Pseudo Incorporation and Ditransitives
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:04 am
Hi all, I'd like feedback on an idea I'm thinking of adding to a project I've had going on and off for a few months now. The language is mostly isolating with a lot of serialisation, and so far no true ditransitive verbs. What it does have though is a number of verbs of giving and induced motion where the object can be theme/object and/or the recipient but not both at the same time. This is much like the English alterations below:
he loaded the crates onto the truck
he loaded the truck with crates
Or, to use examples from the conlang:
GIVE WITH THEME ARGUMENT
meŋ m psè
give ART thing
he/she gave the thing (to him/her/it/us/you...)
GIVE WITH RECIPIENT ARGUMENT
dèn m psè meŋ se
handle ART thing give 3SG
he/she gave him/her the thing
NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED:
*meŋ m psè se
give ART thing 3SG
he/she gave him/her the thing
What I'm thinking about doing is allowing pseudo ditransitives in restricted circumstances. Specifically:
1. the article m is a marker of pragmatically relevant specificity (i.e. it can be definite or specific indefinite), and its absence signifies either that the noun is non-specific or that its identity and number are irrelevant. M vs zero marked object NPs therefore have a similar distribution to differential object marking or pseudo-incorporation in other languages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Different ... ct_marking
https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003346/cu ... Z-FRD1m0PL
2. For verbs which have flexible object roles, if this kind of covert pseudo-incorporation with a non-specific object happens, then perhaps a "slot" opens up for a specific object in the other role, e.g.:
POSSIBLY ALLOWED
meŋ psè se
give thing 3SG
he/she gave him/her things OR he/she thing-gave him/her
The version with two specific / referential objects would still be disallowed and require an SVC which has separate verbs for the theme and recipient.
3. Transitive verbs with flexible object role are basically of two types. There are ones with instrument/object ambiguity (shoot gun / shoot person) and ones with theme/recipient ambiguity (give gift / give to somebody). For true (not pseudo) noun incorporation, I believe that incorporation of recipients is either unlikely or impossible, so I expect the pseudo-incorporation would be limited to the non-final element in the causal chain, i.e. pick the first of instrument > theme > recipient/goal. This means that a clause with a non-specific recipient could not be pseudo-incorporated and would still require the full SVC structure.
The reason I'm not sure about this is that it feels like a bit of a slippery slope. If a language allows this kind of pseudo ditransitive with a non-referential "incorporated" object, which on the surface looks pretty similar to any other non-referential noun phrase, it feels like this pattern might be quite quickly generalised by speakers to allow two referential objects and true ditransitives.
What do you think?
he loaded the crates onto the truck
he loaded the truck with crates
Or, to use examples from the conlang:
GIVE WITH THEME ARGUMENT
meŋ m psè
give ART thing
he/she gave the thing (to him/her/it/us/you...)
GIVE WITH RECIPIENT ARGUMENT
dèn m psè meŋ se
handle ART thing give 3SG
he/she gave him/her the thing
NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED:
*meŋ m psè se
give ART thing 3SG
he/she gave him/her the thing
What I'm thinking about doing is allowing pseudo ditransitives in restricted circumstances. Specifically:
1. the article m is a marker of pragmatically relevant specificity (i.e. it can be definite or specific indefinite), and its absence signifies either that the noun is non-specific or that its identity and number are irrelevant. M vs zero marked object NPs therefore have a similar distribution to differential object marking or pseudo-incorporation in other languages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Different ... ct_marking
https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003346/cu ... Z-FRD1m0PL
2. For verbs which have flexible object roles, if this kind of covert pseudo-incorporation with a non-specific object happens, then perhaps a "slot" opens up for a specific object in the other role, e.g.:
POSSIBLY ALLOWED
meŋ psè se
give thing 3SG
he/she gave him/her things OR he/she thing-gave him/her
The version with two specific / referential objects would still be disallowed and require an SVC which has separate verbs for the theme and recipient.
3. Transitive verbs with flexible object role are basically of two types. There are ones with instrument/object ambiguity (shoot gun / shoot person) and ones with theme/recipient ambiguity (give gift / give to somebody). For true (not pseudo) noun incorporation, I believe that incorporation of recipients is either unlikely or impossible, so I expect the pseudo-incorporation would be limited to the non-final element in the causal chain, i.e. pick the first of instrument > theme > recipient/goal. This means that a clause with a non-specific recipient could not be pseudo-incorporated and would still require the full SVC structure.
The reason I'm not sure about this is that it feels like a bit of a slippery slope. If a language allows this kind of pseudo ditransitive with a non-referential "incorporated" object, which on the surface looks pretty similar to any other non-referential noun phrase, it feels like this pattern might be quite quickly generalised by speakers to allow two referential objects and true ditransitives.
What do you think?