Constructions verbales en série
Anne Daladier
LACITO
Serial Constructions in Kudeng War
Kudeng War is a dialect of War, itself a nearly unknown conservative Mon-Khmer language, spoken by approximately 70 000 remaining speakers in North-eastern India and Bangladesh, in a group comprising Khasi, Pnar, War, Lyngngam and many mixed languages, see Daladier (forth.).
War has no morphological part-of-speech opposition and the functional relevance of such oppositions is not clear as it blurs War own categorization and especially its peculiar assertive system.
Serial elements may be grammaticalized or not. Lexical predicates construct serially with concomitance value, see perɔp jipʃitɔm in (3).
Some 25 grammaticalized serial elements show a great diversity of values; some have different constructions and values, see maɁin data below. They express especially aspect and/or modality in a broad sense. They may be transitiving or intransitiving. Grammaticalized serial elements in War have functions which can be compared both: a) to the different functions of “light verbs” constructions and their complex systems of non-verbal auxiliation and b) to verbal auxiliaries under various voices, in languages having such encodings. They may also express kinds of Aktionsart.
Grammaticalized serial elements are usually pre-posed, some may be post-posed. Pre-posed serial elements express especially different values of resultativity e.g. opposition maɁ/ sãɁ‘to look Pred/ to feel Pred’ adding subjectivity values for different actors and ʧaɁ ‘to enable/launch a state’, see (1), (2). They also express: to keep being in a state; to have to unwillingly; to do something on purpose; happenstance; hearsay; in excess or devastating actions. Several movement, intent or desire serial elements keep a meaning close to their lexical one or develop more abstract uses. lea ‘go’may express a physical movement or an inner psychological movement in order to achieve an abstract process, like lea budia ‘to believe someone’, budia ‘sense, consciousness’. When post-posed, serial elements express some kind of Aktionsart like: to do something in exchange or extensively or to renew a state of affairs or kinds of negations like: not to do something any more, see tə wan in (2).
I analyse grammaticalized serial elements in War as some kind of auxiliaries which belong to a graded assertive dependency system organizing lexical elements into different kinds of “assertions”:
A1 positive and negative illocutionary forces.
A2 positive and negative tense, aspect and modality markers (tenses are negative, different
empathy values are encoded). A2 markers enable utterance of non-predicative lexical elements;
they combine within A2; they have scope over Aktionsart and serial elements.
A3 Aktionsart prefixes (valency changing or not; combine within A3 and with serial elements).
A4 grammaticalized serial elements; combine within A4 and extend some of A2 and A3 functions.
B salience markers (sal); agentive, source and benefactive markers also encode obliquely core
arguments of some lexical elements with salience, nearly contrastive values for these roles.
C correlative discourse markers.
All but A4 operators mostly originate from AA deictics and interlocution pronouns.
A and B open combinations produce a rich assertive system compared to inflectional verbal systems. Resultative “auxiliaries” of A4 may combine with agentive or source salience markers of B1 and those serial constructions (SC) convey values close to voices, see (1) and (4), among other values.
SC also interact with complementation in War in several ways. Some SC may introduce a dependent clause, see (7). In War, complementation is not marked by conjunctions or quotatives and clausal adjuncts may not be marked by conjunctions either. Instead, A1 and A2 markers correlate to express different kinds of clausal dependencies. In SC, lexical elements are under the scope of the same A1 and A2 assertive markers hence SC and dependent clauses have different structures. SC often involve more intricate constraints between A markers and lexical predicates than constructions with dependent clauses. Two or more serial elements may combine depending on their own values, on other assertive elements, on serial sub-structures and on lexical predicates, see (2), (3).
The values of SC in War include many of those expressed by Munda and Aslian SVC. They raise interesting questions on categorization and on a typological notion of complexity.
(1) ə ʧaɁ məjə ˀu ti ˀu Pa ˀu
decl auxabil love 3ms salsource 3ms father 3ms
‘He could be loved by his father.’[Lit. He enabled love from his father.]
(2) lea luri tə wan nulə; jɔɁ ʧaɁ kiɛt ihi ti kə Mor
auxgo noise neg-fut auxcome here Mevent auxabil angry 2pl salsource 3fs Mor
‘Don’t make any more noise here; you might launch angriness from Mor.’
(3) Nə.mə khan njɛ, də tɔɁ perɔp jip ʃitɔm
if touch 1s st perf auxhappenstance possession die trouble
‘If you touch me, you will happen to be possessed and die in pain.’
[Lit. if you touch me, the complete state of possession and death in pain (will) happen (to you)]
(4) ə sãɁ tʒaɁ burɔm ˀu Pəthan
decl auxfeel auxdeprive honour 3ms Pəthan
‘Pethan feels dishonoured’
(5) ə tā pə-kəri hən-sãɁ ˀ u
decl auxkeep caus-auxtransform neg-hear 3ms
‘He pretends that he did not hear.’ [Lit. He keeps (things) transformed (doing as if) he did not hear]
maɁ: a) maɁ Pred1 X ‘X looks to be in a state of Pred1’
b) maɁ Pred2 X sal source Y ‘X is in a state of Pred2 at the view of Y’
c) maɁ Pred3 X sal beneficiary Y ‘X looks at Y with Pred3’
d) maɁ Pred4 : compound predicates which may develop an abstract meaning, possibly with a
clausal argument: maɁthuɁ(lit. see find) ‘recognize somebody or an event from previous (in)sight’
(6) ə maɁ kniŋ ˀu ti ˀi rniaŋ
decl auxlook disgust 3ms sal as 3p pigs
‘He is disgusted at the view of pigs.’
[Disgust originates at the view of pigs but is activated inside himself]
(7) də maɁ. thuɁ ˀ u daŋ tʒu kʧou
perf recognize 3ms cont cons illness
‘He had the premonition that he was going to be ill.’
References:
Anderson, G. 2007. The Munda verb, Mouton de Gruyter
Anderson, G., ed. 2008. The Munda languages, London: Routledge
Bisang, W. 1991. “Verb serialisation, grammaticalization and attractor positions in Chinese,
Hmong, Vietnamese, Thaï and Khmer”, Partizipations, Seiler, Hansjakob, Premper,
Walfried eds., Tübingen: Nam Pub., 509-562
Bisang, W. 2008. “Underspecification and the noun/ verb distinction: Late Archaic Chinese
and Khmer”, in: A. Steube (ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures, Berlin: de Gruyter
Daladier, A. forth. a. « Quand le non être n’est qu’un autre de l’être : négation-TAM en Kudeng
War », Les énoncés non susceptibles d’être niés, Floricic, Lambert eds., Paris:CNRS Editions
Daladier, A. forth. b “Khasi” dans : Encyclopédie des sciences du langage, Dictionnaire des
langues, Busutil, Bonvini et Peyraube eds., Presses Universitaires de France : Paris
Daladier, A. to appear “Why there is neither optional ergativity nor voice in War, in Pnar
or in Khasi”, Proceedings of NEILS 4, edited by Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen
Morey and Mark W. Post, Cambridge University Press India
Daladier, A. in prep. “Clause dependency and assertive dependency in Kudeng War”
Kruspe, N. 2004. A Grammar of Semlai, Cambridge University Press
Peterson, P. 2008. Kharia, Habilitation Thesis, Onasbrück University
Nerida Jarkey
University of Sydney
The role of SVCs in raising semantic transitivity in White Hmong
White Hmong (Hmoob Dawb) is a dialect of Hmong/Mong, a minority language belonging to the Miao-Yao language family of Mainland South East Asia. Like many languages of the area, it is rich in productive serial verb constructions (SVCs). In these multi-predicate structures, two or more verbs appear in a single clause, sharing at least one core argument and conveying different facets of one conceptual event.
Single verbs in White Hmong tend not to express high levels of transitivity, either syntactically, in the sense of the number of core arguments they introduce, or semantically, in the sense of “the effectiveness with which an action takes place”. (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 251).
For example, syntactically, there are no three-place verbs in White Hmong. That is, there is no verb that can simultaneously introduce both a Theme argument and a Recipient argument into the clause (akin to a structure like he sent me a book in English). To support the introduction of a Recipient argument, a second verb is often used, in a serial verb construction.
When it comes to the notion of semantic transitivity, this paper proposes that a clause with a single, structurally transitive verb in White Hmong always deviates, to some extent at least, from the expression of ‘cardinal’ transitivity (Hopper and Thompson 1980). In particular, such a clause deviates in the extent to which the action of the A argument is perceived as effective in relation to the O argument.
