[Lingtyp] Terminology query: Obviative constraints

Mon Sep 18 15:59:42 UTC 2023

I don't have any good suggestions but I do feel strongly that
"obviative" or "obviation" should be in the term.

Johanna

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 4:30 AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear all – Yes, another terminology query. Please curb your enthusiasm 😉 Here’s a problem that has been bugging me for (sigh!) decades:
>
>
>
> Many languages have grammatical constraints on the alignment between morphosyntactic arguments and referents identified in terms of topicality and animacy. I’m specifically thinking of the kinds of constraints that may involve expressive devices such as inverse voice and obviative marking – in languages that have them.
>
>
>
> And my question: what do we call such constraints, or rather the semantic/pragmatic configurations they operate on, from a functional perspective, as a comparative concept applicable even to languages where such constraints may or may not exist, but which may not necessarily have a dedicated inverse voice nor obviative argument marking of any kind?
>
>
>
> To give you a clearer idea of what I’m talking about, I’m appending some Yucatec examples below (from Bohnemeyer 2009, where you can find more discussion).
>
>
>
> I have previously referred to such constraints as ‘animacy/topicality alignment constraints’. But that’s (i) a mouthful and more importantly (ii) imprecise and misleading, because the grammar of voice constructions is sensitive to animacy and topicality even in languages like English and Spanish in which no constraints of the kind I have in mind seem to exist.
>
>
>
> In her classical papers on two languages in which obviative argument marking is absent (and the existence of a dedicated inverse voice is at least debatable), Tsotsil and Chamorro, Aissen (1997, 1999) talks about ‘obviation (status)’, but also of ‘hierarchy alignment constraints’.
>
>
>
> ‘Obviation (status)’ and ‘obviative alignment’ have the advantage of relative simplicity. Their disadvantage is that they name a semantic/pragmatic phenomenon after a structural device involved in a few languages. This might lend itself to confusion in more than one way. For instance, obviative marking in Algonquian languages is restricted to 3rd-person arguments if memory serves, whereas there might well be languages that extend constraints of the relevant kind to SAPs (although Yucatec is not such a language).
>
>
>
> ‘Hierarchy alignment’ is more abstract, and might be misunderstood as referring to any kind of (constraints in terms of) animacy/topicality hierarchies, which is a much larger domain.
>
>
>
> On balance, I prefer ‘(constraints on) obviative alignment’ and ‘(constraints on) obviative status’ as the least unfortunate choice.
>
>
>
> But what do people think? And are there other/better options?
>
>
>
> Best – Juergen
>
>
>
> Aissen, J. (1997). On the syntax of obviation. Language 73(4): 705-750.
>
> Aissen, J. (1999). Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75(3): 451-485.
>
> Bohnemeyer, J. (2009). Linking without grammatical relations in Yucatec: Alignment, extraction, and control. In Y. Nishina, Y. M. Shin, S. Skopeteas, E. Verhoeven, & J. Helmbrecht (eds.), Issues in functional-typological linguistics and language theory: A Festschrift for Christian Lehmann on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 185-214.
>
>
>
> Examples:
>
>
>
>
>
> Definite animal 3rd person A acting on indefinite animal 3rd person P: Felicitous plain VPA active transitive sentence
>
> T-u=chi’-ah                                          hun-túul pèek’                   le=síina’n=o’.
>
> PFV-A3=mouth-CMP(B3SG)          one-CLF.AN dog                 DEF=scorpion=D2
>
> ‘The scorpion stung (lit. bit) a dog.’
>
>
>
> Indefinite animal 3rd person A acting on definite human P: Infelicitous plain VPA active transitive sentence
>
> ??T-u=chi’-ah                                       le=pàal                  hun-túul               x-chìiwol=o’.
>
> PFV-A3=mouth-CMP(B3SG)          DEF=child            one-CLF.AN         F=tarantula=D2
>
> intended: ‘A tarantula bit the child;’ can instead only be interpreted to the effect that the child bit the spider.
>
>
>
> Indefinite animal 3rd person A acting on definite human P: Felicitous PVA sentence with left-dislocation/topicalization of A
>
> Hun-túul x-chìiwol=e’,                     t-u=chi’-ah                                          le=pàal=o’.
>
> one-CLF.AN F-tarantula=TOP        PFV-A3=mouth-CMP(B3.SG)         DEF=child=D2
>
> ‘A tarantula, it bit the child’
>
>
>
> Inanimate definite 3rd person A acting on animal definite 3rd person P: Infelicitous plain VPA active transitive sentence
>
> ?T-u=kins-ah                                        le=kàan                 le=k’áak’=o’.
>
> PFV-A3=die:CAUS-CMP(B3SG)     DEF=snake           DEF=fire=D2
>
> intended: ‘The fire killed the snake.’
>
>
>
> Inanimate definite 3rd person A acting on animal definite 3rd person P: Felicitous passive sentence
>
> H-kins-a’b                                            le=kàan                 tumèen le=k’áak’=o’.
>
> PFV-die:CAUS-PASS:CMP               DEF=snake           CAUSE   DEF=fire=D2
>
> ‘The snake was killed by the fire.’
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp