4). Thus, in terms of argument inheritance, deverbalization, and nominalization proper, there is clear evidence of a
gradual transition.
Whereas the relationship between a verb
such as refuse and a noun such as refusal is
clearly a matter of derivational morphology,
the question arises whether the English gerund should be regarded as displaying inflectional or derivational morphology. This has
been a matter of some dispute (cf. the discussion in Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 263⫺266):
Anderson (1985: 163) regards -ing nominalization, involving as it does a shift in word
class, as a "derivational formation", whereas
Bybee (1985: 85), pointing to the lexical generality of -ing attachment, considers the morpheme to be inflectional. There is a basis for
solving the dispute in the work of Booij
(1993), who makes a precise distinction between contextual inflection, which is induced
by the syntactic context of the word, and inherent inflection, i.e. inflection not so induced (see also Art. 38). Cases of inherent inflection combine the property of lexical generality with the possibility of meaning change
(as in plural, comparative/superlative, and
tense morphology) and/or change in syntactic
category (as in the formation of infinitives,
which are at once verbal and nominal, or
participles, which are simultaneously verbal
and adjectival). In this light, we may regard
the English gerund, too, as an instance of inherent inflection. As Booij (1993: 31) points
out, whereas there is a sharp distinction between contextual and inherent inflection, the
difference between inherent inflection and
derivation is gradual: this fact is again demonstrated in the gradual, "squishy" transition
from refuse through refusing to refusal.
To summarize, we recognize a basic fourorder typology of entities. The referring expressions that are used to identify first-order
entities are in almost all languages built
around nouns; those used to identify higherorder entities in many languages take the
form of embedded clauses, although both
within and across languages there are differences in the extent to which there are nominalization processes available whereby reference to those entities may also be constructed
around nouns. The nominalizing morphemes
involved may be examples of inherent inflection or derivation.
Corresponding to each of the four orders of
entities, we may also recognize four orders of
qualities (for some discussion, see Weigand
1990: 100 f.). As mentioned above, qualities
are not entities and indeed their basic expression is not as nouns; rather, they are signalled
in the first instance by adjectives in those languages that possess that category or, where
adjectives are lacking, by verbs. Nevertheless,
languages have developed nominalization
strategies which enable qualities to be talked
about as though they were entities. This hypostatization of qualities falls under what
Halliday (1985) recognizes as grammatical
metaphor: alongside (11a), which Halliday
would term "congruent", in that the quality
is expressed adjectivally, we also find (11b),
which is its "metaphorical" equivalent and
which, in the nominalization height (from
high), expresses the quality in nominal, "reified" form:
(11) (a) The Empire State Building is higher
than the Chrysler Building.
(b) The height of the Empire State Building exceeds that of the Chrysler
First-order entities (persons, things, and animals) have qualities that we may refer to as
attributes; hypostatized examples include the
height of the Empire State Building, the temperature of a liquid, the number of a crowd,
the colour of a squirrel. Second-order entities
(situations or "states of affairs"; cf. Art. 104)
are qualified in terms of their circumstances:
these include such qualities as their location
in place and time, the manner in which they
are conducted, as well as, where relevant, the
frequency with which they occur, e.g. the
venue of a football match, the time of a
train's arrival, the carelessness of a music performance, the rate of a heartbeat. Thirdorder entities are qualified in terms of their
(epistemic) status, e.g. the plausibility of a
belief, the truth of a proposition. And fourthorder entities, finally, have qualities of style,
e.g. the appropriacy of a question, the imperiousness of an order. The following table
gives an overview of the four orders of hypostatized quality, with examples of corresponding nouns in English:
temperature, number,
second circumstance venue, time, carelessness
plausibility, truth
fourth style
appropriacy, imperiousness
Tab. 94.2: Orders of hypostatized qualities
On the basis of the typologies of entities and
hypostatized qualities presented here, we
shall now turn to an examination of the mor-
phological marking of nouns around which
expressions referring to entities and qualities
can be constructed.
Morphological signalling of orders
of entities
4.1. Basic functions and extensions
Across the languages of the world, we find
morphemes that have been specialized as
markers of derived nouns for entities of the
first, second, and third orders and for hypostatized second-order qualities. Among the
types of first-order entities morphologically
signalled in this way are Agents, Patients,
and Instruments; the relevant second-order
entities include actions, events, and states;
and the third-order entities are generally facts
and propositions. The hypostatized secondorder qualities are notably places, manners,
and times. What of fourth-order entities and
hypostatized first-, third-, and fourth-order
qualities? Although these are frequently denoted by nominalizations (cf. statement from
the verb state, or appropriacy from the adjective appropriate), cross-linguistically there
seem not to be regular, productive morphological procedures for their derivation.
Before we progress to a more detailed examination of the various orders and types,
however, it is well to note that many morphemes specialized for one order of entity
can also be used in contexts where they are
to be interpreted as referring to another kind
of entity. Generally, such reinterpretations,
which may diachronically lead to actual
shifts of meaning, work from higher to lower
order. Thus, the English morpheme -ation is
a marker of third-order status:
(12) I was most surprised by his resignation.
Yet it can be reinterpreted as designating a
second-order entity (an event) or a first-order
entity (a thing):
(13) (a) I was present at his resignation.
(b) His resignation was lying on the table
for everyone to read.
Similarly, in Dutch, the infinitive ending -en
signals a second-order entity, but can in particular contexts also be used for first-order
entities:
(14) (a) Na het et-en ging-en
after the eat-inf go:past-pl we
wandel-en.
walk-inf
'After the meal we went for a walk.'
(b) Snel, het et-en word-t
quick the eat-inf become-pres.3.sg
koud.
'Quick, the food is getting cold.'
In Yagua (Payne & Payne 1990: 352 f.), too,
the second-order "action nominalization",
which in the Cahocuma dialect has the
marker -janu, is open to reinterpretation as a
first-order or quality noun; some examples:
(15) vı́cha 'live'
> vı́chajanu 'living'
ray-vı́cha-janu-mu (ravyı́cha˛a˛numu)
'1.sg-live-nr-loc (to my village)'
(⫽ reinterpretation as Place)
(16) nicyee 'speak'
> nicyee-janu 'speaking'
jiy-nicyee-janu (jiñnicyeejanu)
'2.sg-speak-nr (your language)'
(⫽ reinterpretation as Patient)
What we in general do not find is that
markers specialized to indicate lower-order
entities have meaning extensions to higherorder entities.
We thus may not assume a one-to-one relationship between morphological form and
order of entity. But even within one and the
same order, the reading of a nominalization
is not predictable from its form. Consider the
English second-order nouns washing and
ironing; these can also be found as first-order
nouns, but then washing has two readings, as
Intended Patient ('clothes that are to be
washed') or as Affected Patient ('clothes that
have been washed'), whereas ironing as a
first-order noun only has the Intended Patient sense ('clothes that are to be ironed').
Nevertheless, it remains possible to state
for English, for example, that -ing is fundamentally a marker of higher-order entities
and -er a marker of first-order entities, and
for Yagua that it is basically to second-order
entities that -janu, which also functions as an
infinitive, is suffixed. It is in this spirit that
the following sections will deal with the morphological marking across languages of types
of first-order entities nameable by means of
nominalizations (see 5); types of second- and
third-order entities (see 6); and types of hypostatized qualities (see 7).
4.2. Generalized nominalizing markers
Let us first, however, consider instances of
generalized nominalizing markers that appear
to be (largely) neutral as the order or type of
entity they indicate. In Acehnese, as described by Durie (1985: 145⫺149), there is an
infix -eun- which is a very general nominalizer, giving a large range of meanings (but
apparently excluding Agent):
(17) (a) hëy 'call out to' > neuhëy 'the act of
calling out' (2nd order; Instance)
(b) noh 'put in stocks' > neunoh 'stocks'
(hypostatized quality; Place)
(c) karom
'brood'
keunarom
'brooded over eggs' (1st order;
Affected Patient)
(d) krut 'scrape' > keuneurut 'dung-hoe'
(1st order; Instrument)
(e) pheuet 'carve' > peuneuheuet 'a
carving' (1st order; Effected Patient)
In Mangarayi (Merlan 1982: 172 f.) the suffix
-yin/-jin/-njin yields either higher-order nouns
or first-order Agents, so that nuj⫹bu-njin
may be understood as 'deception' or 'deceiver' and nuñja-jin as 'mockery' or
'mocker'. In Albanian (Camaj 1984: 79), too,
there is a suffix -esë- which gives meanings
ranging across various types of entity:
(18) (a) shtoj 'expand' > shtesëa 'expansion'
(2nd order)
(b) fshij 'sweep' > fshesëa 'broom' (1st
order; Instrument)
(c) kthej 'turn' > kthesëa 'turn, curve,
bend' (hypostatized quality; Place)
In all of these cases, the nominalizer does not
contribute any meaning, merely indicating
the occurrence of a change of category. The
appropriate interpretation of the nominalization is established either by convention or by
pragmatic inference.