Even verbs like tua ‘kill, shoot’, hlais ‘cut, slice’, and hlaws ‘burn’, the translation equivalents of which would be used to express cardinal transitivity in many languages, do not seem to be quite as high on the transitivity scale in White Hmong. For example, the notion of affect is rarely encoded unambiguously in verbs that express impingement in this language. The reason for this seems to be that the clear focus of these verbs, and, in fact, of all structurally transitive action verbs in White Hmong, is on the action of the actor and not on the outcome in relation to the undergoer. Similar observations have been made with regard to some structurally transitive verb types, not only in other South East Asian languages (e.g. Thai (Wechsler 2003), Lao (Enfield 2007), but even more broadly in other languages of the Asian area. (e.g. Mandarin (Smith, 1990), Japanese (Ikegami, 1981, 1993) and Korean (Wechsler 2008)).
In order to raise the level of semantic transitivity and ensure that a transitive action is understood to be fully effective, speakers can employ a second verb in the same clause, often in a serial verb construction (SVC). This paper examines data from a range of text types in White Hmong, and identifies three distinct types of SVC that appear very frequently with the function of raising the semantic transitivity of the entire clause.
The ‘Pivotal’ SVC type describes the effective, intentional action of an actor, directly resulting in some change in an undergoer. This may be a change of state, a change of location, or a change involving the inception of an intransitive action. In Pivotal SVCs two verbs occur, the first syntactically transitive and the second, intransitive. One core argument is shared: the O argument of the first verb is, simultaneously, the S argument of the second. This argument appears between the two verbs.
In the ‘Disposal’ SVC type, the verbs function together to portray the effective, intentional action of an actor, indicating how that actor deals with an undergoer in such a way that the undergoer is either literally or metaphorically ‘disposed of’ as a result. In many cases, the nature of this ‘disposal’ may involve considerable impingement: the actor destroys, consumes, or abandons the undergoer. Two or more verbs can occur in a Disposal SVC. All must be syntactically transitive, with both A and O arguments shared. The A argument occurs initially, and the O argument intervenes between the first two verbs.
Finally, the ‘Attainment’ SVC type portrays the effective, intentional action of an actor, leading to the attainment of some goal related to an undergoer. It utilises two structurally transitive verbs, with both A and O arguments shared. This SVC type differs significantly from all others in White Hmong in that the two verbs must appear contiguously; the shared O argument cannot intervene between them. The first verb in an Attainment SVC expresses an activity with an extrinsic goal or an accomplishment with an intrinsic goal, and the second expresses an achievement that describes the attainment of that goal.
Hopper and Thompson’s notion that transitivity ‘can be broken down into its component parts’ (1980, p. 253) is extremely useful in explaining the expression of semantic transitivity in White Hmong. As shown in this paper, in this language the expression of a high level of semantic transitivity is literally ‘broken down’ and achieved through the use of multiple verbs in a variety of different types of serial verb construction.
References
Enfield, Nicholas, J. 2007. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. Activity-accomplishment-achievement: a language that can’t say, ‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells, Trier: LAUT Series A87, pp. 265–304.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1993. What does it mean for a language to have no singular-plural distinction? Noun-verb homology and its typological implication. In Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.) Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter., pp. 801–814.
Smith, Carlota S. 1990. Event types in Mandarin. Linguistics 28: 309–336.
Wechsler, Stephen. 2003. Serial Verbs and Serial Motion. In Dorothee Beermann and Lars Hellan (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Multi-Verb Constructions, Trondheim Summer School 2003. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008. Punctual Paths in Three Languages. In Susumu Kuno, John Whitman, Young-Se Kang, Yuang-Sook Sohn, Ik-Hwan Lee, Joan Maling, Peter Sells, and Youngjun Jang (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics XII. Cambridge: Harvard University Department of Linguistics, pp. 3-19.
Mathias Jenny
Université de Zürich
Serial Verb Constructions and grammatical functions of secondary verbs in Mon
Serial Verb Constructions (SVC) together with the grammatical use of secondary verbs (V2) is a prominent feature of many languages of mainland Southeast Asia. Mon makes use of both root and core serialization, besides verbal compounding. The two types of SVC occur with V2s in different functions, in some cases forming syntactic/semantic minimal pairs involving the same V2 in different construction types (ex. 1a-1d).
