The first competition is instrumental and accusative cases variability. This type of competition occurs with the verbal semantics of multidirectional movement and mostly occurs with body parts as instrumental objects. This variability occurs in all three Permyak languages.

Komi-Zyrian

(4.22) Сiйц юрнас (Instr) ~ юрсо (Acc) довкйодл'ю (He shook his head)[Nekrasova 2011]

Udmurt

(4.23) со киыныз (Instr) ~ кизэ (Acc) выретиз (He moved his hand)[Nekrasova 2011]

Komi-Permyak

(4.24)Митрейыс жц юрсц (Acc) цвтц `Mitrey shakes his head'[Nekrasova, 2015]

However, not all the verbs of multidirectional movement allow such type of competition: for example, if the verb allows only body parts as instrumental objects, then it is not possible to use the accusative case. At the same time, if the verb allows not only body parts, but also other types of items as instrumental objects, then it is possible to use either the instrumental or accusative case. However, the languages tend to choose the instrumental case in all scenarios.

The next type of competition is the competition of instrumental and elative cases. This variability also concerns the verbal semantics and occurs with the verbs meaning `to shoot'. Furthermore, elative is possible only when the direct instrument is being shot from the instrumental source point, such as rifles or guns. The languages also differ such situations as `hunt with the rifle' and `shoot with the rifle', while the former should be expressed by the instrumental case, the latter might be expressed by both the instrumental and elative cases. The exact sentential semantics is often important, for example, as we saw in Hebrew, the transport means would generally take locative prepositions, but if the situation implies more instrumental semantics, for example, run over something, then the comitative prepositions might be used.

Komi-Permyak

(4.25)А пулемётнас (Instr) тэ кужан лыйсьыныт? `Can you shoot from the machinegun?'[Nekrasova, 2015]

The third type of the competition is the instrumental case and the postposition `вылын' (on) in the Komi-Permyak language. This competition differs from the previous ones, as it centers around the instrumental object type and not verbal semantics. So, this variability occurs with devices only. It covers such musical instruments, electronic devices and producing devices, such as benches.

Komi-Permyak

(4.26)Кытцнкц сьылцны, орсцны гармонняцн (Acc) `Somewhere they sing and play the harmonica'[Nekrasova, 2015]

(4.27)цні принцлісь орсцмсц позис кывны быд коста, кыдз гортын гармоння вылын, сідз и школаын, баян вылын, орсны кцда вылын сія тожц велаліс (postpositions usage) `Now you could always hear the prince's playing - the harmonica at home and the accordion at school, which he also learned to play'[Nekrasova, 2015]

The final type of competition is probably the most well studied competition concerning the instrumental grams - instrumental and comitative. This variability does not concern the Udmurt language, as it has the instrumental/comitative syncretism. But the Komi variations have both the instrumental and comitative cases, and there is a well described difference between them.

The instrumental marking mainly occurs with inanimate objects and sometimes with limited-animate objects (such as children or animals). So, the instrumental object should be a subordinate peripheral object to be used in such a context with an instrumental case. The comitative is used to express a companion without any subordinate relationship, and if the mentioned companion is animate. Furthermore, if the participants are in the reciprocal relationship, that is both predicates are symmetrical, then only the comitative case is accepted. That is the reason, why I did not include the co-agent function in the instrumental area in the semantic map.

In (Nekrasova 1997), the author uses the R. Baker's concept on the animacy hierarchy to explain the differences between the instrumental and comitative usage. However, I also believe that the instrumental-comitative continuum might be a better tool to explain the differences. So, the instrumental-comitative continuum is a scale from a prototypical instrumental object to a prototypical comitative object, firstly introduced in (Schlesinger 1979). The sentences used in the continuum are listed below.

The pantomime gave a show with a clown The engineer built the machine with an assistant The general captured the hill with a squad of paratroopers The acrobat performed an act with an elephant. The blind man crossed the street with his dog

The prisoner won the case with a highly paid lawyer The officer caught the smuggler with a police dog The Nobel Prize winner found the solution with a computer The sportsman hunted deer with a rifle The hoodlum broke the window with a stone

So, the Komi-Permyak and Komi-Zyrian languages would prefer the usage of the comitative marker, according to my data, from the first sentence to the sixth or the seventh, and from the seventh to the tenth the instrumental marker would be highly preferred.

So, the Permyak languages have a number of competitions going on, most of which are case competitions, and the main factors of the instrumental gram choice are verbal semantics, instrumental object specifics and the place in the instrumental-comitative continuum.

4.2.2 The other Uralic languages

Among other Uralic languages, the instrumental case is the main way to express the instrumental meaning only in Lithuanian and Ob-Ugric languages. In other languages the following cases cover the instrumental meanings:

· Comitative in Estonian, Hungarian and Sami languages;

· Adessive in Votic and the northern group of Baltic-Finnic languages;

· Inessive in Mordvinic languages.

