[Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Wed Oct 17 21:38:18 UTC 2018
As always, I am strongly supportive of Martin's attempts to impose order
on the Augean Stables of current linguistic terminology. However, I
suspect that his latest proposal (below) doesn't quite do the job it was
intended to.
Martin suggests that Simon's original Taba and Indonesian examples might
be characterized as instantiating a more general comparative concept of
"objectative" — a construction in which a new P-like or R-like object is
added, possibly marked with an adposition. However useful the notion of
"objectative" may prove to be elsewhere, in the Indonesian examples at
least, it is not the case that a new argument is necessarily added, and
hence they don't meet Martin's definition of "objectative".
What seems to me to be a more insightful perspective on the Indonesian
examples is that which appears to be offered by Sara Pacchiarotti, at
least judging by the partial abstract of her dissertation cited by Doris
Payne in her message earlier today. Specifically, the Indonesian suffix
"-kan" and its counterparts in other related languages would seem to
fall somewhere in the range between her "Type B applicatives" in which
"syntactic valence might be increased, but need not be", and her "Type C
applicative constructions", in which "the applicative does not introduce
an applied phrase. Instead, it provides semantic nuances to the lexical
meaning of its root".
Moving beyond the Indonesian, I suspect that both Martin's and Sara
Pacchiarotti's typologies may prove to be useful, seeing as they are
conceptually orthogonal to one another.
On 17/10/2018 22:18, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> On 17.10.18 20:52, Peter Arkadiev wrote:
>> There are languages, most notably Northwest Caucasian and Kartvelian,
>> where arguments introduced by applicatives are coded as ditransitive
>> Rs rather than as monotransitive Ps. We can certainly invent a
>> different comparative concept for this (e.g. "version", to adapt the
>> traditional Caucasological term), but the similarities between
>> "applicatives" and "versions" seem to be more important than
>> differences, so it would be better to have a common comparative
>> concept subsuming both
>
> OK, so here's a proposal: "applicative" is a construction in which a
> new P-like object is added, and "versiative" is a construction in
> which a new (indirective-)R-like object is added (inspired by Russian
> "versija", or version). They are both subtypes of a more general
> concept, perhaps called "objectative".
>
> One could also have another subtype, e.g. "adpositive", for a verbal
> marker that adds a new adpositionally marked argument. Then Simon
> Musgrave's original examples would be objectatives, both of the
> applicative and the adpositive sort.
>
> These neologisms may sound strange, but it's actually just a
> historical accident that we don't have such terms in common use. The
> fact that "applicative" is a commonly used term does not mean that
> there must be a natural cross-linguistic phenomenon that corresponds
> to the term.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>> --
>> Peter Arkadiev, PhD
>> Institute of Slavic Studies
>> Russian Academy of Sciences
>> Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow
>> peterarkadiev at yandex.ru
>> http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev
>> 17.10.2018, 18:07, "Martin Haspelmath" <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>:
>>> 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 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 <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
>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> --
>> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181017/264ee419/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list