The most common SVCs in Mon are of the asymmetrical type as described by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2006:3), i.e. a main verb with full lexical semantics is accompanied by one or more verbs belonging to a small class, carrying mainly grammatical rather than full semantic function. In many cases the use of a V2 has become generalized to the extent that the core lexical semantics are partly lost, i.e. the V2 becomes semantically bleached (ex. 2). This is one of the features described as pertaining to the process of grammaticalization (Bybee et al. 1994:6). While some languages replace a lexical item that has undergone grammaticalization to a high degree with semantically more full item (usually originally with a more specific meaning), Mon does not seem to recur to this means of keeping lexical and grammatical items apart, resulting in some cases in ambiguity of interpretation, a common feature of many languages of the region. In some cases the grammaticalization is accompanied by phonetic erosion of the form, a process that can be observed in spoken Mon in a few instances (ex. 3). The third feature of grammaticalization, viz. decategorialization (Hopper and Traugott 2003:106), can be shown to have occurred in Mon in those cases where the V2 cannot be negated. Negation is seen as diagnostic feature of verbhood in Mon as in other SE Asian languages (s. Jenny 2005:48). While a few V2s in Mon do show some or all features of grammaticalization as described in the literature, many fall in the category of ‘grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning’ (s. Bisang 2004), i.e. grammatical functions appear together with the full semantic value without change in form, possibly apart from stress.
V2s involved in SVCs can occur in preverbal or postverbal position, depending on their function. Many V2s can occupy both positions with different meanings (ex. 1 and 4). While iconicity plays a role in the ordering of verbs in complex predicates, it is not the only factor involved.
This study addresses the question of different syntactic structures involving multiple verbs and the functions of the V2s involved in these structures. While many of the features of SVCs of Mon are shared with other SE Asian languages, some are rather special, both in syntactic and semantic terms. In many cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign a fixed value to a V2, at least in western terms. The common underlying semantic of functional concept cannot always be captured satisfactorily, resulting in the necessity to rethink seemingly established grammatical categories such as tense, aspect and modality. In order to do justice to the linguistic data, the boundaries of these and other categories have to be broken up and new concepts must be established (ex. 5).
It is argued in this study that the lexical items involved in SVCs and other complex predicates do have a core semantics, usually rather concrete, which is not completely absent in their grammatical use(s), leading to interferences between the lexical and grammatical level. Lexical semantics and grammatical functions cannot therefore be seen as a dichotomous opposition, but must rather be treated as different regions on a continuum, the distinctions being gradual rather than discreet.
Data
(1a) ʔuə tɛ̀h ʔa ràn phya.
1s touch go buy market ‘I must go to market to buy something.’
(1b) ɗɛh tɛ̀h klɒ kit.
3 touch dog bite ‘He was affected by a dog biting [him]’
(1c) ʔuə ɕiəʔ tɛ̀h kwaɲ pèh.
1s eat touch sweets 2 ‘I ate your sweets by accident.’
(1d) ʔuə ʔa hɒəʔ ɗɛh hùʔ tɛ̀h.
1s go house 3 neg touch
‘I don’t know the way to his house.’
(2a) ʔuə lùp ɕiəʔ hɒəʔ.ɗac kla.
1s enter eat toilet before
‘I’m going to the restroom.’
(2b) laʔ tɤʔ poy sɒʔ kɤ̀ʔ pràt mùə noɲ kɤ̀ʔ hloə mùə kɒt.
time that 1p sell get banana one bunch get money one 100,000
‘Back then we could sell bananas, we got 100,000 [Kyat] for one bunch.’
(3a) ʔa thɒʔ ʔəhmak ɲìʔ.
go throw garbage little ‘Go and throw away the garbage.’
(3b) ɗɛh ɕiəʔ hɒʔ kwaɲ həʔɒt.
3 eat throw sweets all
‘He ate up all the sweets.’
(4a) ɗɛh kɒ ʔuə khyu lòc.
3 give 1s write text
‘He let/made me write a litter.’
(4b) ʔuə khyu lòc kɒ ɗɛh.
1 write text give 3
‘I wrote a letter for him.’
(5) ɗɛh ket na lɔ̀ mìt.
3 take caus:go deposit turmeric
‘They took along turmeric for later use.’
References
Aikhenvald, A. and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) 2006. Serial verb constructions. Oxford: OUP.
Bisang, W. 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Bisang, W., N. P. Himmelmann and B.Wiemer (eds.) What makes grammaticalization. A look from is fringes and its components. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 109-138.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago/London: UCP.
Hopper P. J. and E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. (2nd edition) Cambridge: CUP.
Jenny, M. 2005. The verb system of Mon. Zurich: ASAS.
Denis Paillard
LLF, UMR 7110 CNRS-Paris Diderot
ENCORE UNE FOIS A PROPOS DE baːn EN KHMER
Le choix de traiter du verbe baːntient, paradoxalement, au fait que c’est un des rares verbes du khmer qui a fait l’objet de plusieurs travaux dans des perspectives théoriques différentes : Bisang (1992, 2009), Hayman (1998), Enfield (2001, 2003), Sok (2001), Lebaud & Vogel (2009). De plus, pour d’autres langues d’ASE, il existe des travaux portant sur des verbes comparables : cf. en particulier Enfield (2003) et Jenny (2006).
Parmi les points en débat, on peut mentionner les points suivants :
- baːnest-il toujours un verbe ?
- dans quelle mesure doit-on rendre compte de certains des ses emplois en termes de grammaticalisation ou de lexicalisation (cf. les analyses de rɔːkbaːn) ?Dans Bisang (2009) on trouvera une discussion très décapante des différentes conceptions de la grammaticalisation appliquées aux langues d’ASE
- peut-on proposer une caractérisation unitaire de la sémantique de baːnà l’œuvre dans tous ses emplois ? Pour Lebaud & Vogel (2009), baːnsignifie qu’ « une valeur p ou p’ (posée comme bonne valeur ou valeur actualisée) d’un procès P (explicité ou non dans l’énoncé) est prise en compte dans sa relation avec la valeur complémentaire ». Bisang (2009) reprend celle que propose Enfield en termes de ‘come to have’.
- Quelle est la place de cette identité sémantique dans la description des différents emplois. Lebaud & Vogel s’attachent à retrouver l’identité sémantique de baːnemploi après emploi, ce qui donne lieu à de nombreux coups de force argumentatifs. Pour Bisang (2009), cette identité sémantique est définie comme un concept abstrait étroitement associé à la valeur ‘lexicale’ de ‘obtenir’ ; les autres emplois sont décrits en termes d’inférence en relation avec des contraintes syntaxiques.
Dans le cadre de cette communication, nous proposons une réponse aux questions soulevées en a –d. Partant d’une hypothèse sur l’identité sémantique de baːn (que nous désignons comme sa forme schématique (notée FS), nous montrons que cette identité sémantique est à l’œuvre dans les différents emplois.
Pour nous, baːn relève d’une sémantique de l’accès. baːnpose l’existence d’un chemin (possible et non pas nécessaire) entre deux positions : une position e1 qui se présente comme une position de référence et une position e2 qui est une position d’extérioritépar rapport à e1. Selon le co-texte on privilégie e1 ou e2 (mais les deux positions sont toujours prises en compte) : s’il s’agit de la position de référence e1, l’existence du chemin est validée ; s’il s’agit de la position d’extériorité première e2 la validation du chemin n’est pas garantie : on souligne la distance entre les deux positions e1 et e2.
Cette hypothèse est proche de celle que propose Bisang (2009) à la suite de Enfield (2003), mais avec deux différences : a. elle ne privilégie pas le sens lexical de baːnqui n’est qu’une réalisation particulière de cette sémantique ; b. elle n’est pas formulée à l’aide d’autres verbes (rappelons que pour Enfield baːnest décrit par ‘come to have’).
Nous chercherons à montrer que cette caractérisation sémantique permet de rendre compte des différents emplois de baːn, qu’il s’agisse de son emploi dit lexical (baːn signifiant « obtenir » - to acquire en anglais), des ses emplois dans des constructions verbales en série mais aussi des différents cas que Enfield décrit en termes de ‘complementation’. Concernant les constructions verbales en série, cette hypothèse sur la sémantique de baːn a une conséquence importante : l’événement complexe qu’exprime une CVS est décrit sur deux plans :
- comme relevant d’une combinatoire entre les FS des différents verbes, combinatoire qui prend en compte la position respective de chaque verbe (il n’y a pas désémantisation) ;
- comme un prédicat complexe (niveau syntactico-sémantique).
Bibliographie
Bisang Walter (1992). Das Verb im Chinesischem, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Tübingen : Gunter Narr Verlag.
Bisang Walter (2009) Grammaticalization and the areal factor – the perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages in : Lopez-Couso, Maria Jose & Elena Seoane (eds.), Proceedings of New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dictionnaire Cambodgien – Français, (2007). Tomes I et II, Phnom Penh.
ENFIELD Nick (2001a). Remarks on John Haiman, 1999. Auxiliation in Khmer : the case of baan. Studies in language 23, n° 1, pp. 149 – 172. Studies in language 25, n° 1, pp. 115 – 124.
ENFIELD Nick (2003) Linguistic epidemiology, London : Routledge.
HAYMAN John (1999). Auxiliation in Khmer : the case of baan. Studies in language 23, n° 1, pp. 149 – 172.
Jenny Mathias (2005). The Verb System of Mon. Universität Zürich : Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Schprachwissenschaft N° 19,
Khin Sok (2002) La grammaire du khmer moderne. Paris : Editions You – Feng.
LEBAUD Daniel, VOGEL Sylvain (2009) Sémantique de baːn en khmer contemporain, BSLP, tome CIII, 1, pp. 401 – 422.
Jean-Paul Potet
Ancien membre de CRLAO
Y A-T-IL DES SÉRIELLES EN TAGAL ?
En tagal (Tagálog, Philippines), il existe des phrases des types (1) et (2).
1) Hinintáy nang mánananggól [na tapúsin nang pulisyá ang kaniyáng úlat].
/attendre/NF/avocat/lig./terminer/NF/policier/FF/son/rapport/
« L’avocat attendit [que le policier ait terminé son rapport]. »
Les deux verbes ont chacun un sujet propre.
2) Sinimulá[ng isúlat nang mánananggól ang kaniyáng talumpátì].
/commencer/écrire/NF/avocat/FF/son/discours/
« L’avocat commença [à rédiger son discours]. »
Dans ces deux phrases, la subordonnée est introduite par une sorte de conjonction appelée « ligature », laquelle a deux formes : /na/ après une consonne quelconque (mánananggól [na) et –ng (nasale vélaire) à la place de /n/ ou de l’occlusive glottale (Sinimuláng isúlat), ou après une voyelle.
Par ailleurs, la ligature n’a pas d’équivalent en français dans les exemples suivants.
lúma-ng simbáhan « une vieille église » simbáha(n)-ng bató « une église en pierre »
simbáha(n)-ng nákíta1 nátin2 kahápon « l’église que nous2 avons vue1 hier »
isdâ nang dágat > isdá-ng dágat « un poisson de mer »
Elle n’indique donc pas une subordination comme le font les conjonctions en français, mais simplement une association entre l’élément qui la précède et celui qui la suit.
Le problème des sérielles pose celui du statut de la ligature en tagal.
Si on lui accorde le statut de conjonction, les phrases (1) et (2) ne sont pas des sérielles.
Si on lui refuse ce statut, les phrases (1) et (2) sont des sérielles.
Joseph Deth Thach
Cercle de Linguistique de l’INALCO
A propos du verbe leːɲ en khmer
Notre étude porte sur les valeurs et emplois du verbe leːɲ pris comme verbe principal d’une part, comme verbe associé à un ou plusieurs autres verbes dans une même proposition, d’autre part. Au premier abord, la sémantique de leːɲ ne semble pas poser de difficulté majeure de compréhension ou d’interprétation. leːɲ est un verbe a priori peu polysémique, si l’on s’en tient à la traduction consensuelle par « jouer », que l’on trouve dans les différents dictionnaires. Mais cette traduction / interprétation ne permet pas de rendre compte d’un grand nombre d’emplois qu’il s’agisse de leːɲverbe principal ou de leːɲ associé à un ou plusieurs autres verbes.
- leːɲ verbe principal
La variation sémantique de leːɲ est fonction des propriétés des N pris comme arguments :
1)- koat leːɲ bal
3sg. leːɲ ballon
« il joue au football/volleyball »
2)- rɔːŋ-kɔn nih leːɲ rɨɜŋ baːraŋ
cinéma déict. leːɲ histoire français
« ce cinéma, projette / joue des films français »
3)-koat leːɲ kɔn dɑp cʰnam haɜj
3sg. leːɲ cinéma dix année déjà
« Il est acteur de cinéma depuis dix ans déjà ! »
4)- srɛj srɛj ʔɜjlɜβ̞ leːɲ khluɜn ciɜŋ mɔn cʰŋaːj nah
femme femme maintenant leːɲ corps plus que avant loin très
« Les femmes de nos jours sont beaucoup plus coquettes qu’avant. »
5)- kaːl dɑp cʰnam mɔn puɜk nɛăk miɜn keː leːɲ mɔːtɔː
moment dix année avant groupe pers. avoir 3pl. leːɲ moto
dɑl ʔɛjlɜβ̞ keː leːɲ laːn nɜŋ leːɲ pʰtɛăh
atteindre maintenant 3pl. leːɲ voiture et leːɲ maison
« Avant les riches frimaient (s’exhibaient) avec leurs motoset maintenant ils friment avec leurs voitures et leurs maisons. »
Dans ces exemples ce sont les propriétés des N1 et/ou N2 qui conditionnent les différentes interprétations de leːɲ: en (1) avec « ballon » ; en (2) avec « cinéma » à gauche et « histoire » à droite ; en (3) avec le sujet humain et « cinéma » à droite ; en (4) avec kʰluɜn « corps » etc. Si l’on renonce à considérer comme idiomatiques une grande partie de ces valeurs, il est nécessaire d’arriver à une caractérisation opératoire de leːɲ.
