Basic Valence Orientation and Sint
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:41 pm
I've been thinking a lot recently about valency alternations in Sint, and I thought maybe some of this might be interesting to other people. Originally I had planned to have a class of ambitransitive / labile verbs, but the issue was that Sint is head-marking with no role marking of core arguments in the clause, with use of grammatical voice to help with reference tracking. But the morphology would have made the ambi-transitives (roots not lexically specified for number of arguments) ambiguous about the number of arguments, which would mess with the reference tracking, which made me decide that zero marked transitivity alternations shouldn't happen.
Basic Valency Orientation
It has been suggested that languages tend to be consistent in their strategy for transitive/intransitive alternations by having a dominant strategy of either:
1. making the intransitive root basic and using causative morphology to create the transitives, e.g. break.intrans -> break.intrans-CAUS. This is the preferred strategy in Salishan languages.
2. making the transitive root basic and using some kind of anti-causative morphology to derive the intransitive. This is the preferred strategy in Spanish, which has a large class of anti-causatives marked by reflexive clitics.
For some papers along these lines, see the following:
Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale
Causatives and anticausatives
Macroscopic and microscopic typology:Basic Valence Orientation, more pertinacious than meets the naked eye
Salish - a radical example of the causative strategy
I don't speak any Salishan language, but since I decided to go in this direction for Sint, I've been reading quite a lot about Salish voice morphology. Ignoring applicatives for now, the basic facts about Salish are that:
1. The language has a very large class of roots corresponding to transitives in languages like English which, when unmarked, are unaccusative (non-control) intransitive verbs. They describe the impact of the event on the patient without including an agent in their default case frame.
2. Almost all transitives require an overt transitivising suffix, although depending on the language the suffix may merge in some cases with a following agreement marker. The suffix often distinguishes degree of control that the actor has over the event. Causative markers may also vary depending on whether the stem they attach to are unaccusative or unergative/transitive.
See the examples below, transcribed from "The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis" in an X-SAMPA-ish convention. Note that I think the English glosses in the table are a bit misleading based on reading elsewhere.
k'w@q = it splits = unaccusative intransitive
k'w@q-?@m = split (something) = active intransitive / antipassive
k'w@q-t = split it = control transitive
k'w@q-@xw = have split it = non-control transitive
k'w@q-?@m-sxw = make him split (something) = active intransitive causative
k'w@q-t-@m = it is split = passive
k'w@q-?@m-t = split it for him = control indirective (benefactive applicative)
k'w@q-?@m-@xw = have split for him = non-control indirective (benefactive applicative)
This pattern is followed very consistently, to a degree that Haspelmath comes close to declaring unattested typologically in the papers above. Salish languages have a more limited repertoire of root transitives than most other languages, although there are some roots which only occur with transitive suffixes and which can't be converted into intransitives by taking the transitive marker away.
Some papers on Salish root semantics and transitivity:
Issues in Salish Syntax and Semantics
Situational Aspect and Viewpoint Aspect: From Salish to Japanese
The Function of Salish Applicatives
A Closer Look at Salish Intransitive/Transitive Alternations
Revised Sint transitivity alternations
So I've decided to follow a similar pattern, but with modifications. Every stem in Sint will be transitive or intransitive, but I'm currently thinking that I won't bother with the redundant transitivity marking on lexically transitive roots. This means there are three basic root categories with fuzzy boundaries between them:
Base transitive = interpreted as having two arguments without further overt marking. Mostly limited to roots where it's hard to conceive of the event just happening without an agent to trigger it
Unergative (+control) intransitives = verbs like run, jump, ... normally performed by a controlling animate argument
Unaccusative (-control) intransitives = verbs like break which can happen without participant control
I'm still adjusting the morpheme shapes, but let's say for now that these can be suffixed with at least the following voice morphemes. I've left out the actual agreement suffixes, so all the examples are stem formation only:
-s- = transitiver [+control, +bivalent]
Adds a patient-like argument to the verb. Only compatible with direct causation, cannot be applied directly to unergative verbs to form a causative:
ràk 'break' -> ràk-s -> ràks 'break (it)'
kaas 'run' -> *kaas-s -> *kaats 'make (it/him/her) run'
When attached to an unergative (+control) intransitive, it can form a benefactive applicative:
kaas 'run' -> kaas-s -> kaats 'run to/for (him/her)'
Causative ~ beneficiary applicative alternations are not that uncommon cross-linguistically based on either transitivity or the unergative/unaccusative split.
-nč- = transitiviser [limited control, +bivalent]
Patterns like -s, but marks limited control of the actor over the process. Can be translated as 'manage to', 'accidentally', .... I'm not sure this is the case in Salish, but I think this should probably required with inanimate agents incapable of intent.
Can also feed the benefactive applicative:
kaas 'run' -> kaas-nč -> kaasınč 'run to/for (him/her)'
The beneficiary meaning probably rules out the 'accidentally' meaning of the limited control transitiviser, since it's hard to see how an action can simultaneously be performed for someone's benefit and be unintended.
