9

They are two different distinctions that, however, often go together. "Open vs. closed" is a diachronic distinction meaning how easy a set of expressions can be extended by new elements. "Functional/lexical" is a synchronic distinction referring to the role played by the expression (e.g. serving as a full verb or as an auxiliary). Furthermore, the ...


8

One has to be careful how the words Noun and Verb are understood, if one wants a good answer. Semanticists talk about Entities and Events, and leave Noun and Verb as formal categories, dependent on criteria of usage (can it be a subject? can it take a definite article?) instead of meaning. Frawley (Linguistic Semantics, 1992 Ch.3 "Entities", p....


7

It depends on your ideology of word class, and probably on the language (depending on your ideology of word class). In a number of Bantu languages, they constitute an autonomous word class. They have a unique pattern of class agreement making them distinct from adjectives, quantifiers, and determiners; they have special morphosyntactic rules of combination (...


5

The OP focused on one peculiarity of Japanese pronouns: they can be qualified. One can note that in English 'me' rather than 'I' would be qualified and if there is any conjugation it will be in the 3rd person, whereas in Japanese the qualification would not thus disrupt the sentence. ('Mini me' and '20-years-old me' refer to another version of me, especially ...


5

One argument against the "Japanese does not have pronouns" thesis. Usually, the definition of "pronoun" refers to the function of the pronoun as a substitute for nouns and NPs, but it doesn't define its combinatorial possibilities. Some online dictionaries definitions: The Online Dictionary of Language Terminology (odlt.com): A word that ...


5

You wrote about the claim 'that Chinese words can mostly be used as any part of speech.' While the claim is untrue, I can see why people fall for it. The relationship between lexical word class and how they appear as parts of speech is much more opaque than in English. There is nothing close to a one-to-one correspondence between the two, but it would be a ...


5

I would say those are temporal adverbs. To be precise, all the time can not be an adverb since "adverb" is a word class but this phrase is not a single word. And you asked about the "kinds of words" (i.e. word classes), but you can not assign a word class to a phrase. Syntactically, this phrase, just like always or never (which are syntactically single-...


5

Like many things in syntax, parts of speech are an abstraction—they don't necessarily correspond to any physical fact about reality. Instead, they're invented by theorists in order to explain the data they've observed. In this case, I'm assuming Huddleston and Pullum call them prepositions because they can (usually) attach to nouns: the sky above the ...


4

"Here" is not a preposition per se. By definition, prepositions come before a noun phrase (or determiner phrase) to create prepositional phrases: He was (in (the house)). They saw him (with (a knife)). "Here" cannot do this. *He was here the house. *They saw him here a knife. However... "Here" does act quite a bit like a ...


4

Some additional contributions of mine: Stressed vs unstressed: Nouns, adjectives, lexical verbs, numerals and adverbs in English all carry primary stress, whereas articles don't. Prepositions will go into either category ('of' to the second class, 'over' to the first class). Counterexample: The only one I can think of is that auxiliary verbs are ...


4

Just as you can view the question of the self-descriptiveness of "non-self-descriptive" as a form of the liar's paradox ("this statement is false") you can similarly view the question of whether "autological" is autological along the lines of "this statement is true." The traditional analysis is that such statements can be taken as either true or false, ...


3

Just to stop answering in the comments: Pronouns, like other grammatical categories, are a major syntactic class, primarily defined by distributional criteria, i.e., the contexts where they can(not) occur---so that the set of contexts will be different for each category. Of course, this correlates significantly with their function (or semantics). Smaller ...


3

The term part of speech refers to the traditional word categories. Usually, somewhere between eight to twelve basic parts of speech are posited, e.g. noun, verb, adjective, adverb, adposition (preposition, postposition, circumposition), coordinate conjunction, subordinate conjunction, interjection, ... The term syntactic type is simply vague. It could ...


3

Many forms ending in -ed stem from full past participles, e.g. scared, angered, annoyed, pleased, destroyed, fixed, touched, relaxed, etc. These forms actually line up somewhere between adjectives and full past passive participles. The one form may be more participle-like than adjective-like, and the next may be more adjective-like than participle-like. ...


3

According to WALS, Wichita and Wari' lacks any personal pronoun. Since they're polysynthetic languages, they probably used personal affixes to convey the same meaning instead. (And this is not just pro-dropping. There is really no personal pronoun, to the point that that article decides to give the case alignment of the pronoun as "None" rather than "...