- leːɲ combiné à d’autres verbes
Nous ne reprenons pas ici le terme de ‘construction verbale en série’ car nous sommes conscients de l’hétérogénéité de ces constructions. Notre objectif ici est uniquement de donner une idée de la variation des emplois :
6a)- Contexte : un groupe en train de jouer aux cartes. Un joueur ne veut pas jouer assis comme les autres, S0 le lui fait remarquer :
keː leːɲ ʔɑŋkʊj krʊp kʰniɜ meːc ʔaɛŋ leːɲ cʰɔː
gens leːɲ s’asseoir complet réciprocité pourquoi 2sg. leːɲ debout
« Tout le monde joue assis, pourquoi tu joues debout ? »
6b)- Contexte : une mère demande à son fils ce qu’il est en train de faire. Ce dernier lui répond :
kʰɲɔm ʔɑŋkʊj leːɲ kʰaːŋ kroa
1sg. s’asseoir leːɲ côté extérieur
« Je prends l’air dehors »
8)- roal lŋiɜc miɜn mɘnʊh craɜn daɜ leːɲ taːm moat tɔnleː
chaque soir avoir personne beaucoup marcher leːɲ suivant bouche fleuve
« Tous les soirs, il y a beaucoup de monde qui se promènent au bord du fleuve »
en position finale, leːɲ peut être rédupliqué :
9)- kʰɲɔm daɜ leːɲ leːɲ dɑl daɛ
2sg. marcher leːɲ leːɲ arriver part.
« J’y suis arrivé sans me presser »
10a) leːɲ chnɛah
leːɲ gagner
« gagner (au jeu) »
10b) leːɲ caɲ
leːɲ perdre
« perdre (au jeu) »
leːɲ en position V1 est compatible avec : des verbes indiquant des positions corporelles (‘se tenir debout, dormir, s’asseoir’), des verbes indiquant des activités ludiques (se cacher etc.), des verbes comme ‘gagner’, ‘perdre’. En position de V2 (y compris lorsqu’il est rédupliqué), il est compatible avec un très grand nombre de verbes fort divers.
Pour rendre compte de cette diversité d’emplois et de valeurs, nous proposerons une caractérisation unitaire de leːɲ qui repose sur l’hypothèse suivante : leːɲ signifie qu’un sujet actualise un dispositif qui contient sa propre finalité (dans le cadre de la combinatoire avec d’autres verbes ce dispositif peut être une activité). Cette hypothèse très générale sera précisée à commencer par l’identification dans chaque cas de ce que nous entendons par ‘dispositif’ et complétée par l’introduction d’un certain nombre de principes de variation propres aux deux grands types d’emplois.
Références
Ainkhenvald, A. & Dixon, R. (eds) (2006). Serial verb constructions. Oxford University Press.
Bisang, W. (1991). “Verb serialization, grammaticalization and attractor positions in Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, Thai and Khmer”. In: SEILER H. PREMPER eds. Partizipation, pp. 509-562. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Enfield, N. J. (2008). “Verbs and multi-verb construction in Lao”. In A. V. N. Diller, J. A. Edmondson, & Y. Luo (Eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages (pp. 83-183), London: Routledge.
Franckel, J.-J. ((éd) (2002). Le lexique, entre identité et variation. Langue française, 133, Paris.
Jenny, M. (2005). The verb system of Mon. Universität Zürich: Aberten des Seminars für Allgemeine Schprach wussenschaft N° 19.
Paillard, D. (2000). « À propos des verbes polysémiques : identité sémantique et principes de variation », Syntaxe et sémantique, 2. pp. 99-120.
Paillard, D. (2004). « À propos du verbe ‘jouer’ en russe » : entre variation et identité », Moscou, 2004.
Thach, J. D. & Paillard, D. (2009) : « Description de trɜɨ en khmer contemporain », Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale. Vol. 38, n° 1. pp. 71-124. CRLAO-EHESS.
Thach, J. D. (à paraître). « trɜɨ et la diathèse passive en khmer », Faits de langues – Les Cahiers, n° 2, Paris.
Alice Vittrant
Université de Provence / CNRS-LACITO
About serial verb construction or how to express path in two Burmese dialects
Burmese dialects (standard Burmese and Arakanese), as languages of the area do use serial verb constructions, that is to say, groups of verbs that are not separated by connectors, that share the same grammatical information and sometimes the same arguments, and that describe a single event and has the intonation of a single phrase (see Durie 1997, Aikhenvald & Dixon 2006, etc.).
