Flip-flop

[David Tuggy]

     Nice examples, Attila.

But note, in a) > b) you have (ignoring constituent order) S V-intrns Loc > O
V-trns S . This is movement in a chain, not a flip-flop.  Then in c) < d) (where
you indicate the historical progression was the other direction) you have S
V-intrns Possr > 0 V-trns S . Again, not Role-1 V Role-2 > Role-2 V Role-1.

So these innovations are not as likely as full flip-flops to (anti-functionally)
generate confusion as to who's doing what; the disparity between
animate/inanimate in both examples further reduces the chances of confusion.

--David Tuggy

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Flip-flop
Author:  <dlaatila at SUPER.FURG.BR> at Internet
Date:    5/3/2000 7:52 PM


Let me offer an example in Brazilian Portuguese: the verb caber.
Observe the pair - in English, both would sound something like The room
can hold 40 people:
        a)  Cabem 40 pessoas                na sala.
                         subject [contents]     locative [container]
             hold    40 people                  in the room
        b) A sala                    cabe    40 pessoas.
            subject [container]            object [contents]
            the room               holds  40 people
Example a is the standard unmarked conservative variant.  The verb is
intransitive and has, say, passive meaning: a certain amount of people
may be held in the room. The subject might precede the verb without
changing mych of the meaning.
Example b is a contemporary coloquial innovation, in which the subject
becomes the container - with a, say, active meaning: the room is big
enough to hold that amount of people.
Whay is that so? I suggest it may have something to do with a tendency
we observe in BP to make the topic subject.
Another similar example is the pair
c) O cara estava tremendo as mcos (coloquial innovation)
    the guy was trembling       his hands
d) As mcos do cara estavam tremendo (conservative variant)
     the guy's hands     were trembling
Why/how such innovative forms arise, survive and prevail (or even
coexist with the conservative form) is a sociolinguistic fact. I stand
with Labov, when he says language variation and change occur as a result
of the action of social factors. Internal factors, such as syntactic
constraints, make them possible, but it is the social identity of the
users that will finally favor one form or another to prevail.
Attila Louzada
Departamento de Letras e Artes
Fundagco Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
Brasil
E-mail: dlaatila at super.furg.br
Phone: 55 - 53 - 233-6614