Semantic and syntactic functions of western Indonesian applicative - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Prototypical vs. Neglected . Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Semantic and syntactic functions of western Indonesian applicative morphology 1 Univ. of Hawai ‘ i at Mānoa, cltruong@hawaii.edu 2 Univ. of Hawai ‘ i at Mānoa, mcdonn@hawaii.edu 53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 26-29 August 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 / 28 Christina L. Truong 1 Bradley J. McDonnell 2

. Prototypical vs. Neglected . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Type I . Type II Type III Conclusions References Goals 1 To survey neglected functions of applicative suffjxes in western Indonesian languages. 2 To demonstrate common cross-linguistic patterns among these neglected functions 3 To describe common relationships between prototypical and neglected functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 / 28

. . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Western Indonesian languages *“Western Indonesian languages” include languages with applicative morphology that is separate from voice. They are primarily located in Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Bali, Lombok) but also Malaysia and Brunei. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 / 28

. Type I . . . . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type II . Type III Conclusions References Languages represented 1 Karo Batak 2 Besemah 3 Indonesian 4 Sundanese 5 Sasak 6 Pendau 7 Balantak 8 Tukang Besi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 / 28

. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Prototypical vs. Neglected . Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References (Symmetrical) voice and applicative 1 It is important to note that western Indonesian languages have symmetrical voice systems: 2 Generally speaking, voice combines with applicative morphology (invariably suffjxes). 3 Afgects some terminology, i.e., “applied argument” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 / 28 ▶ Multiple transitive voices ▶ None of which is clearly the “basic”

. Prototypical vs. Neglected . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Type I . Type II Type III Conclusions References “Prototypical” Applicatives Our working defjnition for “prototypical” applicative construction: 1 Increases valency over a base construction by one. 2 Selects one of several oft-discussed (or “common”) roles for its applied argument. The former is syntactic, the latter is both semantic and syntactic. (e.g., Dixon & Aikhenvald 2000, Peterson 2007, Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 / 28 ▶ goal ▶ location ▶ benefjciary ▶ instrument ▶ …

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References “Prototypical” Applicatives “Prototypical” applicatives can be visualized as the overlapping segment of a Venn Diagram connecting these two functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 / 28

. References 1 sg Saya a. Standard Indonesian (1) “Prototypical” Applicatives Conclusions av -bake Type III Type II Type I Prototypical vs. Neglected Introduction . mem-(p)anggang roti . av -bake- kan (Cole & Son 2004: 341) ( not : ‘I made Eric make bread.’) bread roti. E. Eric mem-(p)anggang-kan bread 1 sg Saya b. E. Eric. for untuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 / 28 ‘I cooked bread for Eric.’ ‘I cooked Eric bread.’

. . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Neglected functions of applicatives Non-prototypical applicative functions thus could take various types: argument argument argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 / 28 ▶ Type I: Increase valency, do not select “common” role for applied ▶ Type II: Do not increase valency, but select “common” role for applied ▶ Type III: Do not increase valency, nor select “common” role for applied

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Type I: Valency-increasing, “neglected” role for applied argument These can be even more common than the prototypical applicatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 / 28 ▶ Type I non-prototypical applicative functions in western Indonesia ▶ Causative function ▶ Selects stimulus, theme role for applied argument

. plane . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Causative (2) Sasak a. Pesawat nó . det (Khairunnisa & McDonnell in prep.) ‘The pilot fmew the plane.’ plane pesawat. fmy- caus/appl kèlèp-an nó det pilot Pilòt b. ‘The plane fmew.’ fmy kèlèp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 / 28

. Theme tu father=3 Bapang=(ny)e a. Besemah (3) References injik Conclusions Type III Type II Type I Prototypical vs. Neglected Introduction dem.dist love . dem.dist (McDonnell in prep.) ‘The father loves his child.’ child=3 anak=(ny)e. av -love- appl ng-injik-ka tu nga father=3 Bapang=(ny)e b. ‘The father loves his child.’ child=3 anak=(ny)e. with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 / 28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Type II: Non-Valency-increasing, common role for Applied Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 / 28 ▶ Type II non-prototypical applicative functions in western Indonesia. ▶ “Remapping” applicatives (Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019)

. Pulisi fjnger-3s rangkum-na av.irr -hit mom-bobok often malia’ police a. person Balantak (4) “Remapping” applicatives References Conclusions Type III Type II mian men Prototypical vs. Neglected lima-na (van den Berg & Busenitz 2012: 102) ‘He hit (with) his hand on the table.’ table meja. loc na hand-3s av.irr -hit- appl rel mom-bobok-kon 3s Ia b. ‘Police often strike the fjngers of thieves.’ intr.irr -steal ma-mangan. Type I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 / 28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions References Type III: Non-valency increasing, “neglected” function increase valency nor to assign a role to an applied argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 / 28 ▶ Type III in western Indonesia: The primary function of these is not to ▶ “Optional” applicatives ▶ Comparative degree ▶ Intensity ▶ Afgectedness of applied argument ▶ Habitual and/or iterative aspect ▶ Lexicalized changes in scope, meaning

. uncle saya to kepada money uang av -send(- kan ) meng-(k)irim(-kan) Paman tiap a. Standard Indonesian (5) “Optional” applicatives References Conclusions Type III 1s every Type I itu (Kroeger 2007: 245) ‘He planted the rice in his fjeld.’ rice.fjeld=3s sawah=nya. in di that rice bulan. padi av -plant(- kan ) men-(t)anam(-kan) 3s Dia b. ‘Uncle sends some money to me every month’ month Type II Prototypical vs. Neglected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 / 28

. Conclusions . . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III References . Comparative Degree (6) Sundanese Sedih-an sad- comp abi 1s batan than alo=na. nephew=3. poss “‘I am more sad than his/her niece/nephew.” (Truong fjeldnotes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 / 28

. References 1s. abs A’u a. Pendau (7) Intensity Conclusions irr:av -kill Type III Type II Type I Prototypical vs. Neglected Introduction . mom-(p)ate manu’ . 1s. inv -obstruct- dir (Quick 2007: 304) ‘I will chase you, corner you, and then I will kill you.’ 1s. inv -kill- dir u-pate-i. and.then paey u-lava-i chicken 1s. inv -chase u-raga, 2s. abs Oo b. (Quick 2007: 232) ‘I will kill a chicken.’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 / 28

. References . . . . . . Introduction Prototypical vs. Neglected Type I Type II Type III Conclusions Intensity . (8) Tukang Besi a. pepe ‘slap’ pepe-ki ‘slap forcefully ’ b. busu ‘punch’ busu-ki ‘punch with forward fjst’ (Donohue 1999: 77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 / 28