Misplaced Pages

#606393

38-458: Terêna has an active–stative syntax and verb-object-subject as default word order. Terêna had four varieties: Kinikinao, Terena proper, Guaná , and Chané . These varieties have sometimes been considered to be separate languages. Carvalho (2016) has since demonstrated all four to be the same language. Only Terena proper is still spoken. Terena originated in the Northwestern Chaco . As

76-444: A telic (completion) reading is obtained. In these constructions, the speaker conveys that the agent managed to complete something despite a lack of control, or accidentally did something due to a lack of control. With control predicates, the object agreement is associated with the VP, so a non-telic reading is obtained. In this case, the speaker conveys that an action was initiated, and as

114-413: A degree of volition or control over the action, with the patientive used as the default case; in others, patientive marking encodes a lack of volition or control, suffering from or being otherwise affected by the action, or sympathy on the part of the speaker, with the agentive used as the default case. These two subtypes ( patientive-default and agentive-default ) are sometimes known as fluid-S . If

152-504: A fall in boxing. Another possibility is empathy; for example, if someone's dog were run over by a car, one might say the equivalent of "died her." To say "she died" would imply that the person was not affected emotionally. If the core arguments of a transitive clause are termed A ( agent of a transitive verb) and P ( patient of a transitive verb), active–stative languages can be described as languages that align intransitive S as S = P/O∗∗ ("fell me") or S = A ("I fell"), depending on

190-399: A formal dimension of case marking because the two verb groups have different syntactic relations to the theme. Semantic information about the theme may also contribute in distinguishing between the two groups of transitive and intransitive action verbs. Theme animacy is conceptualized as being based on a combination of features. The first is the biological fact of being animal, and the second

228-419: A particular language expresses volition, or control, in a sentence is not universal. Neither is any given linguist's approach to volition. Linguists may take a primarily semantic or primarily syntactic approach to understanding volition. Still others use a combination of semantics and syntax to approach the problem of volition. A semantic approach to a given problem is motivated by the notion that an utterance

266-561: A result, many Northern Guaicuruan loanwords can be found in Terena. There are also many Tupi-Guarani loanwords in Terena and other southern Arawakan languages. /w, ʃ, n, l/ may often be heard as [v, tʃ, ɲ, ʎ]. [ɨ] is heard as an allophone of /i/. This Arawakan languages -related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Active%E2%80%93stative In linguistic typology , active–stative alignment (also split intransitive alignment or semantic alignment )

304-476: Is a combination of a syntactic and semantic approach. Neither is disregarded, and both are incorporated into the analysis. Such an approach can be found in the linguistic analysis of languages like Sinhala (see section 2.4). When analyzing volition in this language, linguists look at the semantics through the use of verbal morphology, changes in the words rather than the grammatical structures, in distinguishing between volitional and non-volitional events. In looking at

342-565: Is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument ("subject") of an intransitive clause (often symbolized as S ) is sometimes marked in the same way as an agent of a transitive verb (that is, like a subject such as "I" or "she" in English ) but other times in the same way as a direct object (such as "me" or "her" in English). Languages with active–stative alignment are often called active languages . The case or agreement of

380-424: Is an example taken from Japanese. おもちゃ omocha toy が -ga - SBJ 入った haitta entered おもちゃ が 入った omocha -ga haitta toy -SBJ entered '(The) toy entered' おもちゃ omocha toy を -o - OBJ 入れた ireta put in おもちゃ を 入れた omocha -o ireta toy -OBJ {put in} '(Someone) put in (the) toy' The transitive and intransitive action verb groups can be contrasted on

418-426: Is composed of many semantic units (compositionality). Each of these units plays a role in the overall meaning of an utterance. The effect of this is such that when a semantic unit is changed or removed, the meaning of the utterance will differ in some way. A semantic approach to volition disregards any structural consequences (this is handled by the syntactic approach) and focuses primarily on speaker-meaning, and what

SECTION 10

#1732872533607

456-448: Is partially reflected in syntax by the agent or actor roles. An animate agent is a planner who instigates an action. The actors of intransitive verbs such as ’walk’, or ’sit’ are also planners. There are also some intransitive verbs, such as ’break’ and ’open’ which do not typically take animate themes, and the theme is not considered an actor or agent. It is possible that these intransitive verbs are not distinguished from transitive verbs on