-m- = anti-passive / applicative [+control, -bivalent, -affected]
On its own, forms an anti-passive with an agent and an unspecified patient. Tends to have atelic / process semantics:
ràk 'break' -> ràk-m -> ràkım 'break (something)'
After elimination of the original patient to form an unergative intransitive, a transitive suffix -s or -nč can be added to promote a dative or beneficiary argument:
ràk 'break' -> ràk-m-s -> ràkıms 'break (something) for (him/her)'
Note also the interesting fact in the Salish examples above that the same suffix partly codes both anti-passive and beneficiary applicative functions, something I already had in Sint before I started digging into Salish.
-ksi- = reflexive / middle [+control, +affected, +univalent]
The transitive suffix -s isn't required before -ksi-, but -nč-ksi- -> -nčki can be added. Reflexives are by default semantically +control. The suffix can be used to convert unaccusatives to unergatives, if the argument is capable of volition:
kalk '(be/become) big' -> kalk-ksi -> kalkıksi 'enlarge/grow oneself (animate)'
If volition isn't possible, then either the bare-root alone or addition of a preverb creates a telic non-control inchoative.
The reflexive, since it creates unergatives, in turn can feed the benefactive meaning of -s:
kalk-ksi-s -> kalkıksis 'grow up for'
Oblique applicative [+/- control, +bivalent]
Attaches to a stem to demote the existing patient (if any), and give a previous oblique control of patient agreement. Typically used with locations, the stimulus in psych verbs, etc. Is compatible with either transitive or intransitive roots. Doesn't affect the control semantics of the stem. I'm not sure what the exact semantic range of promotable obliques should be, and whether I should split it further by adding an instrumental/comitative applicative.
naa 'go' -> naa-ri -> naari `go to'
Summary of mappings:
-s- / -nč-
UNACCUSATIVE -> TRANSITIVE
UNERGATIVE -> DATIVE/BENEFICIARY APPLICATIVE
-m-
UNACCUSATIVE -> ANTIPASSIVE (UNERGATIVE)
TRANSITIVE -> ANTIPASSIVE (UNERGATIVE)
-ksi-
UNACCUSATIVE -> UNERGATIVE (+ CONTROL)
TRANSITIVE -> REFLEXIVE/UNERGATIVE (+ CONTROL)
-ri-
ANY -> TRANSITIVE WITH PROMOTED LOCATIVE/STIMULUS PATIENT
The combinations required to get the benefactive applicative are then simple to derive from the fact that this reading is only available with -s-/nč- when they are applied to unergative (+control) intransitive stems.
Questions:
1. What is the basic valency orientation of other people's conlangs? Are they causativising, anti-causativising, neutral (lots of ambitransitive verbs), ...?
2. Does anyone feel like adding more detail on Salish voice alternations?
3. Sint questions:
(i) Does this description make sense?
(ii) Any comments / feedback?
Basic Valency Orientation
It has been suggested that languages tend to be consistent in their strategy for transitive/intransitive alternations by having a dominant strategy of either:
1. making the intransitive root basic and using causative morphology to create the transitives, e.g. break.intrans -> break.intrans-CAUS. This is the preferred strategy in Salishan languages.
2. making the transitive root basic and using some kind of anti-causative morphology to derive the intransitive. This is the preferred strategy in Spanish, which has a large class of anti-causatives marked by reflexive clitics.
For some papers along these lines, see the following:
Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale
Causatives and anticausatives
Macroscopic and microscopic typology:Basic Valence Orientation, more pertinacious than meets the naked eye
Salish - a radical example of the causative strategy
I don't speak any Salishan language, but since I decided to go in this direction for Sint, I've been reading quite a lot about Salish voice morphology. Ignoring applicatives for now, the basic facts about Salish are that:
1. The language has a very large class of roots corresponding to transitives in languages like English which, when unmarked, are unaccusative (non-control) intransitive verbs. They describe the impact of the event on the patient without including an agent in their default case frame.
2. Almost all transitives require an overt transitivising suffix, although depending on the language the suffix may merge in some cases with a following agreement marker. The suffix often distinguishes degree of control that the actor has over the event. Causative markers may also vary depending on whether the stem they attach to are unaccusative or unergative/transitive.
See the examples below, transcribed from "The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis" in an X-SAMPA-ish convention. Note that I think the English glosses in the table are a bit misleading based on reading elsewhere.
k'w@q = it splits = unaccusative intransitive
k'w@q-?@m = split (something) = active intransitive / antipassive
k'w@q-t = split it = control transitive
k'w@q-@xw = have split it = non-control transitive
k'w@q-?@m-sxw = make him split (something) = active intransitive causative
k'w@q-t-@m = it is split = passive
k'w@q-?@m-t = split it for him = control indirective (benefactive applicative)
k'w@q-?@m-@xw = have split for him = non-control indirective (benefactive applicative)
This pattern is followed very consistently, to a degree that Haspelmath comes close to declaring unattested typologically in the papers above. Salish languages have a more limited repertoire of root transitives than most other languages, although there are some roots which only occur with transitive suffixes and which can't be converted into intransitives by taking the transitive marker away.
