¡Tlatz-tla-kual-tzin! thunder-unspecified-good-ie

1. ¡Tlatz-tla-kual-tzin!thunder-unspecified-good-ie

2. Function becomes meaning: The prefix tla-in Nawatl David Tuggy CILTA - URPSIL

3. Introduction: Functional linguistics • There’s an important theoretical and cultural difference between two general linguistic frameworks of considerable influence. They may be called • The Formalist framework • The Functionalist framework • What is the difference?

4. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Scott Delancey (a functionalist) says that • Formalists are not much interested in the question “Why?” • For functionalists, that is the most interesting question. • (Some formalists would probably disagree.)

5. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Formalists and functionalists do seem to differ on where they look for explanations. • Formalists look for explanations from within the linguistic system, and not from outside it. • Some (e.g. Chomskyans) believe that the linguistic system is quite separate from everything else that goes on in our heads: it is a mysterious “black box” • It can only be understood by looking at linguistic data in search of the best self-contained explanation (one based only on what is within the system).

6. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Given this way of looking at language, it is sufficient and desirable to achieve an explanation based on the hypothetical nature (otherwise unknown) of the human linguistic faculty. • One looks for evidence within languages which will let us understand more about the nature of the black box of the linguistic faculty. • Whatever isn’t explained by the nature of this black box is of lesser interest to these theorists.

7. Introduction: Functional linguistics • For another branch of formalist linguistics, there is no such thing as explanation other than description: • “If the facts have been fully stated, it is perverse or childish to demand an ‘explanation’ into the bargain.” —Joos 1957, representing Bloomfield’s point of view.

8. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Functionalists seek explanations in other areas. • Delancey emphasizes two favorite explanatory engines of the functionalists: • Function (motivation based on the use of language to communicate, on cognition, etc.) • Diachrony

9. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Paraphrasing: Why do we talk the way we do? • Because it’s useful • Because we’ve done it that way before • The two explanatory engines of functionalism: • Function • Diachrony

10. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Obviously and importantly, it is useful to talk the way we are used to talking • So, Diachrony is also Functionally motivated • We started talking that way because it was useful, and it generally keeps on being useful.

11. Introduction: Functional linguistics • In other words, Functional motivation and Diachrony are not opposed or contradictory; rather they fit very well with each other.

12. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Functional motivation and Diachrony often go in cycles: • Functionally motivated changes are made. • These changes are consolidated and become established habits of speech. • These then form the background for new changes.

13. Introduction: Functional linguistics • It’s useful to think of a language as a box of tools which we can use to communicate with. • For a given communicative purpose you can always build a new tool, but • It is likely to be expensive, difficult, and not all that helpful

14. Introduction: Functional linguistics • You get better results (generally it is more Functional) taking an existing tool (one already developed Diachronically), even though it was made for a slightly different purpose, and use it for what you want to do.

15. Introduction: Functional linguistics • You want to open a paint can: • You could invent a paint-can-opener from scratch, • But you’re better off just grabbing a screwdriver and opening your paint can.

16. Introduction: Functional linguistics • The screwdriver was not made for opening paint cans. • But it works, • And very quickly you can get used to using it that way.

17. Introduction: Functional linguistics • You want to unscrew a Torx screw • So you go after it with your Philips screwdriver

18. Introduction: Functional linguistics • The great thing about linguistic tools is that they automatically adapt themselves to their tasks. • When you use your Philips screwdriver on Torx screws …

19. Introduction: Functional linguistics • It turns into a Torx screwdriver … • …without losing its ability to work on Philips screws.

20. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Many linguistic forms come pre-adapted for several related functions.

21. Introduction: Functional linguistics • And sometimes for rather different functions.

22. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Some supermorphemes are Swiss Army knives. • They have been used for so many things that they are impressively polysemic.

23. Introduction: Functional linguistics • The phonological form is the handle of the tool. • Every functional capability that it acquires is a new (polysemic) meaning.

24. Introduction: Functional linguistics • This stands the “performance – competence” distinction on its head. • Chomsky and others talk as if perfor-mance is best ignored except as it fitfully reflects the pristine platonic Competence, residing in the black box.

25. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Here we are claiming that usage affects, to the point of determining, linguistic competence. • Usage affects, in fact it determines, the shape of the lexical and grammatical tools in the linguistic toolbox.

26. Introduction: Functional linguistics • Of course the shape of the tools very strongly affects how we use them. • But we can and do stretch meanings by new usages

27. Tla- • The prefix tla- in Nawatl (Nahuatl) is a Swiss Army super-morpheme. • Its basic function is to let you avoid mentioning the object of a transitive verb.

28. Transitive verbs • A transitive verb is like a light socket. • It is obviously incomplete. Something is missing.

29. Objectless transitive verbs • Leaving a transitive verb without its object is like leavingthe light socketwithout itslightbulb

30. Objectless transitive verbs • A verb like eat is an empty object socket. • When you hear it you want to know what got eaten. • But what if you as speaker would rather not say what got eaten?

31. Objectless transitive verbs • Different languages have evolved different ways of responding to this functional need. • In English you cansimply not mentionthe object.

32. Objectless transitive verbs • Instead of saying: “Adam ate the apple,” • You can just say“Adam ate” • and leave it atthat.

33. Objectless transitive verbs • If you do this often enough, the verb eat will change. • It will stop being so important to specify the object. • In Nawatl this tactic is not permitted. You have to name an object.

34. Objectless transitive verbs • Another tactic is to look for a different verb which doesn’t require an object. • You can say: “Adam dined (at 10 o’clock)” • People will no longer expect to hear what he ate.

35. Objectless transitive verbs • Other languages have an “antipassive” construction. • Just as a passive lets you use a verb without mentioning its subject, an anti-passive lets you use it without mention-ing its object.

36. Objectless transitive verbs • Not all languages have an antipassive. • English doesn’t, nor does Nawatl. (Nawatl doesn’t have a passive either.)

37. Objectless transitive verbs • Yet another tactic is to use a “cognate object”. • The cognate object doesn’t tell you any more than you already knew. • You can say: “Adam ate food.”

38. Objectless transitive verbs • You can also use an object whose meaning consists in not saying what it is. • You can say: “Adam ate something.” • This would be an “unspecified object.”

39. Tla- • This last strategy is the normal one by which Nawatl responds to this situation. • Instead of a separate word “something”, Nawatl uses the prefix tla-. • Tla- means (more or less) “something” • s.t. = “something”.

40. Tla- • Nawatl has a series of prefixes which mark verbal objects. Tla- is a member of that series.

41. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you choose not to specify the object? • There could be a number of functional reasons. • Those reasons become part of the meaning(s) of tla-.

42. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: • You don’t know what was eaten. • Maybe the object was too small • Or you couldn’t see it from where you were • Etc. • It doesn’t matter to you what was eaten, and you don’t think it will matter to your hearer either.

43. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: • You and your hearer already know what it was. • Your hearer could guess what it was. • You want to hold back that information till a different part of the discourse, where it will have a bigger impact. • You don’t want your hearer to know what it was.

44. Why would you use tla-? • Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: • The object is too scary to mention. • The object is too gross to mention. • The object is too holy to mention. • It could be any of these reasons, or any combination of them.

45. Why would you use tla-? • All these reasons affect why Nawatl-speakers use tla- • And so tla- has adapted to such usages.

46. Prototypical tla- • Sometimes you can’t specify any one reason as opposed to the others. • With this form a hearer doesn’t know why the speaker chose not to specify the object. It could be for any of the reasons we have mentioned.

47. Prototypical tla- • Activating any of these meanings will also activate the schema that includes them all.

48. Tla-‘unspecified object’ • These are the most common uses of tla- • We unfortunately don’t have time to discuss them all. • But notice the following paradox. • Sometimes tla- indicates an object which is obvious in context, a highly topical object. • Sometimes it marks an insignificant object, low in topicality.

49. Tla-‘normal object’ • Often tla- marks an object that doesn’t need specifying because it is the normal object. 1 • What is eaten could not be, for instance, a rock.

50. Tla-‘normal object’ • Other examples: