* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The prefix tla
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
American Sign Language grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Malay grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Turkish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sotho verbs wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
¡Tlatz-tla-kual-tzin! thunder-unspecified-good-ie Function becomes meaning: The prefix tlain Nawatl David Tuggy CILTA - URP SIL Introduction: Functional linguistics There’s an important theoretical and cultural difference between two general linguistic frameworks of considerable influence. They may be called The Formalist framework The Functionalist framework What is the difference? Introduction: Functional linguistics Scott Delancey (a functionalist) says that Formalists are not much interested in the question “Why?” For functionalists, that is the most interesting question. (Some formalists would probably disagree.) Introduction: Functional linguistics Formalists and functionalists do seem to differ on where they look for explanations. Formalists look for explanations from within the linguistic system, and not from outside it. Some (e.g. Chomskyans) believe that the linguistic system is quite separate from everything else that goes on in our heads: it is a mysterious “black box” It can only be understood by looking at linguistic data in search of the best self-contained explanation (one based only on what is within the system). Introduction: Functional linguistics Given this way of looking at language, it is sufficient and desirable to achieve an explanation based on the hypothetical nature (otherwise unknown) of the human linguistic faculty. One looks for evidence within languages which will let us understand more about the nature of the black box of the linguistic faculty. Whatever isn’t explained by the nature of this black box is of lesser interest to these theorists. Introduction: Functional linguistics For another branch of formalist linguistics, there is no such thing as explanation other than description: “If the facts have been fully stated, it is perverse or childish to demand an ‘explanation’ into the bargain.” —Joos 1957, representing Bloomfield’s point of view. Introduction: Functional linguistics Functionalists seek explanations in other areas. Delancey emphasizes two favorite explanatory engines of the functionalists: Function (motivation based on the use of language to communicate, on cognition, etc.) Diachrony Introduction: Functional linguistics The two explanatory engines of functionalism: Function Diachrony Paraphrasing: Why do we talk the way we do? Because it’s useful Because we’ve done it that way before Introduction: Functional linguistics Obviously and importantly, it is useful to talk the way we are used to talking So, Diachrony is also Functionally motivated We started talking that way because it was useful, and it generally keeps on being useful. Introduction: Functional linguistics In other words, Functional motivation and Diachrony are not opposed or contradictory; rather they fit very well with each other. Introduction: Functional linguistics Functional motivation and Diachrony often go in cycles: Functionally motivated changes are made. These changes are consolidated and become established habits of speech. These then form the background for new changes. Introduction: Functional linguistics It’s useful to think of a language as a box of tools which we can use to communicate with. For a given communicative purpose you can always build a new tool, but It is likely to be expensive, difficult, and not all that helpful Introduction: Functional linguistics You get better results (generally it is more Functional) taking an existing tool (one already developed Diachronically), even though it was made for a slightly different purpose, and use it for what you want to do. Introduction: Functional linguistics You want to open a paint can: You could invent a paint-canopener from scratch, But you’re better off just grabbing a screwdriver and opening your paint can. Introduction: Functional linguistics The screwdriver was not made for opening paint cans. But it works, And very quickly you can get used to using it that way. Introduction: Functional linguistics You want to unscrew a Torx screw So you go after it with your Philips screwdriver Introduction: Functional linguistics The great thing about linguistic tools is that they automatically adapt themselves to their tasks. When you use your Philips screwdriver on Torx screws … Introduction: Functional linguistics It turns into a Torx screwdriver … …without losing its ability to work on Philips screws. Introduction: Functional linguistics Many linguistic forms come pre-adapted for several related functions. Introduction: Functional linguistics And sometimes for rather different functions. Introduction: Functional linguistics Some supermorphemes are Swiss Army knives. They have been used for so many things that they are impressively polysemic. Introduction: Functional linguistics The phonological form is the handle of the tool. Every functional capability that it acquires is a new (polysemic) meaning. Introduction: Functional linguistics This stands the “performance – competence” distinction on its head. Chomsky and others talk as if performance is best ignored except as it fitfully reflects the pristine platonic Competence, residing in the black box. Introduction: Functional linguistics Here we are claiming that usage affects, to the point of determining, linguistic competence. Usage affects, in fact it determines, the shape of the lexical and grammatical tools in the linguistic toolbox. Introduction: Functional linguistics Of course the shape of the tools very strongly affects how we use them. But we can and do stretch meanings by new usages TlaThe prefix tla- in Nawatl (Nahuatl) is a Swiss Army super-morpheme. Its basic function is to let you avoid mentioning the object of a transitive verb. Transitive verbs A transitive verb is like a light socket. It is obviously incomplete. Something is missing. Objectless transitive verbs Leaving a transitive verb without its object is like leaving the light socket without its lightbulb Objectless transitive verbs A verb like eat is an empty object socket. When you hear it you want to know what got eaten. But what if you as speaker would rather not say what got eaten? Objectless transitive verbs Different languages have evolved different ways of responding to this functional need. In English you can simply not mention the object. Objectless transitive verbs Instead of saying: “Adam ate the apple,” You can just say “Adam ate” and leave it at that. Objectless transitive verbs If you do this often enough, the verb eat will change. It will stop being so important to specify the object. In Nawatl this tactic is not permitted. You have to name an object. Objectless transitive verbs Another tactic is to look for a different verb which doesn’t require an object. You can say: “Adam dined (at 10 o’clock)” People will no longer expect to hear what he ate. Objectless transitive verbs Other languages have an “antipassive” construction. Just as a passive lets you use a verb without mentioning its subject, an antipassive lets you use it without mentioning its object. Objectless transitive verbs Not all languages have an antipassive. English doesn’t, nor does Nawatl. (Nawatl doesn’t have a passive either.) Objectless transitive verbs Yet another tactic is to use a “cognate object”. The cognate object doesn’t tell you any more than you already knew. You can say: “Adam ate food.” Objectless transitive verbs You can also use an object whose meaning consists in not saying what it is. You can say: “Adam ate something.” This would be an “unspecified object.” TlaThis last strategy is the normal one by which Nawatl responds to this situation. Instead of a separate word “something”, Nawatl uses the prefix tla-. Tla- means (more or less) “something” s.t. = “something”. TlaNawatl has a series of prefixes which mark verbal objects. Tla- is a member of that series. (1a) ni-k- kuā ‘I eat it’ I- it eat (b) ø- mo- kuā ‘it eats itself/is eaten’ 3ps- refl- eat (c) (d) ti- tla- kuā -h ‘we eat (food/s.t.)’ 1pp- unspec- eat -pl tē- -ni ‘wild animal’ -er (lit. people-eater) kuā unspec.human eat Why would you use tla-? Why would you choose not to specify the object? There could be a number of functional reasons. Those reasons become part of the meaning(s) of tla-. Why would you use tla-? Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: You don’t know what was eaten. • Maybe the object was too small • Or you couldn’t see it from where you were • Etc. It doesn’t matter to you what was eaten, and you don’t think it will matter to your hearer either. Why would you use tla-? Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: You and your hearer already know what it was. Your hearer could guess what it was. You want to hold back that information till a different part of the discourse, where it will have a bigger impact. You don’t want your hearer to know what it was. Why would you use tla-? Why would you refrain from specifying the object? Maybe: The object is too scary to mention. The object is too gross to mention. The object is too holy to mention. It could be any of these reasons, or any combination of them. Why would you use tla-? All these reasons affect why Nawatlspeakers use tlaAnd so tla- has adapted to such usages. Prototypical tlaSometimes you can’t specify any one reason as opposed to the others. (2) ō- ni- tla- kowa -to past- yo- unspec- buy -went.to ‘I went to buy s.t./ I went shopping’ With this form a hearer doesn’t know why the speaker chose not to specify the object. It could be for any of the reasons we have mentioned. Prototypical tlaUnspecified object of a transitive verb Object of transitive verb unspecified because unknown to speaker Object of a transitive verb unspecified because obvious to speaker and hearer Semantic Space Object of a transitive verb unspecified because it is unimportant Phonological Space tla Object of a transitive verb unspecified because it is too gross/holy to mention Activating any of these meanings will also activate the schema that includes them all. (verb stem) Tla- ‘unspecified object’ These are the most common uses of tlaWe unfortunately don’t have time to discuss them all. But notice the following paradox. Sometimes tla- indicates an object which is obvious in context, a highly topical object. Sometimes it marks an insignificant object, low in topicality. Tla- ‘normal object’ Often tla- marks an object that doesn’t need specifying because it is the normal object. 1(c) ti- tla- kuā 1pp- unspec- eat -h ‘we eat (food/s.t.)’ -pl What is eaten could not be, for instance, a rock. Tla- ‘normal object’ Other examples: (3) ni- tlaI- (4) (5) (7) ‘I make the bed’ sowa soh- sowa normal.obj- rdp- ni- tla - tlaI - ‘I open (up) the house/store/corral, I open the windows/doors’ normal.obj- extend ni- tlaI- tlapowa normal.obj- open ni- tlaI- (6) normal.obj- close ni- tlaI - ‘I close (up) the house/store/corral, I close the windows/doors’ tzakua extend witeki rdp- normal.obj- strike ‘I spread out the laundry (on bushes, etc., to dry)’ ‘I knock at the door’ Tla- ‘normal object’ What is normal? It depends on the culture: (8) I - (9) (11) (12) ‘I grind corn coarsely’ kow tla- ‘I buy him/her (godchild) wedding/ -applic baptismal clothes’ -ia tolo -ltia ‘I administer Mass to him/her’ 3ps- normal.obj- swallow -caus ni- tlaI - tla- 3ps- normal.obj- buy ni- k I - payana normal.obj- grind.coarsely ni- k I- ‘I reheat tortillas, [in RD] I dry flower bulbs, [in Oztotitla,] I dry coffee’ normal.obj- heat ni- tlaI- (10) totōnia ni- tla- kīx -tia normal.obj- emerge -caus ‘I dig up flower bulbs (with a shovel)’ Tla- ‘normal object’ Diagramming: Unspecified object of a transitive verb Normal object of a transitive verb Object of a transitive verb unspecified because obvious to speaker and hearer (etc.) Object of a transitive verb unspecified because unimportant tla-tzakua* Corn (derivative) as object of a transitive verb tla-kuā Object of a transitive verb unspecified because too holy to mention lightly *tla-tzakua should be taken as “the meaning of tla- as used in tzakua”; and similarly for the other cases. tla-totōnia tla-payana tla-tololtia tla-kowia tla- Flower (bulb)s as object of a transitive verb tortillas as object of totōnia coffee as object of totōnia (en Oztotitla, etc.) tla-kīxtia flower bulbs as object of totōnia (en Rafael Delgado) The black arrows indicate full schematicity; the blue ones partial schematicity (or semantic extension). Tla- ‘normal activity’ Very close to the idea of a normal object is the idea of normal or canonical activity. This notion shows up plainly when human objects are understood, but tla- is used anyway. (13a) ni- kI- (b) (c) 3ps- warn ni- tēI- avisarowa hum.unspec - warn ni- tlaI- avisarowa avisarowa normal.act- warn ‘I warn him/her, announce to him/her’ ‘I warn (people/someone) announce to (people/someone)’ ‘I am the (town) announcer’ Tla- ‘normal activity’ Other examples: (14a) ni- kI - (b) (c) 3ps- die mik I - die -caus hum.unspec- ni- tla- I - -tia mik -tia normal.act- die (15a) ni- k- (c) -caus ni- tē- I - (b) ‘I kill him/her/it’ mik -tia 3ps- respond.to ni- tē- nankilia I - respond.to ni- tlaI - ‘I am a murderer’ -caus nankilia hum.unspec- ‘I kill s.o./people’ nankilia normal.act- respond.to ‘I respond to/contradict him/her’ ‘I respond to/contradict s.o./people’ ‘I reply (in a conversation)’ Tla- ‘professional activity’ You often get the idea of doing the action as a duty or profession. (16a) ni- kI - (b) (c) ‘I treat (medically)/heal him/her’ -tia 3ps- medicine -verbalizer ni- tē- pah I - medicine -verbalizer hum.unspec- ni- tlaI - (d) pah tla- pah ‘I treat/heal s.o./people’ -tia ‘I am a doctor’ -tia normal.act- medicine -verbalizer pah -ti -h ‘healer, doctor’ normal.act- medicine -verbalizer -nominalizer Tla- ‘normal activity’ In these usages tla- is no longer marking the object. But normally it intransitivizes its verb anyway. Still, it sometimes leaves the verb transitive. (17) n- ā - tla- kui I - water - normal.act- take.up ‘I get water (from river/ tank, in a bucket)’ Tla- ‘all over’ (meteorological) Tla- is often used in cases where it indicates that the verb’s effect is general. Many examples have to do with the weather. Two verbs we’ve already seen can take this interpretation. (18) ø- tla- kuā ‘the freeze destroys the harvest’ 3ps- general.act- eat (19) ø- tla- totōnia 3ps- general.act- heat ‘it is hot’ Tla- ‘all over’ (meteorological) In this usage tla- also appears on intransitive verbs (20a) ni- kI - (b) (21) 3ps- leave ‘I calm down, remain (quietly)’ ni- mo- kawa I - (c) ‘I let go of/abandon it/him/her’ kawa refl- leave ø- tla- mo- kawa 3ps- gen.occur- refl leave ø- tla- nēsi 3ps- gen.occur- appear ‘it (the weather) calms down’ ‘it dawns’ Tla- ‘all over’ (meteorological) Other cases of tla- with intransitive verbs: (22) (23) (24) (25) ø- tla- tikuīni 3ps- gen.occur- resound ‘it thunders’ ‘it is/gets cold’ ø- tla- se- se -ya 3ps- gen.occur- rdp- cold -inchoative ‘the sky turns blue, -inchoative / the earth turns green’ ø- tla- xoxowi -ya 3ps- gen.occur- grue ø- tla- tlasoh -ti 3ps- gen.occur- dear -inchoative ‘there is dearth, prices go up’ Tla- ‘unspecified subject’ Many of these cases of general occurrence could be taken as also being cases of ‘general /unspecified subject’. For example “it dawns” = “things appear”. “it gets green” = “things turn green” etc. Tla- ‘unspecified subject’ In other cases this notion is even clearer. (26) (ø-) tlaaki (3ps-) unspec.sbj- fit ‘(lots of/all the) stuff fits in’ (27) (ø-) tlakalaki (3ps-) unspec.sbj- enter ‘(lots of/all the) stuff goes in’ (28a) ni- kI - (b) ‘I see it’ 3ps- see ni- mo- tta I- (c) itta refl- see (ø-) tlamo- tta (3ps-) unspec.sbj- refl see ‘I look (ill/well), I am seen’ (or ‘I see myself’) ‘it gets light, things start to be visible’ Relationships among the usages of tlaDiagramming: Unspecified object of a transitive verb (etc.) Normal object of a transitive verb Normal/ professional activity Normal occurrence Object of a transitive verb unspecified because obvious to speaker and hearer Unspecified subject of an intransitive verb Weather occurrence tla-kalaki Object of a transitive verb unspecified because unimportant Object of a transitive verb unspecified because general / diffuse specific cases tla-tlasoh-ti tla-totōnia "it’s hot" tla-pah-tia tla-nēsi Tla- on non-verbal stems Tla- can appear on postpositions. Normally you expect possessive prefixes there. (29a) no ‘inside of me’ ihti -k my/me- belly -loc (b) tla- ‘inside, on the inside’ ihti -k unspec- belly -loc (30a) no kuitla -pah my/me- dung (b) tlaunspec- (31) tē- ‘(at) my back, behind me’ -at/on kuitla -pah dung -on/at kuitla -pah hum.unspec- dung ‘back(wards), behind, at the back’ -on/at ‘behind the people/s.o.’ Tla- on non-verbal stems Tla- exceptionally appears on nouns, in the position where you would expect a possessive prefix. (32) tla- ten unspec.possr- lip - -tli absolutive ‘the lip/edge (of s.t.)’ Tla- on non-verbal stems Somewhat more frequently, tla- shows up on adjectives, with the ‘general subject’ meaning. (33) (34) unspec.subj- good -diminutive ‘it’s pretty/beautiful here’ (cf. Spanish bon-ito ‘pretty’) tla- ‘it’s (all) delicious’ tla- kual -tzin weli -k unspec.subj- delicious -adj The usages of tlaRelating all this to what we had seen before: Unspecified object of a transitive verb Unspecified object of a postposition tla-kuitla-pah tla-ten-tli Unspecified subject of an adjective Object of a transitive verb uspecified because obvious to speaker and hearer specific cases Unspecified possessor of a noun General action/ occurrence Unspecified subject of an intransitive verb Object of a transitive verb uspecified because unimportant (etc.) specific cases specific cases specific cases tla-kual-tzin The usages of tlaUnspecified object of a transitive verb Unspecified object of a postposition tla-kuitla-pah tla-ten-tli Unspecified subject of an adjective Object of a transitive verb uspecified because obvious to speaker and hearer specific cases Unspecified possessor of a noun General action/ occurrence Unspecified subject of an intransitive verb Object of a transitive verb uspecified because unimportant (etc.) The supermorpheme Tla- has many established usages, which are rather different from each other. specific cases specific cases specific cases tla-kual-tzin The usages of tlaUnspecified object of a transitive verb Unspecified object of a postposition tla-kuitla-pah tla-ten-tli Unspecified subject of an adjective Object of a transitive verb uspecified because obvious to speaker and hearer specific cases Unspecified possessor of a noun General action/ occurrence Unspecified subject of an intransitive verb Object of a transitive verb uspecified because unimportant (etc.) Functionally motivated changes were established Diachronically. specific cases specific cases specific cases tla-kual-tzin The usages of tlaObjeto no especificado de verbo transitivo Objeto no especificado de posposición tla-kuitla-pah tla-ten-tli Sujeto no especificado de adjetivo Objeto de verbo transitivo no especificado por ser obvio al hablante y oyente casos específicos Posesor no especificado de un sustantivo Acción ocurrencia general Sujeto no especificado de verbo intransitivo Objeto de verbo transitivo no especificado por no ser importante (etc.) The result is the beautiful do-it-all morpheme that we find today. casos específicos casos específicos casos específicos tla-kual-tzin Yi ōtlanki