[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice

[Matthew Dryer]

David,

Why would you not say that the instrumental construction in Meyah, Sougb, and Hatam is an applicative, since the A rather than the instrument controls subject agreement?

Matthew


From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de>
Date: Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:40 PM
To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: [Lingtyp] query: instrument voice

Dear all,

In the Austronesian languages of Taiwan, Philippines and Madagascar, there is a verbal affix that is said to mark "instrument voice"; loosely speaking, it marks the topic or subject of the clause as bearing the semantic role of instrument.

Is anybody familiar with similar instrument-voice constructions from other parts of the world?

The reason I ask is that a similar construction is present also in some languages of the Bird's Head and Cenderawasih Bay regions of New Guinea, eg. Biak, Roon, Wamesa and Wooi (Austronesian), and Hatam, Sougb, Meyah and Moskona (non-Austronesian).  What's curious about this construction is that, unlike the well-known Austronesian cases, it is the only morphologically-marked voice in each of the languages in question; there is no "ordinary" morphological passive construction.  My feeling is that this construction is quite uncommon cross-linguistically, but I would like to get a feel for the extent to which this is indeed true.

Thanks,

David

--

David Gil



Senior Scientist (Associate)

Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany



Email: gil at shh.mpg.de<mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>

Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713

Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220222/bd809963/attachment.htm>