The major types of first-order entity marked
morphologically as such are Agent, Instrument, and Patient. It is possible for a language to have one marker for all types of
first-order entity. Such a language is Babungo
(Schaub 1985: 244 f.), in which the prefix
Ǹ- can indicate an Agent, Instrument or Patient:
(19) (a) káy 'fry' > nkáy 'frier, person frying' (Agent)
(b) tèe 'dig' > ntèe 'digging stick' (Instrument)
(c) shán 'chew' > nshán 'food' (Patient)
More frequently, however, languages have
separate marking for different types of firstorder entity.
5.1. Agent
Many languages have nominalizing markers
that yield names for Agents. Typically, these
morphemes are also found on names for
other comparable roles, such as the sole participant in a Process (Processed) or in a State
(Theme); hence the proposal to rename nomina agentis as "subject names" (Bauer 1983;
Booij 1986) or "first-argument names" (Mackenzie 1990). One such morpheme is -ni in
Pipil (Campbell 1985: 49):
(20) (a) ehku- 'arrive' > ekhu-ni 'arriver; ladino, foreigner' (Agent)
(b) miki- 'die' > miki-ni 'dier; dead person' (Processed)
(c) kuchi- 'sleep' > kuchi-ni 'sleeper;
sleepyhead' (Theme)
Some languages have different morphemes
according as the Agent is male or female: in
French for example, the suffix -eur is used for
a male Agent and -euse for a female one; in
Dutch, the female equivalent of the male
Agent suffix -er is -ster:
(21) schrijv-en 'write' > schrijv-er 'male
writer'; schrijf-ster 'female writer'
Occasionally, languages will show a subcategorization of the Agent type for tense/aspect, frequency, polarity, etc. In Hixkaryana
(Derbyshire 1979: 167), the suffix -xenyeno
indicates the intransitive-subject (or transitive-object) of a recently performed action:
thus enuxenyeno, from onu- 'be born' is a
'newborn baby'. In West Greenlandic
(Fortescue 1984: 319) we find special suffixes for a Frequent Agent (-gajuuq), a Skilled
Agent (-llaamak), and a Début Agent
(-qqaaq). And Hixkaryana (Derbyshire 1979 :
167 f.), finally, has a Negative-Agent suffix
-hInI:
(22) I-manho-hInI
general.prefix-dance-neg.agnr
'one who doesn't dance, a non-dancer'
Many languages make a distinction between
Essential and Contingent Agent names. Essential Agent names typically designate professions, whereas Contingent names are used
to refer to individuals performing the action
on one or more specific occasions. Yagua
(Payne & Payne 1990: 354 f.), for example,
marks an Essential Agent with -ra and a
Contingent Agent with -nù:
(23) dapuuy 'hunt' > dapuuy-nù (dapúúñu)
'hunter on a specific occasion; one who
is hunting'
dapuuy-ra (dapuurya) '(professional)
In English, the distinction is not marked in
the Agent suffix (-er), but occasionally in accent placement (see Mackenzie 1990: 137):
(24) underTAKE > underTAKer of risky projects (Contingent)
UNdertaker ('funeral director': Essential)
The difference is also manifest in the greater
ease with which the Essential Agent enters
into synthetic compounds:
(25) (a) He is by profession an opera-singer/
*singer of operas (Essential)
(b) He is an occasional singer of arias/
?aria-singer (Contingent)
5.2. Instrument
Another role frequently named by means of
derivational morphology is Instrument. In
English, the suffix -er, used for Contingent
and Essential Agents, is also the marker of
Instruments (starter, nail clipper, etc.); for discussion of the overlap of Agent/Instrument
morphology, see Dressler (1986). In French,
the Instrument suffix -euse is homophonous
with the female Agent such that moissonneuse, from the verb moissonner 'harvest' is
ambiguous between 'female harvester' and
'harvesting machine'.
In many languages, the Instrument form is
clearly distinguished. In Breton (Press
1986: 218), for example, the Agent is marked
by -aer, -er or -our, but the Instrument by -ell:
(26) skub-añ
'broom'
'sweep'
skub-ell(enn)
In Jacaltec (Day 1973: 46), there are two Instrument suffixes according as the Patient of
the input verb is named or not:
(27) mak'a 'hit' >
mak'b'al
hit:instr.nr chicken
'chicken-hitting instrument'
> mak'b'anil
'hitting instrument'
5.3. Patient
A third type of first-order entity signalled by
derivational morphology is the Patient. In
English, the major use of the suffix -ee is to
indicate the undergoer of an action: employee, trainee, draftee, etc. In Nkore-Kiga
(Taylor 1985: 194), a Patient nominalization
is marked by the substitution of -o for verbfinal -a:
(28) biba 'sow' >
em-bib-o
cl-sow-patnr
'seed'
As with Agent nouns, so also certain languages subcategorize Patients for tense/aspect and/or polarity. Thus Abkhaz (Hewitt
1979: 246) has a suffix -t∞'(e) for Intended
Patient, 'that which is to be' (cf. the discussion of English washing and ironing in 4.1):
(29) a-fa-t∞'
noun.prefix-eat-intended.patnr
'that which is to be eaten; food'
Hixkaryana (Derbyshire 1979: 165) has suffixes for recent past ('one who recently was
...'), negative past ('that which was not ...'),
negative present ('that which is not ...').
The distinction between two types of Patient, those that are affected by the action
(obiectum affectum) and those that are
brought into existence by the action (obiectum effectum), may also be reflected in morphological distinctions between first-order
entity denoting nouns. In Abkhaz (Hewitt
1979: 245) for example, the suffix -mta indicates the Effected Patient, the object created
by the action:
(30) a-y∞è-mta
noun.prefix-write-affected.patnr
'written work, writings'
In Finnish, the suffix -os/-ös is employed
above all for such Effected Patient ("result")
nominals: piirtää 'draw' > piirros 'drawing';
kääntää 'turn, translate' > käännös 'translation' (Karlsson 1983: 199).
As discussed in 2, higher-order entities are
either events (second-order) or propositions
(third-order). Second-order nouns may be
distinguished into those that indicate an instance of the action (nomina acti) and those
that denote the action in general. In English,
the distinction correlates fairly well with the
opposition between conversion and suffixation with -ing:
(31) dance (v.)
> dance (n.) 'instance of dancing'
> dancing 'the activity'
Nomina acti are countable, whereas action
nominals are typically mass nouns (dances;
*dancings). A similar distinction may be observed in Basque (Saltarelli 1988: 258 f.),
where the suffix -t(z)e forms action nominals, while nomina acti result from the suffixation of -era, -pen/-men, -(k)eta or
-kuntza: etor- 'come' may thus give either
etor-tze-a 'coming' or etorrera '(an) arrival'.
In Gulf Arabic (Qafisheh 1977: 81), too, we
observe an analogous opposition:
(32) ragasø 'dance' > ragsø 'dancing'
ragsøa 'a dance'
Higher-order nominalizations derived from
transitive verbs may "inherit" their arguments as (typically) optional adnominal expressions (see Art. 83). These arguments may
(a) retain their original formal marking; (b)
convert either Agent or Patient to Possessive
marking; (c) convert both arguments to Possessive marking. One language which takes
the last-mentioned option is Finnish:
(33) Aimo-n
kana-n
syö-minen
Aimo-gen chicken-gen eat-nr
'Aimo's eating of chicken'
Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1993: 169), whence this
example is taken, points out that (33) can
also be interpreted as 'the eating by Aimo's
chicken' and 'the eating of Aimo's chicken',
suggesting that "[a]s a consequence of this,
Finnish tries to avoid transitive [action nominals]". Be this as it may, there is in actual use
a tendency for nominalized verbs to display
fewer arguments than in corresponding verbal use (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 261); in
certain languages, this may be grammaticalized as a ban on mentioning both Agent
and Patient in connection with an action nominal (e.g. Chukchee; Koptjevskaja-Tamm
1993: 194⫺196) or reflected in valency-reducing morphology on the noun. In Aguacatec
(Mackenzie 1985: 39 f.), for example, when a
transitive verb undergoes higher-order nominalization it receives the suffix -l, which is
otherwise used in the language for the valency reduction of verbs:
(34) Ma jalchan na
chi-b'en cob'
then early aspect 3.pl-go two
chakum tan b'iy-l-e'n
messenger to kill-valency.reducer-nr
cne'r Xchimal.
sheep Xchimal
'Two messengers go early in the morning to kill a sheep in Xchimal.'
(McArthur & McArthur 1966: 158)
The distinction between second-order and
third-order entities is reflected in the morphology of Turkish, in which the "infinitive"
suffixes -mek and -me are in general used for
events and the "participial" suffixes -dik and
-ecek for propositions:
(35) Halil'in gel-eceğ-in-i
Halil:gen come-fut.part-3.sg.poss-acc
bili-yor-um.
know-prog-1.sg
'I know Halil's future coming, i.e. that
Halil will come.' (third order) (Underhill 1976: 322)
(36) En sev-me-diğ-im
şey,
most like-neg-part-1.sg.poss thing
ders çaliş-mak-tir.
lesson study-inf-pred
'My most not-liking thing is studying
lessons, i.e. The thing which I dislike the
most is studying.' (Underhill 1976 :
310 f.)
Similarly in English, the distinction between
(10b⫺c) and (10d⫺e) (see 2), is that the former are most regularly employed in reference
to third-order entities, whereas the latter fundamentally indicate a second-order entity.
Thus (10d⫺e) are appropriate in contexts
where a sequence of events is being described,
as in (37a), while (10b⫺c) prefer epistemic
contexts, as in (37b):
(37) (a) Peter's resignation came after John's
refusing/refusal of the offer/*after
John('s) refusing the offer.
(b) Are you aware of John('s) refusing
the offer/of John's *refusing/?refusal
of the offer?
The qualities to which reference can be made
with derived nouns are, in the main, places,
times, and manners.
Morphological marking of places is fairly
general across the languages of the world. In
Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979: 244), -r⫹ta derives, for
example, à-jaxe-r⫹ta 'sewing-room' from
jaxe 'sew'; in Nkore-Kiga (Taylor 1985: 194),
-ero/-iro attaches to, for instance, -shoma
'read' to give ei-shom-ero 'cl-read-place.nr
(school)'. In West Greenlandic (Fortescue
1984: 319) the same suffix, -vvik, is used for
both places and times.
Specific morphological indicators of times
seem to be rarer. In Abkhaz (Hewitt
1979: 245), there is the suffix -mta, derived
from aamta 'time' and homophonous with
the Effected Patient suffix discussed in 5: lšè-mta '3.sg.f-kill-time (the moment of her
killing)'.
Manner nominals, finally, indicating the
way in which an action is carried out, may
be marked as such by specific morphemes.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1993: 19) reports that
in Amharic, manner nominals are distinct
from action nominals:
(38) (a) mohed 'to go, going'
akkiyahed 'the way of going'
(b) mayot 'to see, seeing'
astoyayot 'the way of seeing'
In Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979: 245), too, there is
a special form for manner nouns, with the
suffix -ša:
(39) a-t∞à-ša
noun.prefix-say-mannr
'manner of speaking'
In English, by contrast, the manner interpretation of -ing is strongly associated with
second-order nominalizations, with the lexical context as the guiding factor. His driving
in (40) is thus ambiguous between a reading
as a third-order nominal (⫽ 'the fact that he
was driving') or as a second-order nominal,
which will then be interpreted as an indication of manner (⫽ 'the way in which he was
driving'):
(40) What did you think of his driving?
The purpose of this article has been to show
how morphological processes of word-formation, principally affixation, contribute to extending the range of nouns available for reference to entities and hypostatized qualities.
We have observed that such nominalizing
morphemes occur in reference to first-order,
second-order, and third-order entities and to
hypostatized second-order qualities. Whereas
some languages have only one generalized
nominalizer, there is a tendency for languages
to have a range of such morphemes, often
with more than one function each. Where
there is an extension of meaning, this generally proceeds from higher to lower orders
of entity.
Anderson, Stephen R. (1985), "Inflectional Morphology". In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 150⫺201
Bauer, Laurie (1983), English Word-Formation.
Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press
Booij, Geert (1986), "Form and Meaning in Morphology: The Case of Dutch 'Agent Nouns'". Linguistics 24, 503⫺518
Booij, Geert (1993), "Against Split Morphology".
In: Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer,
27⫺49
Bybee, Joan (1985), Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Camaj, Martin (1984), Albanian Grammar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
Campbell, Lyle (1985), The Pipil Language of El
Salvador. Berlin etc.: Mouton
Day, Christopher (1973), The Jacaltec Language.
The Hague: Mouton
Derbyshire, Desmond C. (1979), Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North-Holland (Lingua Descriptive Studies 1)
Dik, Simon C. (1989), The Theory of Functional
Grammar, Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris
Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1986), "Explanation in
Natural Morphology, Illustrated with Comparative
and Agent-Noun Formation". Linguistics 24,
519⫺548
Duden (1965) ⫽ DUDEN Hauptschwierigkeiten der
deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Bibliographisches
Durie, Mark (1985), A Grammar of Acehnese on the
Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris
Fortescue, Michael (1984), West Greenlandic. London etc.: Croom Helm
Hewitt, B. George (1979), Abkhaz. Amsterdam:
North-Holland (Lingua Descriptive Studies 2)
Karlsson, Fred (1983), Finnish Grammar. Porvoo
etc.: Söderström
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (1993), Nominalizations.
London etc.: Routledge
Lyons, John (1977), Semantics. Vol. 1⫺2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (1985), "Nominalization
and Valency Reduction". In: Bolkestein, A. Machtelt & Groot, Casper de & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
(eds.), Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 29⫺47
and Basic Constituent Ordering". In: Auwera, Johan van der & Goossens, Louis (eds.), Ins and Outs
of the Predication. Dordrecht: Foris, 93⫺105
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (1990), "First-Argument
Nominalization in a Functional Grammar". Linguistica Antverpiensia 24, 119⫺147
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (1992), "Places and
Things". In: Fortescue, Michael & Harder, Peter &
Kristoffersen, Lars (eds.), Layered Structure and
Reference in a Functional Perspective. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: Benjamins
McArthur, Harry S. & McArthur, Lucille E. (1966),
"Aguacatec". In: Myers, Marvin K. (ed.), Languages of Guatemala. The Hague: Mouton (Janua
Linguarum, series practica, 23), 140⫺165
Merlan, Francesca (1982), Mangarayi. Amsterdam:
Mithun Williams, Marianne (1976), A Grammar of
Tuscarora. New York: Garland
Nichols, Joanna (1988), "Nominalization and Assertion in Scientific Russian prose". In: Haiman,
John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 399⫺428
Payne, Doris L. & Payne, Thomas E. (1990), "Yagua". In: Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum,
Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. II. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 249⫺474
Press, Ian (1986), A Grammar of Modern Breton.
Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1985), An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Arnold
Qafisheh, Hamdi A. (1977), A Short Reference
Grammar of Gulf Arabic. Tucson/AZ: University of
Arizona Press
Hengeveld, Kees (1992), Non-verbal Predication:
Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter
Ross, John R. (1973). "Nouniness". In: Fujimura,
Osamu (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC, 137⫺257
95. Deixis and reference
Saltarelli, Mario (1988), Basque. London etc.:
Croom Helm
Taylor, Charles (1985), Nkore-Kiga. London etc.:
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1988), "Der irokesische
Sprachtyp". Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7,
Underhill, Robert (1976), Turkish Grammar. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press
Schaub, Willi (1985), Babungo. London etc.:
Weigand, Hans (1990), Linguistically Motivated
Principles of Knowledge Based Systems. Dordrecht: Foris
J. Lachlan Mackenzie,
Strawson, Peter Frederick (1959), Individuals. London: Methuen
The situation of speech
Discourse roles
Deictic dimensions
Deictic domains
Deictic morphological structures
Uncommon abbreviations
In the field of deixis and reference there are
various surveys (Bühler 1934; Fillmore 1975;
1997; Lyons 1977; Klein 1978; KarmiloffSmith 1979; Tanz 1980; Levinson 1983; Rauh
1983; Geiger 1995; Cornish 1999; Lyons
1999; Brisard 2002), a number of crosslinguistic studies (Jarvella & Klein 1982; Weissenborn & Klein 1982; Wiesemann 1986; Morel & Danon-Boileau 1992; Diessel 1999),
various articles on the typological variety of
deictic expressions (Heeschen 1982; Anderson & Keenan 1985; Feuillet 1992; KrykKastovsky 1996 a; Himmelmann 1996; 1997),
and some articles on different theoretical and
thematical approaches to deixis (Fludernik
1991; Kirsner 1993; 1996; Duchan et al. 1995,
eds.; Kryk-Kastovsky 1996 b).
This article will discuss deixis and reference, presenting a wide range of deictic types
of expression with two or more formatives
or with at least one bound formative (deictic
formatives of verbs are discussed in Art. 77).
The following sections will present central
deictic notions relating to deictic morphological structures.
rent speech situation in such a way that his
addressee gains cognitive access to or mental
contact with the entity concerned (Hanks
1989: 112; Langacker 1991: 91; for the notion
of 'accessibility', see Givón 1984: 401⫺403;
Ariel 1990).
When using the pronouns I and you, a
speaker normally refers to him/herself and
another person in such a way that he or she
relates him/herself to the current situation of
speech as the speaker, and the other person
as the addressee. By using an expression such
as the x, a speaker refers to a third party in
such a way that he or she relates it uniquely
to the current speech situation, while enabling her or his addressee to discern it as the
entity referred to (Donnellan 1978; Hawkins
1984; Richter 1988: 133⫺147). The speech situation to which the entity at issue is related
is constituted by what the speaker considers
to be the current situation of speech, by what
has been raised in the previous discourse, or
by the communal background knowledge
which the speaker assumes his addressee
shares, possibly through inference (see, e.g.,
Du Bois 1980; Perner & Garnham 1988;
Laury 1997: 34⫺51). In this article the term
deixis is used in a broad sense. The relationship between deictics, indexicals, and shifters
is analyzed by, e.g., Lyons (1977), Richter
(1988), Rousseau (1992), Corblin (1992), and
Nunberg (1993). The notion of 'grounding' is
substituted by Langacker (1987; 1991; 2002)
for a subdomain of the notion of 'deixis'.
Deixis is the linguistic procedure by means of
which a speaker relates an entity to the cur-
Expressions such as I, you, and the x are analyzed as definite descriptions. What makes
-ó ?on
-ó ?on (-é? eš)
-eč
-é ?eš
tttttti ?
ti ?
tó ?on
tó ?on (-é? eš)
teč
té ?eš
le ti ?
le ti ?ó ?ob', le ó ?ob ti ? '
- ó ?ob'
1. sg
1. pl
1. pi
Tab. 95.1: Lexical personal pronouns in Yucatec Maya
definite descriptions definite? The use of a
definite description requires a cognitive frame
of reference to which the entity at issue is
conceivable as uniquely related (cf. Art. 76;
see for the notion of 'definiteness', e.g., Hawkins 1984; Lambrecht 1994; Lyons 1999).
What is the cognitive frame which enables a
speaker to use expressions such as I and you?
In order to answer this question, we have to
examine the speech situation, which serves as
the central frame of reference to which the
entities referred to are related. The structure
of the speech situation and its role for definite
referencing can be elucidated by the personal
pronoun system in Maya spoken in Yucatán.
In Yucatec Maya, a speaker and his addressee can be indicated by means of personal pronouns sharing the formative t-,
whereas third person personal pronouns have
the form le combined with the form ti? (see
Tab. 95.1; Hanks 1990: 155 f.).
The first and second person pronouns
have the base t-, which can be analyzed as
the formative of the deictic category of 'core
participants' in the speech situation (see
Hanks 1990: 141). Alongside the base t-, the
grammatical status of the category of core
participants can be encoded in various ways.
For instance, first and second person pronouns differ from third person pronouns in
some of their syntactic and morphological
applications, as shown by the two patterns in
Tab. 95.2 (Hanks 1990: 164 f.).
Tab. 95.2 shows three variations. In the
first case, the position of the first and second
person pronouns differs from the position of
the third person pronoun. In the second, the
third person pronoun can be omitted. In the
third, the dative prefix of the first and second
person pronouns can be omitted. Additionally, only the plurality suffix of the third person pronoun is the same as the optional plu-
ral marker of common nouns (e.g. le
maákó ?ob' 'the men').
Godié also features a clear formal division
between the group of the first and second
person pronouns, which just differ in tone,
and a coherent group of third person elements such as pronouns, determiners, and
demonstratives (Marchese 1986: 218⫺220).
In accordance with their grammatical features, the lexical personal pronouns in Yucatec Maya can be analyzed in terms of their
discourse-role system as shown in Fig. 95.1
(for related analyses, see Frei 1944; Benveniste 1956; Kuryłowicz 1972; Zwicky 1977;
Bátori 1982; Beifuss et al. 1985; Hanks 1989;
Nguyên 1992; Smith 1992).
The deictic system of Fig. 95.1 features
two subsystems. Subsystem I shows the relationship between the pronouns of the core
participants in the situation of speech, i.e. the
speaker and addressee with their possible
associate(s). In the phrasing of Hanks
(1990: 142; following Goffman 1979): "the
speaker projects himself as a 'figure', a protagonist in a scene, story"; "the individual
acting as a speaker, the one who performs the
current act of reference, constitutes himself
or herself as an object of description, as well
as an actor engaged in executing a speech
act" (for special references to core participants, see, e.g., Daalder 1986; Levinson
1988; Irvine 1996; Schegloff 1996). The relevant configuration of construals is illustrated in Fig. 95.2.
Here, region A of the speaker's mental
field of vision is the frame of reference to
which the party referred to by means of I can
be considered to be uniquely related. Region
B is the frame of reference to which the party
referred to by means of you can be considered to be uniquely related. Subsystem II of
Fig. 95.1 shows the relationship between the
yàan
(ti ?)-x
dat-x
¢iı́min
(a) horse(s)
x: a personal pronoun of 1. or 2. person
'I (etc.) have (a) horse(s)'
ti ? (-x)
x: a personal pronoun of 3. person
'he (etc.) has (a) horse(s)'
Tab. 95.2: Grammatical differences between personal pronouns in Yucatec Maya
ten, tó ?on 'I', 'we' (excl)
teč, té ?eš 'you'
tó ?on (é ?eš) 'we' (incl)
le ti ?, le ti ?o ?ob' 'he' (etc.), 'they'
Fig. 95.1: The discourse-role system of the lexical personal pronouns in Yucatec Maya
of the addressee
of the speaker
Fig. 95.2: The cognitive frame of reference of the speech situation in which I and you are used
pronoun signalling the core participants and
the pronouns for the third party. The pronoun tó ?oné ?eš, consisting of the formation
tó ?on 'we' and the suffixal pronoun -é ?eš
'you', encodes the conjoint character of the
discourse role played by speaker and addressee with their possible associate(s) (such
a fusion is observed by Jacobsen 1980; for
Wargamay, see Dixon 1981: 39; for Yaø g Dii,
Bohnhoff 1986: 104 ff.). It is this role which
the speaker assumes is shared by the addressee (Donnellan 1978) and it is in this role
that they share a common vantage point (or
indexical ground, Hanks 1990: 38) for referencing by means of third-party definite descriptions. Since it is the speaker who assumes the addressee shares his or her vantage
point, the common vantage point is often
qualified as basically egocentric (Hawkins
1984). However, the speaker can be assumed
to be cooperative (Grice 1975) and to operate
from a recipient design (or even from a reflector character's point of view, see, e.g., Fludernik 1995; Epstein 1996; Grenoble 1998: 29⫺
32, 62⫺64). Then, the common vantage point
can be termed speaker-hearer centric (Ebert
1987: 477; see also Roberts 1986: 446) or
sociocentric (Hanks 1989; 1990: 7, 41⫺43;
Jones 1995: 47).
The interrelation between the internal and
external relationships of subsystems I and II
can be explained by Fig. 95.3 (Janssen 1995 a;
1995 b); it shows two discourse-role perspectives corresponding to subsystems I and II
from Fig. 95.1.
In the 1/2-perspective the speaker sees
himself with his possible associate(s) in a region or zone of his mental field of vision dif-
1/3-perspective: vantage point of the first-person-inclusive
1/2-perspective:
vantage point of the
first-person-exclusive
POSSIBLY WITH ONE
OR MORE ASSOCIATES
SPEAKER AND
POSSIBLY WITH ONE OR MORE
region A'
region B'
Fig. 95.3: The situation of speech with two discourse-role perspectives
ferent to the one in which he sees his addressee with his possible associate(s). By
using definite descriptions, the speaker indicates that he divides his central frame of reference, i.e. the situation of speech, into subframes. When using the personal pronoun of
the first person exclusive, the speaker relates
him/herself with his or her possible associate(s) as unique to one of the regions of the
deictic dimension (see section 4) which constitute the domain (see section 5) of the core
participants of the discourse. When using the
second person pronoun, the speaker relates the
addressee with his or her possible associate(s)
as unique to the other region in the dimension of the core-participant domain. Thus,
each of the regions serves as a frame of reference to which an entity is uniquely related.
It is the entity's unique relationship to one
particular region of the mental field of vision
that forms the basis for the definiteness of
personal pronouns and expressions of the
type the x is based (Janssen 1995 a; 1995 b).
In the 1/3-perspective the speaker sees him/
herself and his or her addressee with their
initial deictic
possible associate(s) in the same region of his
or her mental field of vision, and he or she
assumes that they share vantage point and
mental field of vision. The speaker sees this
conjoint party in a region different from the
one in which he or she sees the third party.
The pronoun for the first person inclusive
serves to indicate that the conjoint party is
uniquely related to one region of the mental
field of vision in the 1/3-perspective, and the
third person pronoun serves to indicate that
the third party is uniquely related to the
other region.
In a number of languages articles, demonstratives, third person personal pronouns,
and anaphors have an overt grammatical
relationship (cf. Lyons 1977: 646 f.; Givón
1984: 226 f.; Anderson & Keenan 1985: 260 f.;
Croft 1990: 219 f.; proper names or 'proper
nominals', e.g. The Netherlands, The Appalachians can also be classified as third person
deictics, cf. Jonasson 1992; Wiederspiel
1992). Consider, for instance, the third person forms in Tab. 95.3 (Hanks 1990: 18 f.).
terminal deictic
definite description
o?
Tab. 95.3: Third person forms in Yucatec Maya
ti ?ó ?ob', le ó ?ob' ti ?
maák
maákó ?ob'
maák a ?
maák o ?
maákó ?ob'o ?
'he, she, it, the one'
'they, the ones'
'the man'
'the men'
'this man'
'that man'
'those men'
In Tab. 95.3 the prenominal article le
marks all third person descriptions as definite; this implies that they form one natural
class in Yucatec Maya. The deictics a? and o?
serve to discern referentially the entities involved. See also the morphological interrelatedness of third person forms (pronouns, anaphoric and cataphoric demonstratives) in
Asheninca (Reed & Payne 1986: 325, 330). In
Godié third person personal pronouns, determiners, and class-concord suffixes are the
same, while demonstratives are morphologically based on these forms (Marchese
1986: 218⫺220). In Lyélé suffixal definite
markers have the same shape as third person
object pronouns, but carry a high tone (Showalter 1986: 209). In Diyari third person personal pronouns/determiners (see nhani in
Tab. 95.4), and local adverbs (see nhingki in
Tab. 95.4) form a morphologically related
group, as apparent from the data in Tab. 95.4
(Austin 1982: 274 f., 281 f.).
The third person system of Wolof is even
more extensive, as shown in Tab. 95.5 (Wills
1990; Sauvageot 1992).
proximate
proximate distal
-ya
-wa
-rda
nhani
nhanirda
nhingki nhingkirda
nhaniya
nhaniwa
nhingkiya
nhingkiwa
Tab. 95.4: Morphologically related third person
forms in Diyari
CCC-†
fff-
-ii
-ile
fii
Tab. 95.5 shows two types of definite article concurring with two types of gestural and
two types of 'plain' demonstrative, while the
latter two types share a pronominal use. The
system of local adverbs also shares the same
structure. All the forms have the proximate
suffix -i and the distal suffix -a (allomorph
-e), with corresponding extensions. The twofold applicability of the suffix system of Tab.
95.5 suggests not only that categories 1⫺3
and 4⫺6 are natural classes, but also that
these categories together form a natural class
in Wolof. This suggests that entities referred
to by means of local adverbs can also be considered third-party entities. This point can be
extended to include other types of adverb,
such as temporal adverbs (for Hopi, see
Malotki 1979: 24 f.; for Paumarı́, Chapman
& Derbyshire 1991: 261), and even tensed
clauses (Janssen 1991; 1996; 2002; Gildea
The functional relationship between personal pronouns and demonstratives is morphologically encoded in, e.g., Berik. Here,
the form ai(serem) serves as the first person
singular subject pronoun and the demonstrative 'this', while the form je(serem) serves as
the third person singular subject pronoun
and the demonstrative 'that' (Westrum &
Wiesemann 1986: 43).
In many languages the category of deictic
forms applicable to third-party entities can be
divided into a great variety of subcategories.
A regular morphological system of deictic
distinctions (with the exception of the form
asoko) can be found in Japanese, as shown in
-ee
-ale
C-: {b-, m-, j-, s-, w-, g-, l-, k-}sg, {ñ-, y-}pl
C-†: {k-}sg.hum
Tab. 95.5: Third person forms in Wolof
3.a.
definite article
demonstrative [⫹gesture]
demonstrative
pronominal use
non-demonstrative local adverb
demonstr. [⫹gesture] local adverb
demonstrative local adverb
ko1. kono
2. kore
'this one'
3. koitsu
'this one, it'
'that'
'that one'
soitsu
'that one, it'
aitsu
-no
-re(ra)
pronominal inan
-tsu(ra)
pronominal (in)an
Tab. 95.6: Deictic dimensions in Japanese
Tab. 95.6 (Coulmas 1982; Kuroda 1985;
Tamba 1992).
Each of the rows (1⫺3) in Tab. 95.6 presents a deictic dimension with three regions or
zones (Hanks 1990: 67 f., 77 f.) signalled by
the bases ko- (the region closely related to the
speaker), so- (the region closely related to the
addressee), and a- (the region not closely related to either speaker or addressee); each region is instrumental to the addressee in gaining access to the entity referred to (see 2;
Hanks 1990: 77).
The threefold structure of the deictic dimensions presented by the rows in Tab. 95.6
can be analyzed as "un double système binaire, à quatre valeurs définies par le jeu de
deux couplages: celui des formes en ko et a
d'une part; et des formes en ko et so d'autre
part" (Tamba 1992: 191; also Fludernik
1991: 216; for a different view, see Aoyama
1995; see Kuroda 1985 for the anaphoric use
of elements based on so-; in various languages demonstratives related to the second
person also can be used anaphorically; for
Mundani, see Parker 1986: 146; for Finnish,
Laury 1997). The structure of the "double système binaire" can be conceived of as determined by two discourse-role perspectives, as
shown in Fig. 95.4 (Janssen 1995 a; 1995 b).
Apart from Japanese, a number of languages (e.g. Classical Greek, Latin, Italian,
Spanish, and Vietnamese, see Nguyên 1992;
and Anderson & Keenan 1985: 282⫺285)
share an overtly morphological system of
three demonstratives which can be considered as determined by the double perspective
shown in Fig. 95.4. Both perspectives can be
applied to a single utterance, such as in sentence (1) from Vietnamese, where Iâa´y 'place
proximal to the addressee' is a form of the 1/
2-perspective and kia is a form of the 1/3perspective (Nguyên 1992: 180).