Just as in Permyak languages, the variability usually concerns the verbal semantics. The instrumental/accusative competition takes place in Estonian, Veps, Mari, Mansi and Hungarian languages. It occurs following the same pattern that I described in 4.2.1, so it occurs with the multidirectional movement semantics.

The instrumental and elative competition, besides Permyak languages, occurs in Komi, Votic, Mansi and concerns the verbal semantics `to shoot'. In Estonian, Finnish and Veps the elative marking is encountered with the verbs meaning `to feed' and `to drink'. This is explained by a specific class of the nouns which is weapons in the first case and dishware in the second.

Finnish

(4.28) syottaa lasta pullosta (El) (to feed the baby from a bottle) [Nekrasova 2011]

juoda teeta kupista (El) (to drink tea from a cup) [Nekrasova 2011]

The next competition is instrumental and illative cases. The illative marking is encountered in Komi, Mordvinic languages and Karelian languages. The illative is only used with the verb meaning `to wipe' (вытирать). However, illative is rarely used and very untypical for the Finno-Ugric languages.

Another important thing to mention about the instrumental competitions in Uralic languages is that these competitions might have a tendency to a particular instrumental gram because of the high influence of the Russian language. For example, in (Nekrasova 2011) the author posits that the elative marking is highly influenced by the Russian influence. And it is to be expected - we already know that a particular instrumental gram might be more prestigious to use than the other one, for example, the comitative preposition with the means of transport in Hebrew. So, the competition might lean on one way more because of the strong influence of another language, especially, if the neighbor language, that speakers have contact with, expresses the same meaning differently.

4.3 The competition of cases and adpositions

In this category I put the following languages: Russian, Turkish, Kashmiri, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Mari, Veps, Erzya and Buryat.



4.3.1 Russian discussion

Fig.17: The Russian instrumental functions semantic map

Fig.18: The Russian instrumental object semantic map

In the Russian language, the main differential factors between the instrumental grams are also the instrumental function and the type of the instrumental object. In addition to that, there are some other factors influencing the choice of the instrumental gram that are not encountered in other languages in my sample.

In Russian, there are three main prepositional phrases `посредством, при помощи, с помощью' (with the help of), which are used approximately in the same contexts. However, unlike other languages with adpositional competitions, the three PP in Russian also have different compatibility with pronominal phrases - `*Я сделал это при твоей помощи/я сделал это с твоей помощью' (I did it with your help).

Also, in the Russian language, the features of the instrumental object matter, namely, the directness, animacy and metaphoricalness. While directness is more or less shown on the semantic maps (cf. instrumental source point, location instrument and proto-instrument types), the animacy and metaphoricalness are not shown on the map.

To deal with directness and animacy in Russian, I suggest the following table:

	inanimate	animate
indirect	Instrumental case and prepositions	Instrumental case
direct	Prepositions	Prepositions

For metaphorical or idiomatic instruments, only the instrumental case seems to be a grammatical way to express the instrumental object.

4.3.2 Indic language family discussion

The data of Indic languages, namely, Kashmiri, Urdu, Hindi and Bengali comes from (Saint-Dizier et al. 2006). These languages have both case suffixes and postpositions as instrumental grams, and, therefore, to express the instrumental meaning. The languages are also very similar in the way they mark the instrumental meanings.

In this chapter, I use two sets of semantic maps for four languages, one for Kashmiri and Hindi and one for Urdu and Bengali. I decided to illustrate the instrumental grams on two sets, because having all four languages on one map is not illustrative. The colors for the semantic map are following:

Kashmiri - orange;

Hindi - green;

Urdu - light-blue;

Bengali - red.

Fig.19: Kashmiri and Hindi instrumental functions semantic map

Fig.20: Kashmiri and Hindi instrumental object semantic map



Fig.21: Urdu and Bengali instrumental functions semantic map

Fig.22: Urdu and Bengali instrumental object semantic map

As we can see, these languages from the Indic family have a lot of similar instrumental grams, and they mostly cover the same semantics. The number of instrumental grams is also quite decent, so most of them have only one instrumental function or assigned to only one type of instrumental objects.

However, despite the lack of information about other instrumental functions, I would say that the data from these languages might be of some use. Firstly, we can see that in these languages the means meaning is closely connected to the prolative meaning, which is found in three out of four languages. The means meaning also has the representation as the transport meaning in two out of four languages.

Also, contrary to most languages, in three out of four languages the means function marking is not syncretic to the instrumental function marking. In a typological perspective, this is very untypical for a language to have this distinction based on this feature of the instrumental object. However, Indic languages represent a great variety a adpositions and case markers, and most types of instrumental objects are marked with different instrumental grams. So, I would say that Indic languages are a great example of a system that puts emphasis on the type of instrumental objects and not on the instrumental functions, as, for example, Hebrew or English.

Also, in Indic languages adpositions might often elaborate on the meaning expressed by the case marking. So, the adpositions might be used in conjunction with case markers and represent a more complex meaning, that any instrumental gram could on its own.

4.3.3 Buryat discussion

The data of Buryat comes from the extensive grammar (Sanjeev 1962) and the parallel corpora. To express the majority of the instrumental meanings, the Buryat language uses the instrumental case, that has three allomoprhs -aar, -gaar, -yaar, depending on the root. On the semantic map, I use only -aar for the sake of convenience and greater illustrativity. The Buryat language also has a very large number of postpositions, which are used usually together with case markers, and convey even a larger variety of meanings, though mostly locative ones.

In the Buryat language, there are some complications of whether some markers are case formants or postpositions (Sanjeev 1962), however, that is not very relevant to this particular research, so I just accept the writing tradition of what is considered to be case markers and postpositions.

On the semantic map, the case marker's semantic area is outlined with blue color, and the area of postpositions is outlined with orange color.



Fig. 23: The Buryat instrumental functions semantic map

In (Sanjeev 1962), the author describes more than sixty postpositions in the Buryat language, the majority of which are used to express the locative or temporal meanings. As the instrumental case also covers several temporal and locative meanings, the competition is inevitable.

Unlike many other languages, the reason for this overlapping in the Buryat language is far more obvious. The large amount of postpositions is needed for the accuracy of the meaning. While the instrumental case marker might express the general locative meaning as in (4.29), the postpositions might also express other types of locatives, such as meanings usually expressed by inessive, elative, adessive, ablative and some others. Postpositions are also used to express the metaphoric locative meanings. The examples of the postpositions' usage are (хилэ дээрэ - `on the border') and (хутэлбэри доро - 'being directed).

Buryat

(4.29)Харгын хоёр захаар ундэр ехэ хасуури ба шэнэhэ модод суурайжа харагдана `There were high trees on the both sides of the road'

Also, on the semantic map I do not list all the possible postpositions, that might be used to express the meaning, but only one of them. To be precise, there are twenty-eight locative postpositions, twenty temporal postpositions, three comitative postpositions, three cause prepositions and seven postpositions express comparison. For the sake of illustrativity, I decided to posit only one of them for each cluster of meanings on the semantic map.

4.4 The competition of applicative and adposition

4.4.1 Ainu discussion

The data of the Ainu language comes from (Bugaeva 2010). The language has a number of applicatives, and the prototypical instrumental function is expressed by the applicative e-. This applicative is not considered to be only instrumental, but rather takes a wider range of meanings, such as content, location, instrument, theme, cause, comitative, co-agent, beneficiary, path and manner. As we can see, most of these meanings, except for content and theme, belong to the semantic map, I have been using in the research. Moreover, content is often regarded as a stimulus semantic role, which is close semantically to the SR instrument. Theme is ordinarily not expressed by the applicatives at all, because applicative tend to introduce peripheral participant in the situation; though it is fair to say that, besides Ainu, a few other languages have applicatives expressing the theme SR, such as Yucatec Maya (Lehmann & Verhoven 2006), Taba (Payne 2002) and Adyghe. Besides, the content and theme meanings are the only ones that cannot be expressed by the postposition phrases. Still, except for these two meanings, all other functions belong to the semantic map, so I think it is justified to call the -e applicative the main instrumental gram in the language in terms of this paper.

The -e applicative competes with a few other ways to express the same functions, namely, the postpositions in the functions of location, instrument, cause, co-agent, path and the applicative o- in the locative function. The competition is shown on the map below.



Fig.24: The Ainu instrumental functions semantic map

The competition of applicatives in Ainu is very well described and bases on only one feature - the type of the object that is introduced by the applicative phrase. In Ainu, all nouns are divided into two categories, namely, non-place nouns and place nouns, depending on which postpositions can be used with them. So, the -e applicative, when it comes to the locative function, can be used with the non-place nouns, and the -o applicative can be used only with place nouns (cf. (4.30) and (4.31) from (Bugaeva 2010)).

Ainu

(4.30)Ш= Ш=korШ=wenirenka .a=3.o=have.s=be.baddisposition Ш=nanu-huШ= Ш=e-pirasakina .a=face-poss.a=3.o=over.appl-spreaddo.auxfin `The bad mood of (Samayunkur) spread over his face'

(4.31)IskarШ=put-ua= Ш=o-ekruwene I..o=mouth.of.a.river-possind.a=3.o=to.appl-come.sginf.evcop `I really came to the moth of the Ishikari river'



4.4.2 Abaza discussion

I do have a lot of data on the Abaza language, and most of my data comes from (O'Herin, 2001). Despite the lack of data, two factors influencing the choice of the instrumental grams are introduced in the article.

The first factor concerns the definiteness - if the instrumental object is marked with the instrumental applicative, then the object itself must be defined, otherwise, the sentence would be ungrammatical. With the postpositions, the object might be both definite and indefinite.

Abaza

(4.32)a- и^jk'^w?na-mhaи'^wa y-ax?^jad-a-la-y?-c-и^ja-t'

the-boythe-spoonsg.m-sistera3sg.h-p3sg.n-inst-p3sg.m-com-eat-dyn

`His sister ate with boy with the spoon'

(4.33) *a- и^jk'^w?nmhaи'^wa y-ax?^jad-a-la-y?-c-и^ja-t'

the-boyspoonsg.m-sistera3sg.h-p3sg.n-inst-p3sg.m-com-eat-dyn

`His sister ate with boy with the spoon'

(4.34)a- и^jk'^w?nmhaи'^wa-lay-ax?^jad-y?-c-и^ja-t'

the-boyspoon-instrsg.m-sistera3sg.h- p3sg.m-com-eat-dyn

`His sister ate with boy with the spoon'

The second factor is more subjective and concerns pronominal instrumental objects. So, with such objects native speakers tend to use the instrumental postpositions and not applicatives. However, it is a subjective matter mostly, and applicative phrases do encounter, but rarer than postpositions.

Abaza

(4.35)a-и^jk'^w?naw?-lad-q^wmar-i-t'

the-boythat-instra3sg.h-play-prs-dyn

`The boy is playing with that'



4.5 The competition of applicatives and cases

4.5.1 Adyghe discussion

The data of the Adyghe language comes from (Testelec et al. 2009), (Serdobolskaya 2011) and field work.

Fig. 25: The Adyghe instrumental functions semantic map

The area of the applicative usage in Adyghe is a little bit smaller than the semantic area of the instrumental case. The first reason for that is that the passive semantics are contradictory to the applicative constructions, as the former is a valency decreasing process while the latter is a valency increasing process. So, it is not typical for applicative to express the passive semantics, and the Adyghe language is not an exception.

The second reason is due to the difficulties of field work. The instrumental case is the main and more preferable way to express different instrumental functions, so the native speakers are not used to use the applicative constructions in various contexts. And due to extensive field work, informants might often get confused and not be certain, when the applicative constructions are grammatical and when they are ungrammatical. This leads to a lot of uncertainty with some of the meanings, which are, in my sample, are causal, price and some other peripheral functions not mentioned in the semantic map.

4.5.2 Dyirbal discussion

My data of Dyirbal is very small and comes from (R.M.W. Dixon 1972). Dixon suggests that the difference in the usage of the applicative phrases and cases in Dyirbal lies in the topicalization. The case marking topicalizes the instrumental object, while the applicative phrase topicalizes the patient, which the instrument is affecting.

Dyirbal

(4.36)balandugumbilbangulyarangubangu

there-nom-IIwoman-nomthere-erg-Iman-ergthere-inst-IV

yugungubalgan

stick-insthit-pres/past

`The man hit the woman with a stick'

(4.37)balayugubangulyarangubangalman

there-nom-Istick-nomthere-erg-Iman-erghit-inst-pres/past

bagundugumbilgu

there-dat-IIwoman-dat

`The man hit the woman with a stick'



5. Grammaticalization patterns

In this chapter, I will briefly go through the grammaticalization process, considering mainly instrumental, comitative and locative functions. I included this chapter in my work mainly to justify the format of the instrumental semantic map and as an amendment to my previous work (Arsentyev 2016), where, as I believe now, I made some incorrect statements considering comitative and instrumental relationship.

The grammaticalization patterns might also justify the competition of instrumental grams in some languages. For example, in Permyak languages the instrumental and inessive cases with the occurring competition in instrumental and temporal areas come from the proto-Uralic locative *-na/-nд, so the studies of grammaticalization in different languages might reveal some light onto the competitions among the instrumental grams.

As the starting point of grammaticalization discussion, most authors refer to the grammaticalization scale in (Heine et al. 1991).

This grammaticalization concerns a lot of semantical domains and is considered to be typologically standard by many prominent linguists, however, it does have a number of exceptions in different languages.

The most prominent works on the domain of instrumentality and its grammaticalization patterns are (Narrog & ito 2007), (Narrog 2009) and (Narrog 2010). In these works, the following map of grammaticalization is provided.



Basically, the three most discussed connections on the map are (Narrog 2009):

· Instrumental and syntactic functions (agent, ergative, passive agent);

· Instrumental and non-locative functions (mainly comitative, but also cause/reason, manner, ablative);

· Instrumental and locative functions (location, temporal, direction).

So, in this work I go through the grammaticalization patterns concerning these three types of connections.

5.1 Instrumental and comitative

The relationship between the comitative and instrumental is probably the most discussed relationship between two peripheral domains. In the past 30 years, a large number of papers is devoted to both the relationship of these two domains and to comitative alone (Schlezinger 1979, 1989; Stolz 1996, 1998, 2001; Arhipov 2005; Haugen 2006).

The standard relationship between instrument and comitative is considered to be from comitative to instrumental extension. This theory is supported by a great number of papers and books: in (Narrog 2010), the author provides the following list of articles that prove the hypothesis - Lehmann (1988:63); Heine, Claudi & Hьnnemeyer (1991:158, 166); Stroh (1998, 1999); Michaelis & Rosalie (2000:90); Luraghi (2001a:50, 2001b:390); Stolz (2001:340); Heine & Kuteva (2002:84); Palancar (2002:126); Lehmann (2002:99); Heine (2003:595); Yamaguchi (2004:121); Stolz, Stroh & Urdze (2006:366, 369f); Endruschat (2007:59).

Based on the cognitive point of view, the extension from comitative to instrumental is usually determined by the companion metaphor, therefore, comitative comes first, and the instrumental semantics comes second. One of the most well-studied cases of this grammaticalization patterns is described in (Luraghi 2001) on the basis of Ancient Greek. The comitative meaning in Ancient Greek was expressed by the two prepositions sъn and metб. The former preposition was already mostly used in comitative constructions, the latter, however, was mostly used in locative constructions and only later developed its comitative and instrumental meaning.

The meaning of the preposition sъn was mostly comitative, but it was also used on the periphery (e.g. (5.1)) and there was one example with sъn meaning the instrument (5.2).

(5.1)sщn teъkhesin вlto khamвze

with arm:DAT.PL leap:AOR.3SG.M/P ground:ADV

“he leapt on the ground in his armour” [Il.12.81 and passim, the example from (Luraghi 2001)]

(5.2)sъn te megбloi apйtisan sщn sphкisin

Withptcbig:datpay:aor.3.plwithposs.3pl.dat.pl

kephalкisi gunaixн te kaм tekйessin

head:dat.plwife:dat.plptcandchild:dat.pl

“and with a heavy price do (men) make atonement, even with their own heads and their wives and their children” [Il. 4.161-162, , the example from (Luraghi 2001)]

But the grammaticalization pattern from comitative to instrumental is better observed on the second preposition metб. It started to gain its comitative meaning in Homer times. Accompanied by the genitive case in plural it showed five passages with the comitative meaning.

(5.3)met' бllon lйxohetaнron

among other:GEN.PLlie: AOR.MID.IMP.2SGcomrade:GEN.PL

“lie with the rest of your comrades” [Od. 10.320, , the example from (Luraghi 2001)]

During Herodotus times this expression becomes more frequent, however, it still has such limitations as it can only refer to animate nouns and mostly used with plural nouns.

In Attic prose, metб starts combining with all the kinds of accompaniment, and can already be found with abstract nouns.

(5.4)toъton dи ouk йstin horismуs, allа

dem.gen.pl ptc negbe:ind.prs.3sgdefinition:nom.sgbut

metа noйseosи aisthйseos gnorнzontai

with intelligence:gen.sgptcperception:gen.sg know:ind.prs.m/p.3pl

“of those individuals there is no definition, but we appreciate them by intelligence or perception” [Arist. Metaph. 1036a, , the example from (Luraghi 2001)]

Later, in Greek even more typical instrumental expressions started appearing with the preposition metб.

(5.5)metа poiйseos epikruptomйnon

with poetry: gen.sgconceal: part.prs.gen.pl.m/p

“concealing with poetry” (Pl. Thaetet. 180c).

The modern usage of the preposition metб became common only in the 4^th century AD, but in this millennium before the following semantic extension is observed:



This is one of the examples of the comitative to instrumental extension, but the same type of extensions is also noticed in various Germanic and Romance languages.

The opposite direction of this grammaticalization pattern is given in (Givon 2001) and (Bugaeva 2010). Both articles do not provide much evidence for this pattern, but at the same time do seem to be absolutely groundless. In (Bugaeva 2010) the following grammaticalization scheme for the applicative -e (described in 4.4.1) is provided.

So, obviously the comitative has a very tight relationship with the instrumental, and in many languages the world these functions are expressed by the same grammatical morphemes. The syncretism of these two meanings is very well studied in (Stolz 1996, 1998, 2001), but I would say that the most important thing about the grammaticalization pattern is that the choice of the gram expressing the instrumental meaning heavily depends on the stage of the grammaticalization. For example, in Permyak languages the directionality of comitative-instrumental is not certain, but in Proto-Komi the original comitative case could only express the `humanlike' companions. Later in some languages it could express the accompaniment meaning with `animate' objects, such as children and animals. Nowadays, in Komi-Permyak and Komy-Zyrian there is a clear distinction between the instrumental and comitative case, and in Udmurt the both the comitative and instrumental meanings are expressed by the instrumental case, so the grammaticalization stage is very important for the choice of the instrumental gram.

It is also not always clear what are the exact borders between the instrumental and comitative functions. Coming back to the instrumental-comitative continuum (Schlesinger, 1979) and the grammaticalization patterns, we can state that the choice between the comitative and instrumental grammatical morphemes actually depends on the grammaticalization stage. For instance, for Hebrew the sentences below would be marked by the following prepositions:

1. The pantomime gave a show with a clown COM 2. The engineer built the machine with an assistant COM 3. The general captured the hill with a squad of paratroopers COM 4. The acrobat performed an act with an elephant. COM 5. The blind man crossed the street with his dog COM 6. The prisoner won the case with a highly paid lawyer COM 7. The officer caught the smuggler with a police dog COM/ 8. The Nobel Prize winner found the solution with a computer COM 9. The sportsman hunted deer with a rifle COM/LOC 10. The hoodlum broke the window with a stone COM/LOC

And for languages without the comitative/instrumental syncretism, the situation would often look differently, as the border between instrumental and comitative depends on their grammaticalization development. So, I think it is viable to say that the choice of the instrumental gram depends on the closeness to either prototypical instrumental or prototypical comitative functions, and on the grammaticalization stage in the language.



