[Lingtyp] base valency classes of verb roots

Thu Dec 28 12:59:29 UTC 2023

dear Randy, dear Christian,

The term "orientation", in the context of Tagalog, was first proposed by
Alain Lemaréchal:

   - Lemaréchal, Alain. 1989. *Les parties du discours: Sémantique et
   syntaxe*.
   Linguistique Nouvelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
   - Lemaréchal, Alain. 1991. Dérivation et orientation dans les langues de
   Philippines (exemples tagalog).
   *Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris* 86-1, 317-358.

(Unfortunately, the 1989 monograph is only partially reproduced digitally
<https://books.google.fr/books?id=xsGzDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT195&ots=lyEVZZ_jBQ&dq=tesni%C3%A8re%20orientation%20des%20verbes&lr&pg=PT120#v=onepage&q=orientation&f=false>;
nor can I find a Pdf of the 1991 paper.)

Let me copy this passage from my hardcopy of Lemaréchal (1989), p.102:

“L'orientation d'un verbe est cette caractéristique qui associe aux
différents participants en rapport avec lui à la fois un rang dans la
hiérarchie et un rôle dans la situation, sachant que cette association est
caractéristique de la sous-classe et de la voix de la forme verbale. [...]
Ainsi l'orientation primaire du verbe transitif actif est une orientation
vers un premier actant sujet agent, son orientation secondaire une
orientation vers un second actant objet patient. [...]
L'orientation étant une caractéristique qui relève de la valence des formes
concernées, elle est soit stockée dans le lexique, soit marquée par des
dérivations régulières — c'est le cas des phénomènes de diathèse.”

The syntax of "orientation" is a major topic of Lemaréchal's research, in
various languages (mostly Tagalog, Palauan, Malagasy, Kinyarwanda, etc.).
He applies the concept to various parts of speech: orientation of verbs, of
nouns, of clauses... (see the “Deuxième partie
<https://www.google.com/books/edition/Les_parties_du_discours/xsGzDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=orientation%20tagalog&pg=PT6>”
section of his 1989 monograph).

best
Alex
------------------------------

Alex François
LaTTiCe <http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/en/alexandre-francois/> — CNRS–
<http://www.cnrs.fr/index.html>ENS
<https://www.ens.fr/laboratoire/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-et-cognition-umr-8094>
–PSL <https://www.psl.eu/en>–Sorbonne nouvelle
<http://www.univ-paris3.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp>
Australian National University
<https://researchprofiles.anu.edu.au/en/persons/alex-francois>
Personal homepage <http://alex.francois.online.fr/>
_________________________________________

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Randy J. LaPolla <randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 02:47
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] base valency classes of verb roots
To: Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu>
Cc: <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>

Hi Christian,
In talking about what are sometimes discussed as voice or
transitivity-marking affixes in Tagalog, Himmelman (2004: 1481) argues that
the affixes “change the orientation of a given base in such a way that it
may be used to refer to one of the participants involved in the state of
affairs denoted by the base … In this view, -*um-* is an actor orienting
infix which derives from a base such as *tango* ‘nod, nodding in assent’ a
word *tumango* which could be glossed as ‘one who nods, nodder’. This
expression no longer directly denotes the action of nodding, but rather the
participant who nods. That is, in the Tagalog clause … *tumango ang unggo *‘The
monkey nodded in assent’, both *tumango* and *unggo* refer to the same
entity. Imitating the equational structure of this clause it could be
rendered as ‘nodd-er in assent (was) the monkey’ … Note, however, that
Tagalog voice affixes are not nominalising in a morphosyntactic sense,
since they do not change the syntactic category of the base . . .”. He
considers them derivational, not inflectional affixes, as they apply
equally well to action words and object words: “… there are no productive
inflectional paradigms for voice, as suggested by the commonly used
‘paradigmatic’ examples in the literature. Instead, derivations from all
kinds of bases are only partially predictable on the basis of their
semantics and exhibit a large number of idiosyncrasies, which again
suggests derivation rather than inflection.”

So he has used orientation in this way. Not sure if you can see any
parallels in the structure and use of the affixes.

All the best,
Randy
——
Professor Randy J. LaPolla（罗仁地), PhD FAHA
Center for Language Sciences
Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences
Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai
A302, Muduo Building, #18 Jinfeng Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong, China

https://randylapolla.info
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6100-6196

邮编：519087
广东省珠海市唐家湾镇金凤路18号木铎楼A302
北京师范大学珠海校区
人文和社会科学高等研究院
语言科学研究中心

On 28 Dec 2023, at 1:52 AM, Johanna B Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu> wrote:

I use "ambitransitive" instead of "ambivalent" -- it's unambiguous.
"Flexible" is also used in this sense, but already has too wide a range of
meanings.

I agree, ±oriented and ±directed aren't great.  A few years ago, searching
through a thesaurus for possibilities, I tried out "bearing(s)", which is a
good replacement for "direction" or "orientation" but not for
directed/undirected, etc. (Well, we have "rudderless", but that's too heavy
on the connotations, and anyway no related antonym.)  I think the same
problem comes up with anything based on "Janus".  Maybe "steered/unsteered"
and "steering"?

Alternatively, we could probably turn to an Oceanic language for a precise,
well-elaborated set of relevant nautical terms.

Johanna

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 4:05 AM Christian Lehmann <
christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> sorry for my exaggerated preoccupation with adequate terminology. I have
> to name the Cabecar (Chibchan) verb root classes, but am short of
> linguistic terms. Verbs form voice stems for conjugation in active and
> middle voice. Middle voice involves a suffix for all verbs; active voice
> involves a suffix in one root class.
>
> The criteria of the classification are:
> - Does the root have an active voice? If not, it is a medial root (a
> Classicist would call it *deponens*).
> - Does the active voice stem involve a suffix (viz. the causativizer)? If
> not, I call the root preliminarily 'directed'.
> - Is the root transitive or intransitive in active voice?
>
> These are the classes:
>     1. Directed roots: these directly conjugate in active voice:
>         a. intransitive roots: in active voice, the verb is intransitive
> (e.g. 'laugh');
>         b. transitive roots: in active voice, the verb is transitive (e.g.
> 'bend').
>     2. Undirected roots: these do not directly conjugate in active voice:
>         a. medial roots: these only conjugate in the middle voice, and the
> valency of this voice stem is intransitive (e.g. 'stay');
>         b. ambivalent roots: these alternatively take on the middle voice
> suffix and then are intransitive, or they take on the causativizer and then
> are transitive (e.g. 'melt').
>
> These four classes work satisfactorily. What I am unhappy with is the
> names 'directed', 'undirected' and 'ambivalent'. The idea underlying
> 'directed - undirected' is that undirected verb roots have no base valency;
> this is, instead, conferred to them by the voice suffix. The idea behind
> 'ambivalent' is that these roots have either valency depending on the voice
> suffix that they are provided with.
>
> I would prefer 'oriented - non-oriented' to 'directed - nondirected'; but
> this term pair is taken by the contrast between verbal constructions of the
> sort (English examples:) *actor/who acts* vs. *action/that he acts*. And
> 'ambivalent' is a very ambivalent term; a more specific one (like
> 'Janus-headed') may be more mnemonic.
>
> Have you seen appropriate term (pair)s in grammars? Or can you think of
> terms that would fit?
>
> Many thanks in advance,
> Christian
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> Tel.: +49/361/2113417
> E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231228/b59d1776/attachment.htm>