Non-verbal Predication in Amazonian Languages
Non-verbal Predication in Amazonian Languages
复制标题
亚马逊语言中的非语言谓语
DOI：
10.1075/tsl.122.10dor
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Otero, Manuel A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Payne, Doris L.;Vidal, Alejandra;Otero, Manuel A.
“所有格是处所”的观点在认知语义学和语法化文献中经常被阐明。这意味着，定位认知模型被假定为某种基本的，也许是我们人类与周围世界的互动;然后，占有的概念被假定为与定位认知模型相同，或者从概念上来说虽然我们并不否认方位隐喻和方位构式经常被引申为表示拥有，不同的语言，本文提出的数据从Nivaelle和Pilagá认为，方位谓词并不普遍的基础拥有谓词。本文提供了关于有时被称为“非言语”谓词的方位格、存在格和拥有格结构的数据（Hengeveld 1992：26，Dryer 2007年第224-249页）。这意味着主要的谓语成分不是词汇动词，尽管具有动词屈折特征的系动词可能作为“非动词谓语”结构的一部分出现。我们将看到，尼瓦莱和皮拉加在他们所谓的非言语的存在性和所有格的述谓结构之间，比在他们的处所性和所有格的述谓结构之间，表现出更大的相似性。[1]在文章的最后，我们简要讨论了两种语言在这些“非言语”述谓结构中的共同特征是否可能是由于区域接触。方位认知模型本身由一个相对于某个物体定位的图形组成（Talmy，1972）。这种不对称的图形-符号关系来自于格式塔心理学，在该心理学中，两个术语相互定义。图形大致上是相对于支撑场或对象（即相对于主体）被感知为“突出”的东西（Rubin，1915）。在语言学中，与图形的心理概念相关的概念包括Trajector（Langacker 1987：231）和Theme的语义角色（DeLancey 2000），而图形的心理概念与Landmark（Langacker 1987：231）和LOCATION的语义角色（不同地称为Locative，位置; DeLancey 2000）有关。其他的语言不对称也被归因于图形-背景的区别（例如，整个命题有时被声称彼此之间存在图形-背景关系; Croft & Cruse 2004：56-58）。由于我们在本文中关注的是小句内关系，我们将从主位和位置以及其他语义角色概念的角度来讨论。我们要感谢许多Pilagá和Nivac的演讲者，他们耐心地提供了导致本文的数据，并感谢Adriana da Silva Arellano提供了图1中的地图。这项研究得到了NSF基金1263817、CONICET（阿根廷）和俄勒冈州大学的部分支持。我们感谢所有人。
The idea that “possession is location” has often been articulated in the cognitive semantics and grammaticalization literature. What is meant by this is that a LOCATIVE cognitive model is posited as somehow basic, perhaps to our human interaction with the world around us; and that the concept of POSSESSION is then assumed to be either identical to the LOCATIVE cognitive model, or to be conceptually–and potentially historically− based on or derived from it. While not disputing that a locative metaphor and locative constructions often are extended to express possession in various languages, this paper presents data from Nivaĉle and Pilagá to argue that locative predications do not universally underlie possession predications. The paper presents data on locative, existential and possession constructions of the sort sometimes referred to as “nonverbal” predications (Hengeveld 1992: 26, Dryer 2007ː 224-249). What is meant by this is that the primary predicative element is not a lexical verb, though a copula with verbal inflectional features may occur as part of the “non-verbal predicate” structure. We will see that Nivaĉle and Pilagá display greater affinity between their so-called non-verbal EXISTENTIAL and POSSESSIVE predication constructions than between their LOCATIVE and POSSESSIVE ones. 1 At the end of the paper we briefly address whether shared features across the two languages in these “non-verbal” predication constructions might, or might not, be due to areal contact. The LOCATIVE cognitive model itself consists of a FIGURE positioned relative to some GROUND (Talmy 1972). The asymmetrical FIGURE-GROUND relationship comes from Gestalt psychology in which the terms co-define each other. The FIGURE is roughly what is perceived as “standing out” against a supporting field or object, ie, against the GROUND (Rubin 1915). In linguistics, notions associated to the psychological concept of FIGURE include Trajector (Langacker 1987: 231) and the semantic role of THEME (DeLancey 2000), while the psychological concept of GROUND has been linked to Landmark (Langacker 1987: 231) and the semantic role of LOCATION (variously called Locative, LOC; DeLancey 2000). Other linguistic asymmetries have also been attributed to the figure-ground distinction (eg whole propositions have sometimes been claimed to stand in figure-ground relationships to each other; Croft & Cruse 2004: 56-58). As we are concerned in this paper with intra-clausal relationships, we will talk in terms of THEME and LOCATION, as well as other semantic role notions.* We express our thanks to the many Pilagá and Nivaĉle speakers who patiently provided data leading to this paper and to Adriana da Silva Arellano for the map in Figure 1. This research has been partially supported by NSF grant 1263817, CONICET (Argentina), and the University of Oregon. We are grateful to all.