5.2 Instrumental and locative

The other important grammaticalization concerns instrumental and locative functions. The locative-instrumental grammaticalization is definitely not such a widely studied process, because the instrumental function is much closer to the comitative function, than it is to locative. Still, in many languages the way to express to instrumental meaning is often syncretic to the means of expressing the locative function.

So, the typologically standard direction for this process is from locative functions to instrumental functions. The following languages serve as evidence for this pattern: Pama-Nyungan, English (Blake 2001: 173); Greek, Russian, and other Indoeuropean languages (Luraghi 2003: 35f, 322, 88f); Finno-Ugric (Grьnthal 2003: 139-141). The grammaticalization also occurs not only from the typical locative function but also from more specific functions, such as, for instance, prolative (Ganenkov 2002).

As well as comitative-instrumental grammaticalization, the locative-instrumental pattern occurs with the help of metaphorical development of locative meanings. It happens a lot in in the Semitic languages, where the same preposition might express both the locative and the instrumental meanings (Luraghi 2001). In Indo-European languages, however, it is more restricted, and, for instance, underlies the semantic extension from location to instrument of dative in Ancient Greek.

There is a number of local metaphors, but one of the most frequent ones and that was really widespread in Ancient Greek is the Path metaphor. So, in Greek nouns in prepositional phrases with diб `through' express the instrumental meaning.

(5.6)allа mиn kaм di' hoы ge deо

Butptcand throughrel.genptc need:prs.3sg

orgбnou krнnesthai diаlуgon

instrument:genjudge:infthroughword:gen.pl

pouйphamen deоn krнnesthai lуgoi dи

ptcsay:aor.1plneed:3sgjudge:infword:nom.plptc

toъtou mбlista уrganon

dem.genmainlyinstrument:nom

“By means of what instrument must we judge? … we hold that it is reason by which one has to judge… so reason is the main instrument of judgment” [Pl. Rep. 582d., , the example from (Luraghi 2001)]

This local metaphor with the meaning of `through' is accounted in a number of Indo-European languages such as Latin and Germanic languages.

However, there is also evidence on the opposite direction of the process, based on such languages as Altaic, Shor and Chuvash (Ganenkov 2002). In these languages, the comitative-instrumental (syncretic representation) markers also represent the main prolative meaning. However, according to etymology, these markers are reconstructed into the postposition birlen/bilen, which has a comitative meaning. Therefore, if the etymology is correct, the grammaticalization pattern is from instrumental to prolative meaning.

So, the Turkic languages for locative functions and Ainu for comitative functions provide a counter-example to the well-known grammaticalization scale (Heine et al. 1991).



6. Conclusion

In the process of the work, I have explored the competitive forms of expressing the instrumental functions in a typological perspective, reasons for the competition and grammaticalization patterns concerning the notion of instrumentality.

Firstly, I have come up with two semantic maps - one concerning various main and peripheral instrumental functions and one concerning various types of instrumental objects. Then, I applied the templates onto the languages in my sample for more illustrativity and for a better cross-linguistic comparison.

In the analysis of the languages, the following factors of influencing the choice of the instrumental grams were recognized:

1. As expected, the most significant factors are the instrumental functions and the type of instrumental objects (shown in all the languages that I have semantic maps for);

2. The proximity to either instrumental or comitative prototypical functions, and the state of the comitative-instrumental grammaticalization process (shown in Permyak languages, Hebrew and most languages that do not have the syncretic representation of instrumental and comitative);

3. Similar to the previous statement, the features of the instrumental object play an important role - animacy, control, indirectness, abstractness, metaphor usage.

4. The hierarchy of the instrumental functions and types of instrumental objects - which one of these two categories is more significant in the language (shown in Hebrew, Russian and English on the examples of means of transport and physical proximity functions);

5. The purpose of the instrumental object or the sentential semantics - based on whether the object has more instrumental purpose in the situation or rather a more peripheral purpose, for instance, means of transport (shown in most languages in the sample);

6. The discourse features - topicalization of the instrumental object in Adyghe and Dyirbal;

7. The syntactic features - definiteness and indefiniteness, tendency to pronominal objects, noun class (shown in Abaza, Ainu and Russian);

8. Incompatibility of the applicative usage with several syntactic functions, such as agent and passive agent (shown in the competition types with applicatives);