(1) (a) Iâa´y là bà A.;
there be Mrs. A.
(near you)
(b) kia là bà B.
there be Mrs. B.
(not near me & you)
Fig. 95.4 has to be seen as integral to Fig.
95.3, since the demonstratives are part of the
third person region in the domain of the discourse roles. Thus, the combination of the 1/
2 and 1/3-perspective is a recursive cognitive
schema. One could even go further and ask
if each of the two perspectival subsystems is
an instantiation of a single cognitive schema
(Janssen 1995 a). Let us consider this issue regarding demonstrative systems with only two
morphological forms to indicate the regions
of the deictic dimension involved. In English,
for instance, the demonstratives this and that
can have two interpretations; witness texts
(2)⫺(4).
(2) I can see everything from this window. And
you? Do you have a good view from that
window?
(3) Do you also find it so awfully hot in this
room?
(4) Did you also find it so awfully hot in that
In text (2) it is most likely that by this window, the speaker refers to the window he is
looking through, and by that window, he refers to the window his addressee is looking
through. In this interpretation, the use of this
and that is determined by the 1/2-perspective.
In texts (3) and (4) the speaker and his addressee may be in the same place, referred to
by means of this room. Speaker's use of this
ko[related to the
exclusive]
so[related to the
second person]
ko[related to the first
person inclusive]
a[related to the
third person]
Fig. 95.4: The threefold deictic dimension of Japanese demonstratives
[related to the
[related to the first
Fig. 95.5: Two possible interpretations of English demonstratives
in text (3) is positively related to the position
shared by him and his addressee, while his
use of that in text (4) is negatively related to
their current position. Thus, in texts (3) and
(4) both this and that are based on the 1/3perspective. Therefore, both this and that can
have two interpretations, one determined by
the 1/2 and the other by the 1/3-perspective.
The relevant possibilities for interpretation
are shown in Fig. 95.5.
The systems of both Fig. 95.4 and 95.5 are
elaborative extensions of the third person cat-
egory as displayed in Fig. 95.3. The extension
hypothesis explains why a number of languages have an overtly morphological interrelation between definite articles and demonstratives (adnominal, pronominal, and local)
and also between categories, such as third
person personal pronouns and non-demonstrative local adverbs, as shown in Tab.
95.3⫺95.5. It is entirely in accordance with
this view that the Maya system of discourse
roles shown in Fig. 95.1 can be extended to
the recursive system in Fig. 95.6.
teč, té ?eš 'you (sg/pl)'
'he' (etc.)
le ti ?ó ?ob'
'they', 'the ones'
I⬘ le a ? 'this'
le maák
le o ? 'that'
le a ? 'this'
II⬘
Fig. 95.6: The Yucatec Maya discourse-role system with a recursive extension
The extension is in the inner box; its
content has the same structure as the overall
schema for subsystems I and II; subsystems
I⬘ and II⬘ show the demonstratives in the 1/2
and 1/3-perspectives, respectively. The outer
and inner boxes of Fig. 95.6 contain a variety
of forms, all with the (p)article le. A binary
system of demonstratives which share the article-formative can be found in Tahitian, as
shown by Fig. 95.7 (Lazard & Peltzer 1992:
210⫺211).
speaker and addressee with their possible associate(s). The data are shown in Tab. 95.7
(Josephs 1978: 344, 360).
When the Palauan demonstratives are divided into subsystems according to two discourse-role perspectives, an interesting analogy emerges, as shown in Fig. 95.8.
ng sbj.sg 'he, she, it'
ngii non-sbj.sg
I⬘ ngile 'this'
ngilecha 'that'
te 'the', taua 'the ana'
I⬘ teie 'this'
tena 'that'
ng(i)ka 'this'
ng(i)ke 'that'
teie 'this'
tera 'that'
Fig. 95.7: Tahitian third person forms
Tahitian has a separate anaphoric form taua,
generally combined with the deictic particle
ra (e.g. taua ta'ata ra 'the person at issue', cf.
Lazard & Peltzer 1992: 211; anaphora can be
considered a type of third-party deixis, cf.
Zribi-Hertz 1992; Kleiber 1992).
The strongest evidence for the idea that
subsystems I( ⬘) and II( ⬘) are recursive applications of a single basic cognitive schema can
be found in Palauan, which has a binary
third person system with distinct morphological suffixes for its functions, i.e. for both
the demonstrative related to the addressee
and for the demonstrative related to the
Fig. 95.8: Deictic structure of Palauan third person forms
The suffixes of subsystem I⬘ share the string
-ile-, and the suffixes of subsystem II⬘ share
the string -(i)k-. If these strings can be considered to have morphological status, the
morphology of each subsystem is marked in
a distinctive way. In fact, the suffixes for the
counterparts of non-human entities correspond to a large extent to the forms of Tab.
95.7 (Josephs 1978: 360).
The deictic system of Hausa adverbials
features an interesting variation on the recursivity of the basic cognitive schema. The relevant data are shown in Tab. 95.8 (Jaggar &
Buba 1995: 413).
The deictic adverbials of Hausa have "a
tone-meaning interaction whereby F[alling]
t(ir)
non-subject
ngii
1 excl
-ilecha
1 incl
-(i)ka
-(i)ke
ngile
tirile
ngilecha
tirilecha
ng(i)ka
tirka
ng(i)ke
tirke
sg.hum
pl.hum
Tab. 95.7: Palauan third person forms
fall tone
nân
cân
high tone
nán
cán
speaker-proximal
speaker/hearer-distal
hearer-proximal
speaker/hearer-remote
Tab. 95.8: Deictic adverbials ('here', 'there') in Hausa
tone nân/cân signals (relative) proximity to
the speaker, and H[igh] nán/cán tone maps
distance from the speaker, in both spatial and
non-spatial (anaphoric, temporal, cognitive)
terms" (Jaggar & Buba 1995: 391). The fourfold system can be analyzed as in Fig. 95.9.
I⬘
nân 'here'
nán 'there'
I⬙
cân 'there'
II⬙
cán 'there'
Fig. 95.9: The fourfold system of Hausa deictic adverbials
Can-forms refer to entities in the composite
third-party region, which is opposed to the
speaker/hearer-proximal region. The can-subsystem consists of an opposition between a
speaker/hearer-distal region and a region
which is more remote-distal to speaker and
hearer.
Fourfold demonstrative systems are often
described as constituting one linear dimension with a range of regions progressively distant from the speaker (exclusive and inclusive, if applicable) and the addressee. Further
research is required to determine whether distance can have a cognitive effect as a result
of more basic relations such as those represented by the systems based on the 1/2 and
1/3-perspectives (cf. Anderson & Keenan
1985: 282⫺285). The feature of distance relative to the speaker is required for deictic dimensions with more than three or four distinct forms (Anderson & Keenan 1985: 286⫺
288) such as, for instance, in Malagasy (Anderson & Keenan 1985: 292 f.); the relevant
forms will be shown in the following section.
In many languages, the category of deictic
forms which can be applied to third-party entities has a great variety of subcategories, as
shown in Tab. 95.3, which presents a number
of third person forms in Yucatec Maya, and
Tab. 95.5, which presents a number of third
person forms in Wolof. The Wolof system of
third person forms is even more extensive; a
few other domains are shown in Tab. 95.9.
Alongside the deictic domains shown in
Tab. 95.4 and 95.8, Wolof also has domains
for time, manner, and degree, which have the
same morphology as these tables, to a large
extent (Wills 1990: 198 f.).
Two other extensive and highly regular
morphological systems will be discussed here.
Consider, first, the demonstrative system of
Malagasy presented in Tab. 95.10 (Anderson & Keenan 1985: 292⫺294; the forms
between parentheses have the specialized
meaning 'inside of').
-oo...-u
-oo...-a
boobu
foofu
CfC-:
foofa
anaphoric local adverb
{b-, m-, j-, s-, w-, g-, l-, k-}sg, {ñ-, y-}pl
Tab. 95.9: Anaphora in Wolof
prefix base
I closer to speaker
iea-
further from speaker J
-ty
-tsy
-ny
-roa
-ry
(eo)
atsy
iny
eny
iroa
eroa
dem (pronominal/ adnominal)
dem.loc.vis (adverb)
dem.loc.invis (adverb)
Tab. 95.10: Malagasy demonstrative forms
ko-
'this place'
'this direction'
kô
'this manner'
'such, so many'
'that place'
'that direction'
sô
'that manner'
'such' (etc.)
asoko
â
-ko(ra)
noun (local)
-ci(ra)
noun (directional)
-ô/â(iu)
modifier (manner)
-nna(ni
(quality/quantity)
Tab. 95.11: Deictic domains in Japanese
The Malagasy system is even more extensive than shown in Tab. 95.10, since the local
adverb series, both the one with the feature
'visible' ('vis') and the one with the feature
'invisible' ('invis'), can be prefixed by tense
forms; the form t- signals that the entity
modified by the local adverb was at the distance which was relevant in the past; the
form ho- signals a similar modification in the
future (Anderson & Keenan 1985: 293).
Furthermore, the i-forms of the Malagasy
system can have the infix -za-, for instance,
in izao and izany; this form signals that the
entity referred to is not visible in the situation
of speech (Anderson & Keenan 1985: 294).
Japanese is another language with a great
variety of deictic domains signalled by a
highly regular morphological system. This
has partly been shown by Tab. 95.6; see also
Tab. 95.11 (Coulmas 1982; Tamba 1992).
Each row of Tab. 95.11 shows a deictic domain made up of a deictic dimension with
three regions signalled by the bases ko-, so-,
and a-. The forms kochira and sochira can
serve to indicate the speaker and hearer
(Coulmas 1982: 213 f.; Tamba 1992: 191; for
Gumbaynggir, Eades 1979: 290; for Chinese,
Paris 1992: 173; for Vietnamese, Nguyên
1992: 181). One can assume a metonymic relationship between a place and the central
person at that place; in many languages,
however, demonstratives can be analyzed
more insightfully as non-local (see, e.g., Lakoff 1974; Kirsner 1979; Janssen 1993;
Strauss 1993; Laury 1996; Agha 1996). The
form sochira can be suffixed by the honorific
formative -sama, which signals respect to the
addressee.
A few more types of deictic domain should
be mentioned here. There is a wide range of
spatially differentiated deictic domains (cf.
Denny 1978; Malotki 1979; Heeschen 1982;
Mosel 1982; Anderson & Keenan 1985: 295;
Feuillet 1992: 242 f.). With regard to the domain of honorifics, East Asian languages, in
particular, have encoded very richly differentiated systems (cf. Anderson & Keenan
1985: 270⫺277; Harada 1976). Finally, in
some languages (e.g. Hausa, see Jaggar &
Buba 1995), demonstratives can be used both
spatially and non-spatially, including temporally. The data of Wik-Munkan (Anderson &
Keenan 1985: 298) are shown in Tab. 95.12.
types will be divided into prefix, infix, suffix,
superfix, reduplication types (Bauer 1988:
19⫺29), and vowel lengthening (cf. Ch.
VIII).
Deictic bases. In Yucatec Maya, the category of lexical first and second person pronouns is formed by the deictic base t- and
deictic suffixes (Tab. 95.1). Japanese has a
threefold system of deictic bases (Tab. 95.6
and 95.11).
Deictic prefixes. In Kannada, both singular and plural third person personal pronouns have the prefixes i- and a-, to indicate
proximity and distance (Sridhar 1990: 203,
206). Alongside lexical personal pronouns,
Yucatec Maya has a set of affixal ones which
can have verbs and nouns as bases; if a noun
is the base, the affix is interpreted as referring
to the possessor. The affixal system is shown
in Tab. 95.13 (Hanks 1990: 156); since the
system basically consists of prefixes and suffixes, the combination of a prefix and a suffix
should not be analyzed as circumfixes.
base suffix
-man
'right here'
'right now'
an- anman
'around there'
'around now'
nan- nanman
'there (close)'
'now (general)'
-pal
inpal
'from here'
'from now'
'from there (distant)'
'from then (on)'
nanpal
'from there (near)'
'from then (recent)'
Tab. 95.12: Wik-Munkan demonstratives
In languages such as Vietnamese (Nguyên
1992: 186), Guugu Yimidhirr (Haviland
1979: 72 f.), Hausa (Jaggar & Buba 1995),
Mohawk (Bonvillain 1981), and Paumarı́
(Chapman & Derbyshire 1991: 261), a series
of deictic forms can have both a local and a
temporal interpretation under certain conditions.
In Tab. 95.1 we saw that not only a base and
a number of affixes can be deictic but also in
a string of two affixes, both can be deictic
(e.g. -ó ?on ⫹ é ?eš). In most deictic morphological structures, however, only one of the
formatives is deictic. The affix formation
prefix ⫹ suffix suffix
sing plur plur
ina?
u?
sing plur
k...é eš
a...é ?eš
u... ó ?ob'
-ó ?on 1
-é ?eš 2
ó ?ob' 3
Tab. 95.13: The affixal personal pronoun system in
Deictic infixes. Local adverbs in Tolai can
have the infix -ba-, marking them as anaphoric; the infix -ka-, signalling 'further on'; or
the infixes can be combined (-ba ⫹ ka-) (Mosel 1982: 127, 129).
Deictic suffixes. Diyari (see Tab. 95.4) has
a threefold deictic suffix system which can
mark both pronouns and locatives. In Wolof
(see Tab. 95.5) the twofold deictic suffix system consisting of -i and -a produces definite
articles and non-demonstrative local adverbs;
both suffixes can be augmented by two other
suffixes to form demonstratives, personal
pronouns, and demonstrative local adverbs.
Deictic superfixes. Hausa (see Tab. 95.8)
has pairs of contrastive tone suprasegments
marking "relative proximity to the speaker"
versus "distance from the speaker" (Jaggar &
Buba 1995). In Vietnamese a tone distinction
is made between the forms signalling proximity to the speaker (Iây) and proximity to the
addressee (Iâa´y) (see (1)); the tone contrast is
indicated by the absence or presence of the
diacritical mark " ´ " (Nguyên 1992: 178). In
Lyélé tone distinguishes third person object
pronouns and definite markers (Showalter
1986: 209). Tone distinguishes first and second person pronouns in Godié. In the phrasing of Marchese (1986: 218⫺220): "In the singular, first person has a higher tone than the
second person, while in the plural, the reverse
is true".
Deictic reduplication. Wolof (see Tab. 95.9)
has a class of anaphors which is morphologically marked by reduplication (Wills 1990;
Sauvageot 1992). The anaphoric forms in
Comoro are also reduplicated (Picabia 1992 :
160⫺165). In Godié the independent demonstratives, both the singular and plural forms,
are reduplicated (Marchese 1986: 219⫺220,
233). In Hopi the plural personal pronouns
can have an initial reduplication which serves
to signal distributivity (Malotki 1982: 228 f.;
Vowel lengthening. The gestural demonstratives in Wolof have lengthened vowels at
the end of words as shown in Tab. 95.5, rows
2 and 5 (Sauvageot 1992: 153).
Agha, Asif (1996), "Schema and Superposition in
Spatial Deixis". Anthropological Linguistics 38,
Anderson, Stephen R. & Keenan, Edward L.
(1985), "Deixis". In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III:
Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 259⫺308
Aoyama, Takashi (1995), "Deixis and Value: A Semantic Analysis of the Japanese Demonstratives".
