[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice

Tue Feb 22 02:26:36 UTC 2022

I would agree with Matthew that these are best described as applicatives,
but ones in which the 'pragmatic advancement' function monitored by an
applicative is, in addition to the grammatical function coding changes,
also required to be monitored by the use of a pragmatically marked word
order.

Very similar facts are found in Tzutujil, in which the applicative, which
indicates an instrumental role (despite having a morpheme cognate with the
benefactive applicative in other Mayan languages) also requires the
appearance of the instrument object in a preverbal role, which is a
pragmatically marked position in a verb-initial language.

Data from Dayley (1985).

Xinruuch’eyi jaa7 tza7n chee7

he:hit:me       he    with   stick

‘He hit me with a stick.’

Chee7 x(r)uuch’eyb’ei jaa7 inin

stick    he:hit-with:it     he    1SG

‘He hit me with a stick.’

-Mark

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 13:15, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> The reason I don't call it an applicative is that (in most cases) the
> instrumental argument must occur before the verb in a topic-like position.
>
> This can be illustrated with the Roon instrumental prefix *u-* in the
> following examples:
>
> (1)
>
> * Eros-i
>
> t-u-karuk
>
> ai-i-ya
>
>
>
> Eros-pers
>
> 3sg:anim-instr-chop
>
> tree-3sg:anim-def
>
>                   'Eros chopped the tree'
>
>
>
> (2)
>
> I-seref
>
> kaman
>
> fa
>
> Eros-i
>
> t-u-karuk
>
> ai-i-ya
>
>
>
> 1sg-look.for
>
> axe
>
> for
>
> Eros-pers
>
> 3sg:anim-instr-chop
>
> tree-3sg:anim-def
>
>                   'I'm looking for an axe for Eros to chop the tree with'
>
>
>
> (3)
>
> I-seref
>
> kaman
>
> Eros-i
>
> t-u-karuk
>
> ai-i-ya-ri-ya
>
>
>
> 1sg-look.for
>
> axe
>
> Eros-pers
>
> 3sg:anim-instr-chop
>
> tree-3sg:anim-def-3sg:inan-def
>
>                   'I'm looking for the axe that Eros chopped the tree
> with'
>
> Sentence (1) is ungrammatical, and cannot be salvaged by adding a
> postverbal NP or PP referring to the axe; in this respect it differs from
> typical applicative constructions.  In contrast, sentences (2) and (3) are
> fine, because the instrumental prefix *u-* is licensed by the preceding
> NP *kaman* referring to the axe.  True, this is not exactly the same as
> how things work in Philippine languages, but it is more like Philippine
> instrumental voice than anything else I can think of (including
> applicatives).  In particular, in (3), the instrumental prefix is required
> in order to license relativization (in contrast, relativization of other
> oblique arguments is zero-marked).  To use Paul Schachter's terminology, in
> both (2) and (3), "subjecthood properties" seem to be split between the
> agent (which, as you correctly point out, controls agreement) and the
> instrument.
>
> Very similar patterns obtain in the other Austronesian and
> non-Austronesian languages that I mentioned, which — given the apparent
> rarity of this pattern elsewhere — is strongly suggestive of language
> contact.
>
> David
>
>
> On 22/02/2022 03:41, Matthew Dryer wrote:
>
> 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>
> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of David Gil
> <gil at shh.mpg.de> <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> <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
>
> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
>
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220222/ceb6926f/attachment.htm>