Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
From: | Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> |
Date: | Thursday, August 7, 2008, 16:09 |
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM, David McCann <david@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 09:35 -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
>> Is there a standard
>> term in linguistics for this theta role or case? Are there natlangs or
> I couldn't remember any examples, and a quick check of Palmer's
> "Grammatical roles and relations" doesn't show any sentences of this
> type, but I should think that it would be covered by the distinction
> between affected and unaffected patients.
"Unaffected patient" seems at first like a contradiction in terms, as
far as I understand the term "patient". But:
> In Ga'dang (Austronesian), the verbal marking shows if the patient (when
> the topic) is altered (e.g. broken) or not (e.g. tied up).
That makes sense, and I guess affected vs unaffected patient
is not a bad way to terminologize it. Still, gzb would conceptualize
tying a knot in a string as a patient relation (or perhaps
object-of-result, if the object noun were knot rather than string)
even though the string isn't as drastically affected by tying
as it would be by cutting or burning. If I were starting over,
I might have two or more patient cases for different degrees
of affectedness, but this part of gzb is too stable for that
to change now.
> It seems too esoteric to ever get its own case or verbal marking (and so
> to need a term in linguistics), but the object of a performance could
> obviously be treated as a dative or partitive, or put into an oblique
> case as in gzb. The performer would seem to be nominative or ergative:
> after all, they are *doing* something, unlike one who experiences a
> sight or liking.
Yes, the performer of all these verbs would get agent-case marking
in gzb. The (tentatively named) performative case isn't necessarily
oblique in gzb, though; I'm not sure gzb has any oblique cases
as distinct from non-oblique cases. All cases except topic,
agent and experiencer are obligatorily marked by postpositions;
the patient case doesn't get special treatment that marks
it out from other theta roles, like the accusative case in
IE languages. I think the only way you could say that the
patient case postposition is special is that it occurs more often in the
corpus than the other postpositions; syntactically it's treated like all
the other object case postpositions.
The most common case and spacetime postpositions in the corpus are,
2.7230% 218 hxy-i patient
2.4731% 198 miq-i topic
2.2733% 182 i at
1.4864% 119 kax-i object of attention
1.4614% 117 tu-i agent
1.2366% 99 o to
1.0867% 87 jax-o becoming
0.8619% 69 sqi after
0.8119% 65 nxiqn-i comment
0.5121% 41 im part of
0.4871% 39 nxaxw-o addressee of communication
0.4372% 35 daxm-rq by (authorship)
0.3997% 32 jax-rq ceasing-to-be
0.3747% 30 kujm-o for, in order to
0.3622% 29 liqw-i related to
0.3123% 25 kriq-o object of result
0.2873% 23 sxu-i of (quality)
0.2748% 22 il through
0.2623% 21 jqaxr-i experiencer
0.2498% 20 syj-i with, using
0.2498% 20 jax-i in such a state
I'm not sure how good a corpus this is re:
representativity, since it has a mix of archaic and current
text and I haven't made any effort to balance the
relative word-count of different genres as in the
Brown Corpus. About half of it is randomly selected
journal entries from 2002-2008, and most of the other
half is translation exercises and relay texts.
> Of course, some people want a word for *everything*: generally in wikis
> rather than in books, though.
I need some way to refer to this distinctly in the gzb grammar, and I'd like
to use a standard term if I can. I can make up my own terms like
the Lojbanists, of course, if I have to, and it looks like I'll have to in
this case (pun unintended, but shamelessly left in place once noticed).
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...> wrote:
> Jim, how important to your distinction is the degree of creativity involved?
>
> From the perspective of modern (and perhaps, post-modern?) performers,
> each performance (singing, playing, reading, presenting) of an established
> work is an original creative act, of no less significance than the creative act
<snip>
.........
> sufficiently tax my resources! I guess my point is this: that although I can
> see the distinction you're making, in theory, it doesn't seem to be of any great
> practical significance.
I think in gzb the degree of creativity is not what matters, but the
transitoriness of the creative act's result. I would use {krĭ-o} to
mark objects-of-result of creative acts that stick around in some
form or other, even for a relatively short time after the action
of the verb is complete, and {ĉul-i} for creative objects-of-result
that exist only while the action of the verb is being done.
As for the practical significance, consider that gzb, though not
verbless like Kelen, is (what I might call) verb-drop; if the postpositions
in a sentence are explicit enough about the relations of the
various entities denoted by the nouns, then no verb is needed.
So for instance
ŝrun-twâ ĉul-i.
music-saying performance-at
I sing a song.
ŝrun-twâ krĭ-o.
music-saying create-to
I compose a song.
Here the explicitness of the two postpositions makes it unnecessary
to supply verbs. (The first-person agent is also left out by the default
subject rule.)
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article