However none of these properties is defining per se, and most of the authors, after agreeing on this core of properties, propose sub-types of SVC, based on their semantic and morpho-syntactic properties. One very common sub-type of SVC is the “directional’s one” (see Lord 1993[1], Bisang (1996 : 149), Durie (1997 : 335))). This SVC subtype is labeled “as directional” because the VP shows motion or location verbs in the string of verbs.
As shown by example (1), directional SVC do exist in Burmese, and they don’t seem as developed as they are in other SEA languages as Khmer (example 2).
Therefore, the aim of this talk is to give an account of SVC that express motion and path first in two Burmese dialects, but also in a wider perspective.
Our proposal is based on field trip done in Burma in 2006 and 2008 where we mainly used a tool developed by the “Trajectory Project” — supported by TUL Federation” (Federation Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques[2]). The aim of this “Trajectory Project” is to develop a typology of path expressions. As we want to be able to compare data from various type of languages, each participant of the project used the same material for its field work, that is to say : short videos
that show figures involved in motion. These videos are watched by informants who then described them.
As for Burmese dialects, a first analysis based on some “frog stories” and on data collected with Trajectory tool, shows that motion verbs may have different forms in the two dialects ; for instance, Arakanese keeps using old verb forms. Moreover, verbs may also be used in different patterns although the two dialects are intelligible to each other .
Last, we notice that Arakanese make a smaller use of SVC that Standard Burmese (see examples 3 & 4), which could be an clue of the influence of other SEA languages on standard Burmese.
Burmese
(1) cənɔ2 pyɔN3 ʃwe3 ne2 laiʔ yiN2...
1SG [change move to be, to stay follow/AUX.] if
If I move to live [in...]
Khmer(cf. Bisang 1996: 534)
(2) tɤ́:p [stùh tɤ́u dëɲ cap yɔ̀:k mɔ̀k ʔaop].
Then [jump go follow catch take come embrace]
Then [she] jumped, caught [the duk] and embrace it [after draging it towards her.]
Burmese (frog_aa_2006)
(3)
ʔɛ3da2 zi3gwɛʔ ne2 pi3Tɔ1 thwɛʔ la2 Tɔ1...
Dem.Anaph. howl to be SUB:SEQ go.out come/deictic SUB:tps ...
And after that howl was there, when it went out...
Arakanese (frog_NB_2006)
(4)
zi3gwɛʔ tə-KaɔN2 thwɛʔ lo1 la2 re2.
howl one-CLF go.out SUB. come/deictic VFP:Realis
One howl came out.
(1) References citées :
Aikhenvald A.Y. & Dixon R.M.W. (eds), in press, Serial VerbConstructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Oxford : Oxford University Press
bisangWalter, 1995, « Verb serialization and converbs. Differences and similarities », In: Converbs in Cross-linguistics Perspective : Structure and meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms. Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, M. Haspelmath & E. König (eds), New York: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 135-188.
—, 1996, « Areal typology and grammaticalization : Processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and mainland South East Asian languages », Studies in Language 20/3, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, p. 517-597.
Do-Hurinville Danh Thành, 2006, “Etude de quelques coverbes, de l’ordre temporel et du discours rapporté dans la littérature et dans la presse vietnamiennes. Etude contrastive avec le français”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, t. CI, fasc. 1, 369-416
Diller A.V.N., 2006, “Thai Serial Verbs : Cohesion and Culture”, in Serial verb Construction, A.Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds), New York : Oxford University Press, p. 160-177
Durie M., 1997, « Grammatical structures in verb serialization », In: Complex Predicates, Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds), Stanford: CSLI Publications, p. 289-354.
lord, Carol, 1993, Historical Change in Serial Verb Construction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matisoff James A., 1991, « Areal and Universal Dimensions of Grammatization in Lahu », In: Approaches to grammaticalization : Focus on Theorical and Methodological Issues (Vol.2) - Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), Londres: John Benjamins, pp. 383-453.
Solnit David B., 2006, “Verb Serialization in Eastern Kayah Li”, in Serial verb Construction, A.Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds), New York : Oxford University Press, p. 160-177
Vittrant Alice, 2006, « Les constructions verbales en série, une nouvelle approche du syntagme verbal birman », in Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris, Paris : Péeters
[1] Lord (1993 : 9) : « Verbs of motion and location are among the most likely to occur in serial constructions [...]”.
»