9. The tendency to subtler meanings by the adpositions - in the competition of cases and adpositions, cases tend to cover most instrumental main and peripheral functions, but the additional usage of adpositions might specify the instrumental meaning. For instance, in Buryat it is possible to express the locative meaning by the instrumental case, but there are also twenty-eight locative postpositions that might specify a particular locative meaning. In Indic languages, adpositions also complement the usage of case markers, specifying the instrumental meaning;

10. The verbal semantics - some verbs might be incompatible with certain instrumental grams (shown in Hebrew and Russian) and some instrumental grams are only compatible with certain verbs (shown in Permyak languages);

11. The preferences of native speakers (shown in most languages with competition, but most noticeably in the competition with applicatives, as they tend to have heavy morphological marking);

12. The socioeconomic status of speakers (discussed in (Neuman 2015) on the example of Hebrew);

13. The influence of the neighborhood languages in the situation of bilingualism (shown in Permyak languages).



7. References

Theoretical data

Apresyan 1974 - Апресян Ю. Д. Лексическая семантика. М. 1974.

Arhipov 2005 - Архипов А.В. Типология комитативных конструкций. Диссертация на соискание учёной степени кандидата филологических наук. Москва, 2005

Arsentyev 2016 - Denis Arsentyev, Инструментальный аппликатив в типологической перспективе, Moscow, 2016

Beloshankova & Muravenko 1985 - Белошанкова В.А., Муравенко Е.В. Способы выражения инструментального значения в русском языке

Fillmore 1981a - Филлмор Ч. Дело о падеже // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вып. X. Лингвистическая семантика. - М.: Прогресс, 1981. - С. 369 - 495.

Ganenkov 2002 - Ганенков Д.С. Типология падежных значений: семантическая зона пролатива// Исследования по теории грамматики. Том 2: Грамматикализация пространственных значений в языках мира. Москва: Русские словари, 2002, 35-56.

Givуn, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. Volume 1. Second edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001

Haspelmath 2000 - Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. The new psychology of language, Michael Tomasello (ed.), v. 2, 211-43. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Haugen 2006 - Jason D. Haugen. Comitative and Instrumental Postpositions in Uto-Aztecan, University of Arizona, 2006.

Heine et al. 1991 - Heine, Bernd; Claudi, Ulrike; Hьnnemeyer, Friederike (1991) Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. -- Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Lehmann 2006 - Lehmann, Christian & Elizabeth Verhoeven, 2006. Extraversive transitivization in Yucatek Maya and the nature of the applicative. Case, valency and transitivity, Leonid Kulilov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), 465-493. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Studies in Language Companion Series].

Luraghi - Silvia Luraghi (2001) Some remarks on Instrument, Comitative, and Agent in Indo-European // In Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54/4, 2001, 385-401., Universitа di Pavia, 2001.

Michaelis, Susanne & Rosalie, Marcel. 2000. “Polysйmie et cartes sйmantiques: Le relateur (av)ek en Crйole Seychellois.” Йtudes Crйoles

Muravenko 1994 - Муравенко Е. В. (1994) К описанию категории орудийности в русском языке: о соотношении форм с первообразными и производными предлогами. // Знак: Сборник статей по лингвистике, семиотике и поэтике памяти А. Н. Журинского. -- М.: Русский учебный центр МС, 1994, с. 173-180

Narrog & Ito 2007 - Narrog, Heiko & Shinya Ito 2007. Reconstructing semantic maps. The Comitative-Instrumental area. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60/4, 273-292.

Narrog 2009 - Narrog, Heiko 2009. Varieties of Instrumental. In: Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer (eds.) The Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Payne 2002 - Payne, Thomas 2002. Toward a substantive typology of applicative. Ms. Invited lecture, Third Winter Typological School, Moscow, Russia.

Saint-Dizier et al. 2006 - Patrick Saint-Dizier, Elixabete Murguia, Sina Zarriess, Alda Mari, Sudeshna Sarkar, Achla Raina, Bali Ranaivo-Malancon, Pek Kuan Ng, Asanee Kawtrakul, Mukda Suktarachan, 2006. A multilingual analysis of the notion of instrumentality.

Serdobolskaya 2009 - Сердобольская Н.В., Кузнецова Ю.Л. Двойное падежное маркирование: уникальный случай адыгейского языка// Тестелец Я.Г. и др.(ред.). Аспекты полисинтетизма: очерки по грамматике адыгейского языка. Москва, 2009

Schlesinger 1979 - Schlesinger, Itzchak M. (1979) Cognitive structures and semantic deep structures: the case of the instrumental. // Journal of Linguistics, v. 15, n. 2, 1979, p. 307-324.

Schlesinger 1989 - Schlesinger, Itzchak M. (1989) Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations. // Journal of Linguistics, v. 25, n. 1, 1989, p. 189-210.

Stolz 1996 - Stolz, Thomas (1996a) Komitativ-Typologie: MIT- und OHNE-Relationen im crosslinguistischen Ьberblick. // Papiere zur Linguistik, v. 54, n. 1, 1996, p. 3-65.

