[Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition

Wed Oct 17 15:38:07 UTC 2018

Hi all,

If I understand Françoise's data correctly, it looks like we might be on
grounds that are similar to what one finds with other valency-changing
operations sometimes, i.e., in terms of some coding or behavioral
properties, a construction behaves like a transitive construction, but in
others it doesn't. In other words, sometimes different properties don't
converge on picking out the same grammatical relation.

Just as an example, Kirill Kozhanov's (2016) very nice articles discusses
applicativizing prefixes in Lithuanian, showing that some applied objects
show accusative case, genitive of negation, promotion to S when passivized,
incompatibility with detransitive ('reflexive') markers, do not allow
another object, and so on. Others show only some of these properties. There
seems to be a hierarchy of such properties, but it wasn't fully worked out,
because Kozhanov decided that if an argument doesn't meet all of the
requirements, it isn't fully a P, but rather a kind of adjunct.

So there is then a question as to whether one wants to talk about
transitivity at the level of individual properties (e.g., "Construction X
is transitive in terms of case, but not in terms of indexing", etc.) or
whether one wants to restrict transitivity to a particular constellation of
properties (e.g., "Construction X is transitive iff it has all properties
of the construction with 'break'"). Of course, one could equally talk about
this in terms of the arguments or grammatical relations ("Argument X
behaves like or aligns with P in terms of property Y, but not Z").

There have been arguments in the direction of the latter approach, e.g.,
Bickel (2011) and Witzlack-Makarevich (2010), as well as (apparently)
a forthcoming
book <https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.123> by the same authors.

Best,
Eitan

Bickel, Balthasar, 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In: Song, Jae Jung
<http://www.zora.uzh.ch/view/authors_for_linking_in_citation/Song=3AJae_Jung=3A=3A.html>,
ed., *The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology*. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 399–444.A

Kozhanov, Kirill. 2016. Verbal prefixation and argument structure in
Lithuanian, in: Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.). *Argument realization in
Baltic, *363-402. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. *Typological variations in grammatical
relations*. Leipzig: University of Leipzig dissertation.

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Balthasar Bickel, eds., *Argument selectors:
New perspectives on grammatical relations*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:06 PM Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
wrote:

