[Lingtyp] query: instrument voice
David Gil
gil at shh.mpg.de
Tue Feb 22 18:17:29 UTC 2022
Hi Bruno,
These are very nice examples, but there are still some missing pieces to
the puzzle. Let me try and represent your examples schematically. In
the following table, I characterize your three examples in accordance
with three grammatical features, presence/absence of instrumental
prefix, position of instrument, and whether or not it is flagged.
Vbal INSTR prefix
INSTR position
INSTR flagging
(1) (2)
NONE
post-V
en
(3)
ka-
pre-V
NONE
I hope the above is a correct representation of the facts that you
presented. But if it is, then the obvious question is whether these are
the only possible constellations of these three grammatical features.
Logically, there are eight possibilities, as per the following table:
Vbal INSTR prefix
INSTR position
INSTR flagging
(1) (2)
NONE
post-V
en
NONE
post-V
NONE
NONE
pre-V
en
NONE
pre-V
NONE
ka-
post-V
en
ka-
post-V
NONE
ka-
pre-V
en
(3)
ka-
pre-V
NONE
My question then is whether any of the six intermediate combinations in
the above table are grammatical. To the extent that they are not, then
the parallel — a rather exciting one — with the constructions in Roon
and other Bird's Head languages would be strengthened accordingly.
Best,
David
On 22/02/2022 17:51, Bruno Olsson wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Here is, briefly, why what you wrote about Roon reminds me of the
> split subject properties of the Marind instrument cxn.
> There are two relatively straightforward features that distinguish S/A
> arguments from objects etc in Marind. First, indexing with the
> so-called A-prefix series:
>
> (1) nok ka-no-gha-sak-e bes en
> 1 NTRL.ORTN-1.A-2sg.U-beat-IPFV stick with
> '*I* am beating you with a stick.'
>
> Second, the use of the so-called Neutral Orientation prefix when the
> immediately preverbal NP is the subject. Compare (1) with (2), which
> has an immediately preverbal object, which requires the Object
> Orientation ma- on the verb:
>
> (2) nok ogh ma-no-gha-sak-e bes en
> 1 2sg OBJ.ORTN-1.A-2sg.U-beat-IPFV stick with
> 'I am beating *you* with a stick.'
>
> The bare instrument NP introduced by the WITH-prefix/applicative/voice
> fails the first subject test (it's not indexed on the verb), but
> passes the second (it requires the Neutral prefix, just like a subject):
>
> (3) nok ogh bes ka-no-ka-gha-sak-e
> 1 2sg stick NTRL.ORTN-1.A-WITH-2sg.U-beat-IPFV
> 'I am beating you with *a stick*.'
>
> Like in Roon, the agent in (3) controls subject indexing, but the
> behavioural test provided by the Orientation prefixes treats the
> instrument as the subject, which to me seems similar to the split in
> subject properties that you describe for Roon.
>
> Best,
> Bruno
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:16 PM David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220222/53fcd4a1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list