[Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition
Martin Haspelmath
haspelmath at shh.mpg.de
Wed Oct 17 16:05:44 UTC 2018
But note that "P-like object" is not the same as "primary/direct" object.
Beck (2009) cites the following example of a "non-direct applicative" in
Temne (an Atlantic language of Sierra Leone, data from S. Kanu):
(a) ɔ-langba ɔləm ʌŋ-sar
def-man 3sg.sub throw def-stone
‘the man throws the stone’
(b) ɔ-langba ɔləm-ʌnɛ ʌŋ-sar ʌ-lanϑ
def-man 3sg.sub throw-APPLdef-stone indef-sling
‘the man throws the stone with a sling’
00-Text_IJAL75.4 Here the added instrument P-like because it is coded
(flagged/indexed) in the same way as a P-argument ('stone' in the first
example).
Now one might want to say that 'sling' is a "secondary object" in (b),
but this can be done only on language-specific grounds (cf. David Beck's
formulation: "... can be shown to distinguish primary from secondary
objects").
Thus, "non-direct applicative" cannot be a general comparative concept
that is applicable to all languages.
Beck (2009: 540) says that 'sling' in (b) is an "oblique object", but
only on language-particular grounds ("syntactic relations in Temne are
indicated by constituent ordering, and the oblique status of the applied
object is marked by its separation from the verb by the direct object").
As a general comparative concept, the term "oblique" can only be defined
as 'a nominal that is not marked like S, A or P', i.e. with respect to
the kinds of argument-marking devices that can be identified uniformly
in all languages.
As Eitan noted (referring to Witzlack-Makarevich & Bickel): There are
multiple "argument selectors" that one could look at, but only the
coding elements (flags and indexes) are readily comparable across
languages and can serve as a basis for defining comparative terms like
"applicative".
Martin
On 17.10.18 17:44, David Beck wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> It seems to me that restricting the definition of “applicative” to a
> verbal morpheme that adds a “P-like” or (better) “primary or direct”
> object misses some cases that I, for one, would definitely want to
> call “applicative” and also misses out on a taxonomic distinction that
> could be made in the general discussion of valency-increasing affixes
> that I’ve suggested in an article from IJAL (Beck 2009). There I note
> that just as subject/Agent adding morphology (i.e., causatives) can
> either add a P-like (or, better, primary or direct) object, there are
> cases of morphemes that add P-like (primary/direct) objects to a
> verb’s valency and others that add not-P-like (secondary/indirect)
> objects. I would be inclined to call either of the latter type an
> applicative, perhaps the first type a “direct” and the second a
> “non-direct” applicative. Cases of non-direct applicatives would be
> Temne (Kanu 2011) and Upper Necaxa Totonac (Beck 2016), neither of
> which have complex case systems but both of which can be shown to
> distinguish primary from secondary objects. I wouldn’t be surprised if
> people working on languages with nominal case could think of morphemes
> that add new event-participants to the valency of a clause that are
> coded with non-direct cases.
>
> David
>
> Beck, David. 2009. A taxonomy and typology of Lushootseed
> valency-increasing suffixes. International Journal of American
> Linguistics 75, 533–569.
> Beck, David. 2016. Uniqueness and grammatical relations in Upper
> Necaxa Totonac. Linguistics 54, 59–118.
> Kanu, Sullay Mohamed. 2012. Valence-increasing morphology in Temne.
> Edmonton: University of Alberta dissertation.
>
>
>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 3^rd
>>> person subject t-prefix, while transitive verbs take some
>>> semantically more specific prefixes for 3^rd 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 2^ème 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 <http://www.ddl.cnrs.fr/ROSE>//
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De :*Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> <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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:name.surname at monash.edu>
>>>
>>> monash.edu <http://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
>>> <mailto: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 list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://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
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181017/96c1295d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list