Cover not available
Part of
Give Constructions across Languages
Edited by Myriam Bouveret
[Constructional Approaches to Language 29] 2021
► pp. 121–143

Chapter 5
Transfer and applicative constructions in Gunwinyguan languages (non-Pama-Nyungan, Australia)

 | The University of Sydney, Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
This article describes the syntax and semantics of benefactive and comitative constructions in Dalabon, a Gunwinyguan language of Australia (non-Pama-Nyungan). After having described the respective subcategorisation operations and meanings of each of these constructions, I show that the criterion for using benefactive constructions is the animacy of the benefactive participant, whereas the criterion for using comitative constructions is the semantic role of the argument: the Dalabon comitative marker selects arguments with typical “comitative” meaning (accompaniment and instrument). In addition, I show that the comitative construction has developed a cross-linguistically unusual semantic extension towards the notion of transfer. When combined with verbs of attainment (‘get’, ‘pull’, etc.), Dalabon comitative constructions express malefactive transfer (or removal, i.e. the opposite of giving). Comparing Dalabon with neighbouring languages of the same family reveals that this extension is not limited to the Dalabon language, but also occurs in Bininj Gun-wok and Rembarrnga, including with comitative markers that are not cognate with the Dalabon marker. In addition, the Dalabon comitative constructions can also express the transfer of contents of communication with verbs meaning ‘tell’ or ‘ask’, an extension that is not attested in Bininj Gun-wok or Rembarrnga.
Keywords: valence, diathesis, benefactive applicative, comitative applicative, animacy, polysynthesis, transfer semantics, Dalabon, Gunwinyguan, Australian Aboriginal languages
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The languages in this study
  • 3.The dalabon verb complex
  • 4.Benefactive applicative constructions
  • 5. Comitative applicative constructions
    • 5.1Syntax and semantics
    • 5.2Distribution of labor between the comitative and benefactive applicative markers
    • 5.3Malefactive transfer constructions
    • 5.4Communication transfer constructions: Transfer of content of speech
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Gloss abbreviations not listed in the Leipzig Glossing Rules
  • Data type abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.29.05pon
References (22)
References
Arkhipov, A. (2009). Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid category. In P. Epps & A. Arkhipov (Eds.), New Challenges in Typology 2: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions (Trends in, pp. 223–246). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cutfield, S. (2011). Demonstratives in Dalabon. A language of south-western Arnhem Land. PhD, Monash University.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2003). Bininj Gun-Wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2006). Who said polysynthetic languages avoid subordination? Multiple subordination strategies in Dalabon. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 31–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. (2001). Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: A network morphology analysis. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000 (pp. 103–172). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., Fletcher, J., & Ross, B. (2008). Big words, small phrases: Mismatches between pause units and the polysynthetic word in Dalabon. Linguistics, 46(1), 89–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Merlan, F. (2003). Dalabon verb conjugation. In N. Evans (Ed.), The non-Pama-Nyungan Languages of Northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region (Vol. 552, pp. 268–283). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Merlan, F., & Tukumba, M. (2004). A First Dictionary of Dalabon. Maningrida: Maningrida Arts and Culture, Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation.Google Scholar
Harvey, M. (2003). An initial reconstruction of Proto-Gunwinyguan phonology. In N. Evans (Ed.), The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia: comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region (Vol. 552, pp. 205–268). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (1978). Ngandi grammar, texts and dictionary. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Sydney: HREOC.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C., & Shin, Y.-M. (2005). The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In C. Lehmann (Ed.), Typological studies in participation (pp. 9–110). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luk, E., & Ponsonnet, M. (2019). Optional ergativity in Dalabon: Discourse and pragmatic functions. Australian Journal of Linguistics (39:3), 287–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslova, E. (1999). Reciprocals and set construal. In Z. Frajzyngier & T. S. Curl (Eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions. Vol. 2. Typological Studies in Language 41 (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McKay, G. R. (2011). Rembarrnga, a language of central Arnhem Land. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Merlan, F. (1983). Ngalakan grammar, texts and vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ponsonnet, M. (2014). The language of emotions: The case of Dalabon (Australia). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ponsonnet, M. (2015). Nominal subclasses in Dalabon (South Western Arnhem Land). The Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(1), 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, B. B. (2011). Prosody and grammar in Dalabon and Kayardild. School of Language and Linguistics. The University of Melbourne, Merlbourne.Google Scholar
Saulwick, A. (2003). Aspects of the verb in Rembarrnga, a polysynthetic language of northern Australia: Grammatical description, texts and dictionary. Linguistics. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case. Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. (2000). AND-language and WITH-language. Linguistic Typology, 4(1), 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar