[Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition

Wed Oct 17 23:21:03 UTC 2018

Before we worry too much about new terms for verbal morphology, let's not
forget another term: Differential Object Marking.
We know that syntax corresponds to, but is not equal to, morphology.
We know that the functions of 'at' and 'for' in (1) and (2) are different
from the functions of 'at' and 'for' in (3) and (4). In (1) and (2) they
mark low-affect objects,[1] while in (3) and (4) they mark adjuncts.

(1) I laughed at the cat.
(2) I looked for the dog.
(3) I met my friend at the end of the month.
(4) I wrote out my notes for the purposes of completeness.

Given that the parameters involved in determining DOM are typically
high/low affect (including that dictated by inherent verbal semantics),
high/low animacy, and high/low referentiality, it would not be too much of
a surprise to find that the objects of verbs with applicative morphology,
licensed by that applicative morphology, should receive DOM treatment, in
that applied objects are typically not high in all of Hopper and Thompson
transitivity criteria.

We should also note that DOM isn't just case marking/adposition use; it can
also be manifested by means of verbal agreement, or word order, as has been
reported in numerous publications. And, in some languages, by requiring an
applicative morpheme on the verb to be licensed (eg., 'ditransitive' verbs
in many Mayan languages, which require the applicative).

-Mark Donohue
 Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages

[1] Evidence in favour of analysing "the cat" and "the dog" in (1) and (2)
as objects are their ability to provide input to passives; certainly the
frequency of their use as passives is lower than other verbs (using Google,
"looked for" yields 21M returns, "was looked for"; 250K returns; "looked
at" 150M returns, "was looked at" 660K returns; "saw" 1,000M returns, "was
seen" 50M returns), but not incomparably lower.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 01:46, Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
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 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/20181018/e2bf2d3c/attachment.htm>