[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice
Martin Haspelmath
martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
Tue Feb 22 06:31:57 UTC 2022
What is an "applicative (voice)"?
There was a thread on this term on the Lingtyp List in October 2018
(http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/2018-October/006630.html),
with some of the same participants.
It seems to me that such misunderstandings will continue as long as we
think that things like "applicative" or "voice" exist independently of
how these terms are defined. They probably don't, because languages are
far more varied, and there's much more uncertainty, than we tend to admit.
But we can propose clear and simple definitions of "applicative voice" –
and following the 2018 discussion, I wrote this paper on valency and
voice constructions where I defined applicative as a verb-coded voice
alternant with A and P in an alternation whose other alternant has an S
corresponding to the A, and P possibly corresponding to an oblique (§11.7):
https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005941
Once we have clear definitions, we can begin to answer David's question
whether languages with instrumental applicatives only are rare outside
of Austronesian. (Polinsky 2005/2013 found "instrument applicatives" in
29 languages, but I'm not sure what her definition was:
https://wals.info/feature/109B)
Best,
Martin
Am 22.02.22 um 05:40 schrieb Matthew Dryer:
>
> Mark says
>
> /However, every text study of either passives or applicatives, or
> non-core philippine-type voice choice, shows that there is a degree of
> pragmatic prominence associated with the use of these
> valency-rearranging operations. We might re-phrase the passive and
> applicative characterisations as/
>
> //
>
> /passive promotes pragmatically-prominent object to subject (and
> demotes initial less-prominent subject to non-core)/
>
> /applicative promotes pragmatically-prominent (oblique?) to object
> (might demote initial (less-prominent?) object to non-core)/
>
> However, there are applicatives which are "obligatory" for a given
> semantic type. In one lg I work on, Ktunaxa, all applicatives are
> obligatory in the sense that the only way to express a benefactive,
> instrumental, or comitative is to use the relevant applicative. In
> Walman, the only way to express a benefactive is to use the
> applicative. Since they are obligatory, there really isn't any
> pragmatic prominence associated with these applicatives.
>
> Matthew
>
> *From: *Mark Donohue <mhdonohue at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:24 PM
> *To: *David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de>
> *Cc: *Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu>,
> "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] query: instrument voice
>
> Hi David,
>
> The issue, as I see it, is what we mean by 'promote'.
>
> We can agree that
>
> passive promotes object to subject (and demotes initial subject to
> non-core)
>
> applicative promotes (oblique?) to object (might demote initial object
> to non-core)
>
> (and the philippine voice is something like " … promotes (anything) to
> subject (and doesn't demote initial subject to non-core)
>
> However, every text study of either passives or applicatives, or
> non-core philippine-type voice choice, shows that there is a degree of
> pragmatic prominence associated with the use of these
> valency-rearranging operations. We might re-phrase the passive and
> applicative characterisations as
>
> passive promotes pragmatically-prominent object to subject (and
> demotes initial less-prominent subject to non-core)
>
> applicative promotes pragmatically-prominent (oblique?) to object
> (might demote initial (less-prominent?) object to non-core)
>
> We typically describe applicatives as involving just the grammatical
> function change. Thus, we have examples like this cited for Indonesian
> (from Shiohara 2012):
>
> 1. (2)a /Pelayan mengambil segelas air/.
>
> waiterAV.take a.glass.of water
>
> ‘The waiter took a glass of water.’
>
> 2. (2)b /Pelayan mengambil-kan tamu segelas air/.
> waiterAV.take-APPLguest a.glass.of water
> ‘The waiter brought the guest a glass of water.’ (Sneddon 1996: 80)
>
> As Susanna Cummings showed, however, (2)b examples are not really
> attested in naturalistic discourse; rather, we have examples like the
> following:
>
> (2)c Tamu di-ambil-kan segelas air (oleh pelayan).
>
> guest NONACTIVE-take-APPL a.glass.of water by waiter
>
> 'The waiter brought the guest a glass of water.'
>
> (See also Donohue 2001 for similar data from Tukang Besi.)
>
> So, this shows that (in some languages) the increased prominence of
> the argument that was sufficient to merit coding with an applicative
> construction is also sufficient to merit a non-active voice choice,
> with all that entails. A Philippine-type voice system by stealth, as
> it were.
>
> The Tzutujil example has an applicative suffix; and it also has a verb
> with 3SG absolutive agreement (Ø), not 1SG (the in- in the first
> example I posted). It also has the requirement that there must be
> overt coding of the increased prominent of the instrument; like
> Indonesian, it does that by utilising existing high-prominence coding
> strategies; unlike Indonesian, it does that not by using a voice
> change, but by using a pragmatically-marked word order choice.
>
> -Mark
>
> Donohue, Mark. 2001. Coding choices in argument structure:
> Austronesian applicatives in texts./Studies in Language/25 (2): 217-254.
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 13:53, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> 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
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=04%7C01%7Cdryer%40buffalo.edu%7C6406f22ffe22461267a608d9f5b2da3a%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C637810970808922190%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=MvA7AGHFJpqrOSDagmZKQQ%2BuKfQRwmJLUyKIj25RLDg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> --
>
> 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
--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220222/7649d7d3/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list