Journal of Linguistic Anthropology often grow up as polyglots. Carpenters' workshops, on the other hand, are run predominantly by the Ewe, so Ewe tends. PDF | On Feb 1, , Marian Klamer and others published Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Payne_ Thomas - Describing Morphosyntax - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or view presentation slides online. Excelente libro de.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Payne Thomas E. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Файл формата pdf; размером 22,01 МБ. Добавлен пользователем. This book is a guide for linguistic fieldworkers who wish to write a description of the morphology and syntax of one of the world's many underdocumented. Abstract. Describing Morphosyntax. Guide for Field Linguists. Thomas E. Payne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
My task is to match comprehension and production has used some form of this metaphor to resource stones to locations in such a way that the result is a building that formulate substantive hypotheses and claims about how people commun- serves the intended purpose.
For example, Minsky uses the term frames to refer to stereo- So, what do I do in the many situations where a particular stone typed situations within which knowledge is categorized and stored in does not quite fit the current location?
The three main processes, it seems, memory, e. Schank and Abelson , building on Schank , introduced the notion of scripts. Whereas a frame is a static set of Look for another stone. Fillmore , suggests that verbs Other possible processes that have occurred to members of various classes with their unique case frames activate scenes in the minds of language I have taught are: users.
Lakoff's notion of cognitive model is an extension and elabo- 4 Get a stone from a different pile. What frames, scripts, scenes, and cognitive S Use a lot of mortar. If this is a good simile for the process of building plished by one of the other strategies in the next language. For example, a message, then all or at least many of these procedures should have past tense is expressed morphologically in English by a verb suffix.
In other analogs in message-building. This follows from the assumption adverbial phrases such as "two days ago," etc. Furthermore, languages in- that language behavior is intentional. People normally do not use language variably allow certain functions to be accomplished by more than one stra- randomly though I think I know some who do. The form a message takes tegy.
This is the case with kill and cause to die in English. Usually, however, is affected by the function of the message. The resources available to the when such a choice exists there is usually some slight difference in function message builder are an idea of what is to be communicated and a store of between the various possibilities.
The task of message-building involves judi- ing? Are there relevant analogies in message-building to the strategies sug- ciously fitting together existing structures in a unique way to create the par- gested by students for building a stone building? How good is this simile ticular message that is needed. At any given point in the process there is anyway? What processes are avail- Go to a different pile.
How about going to the lexicon of some other able to the communicator if a particular unit, say a vocabulary item, does language? Sometimes the right English word just doesn't come to mind at not fit the message context? If I judge my interlocutor will understand, I may just use that Spanish 1 Get another lexical item. This is referred to as code mixing and is very common around the 2 Modify the first one, or the context.
Well, er, urn , I dunno , maybe. I mean it's like you just kinda slop your message together a little, ya know? Conceivably I may have so much trouble expressing DIE y, i. I can use the verb kill or I 4 Give up.
This strategy has a direct analog in message-building. Any approach to linguistic descrip- ences between periphrastic and lexical causatives. Some languages, e. The art of conceptualizing Turkish, use a special morpheme to indicate causation. This is added to the and describing a language involves analyzing its formal systematic proper- root meaning "die" to form a new root meaning "kill. As a linguistic researcher, my understanding of This triad of lexical, morphological, and periphrastic strategies is the formal systematic properties of language must be informed by an under- relevant to many different functional tasks in language.
Some tasks that are standing of the purposes language serves and the human environment in typically accomplished by one strategy in one language may be accom- which it exists.
Similarly, my understanding of the functions of particular 12 Introduction morphosyntactic forms in communication must be informed by an under- standing of the ways in which those forms relate to one another in the for- mal system of the language. My understanding on either front is enriched as I concentrate on understanding the other.
Just from there I always leap.
It is also important to orient the reader to previous literature and other research that has been done on the language. Often this name can only be translated as "people," or "human beings.
For example, the word e'iiapa in Panare a Carib language of Venezuela means "person" when used in opposition to the term ne'na "wild animal" or "evil spirit. Only the context can disambiguate. The terms by which language groups are known to outsiders are usually drawn from the outsiders' language, and are often derogatory in nature, e. On the other hand, the term Panare mentioned above is a Tupf word meaning "friend. If there is a well-established tradition in the literature of using the outsiders' 13 14 Demographic and ethnographic information 15 Genetic affiliation term, a linguistic researcher should not try to change it, unless the people 1.
