[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice

Tue Feb 22 11:40:25 UTC 2022

Dyirbal and Yidiny (both Australian languages) have verbal affixes that
indicate an instrument is promoted to pivot (normally S/P) which can then
be anaphoric zero in clause linkage (co-ordination and the equivalent of
relativisation). There is no agreement. The same is true in Balinese and
some dialects of Sasak (both Austronesian). So, an addition to your
definitions of applicative needs to be promotion to pivot rather than
'object'.

Best
Peter

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, 04:47 Mark Donohue, <mhdonohue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Matthew: absolutely.
> For clarity, I should have stated that I was referring to 'dynamic'
> applicatives, in which there are two (or more) coding options available;
> that was what I was thinking about when I wrote '*valency-rearranging
> operations*', and not just valency-adding or subtracting.
> For the languages with no other option, I think it could still be argued
> that there's more prominence likely to be associated associated with an
> encoded beneficiary, for instance, since the speaker has made the choice to
> bother to code it. It is not, however, the same clear contrast that is
> found in languages with dynamic applicative (or super-applicative, to use
> Paz Naylor's term for Philippine-type voice) structures.
> Many (other; not Tzutujil) Mayan languages appear to lack
> root-ditransitive verbs, in that they require the use of the -b'e
> applicative to encoded the recipient. These would fall into the same basket
> at Kutenai and Walman.
>
> -Mark
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 15:40, Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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*.
>>
>> waiter AV.take a.glass.of water
>>
>> ‘The waiter took a glass of water.’
>>
>>    1. (2)b  *Pelayan mengambil-kan tamu segelas air*.
>>    waiter AV.take-APPL guest 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>
>> <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
>> <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220222/99108999/attachment.htm>