5,486
edits
Minhast/Noun Incorporation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Type II Noun Incorporation - Case Manipulation
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
=== Type II Noun Incorporation - Case Manipulation === | === Type II Noun Incorporation - Case Manipulation === | ||
As Mithun identified in Case Manipulation NI, an important function of IN Minhast is to alter the argument structure of a clause. The prototypical function of NI is to decrease the valency of a verb; the transitivity of a clause is decreased by removing one of the core arguments, namely the PT, and absorbing it into the verb. This opens up the Absolutive position to be occupied by another argument, either an oblique argument, or the Ergative argument. | As Mithun identified in Case Manipulation NI, an important function of IN Minhast is to alter the argument structure of a clause. The prototypical function of NI is to decrease the valency of a verb; the transitivity of a clause is decreased by removing one of the core arguments, namely the PT, and absorbing it into the verb. This opens up the Absolutive position to be occupied by another argument, either an oblique argument, or the Ergative argument. | ||
5a) Yadukte kaslub | Returning back to Sentence 1a and 1b, the argument structure has been altered from a transitive clause in Sentence 1a to an intransitive one via the application of NI previously observed in Sentence 1b. Both sentences have been restated here as Sentences 5a and 5b: | ||
5a) Yadukte kaslub ayupparu → yaduk=de kaslub ayupp-ar-u (boy=ERG dog.ABS point.at-PST TRANS) | |||
“The boy pointed at the dog.” | “The boy pointed at the dog.” | ||
5b) Yaduk ayukkaslubaran → yaduk ayup-kaslub-ar-an (boy.ABS point.at-dog-PST- INTRANS) | 5b) Yaduk ayukkaslubaran → yaduk ayup-kaslub-ar-an (boy.ABS point.at-dog-PST- INTRANS) | ||
“The boy pointed at a/the dog” (lit: “The boy dog-pointed”). | “The boy pointed at a/the dog” (lit: “The boy dog-pointed”). | ||
The alteration of the argument structure from a transitive sentence to an intransitive one is pragmatically motivated and changes the nature of the discourse. The incorporation of the PT kaslub, both opens up the Absolutive position for occupation by another argument, in this case, the Agent yaduk. The incorporation of the Patient kaslub also backgrounds it, reducing its salience in the discourse. The Agent yaduk thus becomes more salient, as it has now become the sole core argument of the sentence. The result alters discourse by presenting the Agent as the most important element of the discourse, while that of the Patient has been reduced to a peripheral role. | The alteration of the argument structure from a transitive sentence to an intransitive one is pragmatically motivated and changes the nature of the discourse. The incorporation of the PT kaslub, both opens up the Absolutive position for occupation by another argument, in this case, the Agent yaduk. The incorporation of the Patient kaslub also backgrounds it, reducing its salience in the discourse. The Agent yaduk thus becomes more salient, as it has now become the sole core argument of the sentence. The result alters discourse by presenting the Agent as the most important element of the discourse, while that of the Patient has been reduced to a peripheral role. | ||
Patients are not the only arguments that can be subjected to NI. An interesting feature of NI in Minhast is that the semantic nature of a verb may allow certain non-PTs oblique arguments, namely Instrumentals and Locatives, to be incorporated. This is similar to Ainu, another polysynthetic | |||
Patients are not the only arguments that can be subjected to NI. An interesting feature of NI in Minhast is that the semantic nature of a verb may allow certain non-PTs oblique arguments, namely Instrumentals and Locatives, to be incorporated. This is similar to Ainu, another polysynthetic language of Northeast Asia unrelated to Minhast . Like Minhast, Ainu can target Instrumental arguments for NI, like sapa (“head”) underlined below in Sentence 5: | |||
language of Northeast Asia unrelated to Minhast . Like Minhast, Ainu can target Instrumental | |||
arguments for NI, like sapa (“head”) underlined below in Sentence 5: | |||
13 This is an instance of Case Manipulation NI, i.e. Mithun's Type II classification. | 13 This is an instance of Case Manipulation NI, i.e. Mithun's Type II classification. | ||
14 There still remain some die-hard advocates who group the two languages with Chutchki and Nivkh under a single | 14 There still remain some die-hard advocates who group the two languages with Chutchki and Nivkh under a single | ||