> I think the answer to Adam's question is that a construction is an
> applicative only if the new object is coded like the P-argument of a basic
> transitive construction.
>
> Thus, Simon Musgrave's example (1c) from Taba (based on Bowden 2001) is an
> (instrumental) applicative:
>
> npun-ak kolay peda
> kill-APPL snake machete
>
> But when the instrument 'machete' has its instrumental preposition (ada
> peda 'with a machete'), it is not an applicative, from a typological
> perspective (= as a comparative concept).
>
> There is no "official" definition of the (typological) term "applicative",
> of course, but it is my understanding that most people use the term in this
> way. The Wikipedia article reflects this by speaking about promotion to
> "(core) object": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicative_voice.
>
> (Maria Polinsky's WALS article is vague and speaks just about "increasing
> the number of object arguments by one", without making precise what is
> meant by "object", https://wals.info/chapter/109. But her examples and
> the discussion make it clear that she means objects coded like P-arguments.)
>
> This does not mean, of course, that the description of Taba should not use
> the term "Applicative" for the suffix -ak in all cases – but this would be
> a language-specific descriptive category, somewhat like Dative is used in
> Russian-type languages also when the case in question is not used in its
> definitional function (recipient of 'give').
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> On 17.10.18 16:45, Adam James Ross Tallman wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I know of some phenomena that is similar to this (I think) in Chácobo and
> other languages. But I have a question about terminology here. Why is it
> still an applicative if a (n oblique?) postposition is marked on the
> "promoted" argument? What are the criteria that identify it as "promoted"
> in this case (non-repeatability, position in clause etc...). Or is there
> some type of semantic criterion at work here?
>
> best,
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:36 AM Françoise Rose <
> francoise.rose at univ-lyon2.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dear Simon,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your query, it’s very interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just gave a talk at SWL8 on an applicative construction of Mojeño that
>> is correlated with the presence of verbal classifiers that refer to a
>> location. When such a verbal classifier is present, the “coreferential” NP
>> can be expressed as an object rather than an oblique (i.e. it loses its
>> preposition, as in the second example below). Interestingly, there is some
>> variation. The preposition can be maintained in the locative phrase, even
>> when the verbal classifier is present, but there is then no valency change
>> (so the construction does not count as an applicative). Intransitive verbs
>> take a 3rd person subject t-prefix, while transitive verbs take some
>> semantically more specific prefixes for 3rd person when the object is
>> third person also (as in the second example). So this case is not exactly
>> what you were looking for, but the presence of three alternates here is
>> interesting: the construction of example 3 could well be an intermediate
>> step in the development of the applicative effect of classifiers.
>>
>>
>>
>> t-junopo=po
>>
>> *te*
>>
>> to
>>
>> smeno
>>
>> 3-run=pfv
>>
>> *prep*
>>
>> art.nh
>>
>> woods
>>
>> 'S/he ran *to/in/from* the woods.'
>>
>>
>>
>> ñi-jumpo*-je*-cho
>>
>> to
>>
>> smeno
>>
>> 3m-run*-clf:interior*-act
>>
>> art.nh
>>
>> woods
>>
>> S/he runs *inside* the woods.
>>
>>
>>
>> t-jumpo*-je*-cho
>>
>> *te*
>>
>> to
>>
>> smeno
>>
>> 3-run*-clf:interior*-act
>>
>> *prep*
>>
>> art.nh
>>
>> woods
>>
>> S/he ran inside the woods.
>>
>>
>>
>> The slides from my presentation can be downloaded from SWL8 website.
>>
>> Very best,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Françoise ROSE
>>
>> Directrice de Recherches 2ème classe, CNRS
>>
>> Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS/Université Lyon2)
>>
>> 16 avenue Berthelot
>>
>> 69007 Lyon
>>
>> FRANCE
>>
>> (33)4 72 72 64 63
>>
>> www.ddl.cnrs.fr/ROSE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *De :* Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] *De la
>> part de* Simon Musgrave
>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 17 octobre 2018 07:16
>> *À :* LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> *Objet :* [Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Lingtyp members,
>>
>>
>> I am posting this query on behalf of one of my PhD students. We will post
>> a summary of responses in due course.
>>
>> From existing studies of applicatives, only two Austronesian languages,
>> Taba and Indonesian, have been documented to unexpectedly retain a
>> preposition when an applicative affix is used to promote a previously
>> non-core object to core.
>> Bowden, in his grammatical description of Taba (2001), states that it is
>> possible for the same idea to be expressed using three possibilities.
>> Firstly, that the third entity is introduced by a preposition, secondly
>> that the applied object is marked by an applicative morpheme and thirdly
>> that the applied object can be marked by an applicative morpheme and
>> preposition, as the following examples show.
>>
>> (1)a.    Ahmad    npun    kolay
>>     Ahmad    3SG=kill    snake
>>     ‘Ahmad killed a snake.’
>>
>> b.    Ahmad    npun    kolay    ada    peda    PREPOSITION
>>     Ahmad    3SG=kill    snake    with    machete
>>     ‘Ahmad killed a snake with a machete.’
>>
>> c.    Ahmad    npunak    kolay    peda    APPLICATIVE
>>     Ahmad    3SG=kill-APPL    snake    machete
>>     ‘Ahmad killed a snake with a machete.’
>>
>>     d.    Ahmad    npunak    kolay    ada    peda    BOTH
>>     Ahmad    3SG=kill-APPL    snake    with    machete
>>     ‘Ahmad killed a snake with a machete.’    (2001:204)
>>
>>
>> Sometimes Indonesian clauses with applicative verbs suffixed with –kan
>> retain the preposition directly following the verb when it is expected to
>> have been lost according to conventional grammar rules, as shown in 2.
>>
>> (2)a.    Yang    penting    saya    sangat    men-cinta-i    Sandy
>>     REL    important    1SG    very    meN.love.APPL    Sandy
>>     dan     meny-enang-kan    atas    semua    ke-jadi-an    itu
>>         meN-senang-kan
>>     and    meN-pity-APPL    on    all    event    that
>>     ‘What is important is that I love Sandy and regret everything that
>> happened.’     (Musgrave 2001:156)
>>
>>     b.    Kami    juga    sudah    mem-bicara-kan    dengan
>> pem-erintah     pusat
>>     2PL    also    already    meN-talk-APPL    with    government
>> central
>>     di     Jakarta    soal    rencana    men-ambah    beasiswa    Jerman
>>     in    Jakarta    matter    plan    meN-increase    scholarship
>> German
>>     untuk    Indonesia…
>>     for    Indonesia
>>     ‘We have also spoken with the central government in Jakarta about the
>> plan to increase German scholarships to Indonesia.’      (Quasthoff &
>> Gottwald 2012: indmix_565272)
>>
>>
>> Previous studies of Indonesian have noted the co-occurrence of
>> applicatives and prepositions and have usually made passing comments often
>> speculating that this feature is prevalent in non-standard Indonesian.
>>
>> Our query is whether any list subscribers know of other languages which
>> show this phenomenon and has anyone written about it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any information which you can share!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best, Simon
>>
>>
>> References
>> Bowden, John. 2001. Taba: Description of a South Halmahera language.
>> Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
>> Musgrave, Simon. 2001. Non-subject arguments in Indonesian. The
>> University of Melbourne. (PhD thesis).
>> Quasthoff, Uwe & Sebastian Gottwald. 2012. Leipzig corpus collection.
>> (Ed.) Uwe Quasthoff & Gerhard Heyer. University of Leipzig.
>> http://corpora2.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Simon Musgrave  *
>>
>> Lecturer
>>
>> *School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics*
>>
>> Monash University
>>
>> VIC 3800
>>
>> Australia
>>
>>
>>
>> T: +61 3 9905 8234
>>
>> E: simon.musgrave at monash.edu <name.surname at monash.edu>
>>
>> monash.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Secretary, Australasian Association for the Digital Humanities (aaDH
>> <http://aa-dh.org/>)
>>
>>
>> Official page <http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/simon-musgrave/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>
>
> --
> Adam J.R. Tallman
> Investigador del Museo de Etnografía y Folklore, la Paz
> PhD, UT Austin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10	
> D-07745 Jena
> &
> Leipzig University
> Institut fuer Anglistik
> IPF 141199
> D-04081 Leipzig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181017/395935e6/attachment.htm>