In this section, describe previous research that has attempted to es- D.. What term do the people use to distinguish themselves from other language groups?
What is the origin of these terms if known? What are its closest relatives?
Careful ethnographic notes should be taken a particular language or language family. If possible, you should get to throughout your fieldwork, since an essential aspect of knowing a language know personally the prominent scholars in the field. True scholars are is knowing the people who speak that language. However, the amount of always eager to interact with anyone who shows a sincere interest in their space dedicated to this topic in a grammatical description should be lim- work.
You should become thoroughly familiar with all historical! There are few language study. Some grammatical descriptions that include good, informative, and families for which no previous work exists.
Diachronic and comparative culturally sensitive ethnological introductions include Dixon , Craig observations will then inform the grammatical description at every point, , and Austin These are important sections that should not be omitted in a grammatical description, but the topic is judged to be sufficiently self-explanatory as to require no further explanation.
In all such cases, references are provided to additional readings for those who may want to pursue the issue further. Thus, the outline of this guide is like a helicopter ride above the complexities of the city below.
The chapters are neighborhoods that can be explored one-by-one, and the subsections are streets likely to be found within particular neighborhoods. However, even as a map cannot be produced only from the vantage point of a helicopter, so a grammar cannot be produced simply on the basis of an outline.
The fieldworker must walk the streets and get to know the particular buildings, landmarks, and idiosyncrasies of this individual city. Although there are similarities among cities, so there are also many differences. The same is true for languages. One outline will not fit every language exactly. It takes sensitivity, creativity, and experience to create a description that is consistent with the properties of the language itself, and not wholly dependent on a preconceived outline. A basic assumption of the book is that the best way to understand language, as well as any particular language, is intense interaction with data.
For this reason, text and extensive examples are provided, showing how similar neighborhoods in other cities are arranged. However, it is possible that the language you are studying exhibits some new pattern, or some new complexity not illustrated in the text and examples. It is important, in such cases, to document the unusual pattern as explicitly as possible, and to describe it in relation to the known range of variation.
While the known range of variation should not be perceived as a straitjacket that every language must be forced into, it is a valuable tool for organizing one's thoughts about language and communicating those thoughts to others.
After all, a great deal is already known about what 4Introduction languages are like. In fact, there is so much literature available that one can not possibly be familiar with all of it. Furthermore, field linguists often work in isolated settings where access to library resources is limited. In this sense the book is intended to be a bridge as well as a guide. It is a bridge that will take you, the linguistic researcher, to the specific literature on the particular descriptive issue you are facing, and bring the valuable knowledge available in the literature to bear on the technical task of describing a particular language.
Insofar as possible, I have tried to suggest a system of organization that is consistent with general principles of late twentieth-century linguistic science. That is, the categories, terms, and concepts found in this book should be understandable to linguists from a variety of theoretical orientations, even if the linguists do not use the particular terminology themselves.
I have noted alternate terminological usages whenever possible, but have undoubtedly not covered all possibilities. As you work through the grammar of a language using the outline of this book as a guide, questions will undoubtedly arise as to the appropriateness of particular definitions and interpretations to the language you are describing.
This is good. It is only through honest interaction with data that linguists learn where our theoretical conceptions need to be revised. It might be said that one purpose of this book is to encourage field linguists to find holes in current theoretical understandings of linguistic structures. To the' extent that it makes such understandings accessible, then it has accomplished its task. In the remainder of this chapter, I will introduce some of the central concepts, metaphors, and terminology that appear throughout this book.
Some of the most strident controversies and misunderstandings in linguistics can be boiled down to an argument between someone who believes that linguistic form, or structure, derives directly from meaning, and someone else who believes that form is entirely autonomous of meaning, or language in use.
At several points in the following pages, this distinction will be illustrated 5 Some terminology Figure 0. As a preliminary characterization, meaning refers to what a language is used for, and form is the linguistic expressions themselves.
Linguists engaged in grammatical description commonly assume that language consists of elements of form that people employ to "mean," "express," "code," "represent," or "refer to" other things. Brown and Yule ff. For example, a word is a linguistic form.