494-468: Is the ability to initiate self-movement. At one end of the scale are true animates, which are animal and are able to move on their own. At the opposite end are inert inanimates, which are neither animal nor able to move on their own. Between both ends of the scale is a gradient of things that vary in animacy, such as dolls and vehicles. Certain non-syntactic aspects are common to all action verbs. Actions may be either planned or unplanned. The planning aspect

532-776: Is the intentional or unintentional nature of an action. Volition concerns the idea of control and for the purposes outside of psychology and cognitive science , is considered the same as intention in linguistics. Volition can then be expressed in a given language using a variety of possible methods. These sentence forms usually indicate that a given action has been done intentionally, or willingly. There are various ways of marking volition cross-linguistically. When using verbs of volition in English, like "want" or "prefer", these verbs are not expressly marked. Other languages handle this with affixes, while others have complex structural consequences of volitional or non-volitional encoding. The way

570-448: Is then comprised, syntactically , of at least two separate events—the thing being done and the thing that caused it. That same sentence that used an additional clause can be expressed as a simple sentence , which can be considered a unitary event. The differences between the two sentence constructions deals in the transitivity of the verb. An example of each sentence form is shown below. In example a, 'topple' takes on only one argument,

608-545: The verb , and the agentive argument might follow the verb. Cross-linguistically, the agentive argument tends to be marked, and the patientive argument tends to be unmarked. That is, if one case is indicated by zero-inflection, it is often the patientive. Additionally, active languages differ from ergative languages in how split case marking intersects with Silverstein's (1976) nominal hierarchy: Specifically, ergative languages with split case marking are more likely to use ergative rather than accusative marking for NPs lower down

646-430: The "accidentally on purpose" construction to convey two separate volitional meanings. I kicked her doll accidentally on purpose would be +volitional to the listener but carries too, the implied request that the action be reported as -volitional to the indirect object. In English, volition can be expressed by adding a phrase along the lines of “because I did something to it”. An entire situation using this type of sentence

684-399: The actor exercised control over the situation, the action was expected to be completed as a natural course of events. Whether or not the action was actually completed is not specified. Unlike semantic approaches, this and others based on syntax focus on the relationship between elements within the sentence structure hierarchy to explain differences in meaning. Simply put, the mixed approach

722-401: The agent intends an action or not. This may, in turn, also affect the syntactic structure of a sentence in the sense that a particular verb may only select a volitional agent. Others, like English, do not have an explicit method of marking lexical categories for volition or non-volition. Even though some verbs in English may seem like they can only be done intentionally, there are ways to alter

760-485: The animate vs. inanimate distinction, related to the distinction between active and inactive or stative verb arguments. Even in its descendant languages, there are traces of a morphological split between volitional and nonvolitional verbs, such as a pattern in verbs of perception and cognition where the argument takes an oblique case (called quirky subject ), a relic of which can be seen in Middle English methinks or in

798-418: The basis of theme animacy, and their theme referents typically will be inanimate. However, these verbs are more likely to refer to unplanned actions, in which case they will not occur in requests, imperatives, desideratives or prohibitions. The interaction of theme animacy and the planned nature of an action provides the basis for distinguishing transitive from intransitive action verbs. Indicators of planning are

SECTION 20

#1732872533607

836-399: The criteria described above. Active–stative languages contrast with accusative languages such as English that generally align S as S = A , and to ergative languages that generally align S as S = P/O . For most such languages, the case of the intransitive argument is lexically fixed for each verb, regardless of the actual degree of volition of the subject, but often corresponding to

874-533: The degree of control an agent has over an event. Jacobs argues that the relationship between a predicate and its semantic interpretation is determined by syntax. Under this analysis, the difference between control and limited control predicates lies in the syntactic position of object agreement, with control predicates being associated with VP, and limited control predicates associated with a functional projection of aspect (which Jacobs refers to as FP-delimit). As limited control predicates are associated with aspect,

912-410: The distinction between see vs. look or hear vs. listen . Other possible relics from a structure, in descendant languages of Indo-European, include conceptualization of possession and extensive use of particles. Volition (linguistics) In linguistics , volition is a concept that distinguishes whether the subject , or agent of a particular sentence intended an action or not. Simply, it

950-529: The expressions of request, desire, or prohibition of action. Some languages, such as Japanese, do this with verb suffixes and auxiliaries. Affixes can be grouped into three types: prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. There is cross-linguistic evidence that all three types can be implicated in volitional marking. Prefixes can be used to mark volition, as in Sesotho, a Bantu language spoken in South Africa. Sesotho uses

988-467: The hierarchy (to the right), whereas active languages are more likely to use active marking for NPs higher up the hierarchy (to the left), like first and second person pronouns. Dixon states that "In active languages, if active marking applies to an NP type a, it applies to every NP type to the left of a on the nominal hierarchy." Active languages are a relatively new field of study. Active morphosyntactic alignment used to be not recognized as such, and it

1026-426: The intransitive argument ( S ) depends on semantic or lexical criteria particular to each language. The criteria tend to be based on the degree of volition , or control over the verbal action exercised by the participant. For example, if one tripped and fell, an active–stative language might require one to say the equivalent of "fell me." To say "I fell" would mean that the person had done it on purpose, such as taking

1064-416: The language has morphological case , the arguments of a transitive verb are marked by using the agentive case for the subject and the patientive case for the object. The argument of an intransitive verb may be marked as either. Languages lacking case inflections may indicate case by different word orders , verb agreement , using adpositions , etc. For example, the patientive argument might precede

1102-458: The listener understands. For example, when a language uses affixation to encode volition (the addition of a semantic unit), such as in the Sesotho language , it is possible to analyze the volitional component while overlooking the structural changes. Such an analysis would simply test the meaning difference with or without the volitional (verbal) affix (the semantic unit in question), as understood by

1140-510: The listener. The hallmark of a syntactic approach to any problem is that it acknowledges various levels of structure. A syntactic approach to analyzing volition focuses primarily on structural change, and does not rely on either speaker meaning or the information understood by the listener in order to explain the phenomena. In his analysis of the Squamish language, Peter Jacobs examines how transitive predicates are marked differently according to

1178-462: The most typical situation. For example, the argument of swim may always be treated like the transitive subject ( agent -like), and the argument of sleep like the transitive direct object ( patient -like). In Dakota , arguments of active verbs such as to run are marked like transitive agents, as in accusative languages, and arguments of inactive verbs such as to stand are marked like transitive objects, as in ergative languages. In such language, if

Terêna language - Misplaced Pages Continue

1216-481: The subject of a verb like run or swallow is defined as agentive, it will be always marked so even if the action of swallowing is involuntary. This subtype is sometimes known as split-S . In other languages, the marking of the intransitive argument is decided by the speaker, based on semantic considerations. For any given intransitive verb, the speaker may choose whether to mark the argument as agentive or patientive. In some of these languages, agentive marking encodes

1254-440: The subject. In example b, 'toppled' takes two arguments, the subject and the object'. See control for more verb examples and Applicative voice for preposition examples on expressing causative intentions in English. There are verbs in English where its volitional meaning is encoded in the lexical semantics in a speaker's lexical entry . The intentionality of a verb like ‘promise’ is part of what speakers of English know about

1292-476: The syntax, linguists analyze the use of case marking, which distinguishes between volitional and non-volitional agents of an event. When both these aspects of the language are analyzed simultaneously, a linguist is using a mixed approach. This is sometimes referred to as the syntax-semantics interface . Languages use a variety of strategies to encode the presence or absence of volition. Some languages may use specific affixes on syntactic categories to denote whether

1330-571: The terms active and inactive . (†) = extinct language According to Castro Alves (2010), a split-S alignment can be safely reconstructed for Proto-Northern Jê finite clauses. Clauses headed by a non-finite verb, on the contrary, would have been aligned ergatively in this reconstructed language. The reconstructed Pre-Proto-Indo-European language, not to be confused with the Proto-Indo-European language , its direct descendant, shows many features known to correlate with active alignment like

1368-472: The way they are understood. When English speakers want to be clear about whether an action was done intentionally or not, adverbs such as “intentionally”, or “accidentally” are included in the sentence. Examples are shown below. Sentences in English cannot express both volitionality and non-volitionality for one action . This is indicated by the following semantically ill-formed sentence using both kinds of adverbs: Note: Modern English seems to allow use of

1406-460: The word. Volition is prominent in active–stative languages with fluid-S. In a study by Matthew Rispoli, a psycholinguist, there are at least three aspects involved in the grouping transitive and intransitive verbs. They are case marking, theme animacy , and planning, as indicated by the appropriate use of verb suffixes denoting request, desire, and prohibition. Transitive and intransitive action verb groups share common conceptual ground. Here

1444-499: Was treated mostly as an interesting deviation from the standard alternatives (nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive). Also, active languages are few and often show complications and special cases ("pure" active alignment is an ideal). Thus, the terminology used is rather flexible. The morphosyntactic alignment of active languages is also termed active–stative alignment or semantic alignment . The terms agentive case and patientive case used above are sometimes replaced by

#606393