3

Adverbs have long been called a ‘wastebasket’ category in syntax. Their definition is very general: adverbs are distinguished from adjectives, which modify nouns, by saying that ‘adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs’; to this one can add that they may also modify phrases and clauses as a whole. If something doesn’t fit nicely in some other ...


3

It seems in English, numbers can be adjectives, determiners, and nouns. (Though I feel the nouns are really just adjectives that have an implied noun.) Types of numbers Ordinals: first, second... Cardinals: one, two... Adjectives: Ordinals seem comparable to superlatives "I am the very first Uber driver." is similar to "I am the very best Uber driver."...


3

Always and never are adverbs of frequency. The phrase all the time is a noun phrase. We use all three of these items as (temporal) adjuncts, a term which refers to their syntactic function, in other words what job they are doing in the sentence rather than what word or phrase category they are. In terms of semantics and their being 'non-expiry' terms, I ...


3

Those things are considered special parts-of-speech in corpus linguistics. There are several lists for parts-of-speech in general use, and in Universal Dependencies they are called "Symbols". Some of them may also be classified as Interjections, Particles, Other, or something else.


2

Good question. Your examples are convincing. As I see it, there are four possibilities: Fortunately is not a real sentence adverb; real sentence adverbs do modify the entire sentence. Fortunately does in fact modify a sentence, but this is obscured by ellipsis. The same adverb can be a sentence adverb in some sentences but not others. The term sentence ...


2

Each word is classified by what is permissible in the instances in which it appears. In English, "three" can be a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, or a numeral. I will use French as the second language in my examples. If a word can be replaced by another word without changing the grammar of the sentence, the two words have the same grammatical class in that ...


2

I hazard the following answer. If you will consider for a moment, parts of speech are word categories, and can be used to create phrases. So they are essentially phrase-level syntactic categories, functional modifications necessary to make correct phrases. The concept of "syntactic category," if I am not mistaken, includes these plus sentence level concepts ...


2

Ideophones constitute an open word class in some languages (such as Kisi). These should really only be unusual to those completely unfamiliar with languages of Africa, and some of East Asia. Japanese has plenty of these, though I'm not sure they're considered an open word class there.


2

Japanese has two adjectival word classes (see for an overview here). One can be inflected, and members of this class can end in -i, an inflectional suffix marking attribution (among other functions). These adjectives are often called i-adjectives (traditionally keiyooshi). Since they can be inflected, and thus appear as a clause head, they have valency. The ...


2

Yes, some serious scholars do. (Not me -- I have no opinion.) The earlier thread here which you referred to and the references given there surely show that. Should a reasonable person believe such a thing? What's the problem? You can probably think of English sentences without any nouns, so why shouldn't all sentences of some language be like that? Here'...


2

I haven't encountered a special linguistic term for the denominator in fractions, and I'd be surprised at any linguistic work saying that "third, fourth, fifth" as used in fractions is an ordinal number -- it's the same (in form -- or pronunciation) as an ordinal number, but what a number "is" also involves its meaning. In Swahili, there are special lexical ...


2

Since -ly can be affixed to nouns (gentlemanly, friendly, ghostly, spritely) and adjectives (unlikely, quickly, heavily, lightly), but not to verbs, then it isn't much use as a diagnostic of word class. It also doesn't doesn't combine with "house" or "yellow", so in case you were looking for an argument than "run" is a verb, the fact that you don't get *...


2

There is no real linguistic definition of a “pronoun”. Grammatically, however, words that are often called “pronouns” in Japanese behave in an identical distribution to any other normal noun. But, there are a couple of words in Japanese, specifically those whose nominal form ends on /-re/, such as /sore/, /ware/, /kare/, which distribute slightly differently ...


2

I think your question is not really about linguistics, but about rhetoric, especially after this comment: I added more context, which will make it more apparent that, 'exaggerations', was the classification I was looking for. Syntactically, exaggerations can be almost any part of speech, any class of word or phrase, any syntactic position. Your examples ...


2

Yielding roughly the same as the distinction between open and closed word classes, but from a more functional perspecive rather than w.r.t. productivity (i.e. how frequently are new words form based on their class, as is the case in the open vs. closed classification) is the distinction between content words and function words: content words are mostly ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible