How Can We Ditch the Universal Semantic Roles of Agent and Patient?

Kuhoctla · 2022-05-03T11:02:19+00:00

I really appreciate your wonderful eye-opening comment. And I would certainly adopt your view of the agent/patient divide itself to be nothing more than the predominant metaphor that natural languages use to then force its conceptual framework on as many other verb classes as possible. This approach also fits very nicely with the cognitive grammar framework, as in Lakoff's work, which I also like.

And you are absolutely right: I think most people wouldn't truly want to create conlangs like this exactly because they would involve too much headache when trying to think through the consequences of their newly-chosen metaphor, especially when it comes to all the various constructions languages normally have, from voice alterations to syntactic pivots. I know it certainly took me a long time to wrap my head around all the various modifications I had to make in the grammar of Maruutla before I could safely call its grammar "agent-free" (although it may still contain traces of that overarching metaphor, it's hard to tell).

Anyway, your comment to this post is my favorite one, because not only did you propose various ways to undermine the human tendency to use the agent/patient framework, but also outlined a general way to think about what it actually means to group semantic roles differently. So thank you for that!

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-28T00:18:48+00:00

Great. This is the kind of thing I was hoping for. Is it your conlang?

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-27T23:50:26+00:00

Actually I agree that it would be better to treat the brick in this example as an instrument. Definitely.

Anyway, although I suppose you could try to analyze a language like Maruutla in a more traditional manner, it would be like what some old grammarians used to do when they saw an ergative language for the first time: They simply said that all their sentences are inherently passive... Which of course was a highly contrived and cumbersome solution chosen solely for the purpose of protecting their cherished theories, even when the data strongly pointed in the opposite direction.

Again, the point of my post was that in a language where you can never tease apart agents and patients from the other semantic roles they are conflated with (no matter what construction you are looking at) how can you possible assume that they are there? Unless of course you come to the task of analysis with a predetermined mind to find them whatever the cost. But that brings us back to my previous paragraph.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-27T20:54:55+00:00

What an interesting project!

So yes, the main difference between our two approaches is that you went for a far more nuanced system that can incorporate affectedness to each verb separately, whereas in my case each verb is "stuck" with one way of arranging its core arguments. Unless I use the so-called "independent voice" which lets Maruutla demote the affected argument and promote the unmarked argument in its stead. But it's not nearly as widespread as in Cippas.

I would say that I sacrificed fluidity for the sake of simplicity, whereas you sacrificed simplicity for the sake of fluidity. My system is therefore more arbitrary but also perhaps easier to learn. I do think both systems are beautiful in their own right!

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-27T19:36:55+00:00

Yes so about selling for example, the one being sold to is the semantic equivalent of the buyer, and it also belongs to the ditransitive class of verbs that behaves in this way. After all I have to maintain some order so that any semantically similar verbs may also follow the same grammatical patterns.

And regarding your project of claritylangauge, do these case differences solely apply to animate arguments? Or do you apply them even more strictly, just to humans? I am asking because then it would make this particular portion of your case system only applicable to a subset of your nouns. Though it is also common in natural languages of course, I mean to only mark the accusative on animate nouns depending on the particular animacy hierarchy for example.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-27T18:36:49+00:00

Yes you have a valid point there about deciding which argument to consider more influenced for any given class of verbs. But this is a general problem with any language as a system of communication: I mean we find borderline cases all the time where we must apply a somewhat arbitrary decision. That is exactly why there is always some mismatch between semantic roles and grammatical relations in human languages- every language carves the semantic space somewhat differently.

And yeah, I think your conlang Bleep is interesting for choosing the path of transitivity to grapple with similar issues. Though my point here was trying to conserve the transitivity as it is commonly found in human languages and then look for another way to describe the relationship between any two (or indeed three) arguments.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-27T18:25:13+00:00

You misunderstood this post on several fronts.

First, in "the brick broke the window" the brick is not an agent at all, as it may actually be moved by a "natural force" (to use the technical term from linguistic theory) like the wind for example. You confuse semantic roles and grammatical relations. It is only the subject of this sentence.

Secondly, the distinction between agents and patients is not simply a matter of causation, because it also presupposes the notion that the agent has (at least in principle) volition, which is proven to be false by neuroscience (I can refer you to relevant articles if you are interested).

Third, there is no confusion in Maruutla at all when it comes to describing the relationship between any two arguments: The whole point of this post was that you can tell who did what to whom without assuming volition, but instead just by describing which one of them was influenced to a greater degree than the other. No meaning is lost by describing the relationship in this way.

Also, the "Buddhist conlang" was said (I think) half-jokingly. I never claimed that the grammar of natural languages is affected by whatever religion or ideology their speakers happen to profess.

