Grammaticalization and Lexical Expression of Tropative from a Typological Perspective Roman Tarasov, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia The Fifth Annual International Conference on Languages, Linguistics, Translation and Literature 2-3 February 2021, Ahwaz For more information, please visit the conference website: WWW.LLLD.IR

1. Grammaticalization and Lexical
Expression of Tropative from a Typological
Perspective
Presented by Roman Tarasov (Higher School of Economy, Moscow, Russia)
romtarvik@gmail.com

2. What is a tropative?
 The broadest definition is: “Tropative is a derivation having a meaning ‘X
considers Y to be Z’ ”. X is a subject, Y is an object, Z is a characteristics.
 Introduced by Pierre Larche in his article about Classical Arabic (Larche 1996).
 Also used by Guillaume Jacques in his article about Japhug (Jacques 2013).
 In these papers it had a strict sense – “an affix constructing a verb ‘to find Z’
from an adjective Z or a verb ‘to be Z’”

3. Widening the term
 In this report reverse tropative constructions (i.e. those having a meaning “Y
is considered to be Z”, so X is NOT a necessary element) are discussed, in
contrast with direct ones
 Negative tropative constructions (i.e. those having a meaning “X does not
consider Y to be Z” or “Y is not considered to be Z”) are discussed, in contrast
with positive ones

4. Approaches to defining
 Grammatical (morphological) - original definition (i.e. an affix forming a
verb “to consider to be Z” from a verb “to be Z” or a noun/adjective Z). Must
be integrated into characteristics.
 Syntactical - like a finite clause in a form of a triadic predicate T(X, Y, Z),
tropative can be either grammatical or lexical (i.e. expressed with a verb).
Must be expressed with 1 finite clause.
 Semantical - like a statement ‘Subject X has an opinion, that object Y is
Z’, expressed either syntactically or with a polypredicative construction. All
the elements must be specified.
 Basic - a conception of a personal meaning about some object, expressed
either with semantical tropative or with a statement of a type ‘Y is
supposedly Z’

5. Comparing approaches
 Let us consider 5 situations in which meaning is expressed:
 1. Arabic: h-b-b “to be desirable or favourite” – ista-h<a>bb<a> “to like,
to consider to be favorite”, h-r-m “to be prohibited” – ista-hr<a>m<a> “to
consider to be prohibited”
 2. A clause of a type “I find him smart”
 3. A polypredicative construction of a type “I think that he is smart”
 4. A sentence of a type “Y is probably Z” (subject is not specified, no
difference between direct and reverse constructions)
 5. A sentence of a type “Y is Z” (no explicit meaning of opinion)

6. Comparing approaches
Sentence/Defi
nition
Grammatical Syntactical Semantical Basic
1 tropative tropative tropative tropative
2 no tropative tropative tropative
3 no no tropative tropative
4 no no no tropative
5 no no no no

7. Classes of tropative
 As we see, sentence 5 is NOT a tropative construction, while sentence 1 is
definitely a tropative construction and there are doubts about sentences 2-4.
 Let us consider sentences 2-4 to be tropative and introduce tropativity
degrees in order to describe real examples from different languages.
 Degrees are numbered 1 to 4 in correspondence to a number of sentence.

8. Classes of tropative systems
 Tropative system of a language has the HIGHEST degree of tropativity that is
detected in its construction (1st degree if it is detected, 2nd degree if it is
detected and the 1st one is not, etc.)

9. Method of research
 Research was carried out using a cross-section method.
 It involved questionnaire for native speakers of natural languages and users of
constructed languages including 4 sentences that were to be translated from
Russian, English, Persian, Spanish or Ukrainian:
1. I consider him to be intelligent (direct positive)
2. He is considered to be intelligent (reverse positive)
3. I do not consider him to be intelligent (direct negative)
4. He is not considered to be intelligent (reverse negative)

10. Cross-section method
Disadvantages
 Does not allow to detect all means of
expressing tropative in a language (but
that was not a goal, all sentences are
just examples)
 Does not allow to get negative data
(data about absence of some
construction. The result is either ‘is’,
or ‘not detected’)
 Risk of an informant’s mistake not
corrected by other
Advantages
 Allows to process a language even if
there is no any grammarbook
 Gives information at 100% cases
(tropative is rarely mentioned in
grammarbooks even if it is
grammaticalized)
 Guarantees the methodical uniformity
of research
 Relatively easy for informants (just 4
questions and not a huge
questionnaire)
Thus, it allows to process much more
languages than any other method

11. Number of processed languages
 187 languages were processed
 169 natural
 14 constructed
 4 extinct

12. Examples from natural languages

13. 1st degree languages
 1st degree languages (those having 1st degree tropative constructions) can be
classified according to 2 main characteristics:
 A – tropative affix can be strong, i.e. attachable to any stem of a particular class
(A1), or weak, i.e. attachable just to some stems (A0)
 B – tropative affix can be monosemic (B1) or polysemic (B0)
All 4 combinations exist in different languages

14. Examples
 A1B1 in Lakota:
 wakhan ‘sacred’ – wakhan-la ‘to find sacred’
 ksapa ‘intelligent’ – ksapa-laka ‘to find intelligent’
 A1B0 in Chukchi:
 lƔ – triadic predicate copula (can mean ‘to consider smb to be smb’, ‘to set or hire
smb to be smb’, etc.)
 A0B1 in Turkish:
 kötu ‘bad’ — kötu-mse-mek ‘to consider bad’
 akıllı ‘intelligent’ - *akıllımsamak
 A0B0 in Nanai:
 ule ‘good’ — ule-si-uri ‘to consider good’
 sebden ‘funny’ — sebden-si-uri ‘to have fun’
 murunku ‘intelligent’ – *murunkusiuri

15. 2nd degree languages
 2nd degree languages (those having 2nd degree tropative constructions without
1st one detected) can be classified according to tropative verb polysemy
 It might be monosemic:
 Ukrainian vvažatı
 Or polysemic:
 The verb “to count” (e.g., Russian sčitatj, Latin putare, Persian be hesāb āvardan,
Arabic h-s-b)
 The verb “to know” (e.g., Persian dānestan, Talish zinə)
 Perception (e.g. Greenlandic isigi-, Breton -aneañ ‘see’)
 Speech (e.g. Dolgan diə ‘say’)
 Possession (e.g. Polish mieć ‘have’, English find, Lithuanian laikyti ‘hold’)

16. 3rd degree languages
 3rd degree languages have 3rd degree tropative constructions without 2nd one
detected.
E.g., Kashubian:
jô mёsl-ã że òn je mądri
1sg think-1sg CONJ 3sg.m COP.3sg intelligent
“I think he is smart”
2 clauses: jô mёslã “I think” and òn je mądri “He is smart”
 Strictly speaking, it is not essential at all for X (tropative subject) to be a subject
of a main clause.
E.g., Tok Pisin:
tingting bilong mi, em i saveman
opinion belong 1sg 3sg be.3sg intelligent
“Opinion belongs to me, that he is smart”
X (1sg) is an object of a main clause

17. 4th degree languages
 4th degree languages have 4th degree tropative constructions without 3rd one
detected.
 E.g., Hawaiian:
akamai ‘o ia mana’o ‘o ia
intelligent be.3sg 3sg opinion be.3sg 3sg
“There is an opinion that (s)he is smart”
X is not expressed, no difference between direct and reverse constructions

18. Unique case of Arrernte
 Arrernte is a single language (of 187 processed) with even 4th degree tropative
constructions detected.
 Informant answered:
re akeltye
3sg smart
‘He is smart’
is ‘He is knowledgeable’. Something either is, or isn’t. ‘Consider’ is a shade of
grey from English”.

19. Correlation between direct and reverse
constructions
 Most commonly reverse tropative construction is a result of a grammatical
passivization of a direct one: e.g., English consider – be consider-ed, Persian
hesāb kardan – hesāb šodan, Russian sčitatj (count) – sčitatj-sja (be counted)
 Such tropative systems are direct-reverse symmetric
 Direct-reverse asymmetric systems also exist:
 if language belongs to 3rd degree
 If languages does not have passive voice or similar forms, or they are not applied
for a tropative verb
 If reverse tropative verb (dyadic predicate T’(Y,Z)) is independent from direct one
T(X,Y,Z). Zulu is one of the examples.

20. Direct-reverse asymmetry in Zulu
 Zulu direct tropative construction
ngi-ca<ba>nga uhlakanipha
1sgS-think<3sgO> intelligent
“I consider him/her to be intelligent”
T(X,Y,Z) = ca-nga(1sg,3sg,intelligent). ca-nga – monosemic tropative verb.
 Zulu reverse tropative construction
u-bheka uhlakanipha
3sg-look intelligent
“(S)he is considered to be intelligent”
T’(Y,Z) = bheka(3sg,intelligent). bheka – to appear, to look

21. Correlation between positive and
negative constructions
 Almost always negative tropative construction is a result of a grammatical
negation of a positive one: e.g. English:
 I find him smart – I do not find him smart
 Or Persian:
 man u rā hušmand hesāb mi-kon-am – man u rā hušmand hesāb ne-mi-kon-am
 Such tropative systems are positive-negative symmetric
 An only detected positive-negative asymmetric system is in Aymara. Its
negative reverse tropative verb (dyadic predicate -T’(Y,Z)) is independent
from positive one T’(Y,Z)

22. Positive-negative asymmetry in Aymara
 Aymara positive reverse tropative construction
jupa chi’qhi-ta siwa
3SG intelligent-ABL say.PASS
“(S)he is considered to be intelligent”
T’(Y,Z) = siwa(3sg,intelligent). siwa – to be told about (but not passivation of “to
tell”!)
 Aymara negative reverse tropative construction
jupa jan chi’qhi-ru unta-si
3sg NEGintelligent-ALL see-PASS
“(S)he is not considered to be intelligent”
-T’(Y,Z) = untasi(3sg,intelligent). unta-si – passive form of unta – to see

23. Models in constructed languages

24. Processing constructed languages in
typological research: yes or no?
Arguments against
 Constructed languages are often
created by 1 person, so there are
stricter rules (but that is not an
argument when a community is large)
 Constructed language (except for
Esperanto) is not native for any user, so
their native language might influence
their answer
But probably the main reason for
constructed languages being ignored by
vast majority of researchers is just a
typology tradition
Arguments for

25. Processing constructed languages in
typological research: yes or no?
Arguments against
 Constructed languages are often
created by 1 person, so there are
stricter rules (but that is not an
argument when a community is large)
 Constructed language (except for
Esperanto) is not native for any user, so
their native language might influence
their answer
But probably the main reason for
constructed languages being ignored by
vast majority of researchers is just a
typology tradition
Arguments for
 It would increase awareness of
constructed languages issues
 It would help to compare the grammar
models of constructed languages with
those of natural languages
 It would help to realize which models
might be considered the easiest/the
most difficult by authors of languages
and selected depending on the purpose
of a language (which is useful both for
typologists and for language
constructors)

26. Tropative system of Esperanto
 Esperanto positive direct construction
mi opini-as li-n sağa homo
1sg consider(trop.)-pres 3sg-ACC intelligent person
“I consider him/her to be intelligent”
 Esperanto positive reverse construction
li opini-at-as sağa homo
3sg consider(trop.)-pass-pres intelligent person
“(S)he is considered to be intelligent”
 Esperanto negative direct construction
mi ne opini-as li-n sağa homo
1sg NEG consider(trop.)-pres 3sg-ACC intelligent person
“I do not consider him/her to be intelligent”
 Esperanto negative reverse construction
li ne opini-at-as sağa homo
3sg NEG consider(trop.)-pass-pres intelligent person
“(S)he is not considered to be intelligent”

27. Conclusion about Esperanto
 Esperanto has 2nd degree direct-reverse and positive-negative symmetrical
system. Tropative verb is opinii (monosemic).
 Thus, this system might be considered the easiest

28. Tropative system of Klingon
 Klingon positive direct construction
val ghaH ‘e’ vI-Har
intelligent 3sg TOP 1S.3O-believe
“I consider him/her to be intelligent”
 Klingon positive reverse construction
val ghaH ‘e’ Har-lu’
intelligent 3sg TOP believe-0S.3O
“(S)he is considered to be intelligent”
 Klingon negative direct construction
val ghaH ‘e’ vI-Har-be’
intelligent 3sg TOP 1S.3O-believe-NEG
“I do not consider him/her to be intelligent”
 Klingon negative reverse construction
val ghaH ‘e’ Har-lu’-be’
intelligent 3sg TOP believe-0S.3O-NEG
“(S)he is not considered to be intelligent”

29. Conclusion about Klingon
 Klingon has 2nd or 3rd degree (doubtful because ‘e’ might be considered a
subordinate clause marker, but the verb is transitive) direct-reverse
asymmetrical (direct construction is used in the meaning of reverse one) and
positive-negative symmetrical system. Tropative verb is Har (to believe).
 Thus, this system might be considered the most difficult

30. Tropative system of Emoji
 Emoji positive direct construction
🙋♂️ 🤔 👨 🤔
1sg-ZWJ-m think 3sg-ZWJ-m intelligent
“I consider him/her to be intelligent”
 Emoji positive reverse construction
👨 ⭐ 🤔
3sg-ZWJ-m be.famous intelligent
“(S)he is considered to be intelligent”
 Emoji negative direct construction
🙋♂️ 🚫 🤔 👨 🤔
1sg-ZWJ-m NEG think 3sg-ZWJ-m intelligent
“I do not consider him/her to be intelligent”
 Emoji negative reverse construction
👨 🚫 ⭐ 🤔
3sg-ZWJ-m NEG be.famous intelligent
“(S)he is not considered to be intelligent”

31. Conclusion about Emoji
 Emoji has 2nd degree direct-reverse asymmetrical (predicates are
independent) and positive-negative symmetrical system. Direct tropative
verbal symbol is 🤔 (monosemic) and reverse one is ⭐ (to be famous).
 Thus, this system might be considered the easiest even though it is slightly
different from Esperanto one.

32. Conclusion
 The most common type of system is 2nd grade (i.e. syntactical tropative with
no grammatical one detected)
 Grammatical tropative can be classified according to its ability to be attached
to different stems or to express other meanings
 Reverse tropative constructions are usually a passivation of direct ones, but
there are some exceptions (like in Zulu)
 Negative tropative constructions are usually a grammatical negation of
positive ones, but there is an exception in Aymara
 The most common polysemy cases for syntactical tropative are mental and
possessive areas
 Syntactical non-grammatical tropative model with no exception on Rules 4
and 5 may be considered convenient (because it is used in Esperanto), but the
system with reverse constructions independent from direct ones can also be
considered iconical (due to its use in Emoji). Whereas tropative system
without reverse constructions can be considered incovenient and unnatural
(and therefore it is used in Klingon).

33. Thank you for your
attention!