Re: THEORY: unergative

Well well well, I think I begin to see. Let's make a
theory out of it !

Suppose we're talking about action concepts (like *to
break*, *to kill*, *to move*), or about concepts that
can be assimilated to action concepts (like *to
watch*, *to love*).

Suppose we figure the action like that:

AGENT ----- ACTION ----- PATIENT

This is a relation. Agent is related to Patient
through Action (and reciprocally).

So we very naturally come to some more precise scheme
:

AGENT -->-- ACTION -->-- PATIENT

this meaning that the relation is oriented. We cannot
draw the arrows the opposite way. Why ? Because our
whole experience of the world tells us it is so:

AGENT -->-- ACTION -->-- PATIENT
cause -->-- event --->-- result      (causal point of
view)
begin -->-- event --->-- end         (temporal point
of view)
origin ->-- event --->-- destination (spatial point of
view)

Now let's suppose that our language imposes to make a
distinction between definiteness / reality, vs mere
possibility, and let us consider different points of
view (A, B, C, D, E) from the speaker on the action.

.....[AGENT -->-- ACTION -->-- PATIENT].....
  A           B     C      D             E

1) If the speaker is speaking from the A or B points
of view (either the action has not started yet, either
it just has), then he will have a tendency to consider
the concept like this (think of the laws of
perspective):

.....[(AGENT ->- ACTION) -->-- PATIENT].....
  A           B

this meaning both 'closer to the Agent' and 'Agent +
Action intricated', while Patient will be considered
as further and more peripheric. This would be the
possible, imperfective, and thus, accusative way. The
speaker should mark the Patient, not because it is
considered as more important, but on the contrary,
because its is more peripheric and thus its relation
to the core (AGENT+ACTION) should be precised, just
like it would be the case for other complements.

2) If the speaker is speaking from the D or E points
of view (the action is ending or has ended already),
then he will have a tendency to consider the concept
like that:

.....[AGENT -->-- (ACTION ->- PATIENT)].....
                           D             E
that meaning both 'closer to the Patient' and 'Action
+ Patient intricated', while Agent will be considered
as further and more peripheric. That would be
considered as real, perfective, and thus, ergative
way. The speaker would mark the Agent, the core being
(ACTION+PATIENT).

3) In case the speaker considers the C point of view,

.....[AGENT -->-- ACTION -->-- PATIENT].....
                    C

then there would be no a priori privileged actant, and
the action would be considered like
[AGENT+ACTION+PATIENT]. Either both Agent and Patient
would be marked (with different marks), either none of
them would be (this last possibility only if there
were some other possibility - word order or mere
semantics - to know what is the Agent and what the
Patient).

Now, let's suppose that the language has evolved, and
that people don't feel the need to distinguish in
speech between mere possibilities and definite facts
(anyway by such means; of course, they still
understand the conceptual difference, and can express
it by other means). So they have to choose between one
of the 3 points of view mentioned above. There is no
real reason to prefer solution 1, 2 or 3, but the fact
is that they have to choose. So, in some language,
people will prefer the accusative way (the Romans),
others, the ergative way (the Basque), others, the 3rd
solution (the Birmans ?). But some will refuse the
choice and keep their original way of expressing
actions (the Georgian; thus, accusative for present
and future, and ergative for past). The reason for the
choice being not really motivated, but somehow at
random, this would explain that people like Basque or
Eskimos, having nothing to do together, came onto a
similar solution.

(As John mentioned it, the different points of view
are not restricted to purely 'tense/aspect/mood'
concepts, but include others, like main clause #
subordinate clause, positive # negative, 1st+2nd
person # 3rd person.)

Now the point is that, once one solution has been
chosen, it will probably influence the way of thinking
of the speakers. People will think more 'ergatively'
or more 'accusatively', and will find very strange to
meet people thinking and expressing themselves the
opposite way (just as I do when I analyse a Basque
sentence). Also sometimes they will have to fight
against their own language rules, because they want to
express the opposite of what the language tends to
express. So they have to find other means for
emphasizing the normally not-emphasized concept, and
the story will go further...

I think this is a great theory, and I hasten to
congratulate myself for having worked it out, before
my honourable contradictors will prove me that it is
false from A to Z.

--- John Quijada <jq_ithkuil@...> wrote:
>
> The answer to your question is explained in Dixon’s
> book “Ergativity”
> (Cambridge University Press, 1994)
[snip]

  To quote Dixon directly:
>
> “…ergative marking is most likely to be found in
> clauses that describe some
> definite result, in past tense or perfective aspect.
>  An ergative system is
> less likely to be employed when the clause refers to
> something that has not
> yet happened (in future tense), or is not complete
> (imperfective aspect) …
> or where there is emphasis on the agent’s role
> (imperative or hortative
> moods).”
>
> Dixon goes on to point out that besides
> tense/aspect/mood splits in
> ergative versus accusative patterning, there are
> other kinds of ergative
> vs. accusative splits seen in natural languages,
> e.g., main versus
> subordinate clauses, positive versus negative
> sentences, and third-person
> pronouns versus first and second person.
>
[snip]

 All of which sounds to me like fairly good
> evidence in support of
> the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (the "weak" version, not
> the strong, that is).
>
> --John Quijada

=====
Philippe Caquant

"Le langage est source de malentendus."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Reply