User:Al90Lopez/sandbox

Wikipedia Discussion Assignment #2

1. Check the "Talk" page of the article you've selected. What is the level of importance (or quality) assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that “grade?”

The Wikipedia article on Clitics received a B-class level classification, which indicates that it may obtain A-class level classification with revision and improvement. One major reason that this article received this grade is because it lacks more comprehensive information on clitics despite that the organization is evident. The article gives a thorough and clear introduction and definition of clitics, identifying the importance of clitics in the morphology and syntax interface and its cross-linguistic presence. As defined by the article, a clitic is a morpheme with syntactic characteristics of a word, yet it is phonologically dependent on another word or phrase and attaches to a “host” like an affix. Clitics have grammatical function, which generally are pronouns across languages but may be determiners or adpositions. As noted in the introduction, the definition is rather vague and perhaps too technical for the layperson, although it forewarns the reader of the misconception between orthography and the morpheme, which a clitic can exhibit in the languages that have both a clitic and orthographic system. In this respect, the article requires more information to clarify the misconception between orthography and language as studied in linguistics that a layperson may presuppose because clitics are existent in non-orthographic languages. One instance in which the author intends to reduce linguistic technicalities is by the word choice of “host” for stem. Although this may clarify to the reader how morphological processes are analyzed and perceived in linguistic theory, it might not be appropriate for an encyclopedic entry that intends to present more objective and established language in the discourse of linguistic theory.

Notwithstanding these evident deficiencies, the article introduces the type and categories of clitics that are found across languages. However, the definition of proclitic, enclitic, mesoclitic, and endoclitic are too brief and not detailed enough so that a layperson may understand what a clitic means. The section on mesoclitics is detailed but requires more substantial data, and the section on endoclitics, which is explained to exhibit an irregular pattern in contrast to the other clitics, lacks data to support it. The definition of the distinction that classifies clitics as either simple (free morphemes) or special clitics, which behave as affixes onto a stem. The definition of “special clitics” is vague, as it explains that special clitics result from phonological patterns, which may be incomprehensible to someone with no prior knowledge of phonology and the phenomenon seen in the morphology-phonology interface. The next section on the Properties of Clitics receives extensive coverage. The article explains the grammaticalization of clitics and references Klavans, who states that clitics derive from lexical items that underwent a process in which it acquired the properties of affixes however still retaining the original word’s grammatical function. Although this definition is significant and serves its purpose as an encyclopedic definition, it does not fully explain what are the specific characteristics of affixes and how these distinguish from free morphemes. The subsection on prosody requires more information and examples, although it describes briefly the clitics’ lack of prosodic independence, which may be incomprehensible for someone with no linguistic background. In the section “Comparison with Affixes”, it is described how clitics are classified in the linguistic literature as a unit within the continuum of a lexical word or an affix. Importantly, this section states that clitics are prosodically deficient and for this reason require to affix to a stem, which is called a postlexical clitic. Why clitics are distinct from affixes is because clitics attach to a verb and function on the word, phrase, or clause level. Importantly, the article references Zwicky and Pullum’s definition of clitics as distinct from affixes, which states that clitics are flexible as to which word’s grammatical category it attaches to, are subject to morphophonological processes, maintain its meaning and do not derive new meaning or convert a word’s function that it attaches to, and may combine with other clitics. Moreover, the section on the “Comparison with Words” supplements the section that explains the distinction with words and is very detailed and further explains the specific and problematic meaning of clitics. To the layperson, this section can introduce how linguists view language as distinctive as the general concept of an orthographic system or speech and the problematic meaning of “word” in linguistics. This article demonstrates that it is B-level, yet it is close to an A-level as explained.

2. Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address?

The talk page focuses on the issues of clitic classification and definition and the cross-linguistic differences of clitics. Moreover, similar questions of whether in certain languages certain morphemes may be classified as clitics and how these morphemes exhibit the properties of clitics are posed. For example, one comment poses the question whether in Greek ‘kai’, ‘te’, ‘de’ are clitics and why and also whether the English genitive or possessive morpheme s’ or the Dutch ‘ze’ is a clitic. Importantly, two comments critique the article’s discussion of mesoclitics and stress patterns and cliticization, which were perfunctorily treated. The section on mesoclitics questions whether mesoclitics, which in Romance languages are direct or indirect object pronouns, are in fact not clitics. Moreover, the section on “Stress pattern and Cliticization” suggests that the surfacing of morphemes or words due to stress in speech are phonological realizations and not clitics. For example, in English colloquial speech, “Whatdya doing”, the talk page critiques the article’s explanation that such stress patterns affected by the ‘dya’ contraction exhibit clitic properties, because the unit ‘dya’ carries syntactic information and is phonologically realized after attaching to the stem. However, these examples seem to be phonologically and sociolinguistically explained and therefore misleading to classify these as clitics in colloquial English. As the article left many areas of clitics undiscussed or briefly discussed, the talk page demonstrates a response to the general question on how to define and classify clitics, which the article referred to as one of the points of contention in linguistic theory in the precise classification and identification of clitics.

3. Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it?

In the section that discusses the identification of the possessive marker as clitic in English, the authors identify that the Wikipedia article’s definition that a clitic joins to a word and constitutes a phonological word is inaccurate because a clitic is not a word but a function morpheme. The author of this comment brings into question the concept of word as it applies to clitics. If clitics do not exhibit the general properties of other lexical and functional categories, how are clitics defined as morphemes or words and how these are represented in the mental lexicon. English introduces an enigmatic problem on the classification of clitics because English is presumed to be a language that lacks clitics. The possessive marker ‘s is argued to be a clitic according to the article’s definition because it acts as a proclitic, which attaches either to the possessor stem or the object possessed, carries syntactic function, and attaches to a phonological unit, another word. In this talk section, the author argues that the possessive marker ‘s is a remnant of the genitive case in Old English, whose suffixal morpheme was –es, and therefore the modern possessor marker is a contraction of this suffix. The author provides evidence of this genitive morpheme –es remnant in examples such as “Tuesday”, which in Old English was “Tiwes Daeg”, Wednesday, or Thursday, literally translated as the day of Tu, Wotan or Thor respectively. Therefore, this author argues that the ‘s is not a clitic but a remnant of a genitive case morpheme, and hence a suffix.

In contrast in the section “English Clitics et al.”, the author discerns that the definition of clitics as a phonological unit with a function is problematic for the concept of word and clitic in the English possessive morpheme ‘s. The author references SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, which defines clitics to have grammatical rather than lexical meaning and are function words. This implies that clitics are not function morphemes, which would explain the process of affixation that clitics exhibit in certain languages, but are rather words that compound other words, if the SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms and the Wikipedia article are correct. A second problem with the definition of clitics is that clitics are defined to be separate phonological units that may attach to any other word. However, clitics are able to attach to determiner phrases, as in English clitic ‘s. Yet, this example that the author provides is only restrictive to English, which requires more cross-linguistic data as a comparison. If clitics are referred to as phonological units, then clitics are considered separate functional words that rather compound with other words. Hence, this brings into question why affixal morphemes are not words and why these are rather components of words, yet clitics behave like affixal morphemes and obfuscate its theoretical definition. Moreover, a property of affixal morphemes is that these are not words and therefore are not phonological units, which the article defined to be properties of words. Morphemes in a sense are not phonological units because these are phonetically realized after the morphological processes makes these surface on the stem, which is the phonological unit. Clitics, therefore, provide a need to revise the concept of word and morpheme in order to encompass the irregularities that clitics exhibit in languages. As discussed in the talk page, it seems that clitics are discussed within the framework of what is presumed to be a word and what exists as a word in the mental lexicon, and hence show an irresolvable gap in the definition of clitics.

4. How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others.

The talk page brings into question the function and the classification of clitics as words and illustrates that the concept of word is inapplicable to clitics. As morphemes, clitics are obscured in function because these exhibit properties of functional categories but are more intricate in its phrasal categorical meaning. Moreover, the concept of word as a phonological unit is a theoretical issue that involves the morphology and phonology interface because this definition distinguishes words as phonological units and morphemes as existing outside phonology and becoming phonetically realized after morphological processes. Further exploration of word as a phonological unit is important because this illustrates that words are phonological strings of sounds which through speech segmentation and perception words become bounded and distinctive from other words. Hence, this would indicate that speech segmentation is a process that sets the boundaries of words and words perhaps in themselves do not exist in the mental lexicon as a representation but perhaps as a bounded unit of a phonological string. A question arises then how do morphemes exist in the mental lexicon if these are not phonological units, but are phonologically realized post-morphologically. Within this framework, clitics pose a significant problem on the concept of word because these have syntactic properties of words but are depended phonologically on other words or phrases. This indicates that clitics also behave similarly to morphemes because these are phonologically realized after morphological processes and do not preexist in the lexicon as phonological units or words. Hence, the concept of clitics may contribute to the issues of the interfaces and which component has more priority in the mental representation of language. Clitics seem to counterintuitively demonstrate that words may exist as devoid of phonological representation in the lexicon and surface as phonological units when syntactic and morphological structure allows them to surface.

5. What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?)

The talk page clarified many of the issues that the Wikipedia article missed to discuss and the theoretical challenges in defining clitics. Moreover, the talk page provides convincing arguments against the inaccuracy of the article’s definition of clitics. Counterintuitively, a clitic is a word in the sense that it has a grammatical or syntactic function, but it is not a word and behaves like a morpheme because it is not a phonological unit. The paradox of clitics is that this definition would suggest that clitics seem to compound with other words if these are words, but also affix to a stem and are phonologically realized after morphology. In light of these observations that the talk page discussed, the question therefore arises: which language process of the mental grammar (phonology, syntax, morphology) is responsible for the surfacing of clitics. The talk page raises many important issues arising from the Wikipedia article and proposes significant and valid arguments. Although English exhibits one instance of a clitic in the possessive marking, other languages such as the Romance languages exhibit clitics as agglutinating morphemes, a process that is often confused as polysynthesis. For example, a subtype of clitics are the mesoclitics, which are the clitics in the Romance languages which are in fact direct and indirect object pronouns that attach to a verb stem. Hence, the concept of clitics is not theoretically defined or proven because the properties and behavior of clitics are cross-linguistically different and do not demonstrate a general structure. Moreover, languages such as English seem to exhibit “false” clitics which may obfuscate the concept of clitics, such as the possessive marker and verbal contractions, which is a significant counter-argument to article’s proposed definition. The example of false clitics was also raised with the clitics of the Romance languages since these can in fact be orthographic conventions that attach the clitics onto the verb stem, hence invalidating their definition. This example is justified since clitics are generally discussed within the framework of Romance languages in introductory textbook material, from which this Wikipedia article seemed to extract. From the questions raised in the talk page, it may be concluded that clitics are unexplained remnants that are present in the language that do not fall within the domain of words or morphemes, and their presence reveals irregularities in the interfaces and how clitics may place restrictions on morphological, syntactic, and phonological processes.

Wikipedia Assignment #3

Reduplication

1. Check the "Talk" page of the article you've selected. What is the level of importance (or quality) assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that “grade?” The Wikipedia article on Reduplication is classified as a “Start” article, indicating that this article is developing and is more like an outlined draft, hence this article’s importance has not yet been rated. Despite that this article did not receive a class-level grade, reduplication is a significant topic in morphology because it illustrates that morphological processes are not strictly appending or affixing suffixes, but that this process involves copying a segment of the base or the word and reduplicating onto the base as a process of word and lexical formation. Language typologies that utilize reduplication as a morphological process of word formation illustrate that this process is interconnected with morphophonological processes and the segment of the base is systematically reduplicated according to phonological rules, such as syllabic and phonotactic patterns, which the article defines. The article’s introduction briefly introduces the topic and defines reduplication, which perhaps led to a rating as a “start” article because the introduction is not accessible to the layperson. As indicated in the review of this article, the introduction does not define technical terms that may be obscure to the reader with no prior linguistic background and hence may further confuse the reader. Nevertheless, the strength of the introduction is that it states that reduplication is inflectional, as it may convey grammatical function such as plurality, and it is derivational, as it may create new words by altering the semantic category of the word by reduplication. Second, the introduction states that reduplication may not be entirely grammatical or derivational, but it may be “iconic” in meaning as a means to be more expressive or figurative since it relates to tone and intonation, which is commonly seen in ordinary speech. However, the introduction lacks examples to illustrate these concepts of reduplication. The reason that this article received a “starting” classification because this article is more of an outline with examples of reduplication across language typologies. The examples and data set are extensive but the presentation of the data is not explained or introduced and analyzed sufficiently as to be understood as an encyclopedic article. For example, the section “Typological Description” briefly introduces how the data should be analyzed, yet a reader with no prior linguistic background would not be able to understand the technicality of linguistic analysis. The article correctly states that reduplication involves the phonology and morphology interface because not only reduplicated units or “reduplicants” are single or sequential phonemes but reduplicated segments may be larger, prosodic units (syllables or morae) or constituents (root, stem, and word); hence, the article correctly provides this generalization and cross-linguistic differences of reduplication, which was clearly explained. The discussion of full and partial reduplication, reduplication position (initial, final, or internal) requires clearer glossing and annotation in order for a reader to understand the data. Hence, the article has potential to develop as a Wikipedia entry if it addresses the clarity of data presentation and simplifies jargon

2. Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address?

The main topic of the talk page concern the data presented in the article and the classification and analysis of Reduplication in several different languages. The contributors in this article bring into question whether certain examples presented in the language are in fact examples of reduplication. For example, one contributor identified that Japanese, although not considered a language with reduplication as a morphological process, exhibits certain isolating examples of reduplication, such as words that reduplicate the entire word. This question is also raised in another contributor’s discussion of reduplication examples, such as “mumbo-jumbo”, “shill-shally”, “hugger-mugger”, in colloquial English. Interestingly, this section proposes to view these isolated examples of reduplication in certain languages without overt or established reduplication processes as an interface with semantics, since these kind of examples mainly to express a semantic nuance in certain contexts. Authors in this discussion identified that not only do these examples interface with semantics but are pragmatic and sociolinguistic in nature, since isolated reduplication examples in a language generally occur in colloquial or non-standardized dialects of the language. Other topics raised in the discussion is the need to include data that is representative of Indo-European typology of reduplication and reduplication that is grammatical.

3. Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it?

One issue is the classification and definition of instances of reduplication in languages without this process. A second issue that is raised in the discussion is the article’s need to revise its discussion of grammaticalized reduplication in Sanskrit and Classical Greek. Although briefly mentioned, this section is very relevant to the question of reduplication as process that is grammaticalized in the inflectional system of a language. Classical Greek is an example of this, but it is significant because it is a single instance of reduplication. For example, in Classical Greek, the perfective aspect exhibits reduplication of for certain irregular stems, such as “leipo”, realized as “leloipa” in the perfect tense. This is an example of partial and grammaticalized reduplication because it is part of the inflectional system of Greek, although that this form is irregular. The author of this brief comment significantly highlights that this rare instance of grammatical reduplication is a remnant of Indo-European reduplication. Another contributor states that Sanskrit requires more coverage because this language shows reduplication as a productive process in its inflectional morphology and its one of the classical Indo-European languages that is widely studied in comparative historical linguistics, from which remnants of reduplication seen in Classical Greek perfect system that may provide clues as to why reduplication becomes a grammaticalized productive morphological process and why it declines over time or in closely related language typologies. The issue raised in the discussion of isolating instances of reduplication in non-reduplication languages such as Japanese is very informative and relevant to class discussion of coinages. Examples such as “kurukuru” or “barabara” are examples of reduplication in Japanese. An interesting question that this contributor raises is whether reduplication as a morphological process that is considered typologically specific may extend to explain such isolating examples of reduplication in languages that seem to lack this process in its morphological processes. The question raised in such isolating examples is whether reduplication in this case is a word-formation that is strictly semantic because the language lacked a morphological process that could have derived these words or whether the meaning of the word formation was impossible to derive by available morphological processes in Japanese. Hence, reduplication surfaces as a possible morphological process; this is also seen in colloquial English and coinages. Relevant to our discussion of coinages, the question must be asked why reduplication is possible in instances of coining a word in languages that do not use this morphological process. Despite that the author does not bring a resolution to this topic, it is possible that coinages allow such instances of reduplication because coinages have greater flexibility to step outside the boundary of available morphological processes in the language since these are often irregular since these generally are nouns. Nevertheless, Japanese also shows reduplicated forms that have been lexicalized in the language as actual words in the Japanese lexicon; for instance, “hitobito”, meaning “people”, is a reduplicated plural form of “hito”, meaning “person”, and “hibi” is reduplicated plural, “days”, derived from the singular “hi”. Because these words are rare instances of reduplication that is lexicalized, the question is raised whether reduplication was a possible morphological process in Japanese, which the author of this discussion could have provided further information.

