[Lingtyp] demotion

[Guillaume Jacques]

Dear Christian,

I think that it would depend on the type of incorporation -- non-saturating
incorporation is not, but when the incorporated noun corresponds to the
object of the base verb, resulting in an intransitive incorporating verb, I
think that we can argue that object incorporation is a antipassivization
strategy (this is what I proposed in the following chapter: Chapter 13.
Antipassive derivations in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan and their sources
(benjamins.com) <https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.130.13jac>; I can
provide a PDF upon request). From a diachronic point of view, Southern
Kiranti languages such as Puma and Bantawa offer interesting examples of
antipassive prefixes originating from an incorporated generic noun kʰa-.

Best wishes,

Guillaume

Le lun. 9 oct. 2023 à 18:12, Christian Lehmann <
christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> a écrit :

> I have a partly conceptual, partly terminological question: Do you know of
> any substantive arguments to decide the question whether incorporation may
> be considered a form of demotion? To explain:
>
> A hierarchy of syntactic functions along the lines of 'subject - direct
> object - indirect object - other complement - adjunct' is assumed. Demotion
> is by definition the shift of an actant (some people prefer 'argument')
> from its (relatively high) position to a lower position on this
> hierarchy.The shift is generally accompanied by occupying the freed
> position by something else, so the demoted actant is "ousted".
>
> Since the incorporated position of a nominal expression is not a syntactic
> function (but rather a morphological one), the straightforward answer to
> the introductory question would be 'no'. However:
>
>    - There is no sharp boundary between syntax and morphology, so a
>    gradience that starts in the syntax might end in the morphology.
>    - Something occupying a relatively low hierarchical position generally
>    becomes optional. If it is omitted, it somehow disappears from the
>    syntactic structure. This could also be said of an incorporated nominal.
>    - An incorporated nominal often frees its syntactic position -
>    generally, the direct-object or absolutive position -, so this may be
>    occupied by something else. Thus, in ergative syntax, if the undergoer is
>    incorporated, the actor does not remain in the ergative, but becomes the
>    absolutive actant.
>
> So there would at least seem to be some similarity between demotion (of a
> direct object or absolutive actant) and its incorporation. If demotion is
> not the appropriate cover term, should I subsume both phenomena under
> something else?
> --
>
> 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
>


-- 
Guillaume Jacques

Directeur de recherches
CNRS (CRLAO) - EPHE- INALCO
https://scholar.google.fr/citations?user=1XCp2-oAAAAJ&hl=fr
https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/295
<http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques>
http://panchr.hypotheses.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231009/2bac97dd/attachment.htm>