[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Tue Feb 22 02:53:36 UTC 2022
Mark,
Thanks for the Tzutujil example, which is indeed quite similar to the
New Guinea constructions I have been looking at.
However, I remain unconvinced with regard to its characterization as an
applicative, though to a certain degree this is a mere terminological
question. Prototypically, applicatives promote to direct objects while
passive voices (such as instrumental) promote to subjects — so, for any
given construction, the question is whether the relevant argument, here
the instrumental one, is more direct-object-like or more subject-like.
This begins to remind me of the seemingly endless ongoing debates over
whether Philippine voice constructions are "really" passives or perhaps
something else, the question generally boiling down to whether the
relevant argument is more like a subject or more like a topic.
Personally, I don't find these debates very productive, and I'm not sure
how useful an analogous debate between applicative and
instrumental-voice labels would prove to be in this case.
What's important is to have a clear description of the facts, and how
the constructions in question differ from prototypical applicatives and
from prototypical instrumental voice constructions — with the proviso
that there are perhaps not sufficiently many of the latter to construct
a clear notion of what is prototypical.
David
On 22/02/2022 04:26, Mark Donohue wrote:
> 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>
>> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
>> David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>> *Date: *Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:40 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: *[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
>
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220222/c129775b/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list