Lexical Flexibility and Grammar Writing: Some Take-Aways from a Comparative Study of Space in Trans-Himalayan
This talk presents findings from a collaborative study that looks comprehensively at the grammatical encoding of spatial concepts in fifty languages from across Trans-Himalayan. The research is based on an extensive relational database with data pulled from the remarkable body of reference grammars that have appeared over the course of this century, including many examples from natural connected discourse. This study provides a window onto lexical flexibility, i.e., lexemes that function in more than one word class without any derivational morphology (also referred to as underspecification of word class (Van Lier and Rijkhoff 2013), precategoriality (Sun 2020), or transcategorization (Jezek 2009)). This is commonly discussed with regards to major lexical categories, such as noun, verb, adjective, and adverb (e.g. van Lier and Rijkoff 2013). Our study adds adpositions to this list.
For example, in Meithei, Chelliah describes a class of “locative adverbs”. The categorization as adverbs comes from examples like (1), where the form occurs without inflection, is pre-verbal (a common position for adverbs), and clearly modifies the following verb. However, we also find the example in (2), where the locative adverb modifies a noun, so it appears to function as an adjective. In (3), the locative adverb functions as a (relator) noun; it is modified by a genitive NP and carries a locative case marker. Example (4) is similar, but there is no genitive marker, suggesting that this has moved down the relator-noun > adposition cline (DeLancey 1997). It independently licenses a dependent noun phrase.
- (1) mə-tuŋ in-nə
NM-behind follow-INST‘…following behind…’(Chelliah 1997: 407)
- (2) ma-khá laykay-ki Pebəm-ki Ibotombi-nə
NM-south neighborhood-GEN Pebam-GEN Ibotombi-CNTR“Pebem Ibotombi from the south side of our neighborhood.”(Chelliah 1997: 446)
- (3) má-ki mə-nák-ta ləy-hən-li
he-GEN NM-near-LOC be-CAUS-PROG‘made him stand nearby (him)’(Chelliah 1997: 390)
- (4) mə-yam mə-máŋ-tə-su khóŋ-khoy-nə-lə-e
NM-lot NM-before-LOC-ALSO leg-rough-ADV-PERF-ASRT“He has been shamed in front of everyone…”(Chelliah 1997: 475)
Our database has found lexical flexibility between adverbs and adpositions, adverbs and relator nouns, relator nouns and adpositions, adverbs and adjectives, adpositions and verbs, and verbs and directionals. While one might be tempted to see such flexibility as the result of diachronic processes (i.e., grammaticalization in progress), this approach assumes a teleological outcome that may or may not be reached and sidesteps the question of the synchronic status of these forms. Diachrony is highly relevant where known, but a synchronic analysis is also needed.
Lexical flexibility often goes unremarked in grammars, even when it is evident in discourse examples. It is a challenge for grammar writers for several reasons. First, given everything that a grammar writer must contend with, some of these forms are relatively minor and examples are few and far between; this makes these differences easy to overlook. As a result, grammars are at times internally inconsistent, e.g. a single lexeme may be described as an adverb in one place, but as an adposition in another. In addition, from the earliest part of our linguistic training, we are taught to sort words into classes. These classes themselves then serve as the structural framework for reference grammars, which typically have distinct chapters or sections for nouns, verbs, adjectives, possibly adverbs, and “minor word classes.” Thus, the conventions of grammar writing themselves impose a need to decide on a classification. We encourage grammar writers to follow Noonan’s directive to “describe everything!” (2005, 2008). Techniques for addressing lexical flexibility in grammar writing include: making the structural criteria for word classes explicit by providing discussion and illustration of observed variation; exemplifying lexical flexibility where it occurs; and providing tables of structural criteria.
As a case study, we discuss relator nouns in Chepang, a Trans-Himalayan language spoken in four districts of Nepal. This language has twenty-five “nominal postpositional elements” that variously function as adverbs, NPs, relator nouns or postpositions. Pons (2021) provides extensive discussion of the syntax, semantics, and frames of reference of these forms, some of which are native to Chepang and some of which are borrowed from Nepali. Pons describes and exemplifies the variable behavior of these morphemes in different syntactic structures, contrasts the native and borrowed forms with a high degree of detail, provides evidence for specific diachronic pathways, and provides tables of constructions linked to particular forms. This case study demonstrates not only how a grammar writer might approach lexical flexibility, but also shows the richness of insight into the nature of language that the study of spatial encodings can provide.
