[Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition

Fri Oct 19 02:45:39 UTC 2018

Setting aside the issues that I raised in my previous email about the fact that something can be P-like in some respects but not in others, there is a separate issue regarding different types of applicatives. Martin’s proposed terminology whereby ‘"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’, a problem arises with the fact that in many languages P’s and R’s are treated the same way and in such languages, there is often an applicative that adds an argument that is thus simultaneously P-like and R-like. Fortunately this is easily fixed, but it is useful to look at the logical space of possible applicatives and have labels for each. Whether all of these are attested is not clear. So here is a list of possible types:

A PR-applicative is an applicative in a language in which P’s and R’s are treated the same way (and differently from  T’s) and the added argument is treated like P’s and R’s.
A PT-applicative is an applicative in a language in which P’s and T’s are treated the same way (and differently from R’s) and the added argument is treated like P’s and T’s.
An R-applicative is an applicative in a language in which R’s are treated differently from P’s and T’s and the added argument is treated like an R.
A T-applicative is an applicative in a language in which T’s are treated differently from P’s and R’s and the added argument is treated like a T.

The four possibilities above all appear to be attested but two other logical possibilities are

A P-applicative is an applicative in a language in which P’s are treated differently from both R’s and T’s and the added argument is treated like a P.
A PTR-applicative is an applicative in a language in which P’s, T’s and R’s are treated the same way and the added argument is treated like them.

Martin’s proposed terminology would not treat R-applicatives as applicatives. The problem is that there are various perhaps even many languages with T-applicatives and these have always been called applicatives. It would be very strange to treat T-applicatives but not R-applicatives as applicatives when they are analogous to each other and to treat neither as applicatives would be proposing a new use of the term that would only be confusing.

And although I think that it is a mistake to dwell too much on terminological issues, I would suggest that one of the basic principles in proposing new terminology is that it be as transparent as possible. My term “R-applicative” is transparent, at least when seen in contrast with the other types, while I find Martin’s proposed “versiative” rather opaque.

Matthew

From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>>
Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 4:18 PM
To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Applicative and preposition

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<mailto: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><mailto: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<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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181019/c8009342/attachment.htm>