1 / 47

TAM/ Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic

TAM/ Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic. ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011 Anne Tamm anne.tamm @ unifi.it Central European University. Case ( typically involves dependent Ns ).

leanne
Télécharger la présentation

TAM/ Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TAM/NegationbyCross-CategorialCaseinUralic ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011 Anne Tamm anne.tamm@unifi.it Central European University

  2. Case (typicallyinvolvesdependentNs) • Blake (2001: 1) defines case as an inflectional “system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads.”

  3. Cross-CategorialCase (CCC) • caseas a TAM/negation marker • Narrowerfocusinthistalk: • caseas part of non-finites • thepartitive, theabessive, thespatialcases • Estonian

  4. Blake (2001):KalawLagawYa • thecomitative—habituality • theablative—yesterdaypast • thelocative—immediatepast • thedative-allative—incompletivity • theergative and theaccusative—completivity

  5. Nordlinger& Sadler (2004):PittaPitta • objectsof non-future tense clauses have an accusative marker –nha • objects of future-tense clauses have the morpheme –kuas the accusative marker (Nordlinger and Sadler 2004:611)

  6. Aikhenvald(2008):Manambu Aspectmarkedontheverb: OBJ/LOC Wun [de-ke-m] wukemar-e-m I he-lk-obj/loc forget-lk-obj/loc ‘I completely forgot him.’ (Aikhenvald 2008:587)

  7. Adelaar and Muysken(2004): Quechua Accusativeinfinitive: Rima-y-taxalayu-ru-n. speak-inf-acc begin-prf-3s ‘He began to speak.’ (Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer [2009: 189])

  8. Recapitulation: nominal marking • on V (barestems) • onnominalarguments and verbs, TAM marking function • onnominalarguments, butinthefunction of TAM marking • onnonfinitesthathavereducednominalproperties

  9. Number of casesatwals.info

  10. Richcasesystems • Uraliclanguagesaretypicallycharacterizedbyrichcasesystemswithapproximately 10 members, and manyhavecasesystems of approximately 15 or 20 cases. • Accordingtotheselection of languagesin WALS onthe map onCasebyIggesen(2008), thereare 24 languageswith more than 10 cases. • The followinglanguageshave more than 10 casesin WALS: Awa Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, EpenaPedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt. • Fiveof thoselistedareUralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).

  11. Udmurt: negation--abessiveonverbs CASE NOUN VERB: ‘to go’ 1. Nominative s’ik 2. Genitives’ik-len 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-en 8. Abessives’ik-tekmyny-tek 9. Inessives’ik-yn 10. Illative s’ik-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

  12. Finnicaspect--twoobjectcases Marisõipitsa-t. M ate pizza-PARTITIVE ‘Mary waseatingthe pizza.’ Mari sõipitsa. M ate pizza.TOTAL ‘Itwas a pizza that Mary ateup.’

  13. Aspectingeneral

  14. Hungarian aspectualparticles and goalcases INTO: Rékabe-mentaz épület-be. R INTO-go-3s.pstdefbuilding-INTO ‘Rékaentered the building.’ (”into-went”) ONTO: Ágnesrá-lépetta sajt-ra. A ONTO-step-3s.pstdefcheese-ONTO ‘Agnesstepped on cheese.’ (”on-stepped”)

  15. Name Form NMLZform Case Diachronic status Illative of the m-infinitive (supine) -ma -ma -, illative Historical, productive Inessive of the m-infinitive -mas -ma -s, inessive Historical, productive Elative of the m-infinitive -mast -ma -st, elative Historical, productive Allative of the m-infinitive -malle -ma -le, allative Coast dialectal Adessive of the m-infinitive -malla -ma -l(a), adessive Dialectal Ablative of the m-infinitive (-malt) -ma -lt, ablative Dialectal, Finnish-Livonian Translative of the m-infinitive -maks -ma -ks, translative Artificial, productive Abessive of the m-infinitive -mata -ma -ta, abessive Historical, productive Gerundive -des -da -s, inessive Historical, productive Gerundive ... -da instructive Historical -t-infinitive -da -da ... productive -vat-infinitive -vat prtcpl partitive productive

  16. Estonian cross-categorial case • illative and elative are linked to situation bounding (and notyetthepossibility of thefutureorthepast) • inessive – theabsentive and the progressive (Tommola 2000, De Groot 2000, Metslang 1994) • abessive– negation (Hamari 2009) • partitive- aspect, epistemic modality and evidentiality (Tamm 2009, Campbell 1991, Aikhenvald 2004, Erelt, Metslang&Pajusalu 2007)

  17. Goal: noun Ma lähe-n Hong Kongi I[nom] go-1sg HK.illative ‘I am going to Hong Kong.’

  18. Goal: non-finite Ma lähe-n uju-ma. I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative ‘I am going swimming, I am going to swim.’ (# I’mgonnaswim, I willswim.)

