Comments on: Markedness and nesting http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-and-nesting/ Removing the mystery from discourse grammar Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:31:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-and-nesting/comment-page-1/#comment-285 Steve Runge Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:40:07 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=471#comment-285 Peter, Thanks for the comment. I recall Mike Aubrey making similar comments about Russian, but my skills are too rusty to add anything. Generally speaking (at least according to Foley and Van Valin), the perfective aspect is typically the least marked, and thus the most frequently occurring. Levinsohn provides a tidy presentation of their claims in "Discourse Features", section 10.2 on "natural prominence." Having said this, one might end up reorganizing the system somewhat based on the constraints of Russian. Remember, it is an organizational system that organizes the set, but there ought to be typological principles that are followed. This is the thrust of Foley and Van Valin's discussion. Peter, Thanks for the comment. I recall Mike Aubrey making similar comments about Russian, but my skills are too rusty to add anything. Generally speaking (at least according to Foley and Van Valin), the perfective aspect is typically the least marked, and thus the most frequently occurring. Levinsohn provides a tidy presentation of their claims in “Discourse Features”, section 10.2 on “natural prominence.” Having said this, one might end up reorganizing the system somewhat based on the constraints of Russian. Remember, it is an organizational system that organizes the set, but there ought to be typological principles that are followed. This is the thrust of Foley and Van Valin’s discussion.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-and-nesting/comment-page-1/#comment-284 Peter Kirk Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:32:53 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=471#comment-284 It would be interesting to compare the situations in Greek and in Russian, as their verb systems are remarkably similar. In Russian there are many verbs in which the imperfective is morphologically basic and the perfective is derived from it by prefixation, and there are also many verbs in which the perfective is basic and the imperfective is derived by suffixation. (There are also secondary imperfectives, formed from a basic imperfective with a prefix to make it perfective and a suffix to turn it back into imperfective. And there are secondary perfectives formed from a perfective with a suffix to make it imperfective and a prefix to make it perfective again - and possibly even some with a second suffix to turn it back yet again into an imperfective.) I see traces of the same system in Greek, e.g. the <i>-an</i> in verbs like <i>lambano</i> looks very like one of the Russian imperfectivising suffixes and suggests that in verbs like this the aorist stem <i>lab-</i> etc. is the more basic form. I'm not sure quite how these morphological changes relate to markedness, but the morphological base forms were presumably the original defaults. It would be interesting to compare the situations in Greek and in Russian, as their verb systems are remarkably similar.

In Russian there are many verbs in which the imperfective is morphologically basic and the perfective is derived from it by prefixation, and there are also many verbs in which the perfective is basic and the imperfective is derived by suffixation. (There are also secondary imperfectives, formed from a basic imperfective with a prefix to make it perfective and a suffix to turn it back into imperfective. And there are secondary perfectives formed from a perfective with a suffix to make it imperfective and a prefix to make it perfective again – and possibly even some with a second suffix to turn it back yet again into an imperfective.) I see traces of the same system in Greek, e.g. the -an in verbs like lambano looks very like one of the Russian imperfectivising suffixes and suggests that in verbs like this the aorist stem lab- etc. is the more basic form.

I’m not sure quite how these morphological changes relate to markedness, but the morphological base forms were presumably the original defaults.

]]> By: Mike Aubrey http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-and-nesting/comment-page-1/#comment-272 Mike Aubrey Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:36:11 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=471#comment-272 <i>BUT: there are several categories of verbs for which it appears that the middle-passive form is the default</i> This is partially true, that is, some verbs do not have a active form, but that does not mean that the active still isn't default within the Markedness system. The middle/passive form is default only in the sense that its normal, but not in the sense that its unmarked. Though I know Carl wouldn't use this terminology, his discussions of voice on his <a href="http://artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/" rel="nofollow">homepage</a> suggest quite clearly that voice, linguistically speaking, is semantic role agreement. If that's the case, then the middle/passive is still marked since those verbs which take it normally are semantically distinct from those that do not. What we need is a broad study that examines these verbs more closely for making generalizations about the semantics of these verbs. BUT: there are several categories of verbs for which it appears that the middle-passive form is the default

This is partially true, that is, some verbs do not have a active form, but that does not mean that the active still isn’t default within the Markedness system. The middle/passive form is default only in the sense that its normal, but not in the sense that its unmarked.

Though I know Carl wouldn’t use this terminology, his discussions of voice on his homepage suggest quite clearly that voice, linguistically speaking, is semantic role agreement.

If that’s the case, then the middle/passive is still marked since those verbs which take it normally are semantically distinct from those that do not. What we need is a broad study that examines these verbs more closely for making generalizations about the semantics of these verbs.

]]>