Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T23:09:19.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canonical gender1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2015

GREVILLE G. CORBETT  and
SEBASTIAN FEDDEN
GREVILLE G. CORBETT*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
SEBASTIAN FEDDEN*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey & The University of Sydney
*
Author’s address: Surrey Morphology Group, School of English and Languages, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK[email protected]
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, School of Letters, Art and Media, John Woolley Bldg A20, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nominal classification remains a fascinating topic but in order to make further progress we need greater clarity of definition and analysis. Taking a Canonical Typology approach, we use canonical gender as an ideal against which we can measure the actual gender systems we find in the languages of the world. Building on previous work on canonical morphosyntactic features, particularly on how they intersect with canonical parts of speech, we establish the distinctiveness of gender, reflected in the Canonical Gender Principle: In a canonical gender system, each noun has a single gender value. We develop three criteria associated with this principle, which together ensure that canonically a noun has exactly one gender value; we give examples of non-canonicity for each criterion, thus gradually building the typology. This is the essential groundwork for a comprehensive typology of nominal classification: the Canonical Typological approach allows us to tease apart clusterings of properties and to characterize individual properties with respect to a canonical ideal, rather than requiring us to treat the entire system as belonging to a single type. This approach is designed to facilitate comparisons of different noun classification systems across languages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , 01 November 2016 , pp. 495 - 531
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aksenov, A. T. 1984. K probleme èkstralingvističeskoj motivacii grammatičeskoj kategorii roda [On the extralinguistic motivation of the grammatical category of gender]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1, 14–25.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Juri D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 12.142, 5–32.Google Scholar
Asher, R. E. 1985. Tamil. London: Croom Helm. [Reprinted 1989, London: Routledge]Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2011. Gender. Oxford bibliographies online: Linguistics. http://www.oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0066.xml(accessed 4 January 2012).Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2014. Gender as a complex feature. In Paciaroni, Tania, Thornton, Anna M. & Loporcaro, Michele (eds.), Exploring grammatical gender: Special issue of Language Sciences 43, 5–17.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benni, Stefano. 1976[2011]. Bar sport. Milan: Universale Economica Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Birkenes, Magnus Breder, Chroni, Kleopatra & Fleischer, Jürg. 2014. Genus- und Sexuskongruenz im Neuhochdeutschen: Ergebnisse einer Korpusuntersuchung zur narrativen Prosa des 17. bis 19. Jahrhunderts. Deutsche Sprache 42, 1–24.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–15. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike & Haig, Geoffrey. 2010. When are German ‘girls’ feminine? How the semantics of age influences the grammar of gender agreement. In Bieswanger, Markus, Motschenbacher, Heiko & Mühleisen, Susanne (eds.), Language in its socio-cultural context: New explorations in gendered, global and media uses, 69–83. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Chumakina, Marina. 2013. What there might be and what there is: An introduction to Canonical Typology. In Brown et al. (eds.), 1–19.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.). 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Lea & Dryer, Matthew S.. 2008a. The verbs for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea. Language 84, 528–565.Google Scholar
Brown, Lea & Dryer, Matthew S.. 2008b. Diminutive as an inflectional category in Walman. Ms., University at Buffalo. linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/BrownDryerWalmanDimin.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2005. Grammatical gender and personification. In Diskin, Dorit & Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honour of Ruth A. Berman, 105–114. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen & Kilarski, Marcin. 2013. Functions of nominal classification. Language Sciences 40, 263–299.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The Agreement Hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203–224. [Reprinted in Francis X. Katamba (ed.). 2003. Morphology: Critical concepts in linguistic, vol. 4: Morphology and syntax, 48–70. London: Routledge.]Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Gender and noun classes. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 2nd edn., 241–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2011. The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems. In Bobaljik, Jonathan, Sauerland, Uli & Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Markedness and underspecification in the morphology and semantics of agreement: Special issue of Morphology 21, 445–480.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Brown et al. (eds.), 48–65.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015a. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91, 145–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.2015b. Hybrid nouns and their complexity. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 287), 191–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2013. Agreement as anaphora, anaphora as coreference. In Bakker, Dik & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 95–117. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Animacy and the notion of default gender. In Unterbeck, Barbara, Rissanen, Matti, Nevalainen, Terttu & Saari, Mirja (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition, vol. 1: Approaches to gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), 99–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Nominal classification. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax, 157–233. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In Pawley, Andrew, Ross, Malcolm & Tryon, Darrell (eds.), The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton (Pacific Linguistics 514), 97–115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Drabbe, Petrus. 1955. Spraakkunst van het Marind, zuidkust Nederlands Nieuw Guinea [A grammar of Marind, south coast of Dutch New Guinea] (Studia Instituti Anthropos 11). Wien & Mödling: Missiehuis St. Gabriel.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1955. Kolami: A Dravidian language (University of California Publications in Linguistics 12). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2013. Scandinavian pancake sentences revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.. 2002. The semantics of gender in Mayali: Partially parallel systems and formal implementation. Language 78.1, 111–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1977. Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedden, Sebastian. 2011. A grammar of Mian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Senft(ed.), 50–92.Google Scholar