4. How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others.

Both the article and the talk page illustrated the difficulties of defining reduplication as a uniform morphological process in languages that exhibit this morphological process. Languages and language typologies differ in the application of reduplication, and this difference, whether languages prefer partial or full reduplication, may be explained by the phonological system of a specific language, hence reduplication necessarily reflects an interface of morphology and phonology. Second, the article identified the diversity of language typologies exhibiting reduplication, and moreover that reduplication may not be an irregular or foreign morphological process as it may seem, since it may occur in isolated examples in languages not considered to have reduplication as a morphological process. The article refers to an important observation made in language acquisition research that reduplication is a process that is observed in babbling and child language. Reduplication in the early stage of language is not a morphological process of word formation per se but infants reduplicate sounds and segments as a means to develop their vocal apparatus. Interestingly, reduplicated sounds and segments in infant language indicates how an infant has parametrized the phonemes of the language of his environment. Second, the discussion in the talk page brings relevant questions on reduplication as a process of word formation that can surface and the process of lexicalization of these words in languages without this process. In one of the discussions, examples of reduplication in Japanese demonstrated that these rare examples are lexicalized; while some are word formations, others are grammatical, such as the adverb “tokidoki”, meaning “sometimes, from time to time”, is a reduplication of “toki”, meaning time. Although it is not productive in this language, reduplication shows to derive new words, and this unproductive process reflects that it rather interfaces with semantics. The question is why Japanese would reduplicate to derive these words and whether these reduplicated forms are in fact remnants of a formerly productive or relative productive process that declined. A similar case of rare instances of reduplication are seen in Hebrew and Arabic; in Hebrew, “par par”, meaning butterfly, and “galgal”, meaning wheel, demonstrate that reduplication may surface to derive a new word which may not exist in the language; in Arabic, word formation through reduplication is seen in derived verbs “salsal”, meaning to make a chain, derives from “sal”, meaning to pull a sword out and “qalqal”, meaning to become unstable, derives from “qal”, meaning to become little. Reduplication seen in these rare instances in Hebrew and Arabic just like in Japanese demonstrate that reduplication interfaces rather with semantics, since reduplication is not a productive process, nor is it grammatical or inflectional. Relevant to our discussion of declining morphological processes, perhaps the rare instances of Japanese, Arabic, and Hebrew reduplication may provide clues as to why this process declines diachronically in a language’s history. In relation to this question, as one discussion observed, reduplication was a process that was common and part of the inflectional system of Indo-European, hence reduplication may have existed in certain languages that demonstrate this process in rare instances. This is a topic that can certainly provide insight as to why reduplicated forms counterintuitively surface in non-reduplication languages. In relation to the class, we did touch upon the decline of morphological processes in our class discussion in the topic of corpora research, and irregular reduplicated forms in a non-reduplicating language is an area that may fit into the diachronic studies of morphological processes for such languages.

5. What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?)

The central question posed in the discussion is whether examples of reduplication in languages that do not have reduplication as a productive morphological process are to be defined and classified as instances of reduplication per se. Discussions centered on such instances that surface in Japanese and English. My sense of the conclusion is that reduplication in these instances should be further explored because this is a very significant question for morphology and its interface with semantics and pragmatics, since these instances are not grammatical, but are word formations that uses a process that exists as a productive process in other languages. Hence, the question is whether reduplication in languages without this morphological process demonstrate that this is more like a remnant of a previously productive process in the language or whether this reflects rather a morphological process that may be intrinsic in all languages because it is in fact part of the innate language grammar; it is just a matter that reduplication is a parameter setting for some languages, and others exclude it, but allow it to surface it, especially in colloquial and unstandardized dialects of a language. The question is then why languages would not have reduplication as a productive process; what is the basis that a language’s parameter would exclude reduplication as a morphological process, but others set reduplication as its morphological parameters. Since reduplication always intertwines with phonological processes such as prosody, syllabification, and phonotactics, then a language’s phonological system is the reason that it allows reduplication as a phonological process. Noticeably, instances of reduplication in languages without this process, such as Japanese or English, demonstrate that reduplication follows phonological patterns of the language, similar to languages with this process. While Japaense may have instances of reduplication that became lexicalized in the language, English has instances of reduplication that surface in the context of colloquial speech such as “yes-yes” or coinages that become lexicalized such as “mumbu-jumbo” or “walkie-talkie”; the question why reduplication surfaces in this context of English is a significant question in itself for sociolinguistic research that explores reduplication in its pragmatic and social contexts. My conclusion from the discussion is that reduplication is not an easily identifiable and definable morphological processes, and the classification of typologies with productive reduplicating processes