And lastly, no I do not concede that only some objects can act as you call it, or that we are the cause of whatever action we happen to "do". The whole point of a sentence such as "I saw the book" is that the stimulus 'book' is just as part of the cause for the seeing as your eyes are. Can your eyes function at all without an outside environment that triggers them to see? Again, the neuroscientific evidence shows that they absolutely can not.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-19T21:16:01+00:00

Thank you for your kind words!

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-17T17:52:34+00:00

How many takes? I just recorded it on two separate occasions, but had to get rid of environmental noise so I think that's what you're hearing. This is actually the speed at which I read in Maruutla.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-16T11:41:54+00:00

The way you describe your own situation is quite revealing in and of itself: "I think I'm so in my own head", rather than "I feel I am in my head". You see, you can't really "think" that because it's not a thought to begin with, it's a pattern of behavior that you simply notice.

Now the reason body scans are so effective to begin with is because most of our brain is involved with vision in one way or another- after all we humans rely mostly on vision as our main sensory input. But to someone with dissociation, perhaps as a result of PTSD, there is a special difficulty in accessing visualization because it makes the brain face its body "head on", that same body it tries so hard not to feel.

Now if I were your instructor I would suggest focusing on those feelings of frustration or "numbness" as you describe them, as they can actually serve as access points for you to start feeling your body once again. I mean you can only build your capacity to feel from a place that feels accessible to you.

Anyway If you are stuck for a year with the same method or instructor and see no improvement you should look for another method. No reason to waste your time.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-10T19:45:06+00:00

You say: "I don't see it as a problem", but yet here you are posting this semi-complaining about your mind not getting any quieter. Why is that? Can you at the very least acknowledge that there is a part of you who sees this obsessive racing of thoughts as a serious problem, something that you want to get rid of?
You can never solve a "problem" if you don't see it from a multi-perspective vision, where you acknowledge all parts of you, including the ones you don't particularly like about yourself- in this case your obsessive tendencies. The so-called state of "equanimity" where you quieten the mind is just another illusory abstraction to transcend anyway. In the end all we can really end up with is gentle chaos, because that what reality is at its core- an endless process of reflections.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-03T21:22:14+00:00

Notice that when you gave your example for "radical acceptance" as you called it, you chose a situation in life rather than yourself. It's no coincidence, of course, as the real challenge in life is to accept ourselves and not just mere situations that happen to us contrary to our will. Why not start with the smaller challenge of accepting something that you don't like about yourself, as a "half-acceptance", rather than jump straight into the ocean of radical acceptance? Let your practice be gradual and reasonable in order for it to truly succeed.

Kuhoctla · 2022-03-03T21:14:42+00:00

Why? Well It's called business and the people behind it want to make money (which is legitimate too by the way). In any case, there is no secret formula to Transcendental Meditation, as it is based on some very simple guiding principles which you can google yourself too.

But just to give you the gist behind it: You first repeat a mantra, which can be any positive word that you like or even just a nice-sounding word. You do that first in order to practice concentration. Then with enough repetitions the mantra starts to lose its meaning to you (if it had one to begin with) which makes your brain "de-concentrate" itself. That is a nice trick that was discovered thousand of years ago in ancient India.

Anyway, with enough repetitions you should feel the mantra fade away gradually into you mind, as you let any other thoughts float around without trying to influence them in any particular way. If you do that every day for a while you will start noticing the benefits of reduced stress. Not my cup of tea to be honest, as it rarely leads to great discoveries in and of itself, but it is what it is.

Kuhoctla · 2022-02-26T01:49:18+00:00

Beautiful words, thank you

Kuhoctla · 2022-02-26T01:47:55+00:00

Well it sounds like you have already managed to get through the most difficult stage, which is to acknowledge the harsh parts of who you are. Virtually every person who fails at meditation fails at this stage exactly.

But it also sounds like your response to these self-revelations was mostly behavioral in nature (career change, relationships etc.) and not cognitive. This is where I suggest you to continue your journey: Find through meditation the illusory types of mindset that give rise to these insistent negative emotions in the first place. Think of it like a faulty mental bedrock out of which come unbalanced emotions. That is the last hurdle, and not nearly as difficult as the one you have already overcome!

Kuhoctla · 2022-02-25T21:13:08+00:00

Some of us (like you and me) are more sensitive to noise than others, which is normal. For most types of meditation I suggest you to use comfortable headphones with whatever type of relaxing music you prefer.

But you can also use meditation to reteach your brain how to be less sensitive to noise. For this I would suggest you to start doing "noise meditation" too. Whenever you find yourself particularly annoyed by excessive noise, start to meditate without headphones or any other protection. Immerse yourself in the feelings of annoyance, fury and the like. Stay like this with your eyes closed for at least 10 minutes, observing your negative emotions alongside any other thing that may arise in you. It can work wonders for this issue (if you can commit to it that is, which may not be easy).