In: Contini-Morava & Goldberg (eds.), 289⫺320
Ariel, Mira (1990), Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge
Austin, Peter (1982), "The Deictic System of Diyari". In: Weissenborn & Klein (eds.), 273⫺284
Bátori, István (1982), "On Verb Deixis in Hungarian". In: Weissenborn & Klein (eds.), 155⫺165
Bauer, Laurie (1988), Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press
Beifuss, Karin & Czepluch, Hartmut & Tuschinsky,
Joachim & Schmid, Wolfgang P. (1985), "Zur Klassifikation pragmatischer Elemente in der grammatischen Beschreibung". Sprachwissenschaft 10,
81⫺106
Benveniste, Emile (1956), "La nature des pronoms". In: Halle, Morris et al. (eds.), For Roman
Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton, 34⫺37 [reprinted
in: Benveniste, Emile (1966), Problèmes de linguistique générale, Vol. I. Paris: Gallimard, 251⫺
Bohnhoff, Lee E. (1986), "Yaø g Dii (Duru) Pronouns". In: Wiesemann (ed.), 103⫺129
Bonvillain, Nancy (1981), "Locative Semantics in
Mohawk: Time and Space". International Journal
of American Linguistics 47, 58⫺65
Brisard, Frank (2002, ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin etc.:
Mouton de Gruyter
Bühler, Karl (1934), Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer [reprinted
(1982), Stuttgart etc.: Fischer; translated by Donald F. Goodwin (1990), Theory of Language. The
Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins]
Chapman, Shirley & Derbyshire, Desmond C.
(1991), "Paumarı́". In: Derbyshire, Desmond C. &
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. III. Berlin etc.: Mouton de
Contini-Morava, Ellen & Goldberg, Barbara S.
with the assistance of Robert S. Kirsner (1994,
eds.) Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter
Corblin, Francis (1992), "Démonstratif et nomination". In: Morel & Danon-Boileau (eds.), 439⫺
Cornish, Francis (1999), Anaphora, Discourse, and
Understanding: Evidence from English and French.
Oxford: Clarendon Press
Coulmas, Florian (1982), "Some Remarks on Japanese Deictics". In: Weissenborn & Klein (eds.),
Croft, William (1990), Typology and Universals,
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Daalder, Saskia (1986), First-person deixis, Duisburg: LAUD
Denny, J. Peter (1978), "Locating the Universals
in Lexical Systems for Spatial Deixis". In: Farkas,
Donka & Jacobsen, Wesley M. & Todrys, Karol W.
(eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon.
Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago/IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society, 71⫺84
Diessel, Holger (1999), Demonstratives: Form,
Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam
etc.: Benjamins
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Blake, Barry J. (1979⫺
1991, eds.), Handbook of Australian Languages,
Vol. 1⫺4. Amsterdam: Benjamins
cessing in Language. Berlin etc.: Mouton de
Gildea, Spike (1993), "The Development of Tense
Markers from Demonstrative Pronouns in Panare
(Cariban)". Studies in Language 17, 53⫺73
Dixon, Robert M. W. (1981), "Wargamay". In:
Dixon & Blake (1981, eds.), xxiv, 1⫺144
Givón, Talmy (1984), Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. 1⫺2. Amsterdam etc.:
Donnellan, Keith S. (1978), "Speaker References,
Descriptions and Anaphora". In: Cole, Peter (ed.).
Pragmatics. New York etc.: Academic Press, 47⫺68
Goffman, Erving (1979), "Footing". Semiotica 25,
1⫺29 [reprinted in: Forms of Talk, Philadelphia:
Univ. of Pennsylvania Press 1981, 124⫺159]
Du Bois, John W. (1980), "Beyond Definiteness:
The Trace of Identity in Discourse". In: Chafe,
Wallace L. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood/NJ: Ablex, 203⫺274
Goldberg, Adele E. (1996, ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford/CA: CSLI
Green, Keith (1995, ed.), New Essays in Deixis.
Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi
Duchan, Judith F. & Bruder, Gail A. & Hewitt,
Lynne E. (1995, eds.), Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale/NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates
Grenoble, Lenore A. (1998), Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Amsterdam
Eades, Diana (1979), "Gumbaynggir". In: Dixon &
Blake (eds.), 244⫺361
Grice, H. Paul (1975), "Logic and Conversation".
In: Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Speech
Acts. New York etc.: Academic Press, 41⫺58
Ebert, Karen H. (1987), "Grammatical Marking of
Speech Act Participants in Tibeto-Burman". Journal of Pragmatics 11, 473⫺482
Epstein, Richard (1996), "Viewpoint and the Definite Article". In: Goldberg (ed.), 99⫺112
Feuillet, Jack (1992), "La structuration de la deixis
spatiale". In: Morel & Danon-Boileau (eds.),
Fillmore, Charles J. (1975), Santa Cruz Lectures on
Deixis. Bloomington/IN: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club
Hanks, William F. (1989), "The Indexical Ground
of Deictic Reference". In: Music, Bradley & Graczyk, Randolph & Wiltshire, Caroline (eds.), Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society. Part Two: Parasession
on Language in Context, 104⫺122 [reprinted in:
Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (1992,
eds.), Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 43⫺76]
Fillmore, Charles J. (1997), Lectures on Deixis.
Hanks, William F. (1990), Referential Practice:
Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago etc.: The Univ. of Chicago Press
Fludernik, Monika (1991), "Shifters and deixis:
Some Reflections on Jakobson, Jespersen, and reference". Semiotica 86, 193⫺230
Harada, Sin I. (1976), "Honorifics". In: Shibatani,
Masayoshi (ed.), Japanese Generative Grammar,
New York etc.: Academic Press, 499⫺561
Fludernik, Monika (1995), "Pronouns of Address
and 'Odd' Third Person Forms: The Mechanics of
Involvement in Fiction". In: Green, Keith (ed.),
Haviland, John (1979), "Guugu Yimidhirr". In:
Dixon & Blake (eds.), 26⫺180
Fox, Barbara (1996, ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins
Frei, Henri (1944), "Systèmes de déictiques". Acta
Linguistica 4, 111⫺129
Geiger, Richard A. (1995, ed.), Reference in Multidisciplinary Perspective: Philosophical Object, Cognitive Subject, Intersubjective Process. Hildesheim
etc.: Georg Olms Verlag
Geiger, Richard A. & Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida
(1993, eds.), Conceptualisations and Mental Pro-
Hawkins, John A. (1984), "A Note on Referent
Identifiability and Co-presence". Journal of Pragmatics 8, 649⫺659.
Heeschen, Volker (1982), "Some Systems of Spatial
Deixis in Papuan Languages". In: Weissenborn &
Klein (eds.), 81⫺109
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1996), "Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: A Taxonomy of Universal Uses". In: Fox (ed.), 205⫺254
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1997), Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer
Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Irvine, Judith T. (1996), "Shadow Conversations:
The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles". In: Silverstein, Michael & Urban, Greg (eds.), Natural
History of Discourse. Chicago, London: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 131⫺159
Kirsner, Robert S. (1979), "Deixis in Discourse: An
Exploratory Quantitative Study of the Modern
Dutch Demonstrative Adjectives". In: Givón,
Talmy (ed.), Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 355⫺375
Jacobsen, W[illiam] H. (1980), "Inclusive/Exclusive: A Diffused Pronominal Category in Native
Western North America". In: Kreiman, Jody


Download Book Hotdogger The Aldo Zelnick Comic Novel Series in PDF format. You can Read Online Hotdogger The Aldo Zelnick Comic Novel Series here in PDF, EPUB, Mobi or Docx formats.
Just how humdrum is 10-year-old Aldo Zelnick's life right now? So humdrum that he sets out to measure which January day will be the most boring. So humdrum that Jack and Bee succeed in getting him to try some weird hobbies. So humdrum that his recurring Hawaiian dream has become way more enticing than real life. So humdrum that even unathletic Aldo agrees to downhill ski with his superjock brother, Timothy -- and finds that hotdogging it on the slopes can be hazardous to your health. The humorous plot and lively drawings in this book will captivate enthusiastic and reluctant readers alike. This eighth installment in an A-to-Z alphabet series also includes a glossary of fun and challenging "H words," such as harbinger, hyperbole, and hogwash.


Impact of environmental stress on the performance of sheep with different mature sizes and milk production potentials.
How sheep of different genotypes produce in different environments is of major importance to livestock producers. An adapted sheep must have the ability to cope with environmental extremes of the locale. Numerous genetic x environmental studies have been designed to examine interactions (King and Young, 1955; Dunlop, 1963; Hohenboken et al., 1976.) However, these studies are limited to the effects of weather conditions which occurred during the course of the experiment. The objective of this study was to document how different genotypes (varying in mature size and potential milk production level) responded to an average year, a drought year, and how they recover from the drought, by using a simulation model.