[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Tue Feb 22 13:15:30 UTC 2022
Hi Bruno,
Your Marind example is interesting. I have nothing to say about your
language-specific analysis of it as an Applicative, but I would
appreciate further clarification on why you consider it to be similar to
the Bird's Head examples (whatever you choose to call them).
You say that the instrument NP "shows at least one subject property":
What is this property? Is there a corresponding construction without the
/k-/ prefix, and if so what does it look like?
It occurs to me that, unlike Marind, the languages I am looking at (both
Austronesian and non-Austronesian) are all SVO, which means that the
pre-verbal position of the instrument NP constitutes a salient feature
of the construction in question. Whereas for an SOV language like
Marind, different criteria would have to be sought.
David
On 22/02/2022 11:45, Bruno Olsson wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> The Marind WITH-Applicative /k-/ is similar to the Roon data. It
> allows an instrument to appear as a bare NP:
>
> /basik tamugh anggip k-a-k-w-alawa
> /pig food snout NTRL.FOC-3sg.SBJ-WITH-3sg.OBJ-is.searching
> 'The pig is searching for food with its snout.'
>
> The instrument is obligatorily preverbal in this construction, which
> is the focus position in Marind, so the above sentence would answer
> 'With what is the pig searching for food?' (so unlike the construction
> that Austronesianists once called Instrument Focus, this is actual
> instrument focus). In my grammar I labelled this an Applicative only
> for language-internal and expository reasons, and I don't think it
> would qualify as an applicative for any cross-linguistic purposes,
> because the instrument NP fails to show object properties, and instead
> shows at least one subject property (at the same time, the original
> subject retains its subject properties).
>
> The reason for labelling it as an (upper-case) Applicative is that the
> same prefix k- can also introduce a comitative participant, and in
> this construction the comitative NP shows object properties galore. As
> a Marind grammarian, I prefer to treat both constructions as subtypes
> of Applicatives, rather than positing a Instrument Voice vs. a
> homophonous Comitative Applicative, but with my typologist hat on I
> wouldn't call the instrument construction an applicative, as no object
> properties are acquired. So I think the Marind data is similar to what
> you find in the Bird's Head. It's still in New Guinea, but language
> contact seems unlikely.
>
> Best,
> Bruno
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 7:33 AM Martin Haspelmath
> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> 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>
>> <mailto:mhdonohue at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:24 PM
>> *To: *David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>> *Cc: *Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu>
>> <mailto:dryer at buffalo.edu>, "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
>> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> <mailto: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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220222/52534c07/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list