Some papers on Salish root semantics and transitivity:
Issues in Salish Syntax and Semantics
Situational Aspect and Viewpoint Aspect: From Salish to Japanese
The Function of Salish Applicatives
A Closer Look at Salish Intransitive/Transitive Alternations
Revised Sint transitivity alternations
So I've decided to follow a similar pattern, but with modifications. Every stem in Sint will be transitive or intransitive, but I'm currently thinking that I won't bother with the redundant transitivity marking on lexically transitive roots. This means there are three basic root categories with fuzzy boundaries between them:
Base transitive = interpreted as having two arguments without further overt marking. Mostly limited to roots where it's hard to conceive of the event just happening without an agent to trigger it
Unergative (+control) intransitives = verbs like run, jump, ... normally performed by a controlling animate argument
Unaccusative (-control) intransitives = verbs like break which can happen without participant control
I'm still adjusting the morpheme shapes, but let's say for now that these can be suffixed with at least the following voice morphemes. I've left out the actual agreement suffixes, so all the examples are stem formation only:
-s- = transitiver [+control, +bivalent]
Adds a patient-like argument to the verb. Only compatible with direct causation, cannot be applied directly to unergative verbs to form a causative:
ràk 'break' -> ràk-s -> ràks 'break (it)'
kaas 'run' -> *kaas-s -> *kaats 'make (it/him/her) run'
When attached to an unergative (+control) intransitive, it can form a benefactive applicative:
kaas 'run' -> kaas-s -> kaats 'run to/for (him/her)'
Causative ~ beneficiary applicative alternations are not that uncommon cross-linguistically based on either transitivity or the unergative/unaccusative split.
-nč- = transitiviser [limited control, +bivalent]
Patterns like -s, but marks limited control of the actor over the process. Can be translated as 'manage to', 'accidentally', .... I'm not sure this is the case in Salish, but I think this should probably required with inanimate agents incapable of intent.
Can also feed the benefactive applicative:
kaas 'run' -> kaas-nč -> kaasınč 'run to/for (him/her)'
The beneficiary meaning probably rules out the 'accidentally' meaning of the limited control transitiviser, since it's hard to see how an action can simultaneously be performed for someone's benefit and be unintended.
-m- = anti-passive / applicative [+control, -bivalent, -affected]
On its own, forms an anti-passive with an agent and an unspecified patient. Tends to have atelic / process semantics:
ràk 'break' -> ràk-m -> ràkım 'break (something)'
After elimination of the original patient to form an unergative intransitive, a transitive suffix -s or -nč can be added to promote a dative or beneficiary argument:
ràk 'break' -> ràk-m-s -> ràkıms 'break (something) for (him/her)'
Note also the interesting fact in the Salish examples above that the same suffix partly codes both anti-passive and beneficiary applicative functions, something I already had in Sint before I started digging into Salish.
-ksi- = reflexive / middle [+control, +affected, +univalent]
The transitive suffix -s isn't required before -ksi-, but -nč-ksi- -> -nčki can be added. Reflexives are by default semantically +control. The suffix can be used to convert unaccusatives to unergatives, if the argument is capable of volition:
kalk '(be/become) big' -> kalk-ksi -> kalkıksi 'enlarge/grow oneself (animate)'
If volition isn't possible, then either the bare-root alone or addition of a preverb creates a telic non-control inchoative.
The reflexive, since it creates unergatives, in turn can feed the benefactive meaning of -s:
kalk-ksi-s -> kalkıksis 'grow up for'
Oblique applicative [+/- control, +bivalent]
Attaches to a stem to demote the existing patient (if any), and give a previous oblique control of patient agreement. Typically used with locations, the stimulus in psych verbs, etc. Is compatible with either transitive or intransitive roots. Doesn't affect the control semantics of the stem. I'm not sure what the exact semantic range of promotable obliques should be, and whether I should split it further by adding an instrumental/comitative applicative.
naa 'go' -> naa-ri -> naari `go to'
Summary of mappings:
-s- / -nč-
UNACCUSATIVE -> TRANSITIVE
UNERGATIVE -> DATIVE/BENEFICIARY APPLICATIVE
-m-
UNACCUSATIVE -> ANTIPASSIVE (UNERGATIVE)
TRANSITIVE -> ANTIPASSIVE (UNERGATIVE)
-ksi-
UNACCUSATIVE -> UNERGATIVE (+ CONTROL)
TRANSITIVE -> REFLEXIVE/UNERGATIVE (+ CONTROL)
-ri-
ANY -> TRANSITIVE WITH PROMOTED LOCATIVE/STIMULUS PATIENT
The combinations required to get the benefactive applicative are then simple to derive from the fact that this reading is only available with -s-/nč- when they are applied to unergative (+control) intransitive stems.
Questions:
1. What is the basic valency orientation of other people's conlangs? Are they causativising, anti-causativising, neutral (lots of ambitransitive verbs), ...?
2. Does anyone feel like adding more detail on Salish voice alternations?
3. Sint questions:
(i) Does this description make sense?
(ii) Any comments / feedback?