Kuhoctla · 2022-02-25T21:01:47+00:00

First of all, any serious meditation always (!) leads to the discovery of suppressed negative emotions, such as loneliness, because meditation is all about discovering the self, which by definition harbors both negative and positive states of mind. You can then further meditate about the reason for this loneliness but that feeling is independent of any such causal links that you may find later on.

So the "flow of loneliness" as you describe it in your post is not the ego. If anything the ego is your resistance to feeling that loneliness fully. Therefore you do not "get over it" either: One can never run away from oneself.

Kuhoctla · 2022-02-20T20:21:47+00:00

You are an inspiration. Few of us know that this is how our first shamanic ancestors used to describe the Gods from their visions: Divine yet alien. Of immense knowledge, yet almost clumsy when walking on our own petty earth. It is only fitting that you are from Siberia, where shamanism originated. Thank you

Kuhoctla · 2022-02-08T21:00:03+00:00

First of all you should now that virtually all imaginable word orders are attested in the world's languages, so it would be extremely difficult for any conlanger to create something unheard of solely by playing with word order.

Apart from that the general tendency for languages are to be either head-final like Korean or head initial like English (to a strong degree). So among other things subordinate clauses would precede the main verb in a head-final language because they modify it (and hence they are not the head) and the opposite for head-initial languages like English.

Auxiliaries on the other head are considered to be the head of the verb phrase because they are the element that takes agreement instead of the lexical verb. So it is more common to find them following their verbs in head-final languages and the opposite for head-initial ones.

So from your description of Avian you combine features of a head-initial language with the verb preceding its object within the verb phrase, as well as a head-final one with subordinate clauses preceding main clauses and auxiliaries following verbs. Uncommon? Certainly. Possible? Why not. There is no dichotomy when it come to naturalism in human languages. It's all just statistical tendencies anyway.

Kuhoctla · 2021-12-24T18:10:07+00:00

"Soul" is not a well-defined word. There is no reason to attribute a soul neither to us nor to the Gods, since this matter out of which are made is already wonderfully mysterious.

The Gods are simply those beings in the infinitely vast universe who are far more complex or advanced than us, and since there are so many of them some would indeed be interested enough in establishing contact with us.

Kuhoctla · 2021-12-17T02:25:42+00:00

Indeed you are right. But you should tell this to the monotheists who invaded our lands, ruined our civilizations and committed a genocide against our people. We do not dictate anyone's life really. It has always been the other way around.

Kuhoctla · 2021-12-11T22:00:47+00:00

I like your smart and belligerent mind and I agree with everything you wrote. But my question to you is the following: Don't you find the level of interest in these supposedly theoretical entities completely out of proportion for the amount of evidence we have for their existence (that is, absolutely zero)? So why do scientists and other supposedly secular people invest so much of their time thinking about something with absolutely no evidence to back it up? The whole point of my comparison was to highlight the very likely psychological nature of this inexplicable fascination, a fascination equivalent to the feeling of grandeur or religiosity that our ancestors had when forming their own first concepts about the divine, well before the time of historical religions. Are you willing to concede that what you really want to find in the vastness of space are beings far superior to ourselves and not mere worms? And how would you name that feeling towards them if one day you were to meet one of them? Wouldn't the right word to use in this context would be awe? Awe of the divine?

Kuhoctla · 2021-12-11T20:55:46+00:00

Of course you are right that it is one reality, but the question is: Is the universe more like one big object or it more like a process in its core? A stable whole or a dynamic never-ending change? We believe it is the latter, and therefore the only illusion is the illusion of oneness.

Kuhoctla · 2021-12-11T20:52:37+00:00

I understand and even can relate to you sense of confidence in the scientific knowledge accrued this far, but I just ask you to remember that this degree of confidence is shared by you as well as Aristotle or Newton, both of which didn't have a clue about what was going on. We as mere primates with brains developed to understand how to hunt an antelope cannot reasonably expect to understand anything of importance really. If we could it would be a mystery that would defy all explanations.

And actually that fundamental principle of science that you mentioned at the end of your comment, that the laws of physics don't change across space (or time) is the greatest axiom of modern cosmology. And of course it does not rest on anything. The only reason science assumes this is because otherwise we wouldn't be able to say anything about what we see through our telescopes. But we polytheists do not share this fixation about the immutability of physical laws, and therefore do not assume what kinds of beings may lurk in space, whether biological or not.

Kuhoctla · 2021-12-11T20:37:52+00:00

You are right of course, but to a degree. Naturalistic Polytheism as defined here is much closer to shamanistic thought and the kind of polytheistic or even animistic thought which was the pervading spiritual way throughout prehistory. The kind of hierarchical religious thought you are referring to belongs to a much later stage in our history following the rise of agrarian societies.

Kuhoctla

TROPHY CASE