[Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative alternation
Nikolaus P Himmelmann
n.himmelmann at uni-koeln.de
Wed Jul 3 09:44:22 UTC 2024
Dear all
regarding the possibility of having two transitive constructions in
language, symmetrical voice languages are prime examples. The following
points are important in this regard:
1. While very often referred to as a primary example, Tagalog is not the
best exemplar for a symmetrical voice language. The best exemplars come
from language of western Indonesia and include Balinese, Besemah, Batak,
Totoli and many more. Riesberg (2014), the most thorough discussion of
symmetrical voice to date, clearly shows that (a)symmetricality is
gradual, with Totoli being the most symmetrical language in her sample
(which also comprises Indonesian, Balinese and Tagalog).
2. Tagalog and other Philippine languages differ from the western
Indonesian language just mentioned in a number of regards, including
overt case marking. They also usally show some specificity/definiteness
constraints on the undergoer in actor voice constructions - which are
generally absent from the western Indonesian languages. But these are
rarely properly stated. It is simply not true that undergoers in AV
constructions cannot be definite, as it is often stated. They can be
definite in relative clauses and other subordinate constructions. And
they can also be definite in main clauses, though not all types of
definite expressions are possible (DPs which include a possessor can
generally function as undergoers in actor voice construtions).
3. Percentages of actor voice and undergoer voice constructions vary
across corpora (and perhaps also languages), as seen in the fllowing
table from Riesberg et al. 2022
**
*% AV*
*% UV*
*Trans. clauses*
*Reference*
Balinese
62
38
1851 (+ 8% PASS)
Pastika (1999: 62)
Besemah
56
44
899
McDonnell (2016)
Pendau
45
55
443
Quick (2005: 235)
Tondano
30
70
314
Brickell (2017)
Totoli
28
72
962
this study
Classical Malay
27
73
115
Cumming (1991: 85)
Table 2: Ratios of actor voice and undergoer voice in some Austronesian
symmetrical voice languages.
There are clear limits to what one can conclude from such figures given
the fact that the corpora are very heterogeneous.
4. There are now recent state of the art overview articles on
symmetrical voice available which are highly recommended to readers
wanting to learn more about this phenomenon:
Chen, Victoria & McDonnell, Bradley. 2019. Western Austronesian voice.
/Annual Review of Linguistics/ 5(1). 173–195.
Kroeger, Paul & Riesberg, Sonja. in press. Voice and transitivity. In
Adelaar, Alexander & Schapper, Antoinette (eds.), /The Oxford guide to
the Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. /Oxford: Oxford
University Press/./
Riesberg, Sonja. 2014. /Symmetrical voice and linking in Western
Austronesian languages/. Boston: de Gruyter (Pacific Linguistics).
Riesberg, Sonja & Bardají i Farré, Maria & Malcher, Kurt & Himmelmann,
Nikolaus P. 2022. Predicting voice choice in symmetrical voice
languages. All the things that do not work in Totoli. /Studies in
Language/46(2). 453–516/./https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20061.ri
<https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20061.rie>e
Best regards
Nikolaus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 02/07/2024 20:42, Matthew Dryer via Lingtyp wrote:
>
> Addressing the more general question of whether there can be two
> constructions both of which are transitive, but ignoring the fact that
> Martin is apparently only interested in his query in cases where there
> is argument flagging, I argued in Dryer (1994) that in Ktunaxa (aka
> Kutenai), both the direct and inverse constructions are transitive,
> though the direct is about three times as frequent. I believe that
> there are even stronger arguments for the analogous contrast in some
> Algonquian languages. While the obviation systems of Ktunaxa and
> Algonquian indirectly function to some extent like a flagging system,
> I doubt that Martin would count them as such.
>
> I argued in a conference talk I gave in 1995 that the closer in
> frequency two alternative constructions are, the more likely that both
> constructions will exhibit transitivity.
>
> Matthew
>
> Dryer, Matthew S. 1994. “The discourse function of the Kutenai
> inverse". In /Voice and Inversion/, edited by T. Givon, pp. 65-99.
> John Benjamins.
>
> Dryer, Matthew S. 1995 “Explaining the intransitivity of passive
> clauses”. Invited plenary talk at Conference on Functional
> Approaches, Albuquerque.
>
> *From: *Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 1:34 AM
> *To: *Matthew Dryer <dryer at buffalo.edu>, LINGTYP LINGTYP
> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative alternation
>
> On 01.07.24 19:00, Matthew Dryer wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> I don’t understand why you say “by definition, a transitive
> pattern is a dominant one (occurring in more than two thirds of
> the cases)”. Why can there not be two transitive patterns, neither
> of which is dominant?
>
> Matthew
>
> I'm not entirely sure (which is why I posted the query), but it seems
> to me that the definition of "transitive" requires that there be a
> single transitive pattern. In English, for example, (i) is dominant
> over (ii), so we do not say that both are transitive, and that "at" is
> an accusative preposition. Instead, we say that "at" is an oblique marker.
>
> (i) They shot the bear.
>
> (ii) They shot at the bear.
>
> Lazard (2002) explains how the notion of transitivity can be grounded
> in the notion of "the major biactant construction" of a language. He
> does not say explicitly that there can only be one such construction,
> but it seems to be presupposed. In my (2011) paper (on S, A, P, T, R),
> I rely on Lazard, and I also mostly assume that there is just one
> transitive construction. I was unsure what to do with cases like Yupik
> (mentioned by Tony Woodbury in this thread), so I mostly ignored them
> (but I briefly mentioned Tagalog in n. 12).
>
> Angute-m(A) nayiq(P) ner-aa
>
> man-ERG.SG seal.ABS.SG eat-IND.3SG.3SG
>
> ’The man is eating /has (just) eaten the seal’
>
> Angun(S) nayir-mek(P) ner’-uq.
>
> man.ABS.SG seal-ABM.SG eat-IND.3SG
>
> ’The man is/has (just) eaten a/the seal’
>
> It seems to me that the way Tony labels the arguments here is not
> well-motivated: Why is ergative-marked "angute-m" an A in the first
> sentence, but absolutive-marked "angun" an S in the second sentence?
> Why is 'seal' a P in both sentences?
>
> It's logically possible to say that both these sentences are
> transitive, each with an A and a P, but do we actually want to say
> that? Do we want to say that the Yupik ABM ("ablative-modalis") is an
> accusative case? I'm not sure, so I asked whether any language had
> been described in this way (does Miyaoka 2012 say that?). Maybe one
> problem is that making a distinction between a pattern with a dominant
> member (as in English (i) and (ii)) and a pattern where there is not
> clearly a dominant member (as in Yupik) boils down to frequency, and
> linguists are often reluctant to make such decisions on the basis of
> frequency of use.
>
> Denis Creissels cites the example of Balinese (from Udayana 2013):
>
> Cang n-yemak baju ento.
>
> I ACT-take shirt DEM
>
> 'I look the shirt.' (Actor Voice, accusative alignment(?))
>
> Baju ento jemak cang.
>
> shirt DEM PAT.take I
>
> 'I look the shirt.' (Patient Voice, ergative alignment(?))
>
> However, there is no argument flagging here (so the "alignment"
> concerns only word order), and the Actor Voice is characterized by a
> voice prefix, so it's not an uncoded alternation (unlike the English
> indirective/secundative alternation, and unlike the Yupik alternation
> cited above).
>
> Perhaps the issue boils down to how exactly we individuate the
> relevant constructions. For example, Creissels (2024) often talks
> about "variants of the transitive construction", which seems to be in
> line with Lazard's (2002) presupposition that there is one "major
> biactant construction", but do we want to say that the two Yupik
> sentences cited by Tony Woodbury are "variants of the Yupik transitive
> construction"? I'm not sure.
>
> Thanks for the discussion!
>
> Martin
>
> References
>
> Creissels, Denis. 2024. /Transitivity, valency and voice/. Oxford:
> Oxford University Press (to appear).
>
> Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts
> for alignment typology. /Linguistic Typology/ 15(3). 535–567.
>
> Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more
> strict approach in typological research. /Folia Linguistica/ 36(3–4).
> 141–190. (doi:10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141
> <https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141>)
>
> Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. /A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik/. Berlin:
> De Gruyter Mouton.
>
> Udayana, I Nyoman. 2013. /Voice and reflexives in Balinese/. Austin:
> University of Texas at Austin. (PhD dissertation.)
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Martin Haspelmath via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Monday, July 1, 2024 at 2:00 AM
> *To: *LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> <mailto:LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative
> alternation
>
> Thanks for the comments on my query!
>
> I was thinking of a contrast between (i) ALTERNATIONS and (ii)
> SPLITS, where an alternation is a pair of related patterns with
> overlapping distributions, while a split is a set of patterns that
> complement each other. Thus, the TAM splits in languages like
> Pitta-Pitta (Peter Austin) and Kopar (Bill Foley) do not count here.
>
> Misha Daniel is right that it is not clear how to even identify
> "accusative/ergative alternations", and for this reason I had
> asked about languages which have been "described as exhibiting"
> such an alternation.
>
> It seems to me that one needs to specify that by definition, a
> transitive pattern is a dominant one (occurring in more than two
> thirds of the cases), so that if there are two competing patterns
> none of which is dominant, one cannot identify a transitive
> pattern – and as a result, there is no way to identify
> "accusative" or "ergative". A well-known case of a language with
> no dominant agent-patient pattern (and hence no transitivity) is
> Tagalog.
>
> (This is different for ditransitive constructions, which need not
> be dominant in this sense, because the comparison is with
> monotransitive P, aas Misha notes.)
>
> Jürgen Bohnemeyer's example from Hindi-Urdu seems more like an
> alternation between two ergative patterns (one in which the
> ergative is "instrumental"), but it also illustrates the
> difficulty of matching language-particular phenomena with
> comparative concepts if the latter are not very clearly defined.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 30.06.24 16:07, Michael Daniel wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> I am not sure how to operationalize the notions of accusative
> and ergative in this context. Assuming one uses the standard
> procedure of comparing the bivalent pattern to the
> intransitive one, I guess some unmarked antipassive
> constructions would qualify. Thus, in Mehweb Dargwa, East
> Caucasian, which lacks regular antipassive derivation, the
> verb 'carry' has two alternative valencies:
>
> Agent-Erg carries Theme-Nom (ergative pattern /on the basis of
> comparison/ with X goes)
>
> Agent-Nom carries Theme-Erg (accusative pattern /on the bases
> of comparison/ with X goes)
>
> But, /on the basis of comparison/ with other transitive verbs,
> the second pattern is intransitive, so this would not qualify
> as accusative in the usual sense. Yet, I do not clearly see
> what would be possible other grounds to identify an ergative /
> accusative alternation, even in the presence of a TAM or
> animacy based split, because in your requirement these
> variables should be controlled for.
>
> This is different from the situation of secundative /
> indirective alternation, which is possible to identify in a
> language because they are identified on alignment-independent
> grounds (comparison to the encoding of P). Maybe I am missing
> something, but I do not see how this is done in the case of
> the putative ergative / accusative uncoded alternation.
>
> Misha
>
> вс, 30 июн. 2024 г. в 14:48, Peter Austin via Lingtyp
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:
>
> Assuming you do not mean TAM-based split ergativity, e.g.
> Pitta-Pitta.
>
> Best
>
> Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> on behalf of Martin Haspelmath via Lingtyp
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 30, 2024 1:41:54 PM
> *To:* LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> *Subject:* [Lingtyp] languages with accusative/ergative
> alternation
>
> Dear typologists,
>
> Does anyone know of a language that has been described as
> exhibiting an
> accusative/ergative alternation, i.e. where verbs with
> meanings like
> 'break' or 'chase' can occur in two constructions such as
> (1) and (2)
> (which are schematic examples, not English)?
>
> (1) the dog-NOM chased the cat-ACC
>
> (2) the dog-ERG chased the cat-NOM
>
> Such an alternation would be analogous to
> indirective/secundative
> alternations, as in the schematic examples (3) and (4).
>
> (3) they provided food-ACC us-DAT ('they provided food to us')
>
> (4) they provided us-ACC food-INS ('they provided us with
> food')
>
> While indirective/secundative alternations have been
> described
> repeatedly, accusative/ergative alternations are
> little-known, and seem
> to be quite rare. Is this impression correct?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6
> D-04103 Leipzig
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eva.mpg.de%2Flinguistic-and-cultural-evolution%2Fstaff%2Fmartin-haspelmath%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpa2%40mysoas.onmicrosoft.com%7Cfbd0d937e0024454098608dc99021b32%7C674dd0a1ae6242c7a39f69ee199537a8%7C0%7C0%7C638553481531300351%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fk%2BOgeldXwuKKViruD6L3V%2BAXojpaM2NZAuKlpWpHdk%3D&reserved=0
> <https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C02%7Cpa2%40mysoas.onmicrosoft.com%7Cfbd0d937e0024454098608dc99021b32%7C674dd0a1ae6242c7a39f69ee199537a8%7C0%7C0%7C638553481531308356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m50OjoB%2B%2Fq0Ib4wQbl6LoSVObo3TNuuYmqsl5rR6e%2Bs%3D&reserved=0
> <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
>
> --
>
> 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/
>
> --
> 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
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240703/1a0a6324/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list