1 / 35

Typology of stative/active languages

Typology of stative/active languages. Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)establishing the connection Andrej Malchukov. Introduction: Sapir’s proposal.

nixie
Download Presentation

Typology of stative/active languages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Typology of stative/active languages Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)establishing the connection Andrej Malchukov

  2. Introduction: Sapir’s proposal Sapir’s proposal: ‘inactive’ (object inflecting) intransitive verbs in Amerindian languages should be better analysed as transitives: “Thus, forms like ‘I sleep’ or ‘I think’ could be understood as meaning properly ‘it sleeps me’, ‘It seems to me’” (Sapir 1917: 85). That is an So pattern is analysed as “transimpersonal” (indefinite A) construction with experiencer object

  3. Some problems • Some obvious functional similarities: • Both So constructions and transimpersonal experiencer O constructions involve experiential predicates • But also some problems (cf. Merlan 1985) • Structural • in the former Experiencer is O, in the latter S • former intransitive, the latter transitive • Functional • ‘it sleeps me’ ??? • Heterogeneity of split-S languages: • agent/patient vs. active/stative (Mithun 1991) • accusative based (So is a minor pattern) vs. ergative based (Sa is a minor pattern) (Nichols 1992). Experiencer object constructions are transitive while split-intransitivity pertains in the first place to intransitives

  4. However: • The distinctions between So constructions, on the one hand, and transimpersonal constructions (TIC) and object experiencer constructions (OEC), on the other hand, are not always clear-cut • Cf. Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi 2001 (eds.) on oblique experiencers as non-canonical subjects. • In spite of heterogeneity of split S languages • most split-S languages are agent/patient rather than active/stative (Mithun 1991) • most split-S languages are accusative based in the sense that So pattern is a minor class as compared to the open Sa class (Nichols 1992).

  5. Outline of the talk • Provide evidence that Sapir’s analysis can be upheld, if • Restricted to Split-S language where the patientive subject pattern is a minor pattern • A connection between So pattern and transitive patterns (TIC and EOC) is understood in diachronic terms • Present evidence from languages • where Split-S pattern arose from reanalysis of transimpersonal and Object-experiencer constructions • where object experiencers can be analysed as non-canonical subjects

  6. Slave: TIC without Split-S • A construction with unspecified human subject pronoun in Slave: Slave (Rice 1989: 1020) ts’e-jI ‘someone is singing’ k’ínase-ts’e-reyo ‘someone chased him/her; s/he is chased’ • NB clearly distinct from split-S (note the overt AGR/A marker –ts’e- ), but not the quasi-passive interpretation of TIC.

  7. Extension of TIC: Eskimo • In West Greenlandic transimpersonal construction (TIC) restricted to weather verbs West Greenlandic (Fortescue 1984: 59-61) Anurliup-patigut storm-3A->1pO.IND ‘When we were caught by storm (lit. it stormed us)’

  8. Extension of TIC: Eskimo • In (Siberian) Yupik TIC is extended to other verb types to indicate lack of control: Yupik (Emeljanova 1967; cf. Vaxtin 1995) Tagnygakaxwasag-taa child.ABS crawl-3->3 ‘The child crawled’ • NB similar to So pattern functionally (indicates lack of control), but different structurally (AGR clearly transitive). Therefore rather extended use of TIC than Split-S.

  9. TIC reanalysed as split-S: Tunica • In Tunica (Haas 1941) So intransitives in inchoative forms are constructed as transimpersonals • it-sickens-me ‘I become sick’ • Haas’ conclusion: ‘involuntary action verbs developed from transimpersonals’ (Haas 1941: 59)

  10. Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati • Koasati is considered split intransitive on the basis of its agreement system (cf. Mithun 1999: 237-8). • the case system is accusative though • An So verb: (Anó-k) ca-libatli-t (I-NOM) 1sg.obj-burn-past ‘I got burned’

  11. Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati Morphologically, however, So verbs look like plain transitives (Kimball 1991: 251). Cf.: ca-libatli-t 1sg.obj-burn-past ‘I got burned’ Nihahci ikba-k ca-libatli-t Grease hot-NOM 1sg.obj-burn-past ‘The hot grease burned me’

  12. Conclusion on Koasati • Kimball’s conclusion: the So pattern originated from reanalysis of impersonal 3 sg forms • Note what features facilitated reanalysis: • So is marked by AGRo • 3pA marker is zero But the same pattern attested in many other Split-S languages

  13. Other Split-S languages: Ika • Other Split-S languages with zero 3rd p. zero A markers: Dakota (Boas & Deloria 1941, 76), Guarani (Gregores & Suárez 1967: 131), Ika (Frank 1985: 11) • Ika (Frank 1985: 11) • So pattern Na-’tikuma-na 1sgO-forget-DIST ‘I forgot’ • A transitive pattern Na-tsua-na 1sgO-see-DIST ‘He saw me’

  14. Other Split-S languages: Haida • Haida (Enrico 2003, 93) • Split-S in free/clitical pronoun marking • There are no overt inanimate (‘low potency’) agentive pronouns

  15. Other Split-S languages: Kiowa • Kiowa: restricted suppression of A agreement with experiential verbs: yą-tây (Watkins 1980: 137) (2,3sg.A+)1sg.P+pl.O-awake.pf ‘I awoke/smth woke me’ • Watkins considers them as intransitives (thus, Split-S), although clearly modelled on transitives • (or even di-transitives, with a dummy O marker)

  16. Conclusions on reanalysis: • Thus reanalysis is facilitated, if • So is marked by AGRo • 3pA marker (one of the markers, often inanimate if a language has one) is zero. • NB then a transitive pattern is formally indistinguishable from intransitive

  17. TICs as semitransitives: Navaho • Even if transitive/intransitive distinction is marked otherwise, does not necessary prevent reanalysis, as TIC can reveal transitivity decrease • Navaho allows an intransitive marker (“classifier”) in the Indefinite A construction: (Kibrik 1996: 291) Né-í-ø-ł-zho? Md-3/ACC-3/NOM-TRANS-hunt.IT ‘He repeatedly hunts it’ Ná-ø-?á-l-zho? Md-3/ACC-IND/NOM-DETRANS-hunt.IT ‘Someone repeatedly hunts it’ • Kibrik (1996) A indefinitensess as another transitivity parameter (in the sense of Hopper & Thompson 1980)

  18. From Experiencer Object constructions to Split-S: Papuan languages • In Papuan languages objects in EOC tend to be reanalysed as non-canonical subjects Usan (Reesink 1987: 139) Munon isig toar wA-r-a in-Ab igo man old sickness him-shoot-3s.DS lie-SS be.3sg.pres ‘The old man is sick and lying down’ • NB. Experiential verbs similar to ordinary transitives, but differ in that Experiencer/Goal unlike other objects always in the first topic position

  19. Reanalysis in Papuan languages: Amele • EOC in Amele similar to Usan: Amele (Roberts 1987, 315). Ija wen ø–te-na 1sg hunger (AUX-)1sg-3sg-PRES ‘I am hungry’ • But note that V is grammaticalized (phonetically zero). • Apart from (topic) position, the experiencer reveals (most) other subject properties: • intraclausal (reflexivization, etc) • interclausal (control of switch-reference, etc)

  20. Conclusion on Papuan languages • In Papuan languages EOC tend to develop into a construction with subject experiencers (cf. Roberts 2001 on non-canonical experiencer subjects in Amele) • The Amele pattern where the subject experiencer cross-referenced through object AGR is similar to an So pattern in a typical split-S language

  21. EOC reanalysis: beyond split intransitivity I • Evidence for diachronic instability of the EOC constructions • A-absorption in EOC in Iwadjan. Different degrees of grammaticalization/reanalysis (Evans 2004). • Pattern I. ‘Subcategorized nominal subject’ Nga-ni-ma-ny wunyarru 1O-3mA-get-P sickness ‘I got sick (lit. ‘sickness got me’) • Here the transitive EOC construction similar to the Papuan pattern

  22. Experiencer O absorption in Iwadjan II • Pattern II: ‘frozen nominal subject’ Nga-ni-mi-ny ngok 1O-3mA-get-P ? ‘I am full’ • NB the formal subject ngok is not attested outside this construction

  23. Experiencer O incorporation in Iwadjan III • Pattern III: “dummy subject construction”: I-ni-marruku-n 3mO-3mA-make.wet-NP ‘He is sweating’ • This construction is clearly (trans)impersonal • NB a diachronic instability of the EOC. Motivation: downgrading/omission of non-prominent A.

  24. EOC beyond split intransitivity II: • Covert reanalysis of EOC in Germanic • English please -> like reanalysis (Jesperson 1927; Lightfoot 1979, Faarlund 1990) • ðam cynge licodon peran -> the king liked pears • Swedish and German (Seefranz-Montag 1983): • Det lyckades honom -> han lyckades ‘I manage’ • Mich hungert -> ich hungere ‘I am hungry’ Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent (animate) O.

  25. EOC beyond split intransitivity III • Reanalysis of EOC/TIC in Himalayan • Tibetan languages: a frequent pattern with Goal/Object-experiencers (Cf. Bickel 2003) • Transimpersonals in Limbu: default AGR with non-referential A. Limbu (van Driem 1987: 75): Khengha? Moyusi They inebriate.3P.3s->3ns ‘they are drunk ‘(lit. it inebriates them)

  26. Reanalysis in Himalayan II: Yamphu Yamphu (Rutgers 1998: 109) • If experiencer is 3rd p. pattern as EOC (experiencer cross-referenced by a transitive AGR): Wai?m-æ? si-s-w-e? thirst-ERG attach-3 ->3.FCT ‘Is he thirsty?’ • If experiencer is 1st/2nd p. takes an intransitive AGR: Sag-æ? sis-iŋ-ma hunger-ERG attach-EXPS-1PL ‘We were hungry’ • NB a split-S system, complicated by a person split. • Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent (1,2 person) experiencers.

  27. EOC beyond split-S IV: from indefinite A to (impersonal) passive • From indefinite A to (impersonal) passive (Greenberg 1959; Shibatani 1985 ): • Ainu (Tamura 2000: 71; cf. Shibatani 1985) Itak-an Speak-1pl ‘One speaks’ a-e-kóyki na In/S2sg/O-scold MOD ‘you will be scolded/one will scold you’ • NB construction impersonal: O is still cross-referenced by AGRo.

  28. From indefinite A to impersonal passive: Ainu • If an agentive phrase is used, it is clear that the indefinite A construction is reanalysed as a passive: Ainu (Tamura 2000: 72): Unuhu oro wa an-kóyki Mother place from Ind/S-scold ‘He was scolded by (his) mother’ • NB looks like a personal passive, but O has few subject properties apart from positional (Shibatani 1985: 824)

  29. Further reanalysis to personal passive: Iraqw • In Iraqw indefinite A construction is used as impersonal: Iraqw (Mous 1992: 137, 138) ta-na haníis tsat’i IMPS-PAST give.3SM.PAST knives ‘They gave knives’ or ‘Knives were given’ • NB also possible with an agent phrase • Under O topicalization as a personal passive: ‘ameena ta-n nahhaat women(F) IMPS-EXPEC hide-PRES ‘Women were hidden/hid themselves’

  30. From indefinite A to impersonal passive: other languages Indefinite (impersonal) passives • Greenberg (1959): on Maasai, • Givon (1979): Kimbundu • Shibatani (1985): on indefinite passives: Ainu, Trukic, Indonesian • Motivation for reanalysis: downgrading of indefinite A (cf. Shibatani on A-defocussing), promotes reanalysis to an impersonal structure; (under O topicalization can develop further to personal)

  31. Conclusion: EOC and TIC in a broader context • Universal functional pressure for reanalysis of EOC and TIC, due to • syntactic downgrading of non-prominent (indefinite, inanimate, cognate) A of TIC • syntactic upgrading of a prominent (animate) O of EOC

  32. Functional factours and structural outcome: Split-S • But these universal functional factors will yield a split-S system only under particular structural conditions: • AGRo marking • if AGRo unmarked, more likely covert reanalysis (please-> like). • AGRs is zero marked • if AGRs over then rather as extended transimpersonal constructions (cf. Eskimo, Yamphu), or else reanalysed as a Passive (Ainu, Iraqw)

  33. Role of the structural factors: an illustration • A consistently ergative language cannot develop a split-S structure: • rather experiencer O upgrading will lead to formation of (S/O) labile verbs (NP/erg) NP/abs V-agr/abs • Note that this grammatically ambiguous structure, allows for covert reanalysis of the ABS-marked object-experiencers as subject-experiencers

  34. General conclusion • Unlike the approaches which motivate Split-S pattern through role-domination (direct mapping from semantic functions to case-marking), I regard it as a secondary phenomena which may arise through a conspiracy of • universal functional tendencies • language particular structural properties

  35. A final qualification • This scenario for the rise of Split-S patternfrom reanalysis of transitives (transimpersonals, experiencer object verbs) applies only for languages where • So is a minor pattern (i.e. Sa-based) • the split has an agent/patient than active/stative basis • For Split-S languages which are So based (with Sa as a deviant pattern) another explanations. • The latter pattern may also be secondary: result from reanalysis of a transitive construction with a cognate O (cf. Basque, Georgian, etc.)

More Related