Stolz 1996 - Stolz, Thomas (1996b) Some instruments are really good companions -- some are not. On syncretism and the typology of instrumentals and comitatives. // Theoretical Linguistics, v. 23, n. 1-2, 1996, p. 113-200.

Stolz 1997 - Stolz, Thomas (1997b) Two comitatives or more. On the degree of involvement of participants. // Andreas Gather and Heinz Werner (eds.). Semiotische Prozesse und natьrliche Sprache. Festschrift fьr Udo L. Figge. -- Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997, p. 515-530.

Stolz 1998 - Stolz, Thomas (1998) Komitative sind mehr als Instrumentale sind mehr als Komitative: Merkmalhaftigkeit und Markiertheit in der Typologie der MIT-Relationen. // Karmen Terћan-Kopecky (ed.). Zbornik referatov II. Mednarodnega Simpozija o teoriji naravnosti 23. do 25. maj 1996. -- Maribor: Pedagoљka Fakulteta, 1998, p. 83-100.

Stolz 2001 - Stolz, Thomas (2001a) To be with X is to have X: comitatives, instrumentals, locative, and predicative possession. // Linguistics, v. 39, n. 2, 2001, p. 321-350.

Stolz 2001 - Stolz, Thomas (2001b) Comitatives vs. instrumentals vs. agents. // Walter Bisang (ed.). Aspects of Typology and Universals. -- Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001, p. 153-174.

Wierzbicka 1980 - Anna Wierzbicka, The-case for surface case. C Karoma publishers inc. Ann Arbor. 1980

Language data

A. Janda 1993 - Laura A. Janda. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1993.

Baker 1990 - Baker, M. Elements of a Typology of Applicatives in Bantu // J.Hutchison&V. Manfredi Current Approaches to African Linguistics, vol. 7. -- Dordrecht: Foris, 1990.

Bugaeva 2010 - Anna Bugaeva. Ainu applicatives in typological perspective: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.

Clifford Abbott 2000 - Clifforn Abbott. Oneida: Lincom Europa, 2000.

Colette Grinevald Craig 1977 - Colette Grinevald Craig. Jacaltec - The Structure of Jacaltec: University of Texas Press, 1977.

Demuth 1998 - Demuth, K. Argument structure and the acquisition of Sesotho applicatives. Linguistics, 1008

Deo Ngonyani 1995 - Towards a Typology of Applicatives in Bantu // African studies Center, Indiana University, Woodburn Hall 221, Bloomington, 1995

Fortescue 1984 - Michael Fortescue. West Greenlandic: Croom Helm, London, Sydney, Dover, 1984.

Gerdts and Whaley 1991 - Donna B. Gerdts and Lindsay Whaley. Locatives vs. Instrumentals in Kinyarwanda. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on African Language Structures, 1991

Jean Ormsbee Charney 1997 - Jean Ormsbee Charney. A Grammar of Comanche: Published by the University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1997.

Johanna Barodal - Johanna Barodal. Case in Icelandic - A synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach: Lund University, Department of Scandinavian Languages.

Laugblin 1975 - Robert M. Laugblin. The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan: Smithsonian Institution Press, City of Washington, 1975.

Mark Donohue 1999 - Mark Donohue. A Grammar of Tukang Besi: Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1999.

Morgan 1969 - Lawrence Richard Morgan. A Description of the Kutenai Language: University of California at Berkeley, 1969.

Nekrasova 1997 - Некрасова Г.А. Инструменталь (творительный падеж) в пермских языках. Доклад на заседании президиума Коми научного центра УрО Российской академии наук, Сыктывкар, 1997

Nekrasova 2011 - Nekrasova G.A. (2011) Means to express an instrument in the Finno-Ugric languages // Известия Коми научного центра УрО РАН, выпуск 4(8). Сыктывкар, 2011.

Nekrasova 2015 - Некрасова Г.А. Конкуренция в семантической зоне инструменталя в Коми-Пермяцком языке. Институт языка, литературы и истории Коми научного центра Уральского отделения РАН, 2015.

Neuman 2015 - Yishai Neuman. Substrate Sources and Internal Evolution of Prescriptively Unwarranted Comitative Complements in Modern Hebrew: Achva Academic College, Arugot, Israel, 2015

O'Herin 2001 - Brian O'Herin. Abaza Applicatives, vol.77, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 477-493, 2001.

Philomena Hedwig Dol 1966 - Philomena Hedwig Dol. A Grammar of Maybrat - a Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia: Grafisch Bedriff, Universiteit Leiden, 1966.

R.M.W. Dixon 1972 - R.M.W. Dixon. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland: Cambridge at the University Press, 1972.

Sanjeev 1962 - Санжеев Г.Д. Грамматика Бурятского языка, фонетика и морфология. Издательство восточной литературы, Москва, 1962

Wallace L. Chafe 1967 - Wallace L. Chafe. Seneca Morphology and Dictionary: Smithsonian Press, Washington, 1967.

Размещено на Allbest.ru