Wambaya, an FWO natlang with SVCs

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6375
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Wambaya, an FWO natlang with SVCs

Post by eldin raigmore » 27 Jul 2019 21:28

Wambaya is a Free-Word-Order natural non-Pama-Nyungan language with Serial-Verb Constructions.
It is discussed in detail in Rachel Nordlinger’s doctoral work, which IMO has such intensive fieldwork it’s more like a Habilitationsschrift than like an ordinary dissertation, but whatever.
(Her paper can be read online as a PDF at https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/b ... sequence=2.)

According to WALS.info Western Australia appears to be a “hotbed” of pragmatic (“free”) word-order languages.
Apparently, according to Nordlinger, it’s commonly thought that most Australian languages don’t have serial verb constructions; but many do.
Wambaya appears to be one of the few that has both.

In most SVCs in most languages that have them, the verbs have to occur in the “iconic” order. That is, if one verb in a series denotes an action or situation or event that causally or temporally precedes that denoted by another verb in the series, then the logically preceding verb must be mentioned first.
As far as I know, as far as Nordlinger knows, as far as anyone knows, Wambaya is unique among SVC languages in allowing speakers to say the verbs in pragmatic order, rather than requiring iconic order.

Nordlinger describes several types of SVCs in Wambaya, “typed” according to semantic purposes.
Most of them are “tight”; the verbs in the series have all the same participants, as well as the same TAM.
This means among other things, that if an ordinarily intransitive verb is used in a series with a transitive verb, it must be transitivized. That is, “transitivity harmony” is enforced among the verbs in a “tight” SVC.

It is these “tight” SVCs, in which all the verbs share their auxiliary and all their participants, in which the verbs may be ordered pragmatically instead of iconically.

Nordlinger recognizes another type of SVC in Wambaya she calls “loose”.
The verbs in a “loose” SVC all share their TAM and auxiliary and subject, but each may have its own object(s) (“non-subject participant(s)”).
In “loose” Wambaya SVCs, the verbs must come in iconic order.

—————

I haven’t yet been able to tell how Wambaya indicates which objects go with which verbs in a loose SVC.
Wambaya allows discontinuous constituents.
If it allows them in loose SVCs, then it’s possible word-order is not the way to tell which verbs go with which objects.
But maybe discontinuous constituents are forbidden in loose SVCs in Wambaya?

I’ve seen no indication that Wambaya has concordial verb-classes. If it doesn’t, she probably didn’t think it necessary to explicitly say so, since they’re apparently pretty rare among natlangs. But if loose SVCs can have discontinuous constituents in Wambaya, then however speakers and addressees know which verbs go with which objects, will be interesting, whether it’s concordial verb-classes or something else.

It also appears that several of Wambaya’s relatives and/or neighbors may be interesting, from the points of view of free word-order, or of serial-verb constructions, or both. I haven’t been able to read much about them yet.

'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: OH SHIT! WAMBAYA IS ENDANGERED!
Edit: Only 61 native speakers left!

Post Reply