Haugen, Tor Arne & Enger, Hans-Olav. 2014. Scandinavian pancake constructions as a family of constructions. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1, 171–196.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1982. African noun class systems. In Seiler, Hansjakob & Lehmann, Christian (eds.), Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, vol. 1: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene, 189–216. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hosokawa, Komei. 1996. ‘My face amburning!’ quasi-passive, body parts, and related issues in Yawuru grammar and cultural concepts. In Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body parts and the part–whole relation, 155–192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax–morphology interface in HPSG. In Levine, Robert D. & Green, Georgia M. (eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. E., Kodzasov, S. V., Olovjannikova, I. P. & Samedov, D. S.. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka I: Leksika, fonetika [A structural description of Archi I: Lexis and phonetics] (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki 11). Moscow: Izdatel ́stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kilarski, Marcin. 2013. Nominal classification: A history of its study from the classical period to the present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael & Zubin, David A.. 1984. Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation. Linguistische Berichte 93, 26–50.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Zubin, David A.. 2010. Motivating grammatical and conceptual gender agreement in German. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Handl, Susanne (eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns, 171–194. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. Forthcoming. Gender. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), Oxford handbook of the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele & Paciaroni, Tania. 2011. Four-gender systems in Indo-European. Folia Linguistica 45.2, 389–434.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Robustelli, Cecilia. 2007. A reference grammar of modern Italian, 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane(ed.). 2012. Count and mass across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mel ́čuk, Igor A..2013. The notion of inflection and the expression of nominal gender in Spanish. Studies in Language 37.4, 736–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Peter. 1994. Grammatical categories and the methodology of linguistics. Review article on W. Andries van Helden, Case and gender: Concept formation between morphology and syntax, 1993. Russian Linguistics18, 341–377.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris, Busley, Simone & Drenda, Juliane. 2013. Dat Anna und s Eva – Neutrale Frauenrufnamen in deutschen Dialekten und im Luxemburgischen zwischen pragmatischer und semantischer Genuszuweisung. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 80.2, 152–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey D. 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 1–43.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey D. 1996. Transfers of meaning. In Pustejovsky, James & Boguraev, Branimir (eds.), Lexical semantics: The problem of polysemy, 109–132. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey D. 2008. The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 344–363. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pišković, Tatjana. 2011. Gramatika roda [The grammar of gender]. Zagreb: Disput.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1988. The syntax–phonology interface. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 1, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Nicholas. 1997. Class and classifiers in Ngan’gityemerri. In Harvey, Mark & Reid, Nicholas (eds.), Nominal classification in Aboriginal Australia, 165–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2005. The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraña (North West Amazon). Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 2000a. What do we really know about nominal classification systems?In Senft (ed.), 11–49.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter(ed.). 2000b. Systems of nominal classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 2007. Nominal classification. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 676–725. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shevelov, G. Y. 1963. The syntax of modern literary Ukranian: The simple sentence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Singer, Ruth. 2010. Creativity in the use of gender agreement in Mawng: How the discourse functions of a gender system can approach those of a classifier system. Studies in Language 34, 382–416.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories’. In Orgun, C. Orhan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe (Stanford Studies in Morphology and the Lexicon), 95–138. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2009. Constraining gender assignment rules. Language Sciences 31, 14–32.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory. 2004. Equatives and deferred reference. Language 80, 262–289.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2011. Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29, 999–1031.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2013. The structure of Swedish Pancakes . In Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elisabeth (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wegener, Claudia. 2012. A grammar of Savosavo. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike & Maling, Joan. 2005. Beers, Kaffi, and Schnaps: Different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17, 1–38.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1964. K voprosu o grammatičeskix kategorijax roda i oduševlennosti v sovremennom russkom jazyke [The grammatical categories of gender and animacy in modern Russian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4, 25–40.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax [Interpreting the term ‘case’ in linguistic descriptions]. In Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (ed.), Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija [Problems of grammatical modelling], 53–87. Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted in Andrej A. Zaliznjak. 2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju [Russian nominal inflection: With a supplement of selected works on contemporary Russian and on general linguistics], 613–647. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul ́tury.]Google Scholar