Re: Core case roles

Quoting Tim May <butsuri@...>:

> John Cowan writes:
>  > Tim May scripsit:
>  >
>  > > While further investigating adjective-final SOV langages* I found the
>  > > underlinked lecture on the semantics of core cases.  I'm finding it
>  > > The argument is that all core arguments to a verb take
>  > > the roles of agent, location or theme seems to fit in well with my own
>  > > thoughts on Rick Morneau's treatment of the same subject.
>  >
>  > There are counterexamples like "The stone broke the window", where
>  > the grammatical subject is an instrument.  RM discusses this sentence
>  > type briefly but dismisses it as too rare in the world's languages
>  > to worry about.  Since his purposes are MT and IAL rather than
>  > linguistic theory, fair enough.
>  >
>
> I'm going to have to agree with Christophe here: in the linguistic
> semantics* fo the sentence, the role of the stone is agentive, not
> instrumental.
[snip]

> * Delancey (author of the page I linked to) explains his use of the
>   term "semantic" thus:
>
> |If our purpose is to explain linguistic structure and behavior, we
> |are concerned only with those cognitive categories which are
> |reflected in linguistic structure and behavior--which is what I mean
> |when I say semantic.  If there is no linguistic test for a category
> |in any language, then it is not a linguistic category.  So, no
> |"classification of relationships between entities in the world" which
> |is in fact "extra-linguistic", i.e. has no linguistic reflection, has
> |any place in our investigations.
Unfortunately, there are many, many languages that structurally
distinguish the behavior of forces and that of agents.  Take Lakhota,
for example (<_n> refers to nasalization of vowels, and <Z> [Z]):

 (1) Fred / Tuwá / Hok?ila wa_n (ix?e wa_n ú_n) oZa_nZa_nglepi ki
              someone  boy    a     rock a    with window         the

        ka-blétShe        / *wo-blétShe.
        by.striking-break    action.from.a.distance-break
        "Fred/someone/a boy broke the window (with a rock)."
 (2) *ix?e wa_n oZa_nZa_nglepi ki  ka-blétShe
      rock  a    window         the by.striking-break
      *"The rock broke the window"
 (3) (ix?é  wa_n ú_n) oZa_nZa_nglepi ki  ka-bletSha-pi
      rock  a    with window         the by.striking-break-3Pl
      "They [unspecified] broke the window."

It is clear from examples (1) and (3) that human beings can be the
subjects of transitive verbs, but inanimate objects cannot be so,
after (2).  There are many such languages, and the fact that many
languages distinguish morphologically between an instrumental and
an ergative case, while others do not, suggests that despite the
similarities there is a genuine reason for distinguishing them
semantically.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier
Dept. of Linguistics  "Nihil magis praestandum est quam ne pecorum ritu
University of Chicago sequamur antecedentium gregem, pergentes non qua
1010 E. 59th Street   eundum est, sed qua itur." -- Seneca
Chicago, IL 60637

Reply