In and of itself it is just a noise emitted from someone's vocal apparatus. What makes it a word rather than just a random noise is that it is uttered intentionally in order to express some idea, or concept. When used by a skilled speaker, words can combine with other elements of linguistic form, such as prefixes, suffixes, and larger structures, to express very complex ideas. While the linguistic forms may aid in the formulation of ideas, or may constrain the concepts that can be entertained, the language itself is logically distinct from the ideas that might be expressed.
Langacker , building on Saussure , describes linguistic units as consisting of form-meaning composites. This property can be diagrammed as in figure 0. The upper half of the diagram in figure 0. The double line across the center represents the relationship, or the bond between the two. Various terms can be and have been used to refer to the components of this composite.
Terms associated with the top half include "signified," "meaning," "semantics," "pragmatics," "function," "conceptual domain," and "content. As descriptive linguists we assume that the bond between symbol and signified item is intentional. That is, the language user intends to establish a representational link between form and meaning.
From this it follows that the forms used to represent concepts will be structured so as to make the link obvious, within limits of cognition, memory, etc. This is not to deny the possibility that certain aspects of language may actually have no relation to the conceptual domain or may even serve to conceal concepts.
However, we make it a working assumption that in general language users expect and want linguistic forms to represent concepts to be expressed. In any symbolic system, form and meaning cannot be randomly related to one another. In other words a system is not a symbolic system at all if there is no consistency in the relationship between the symbols and categories or dimensions in the symbolized realm.
Ideal symbolic systems e. However, real language is not an ideal symbolic system in this sense. It exists in an environment where variation and change are the rule rather than the exception. New functions for language appear every day in the form of new situations and concepts that speakers wish to discuss. Vocal and auditory limitations cause inexact articulations and incomplete perceptions of messages.
Payne discusses semantic roles, verb classes, and verb structure appropri- ately illustrated with reference to polysynthetic languages before moving on to de- scribe other parts of speech modifiers and adverbs. The next chapter on constituent order typology chapter 4 along with that on grammatical relations chapter 6 and to some extent that on voice and valence adjusting operations provide the most sustained discussion of theoretical issues emanating from the functionalist and typological literature.
In chapter 4, Payne dis- cusses the insights and limitations of Greenberg's research on word order universals. Payne also mentions and de- scribes some aspects of phrasal structure in this chapter.
In chapter 7, Payne turns attention to the ways in which languages sort grammatical relations into case sys- tems. Payne begins by noting the range of morphosyntactic means by which nomi- native-accusative or ergative-absolutive systems may be marked pronominal case forms, case marking on free noun phrases, person marking on verbs, constituent order. The author men goes on to discuss the well-documented cross-linguistic ten- dencies exhibited in the grouping of grammatical relations.
Payne notes that "semantic and discourse factors may motivate S and A isomor- phism or S and P isomorphism" p. He then offers a functional explanation based on a notion of denotational communicative efficiency for the rarity of the system and the nonexistence of others. The chapter concludes with a discussion of split systems and various syntactic processes that exhibit some form of ergativity in languages which otherwise rely on nominative-accusative case marking.
Implicit theoretical arguments are also presented in chapter 8 on voice and valence adjusting operations. Here Payne discusses Hainan's iconicity pyramid, which suggests that within particular languages direct causation is more likely to be expressed by a lexical causative where cause and effect are expressed by a single lexical form, e.
According to the iconicity pyramid "increased mor- phosyntactic distance is correlated with greater conceptual distance" p. Chapter 11 on clause combinations con- tains 97 numbered examples from an equally wide range of languages.
Given the range of phenomena discussed, the number of examples, and the clarity of style, Payne's book can be used for many kinds of research projects as well as teaching. It fills a gap in the existing literature between brief and schematic treat- ments given in dictionaries and encyclopedias of linguistics and very detailed dis- cussions often intimately tied to a particular theoretical approach to be found in other collections.
Anthropologists, sociolinguists, and linguists will find here an outline of morpho- syntactic structure that should prove invaluable both in the field and in later stages of research. As a concise and clearly written outline of language structure that is not biased towards English, Payne's book is simply unrivaled.