  19. Location: noun Ma olen Hong Kongi-s. I[nom] be-1sg HK-inessive ‘I am in Hong Kong.’

  20. Location: non-finite Ma olenuju-mas. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive ‘I am off swimming.’ (# I am swimming – progressive)

  21. Source: noun Ma tule-n Hong Kongi-st. I[nom] come-1s HK-elative ‘I am coming from Hong Kong.’

  22. Source: non-finite Ma tule-n uju-mast. I[nom] come-1s swim-m_elative ‘I am coming from swimming.’ (# Jeviens de nager – I havejustswum.)

  23. Abessive: negation Ma ole-n programmi-ta. I[nom] be-1sprogram-abessive ‘I don’thave a/the program, I am without a/the program, I lackthe program.’ Ma ole-n registreeri-mata. I[nom] be-1sregister-m_abessive ‘I havenotdonemyregistration.’

  24. The sharedsemantics of the partitives

  25. Is thisjust a snowmanorFatherFrost’sagent of influence? Allegedly, he has askedFather Frost togive 15 degreesbelowzero! ole-va-t be-personalpresentparticiple - partitive

  26. Evidentiality Mari ole-vatKGB agent. Mbe-PART.EVIDkgbagent ‘Allegedly/reportedly,Mary is a KGB agent.’ Marion KGB agent. Mbe.3.sKGB agent ‘Mary is a KGB agent.’

  27. FinnicVerb-Nominalizer-Case:Diachroniccompositionprocess • V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] • V [[Verb-[NMLZ]-CASE]] • V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] • Verb-[NMLZ-CASE] V (+ nominalizer + nominal marking  non-finiteor TAM verbal marking)

  28. Nominal C vs CCC • Systems with CCC paradigms are complemented by rich nominal case paradigms, but the reverse does not hold. • The correspondences display cross-linguistic regularity although there are variations in the CCC inventories (abessive, translative, inessive). • Cases in the paradigms are not identical: e.g., the Finnish abessive appears as a CCC but is infrequent as nominal case. • Some cases (e.g., essive) are associated with various constraints that prevent them from appearing freely with nominalizations.

  29. Nominalizationscale • A language may contain CCCs that appear with items that are located at different parts of the nominalization scale. • The degree of nominalization of the base plays a role in the structure of CCC hierarchies and grammaticalization: the abessive may combine with the verb stem, whilemany other cases combine with various nominalizationsin Udmurt. • Since CCCs tend to be related to specific functional domains, they form hierarchies that diverge from the nominal ones (abessive, locativesarehigherupontheimplicationalscale). • If the degree of nominalization of the base verb is higher in a system containing several possibilities on the nominalization scale, then the cross-categorial and nominal case paradigms tend to be more similar. nom acc/erg gen dat loc abl/instother(Blake 2001: 156)

  30. CCC, nominalization, TAM+neg • Several generalizations can be established that cover CCCs and infinitival adpositions (e.g., the Indo-European prepositional infinitives). • In a case system with several goal markers, the more frequent ‘infinitives’ are based on theillative (Finnic) or translative (Selkup)instead of theearlierattestedallative. • The fact that abessive and translative (purposive) combine more readily with stems connects with the predictions of the frequency hierarchy established for Romance infinitives ([purposive>abessive> …] Schulte (2007)).

  31. CCC, Uralicexamples • CCCs are rarely markers of prototypical predicate categories but have retained much of their nominalcore semantics. • In addition to their idiosyncratic morphosyntactic constraints, CCCs impose semantic and pragmatic constraints on their environment. Thoseconstraintsmay be strikinglysimilarcross-linguistically. • Spatial cases tend to give rise to tense-aspect marking, comitatives to Aktionsart (intensification, habituality), and abessives to negation.

  32. Cross-categorialcase • Typicalnominalororiginallynominal marking • appearingonothercategories • orencodinggrammaticalinformationtypicallyassociatedwithpredicates.

  33. Slides and bibliography: tammacademic.pbworks.com uralictypology.pbworks.com

  34. Completely=ACC, LOC, ERG He-ERGate (onecomplete) pizza-ACC/LOC He ERG/LOC/ACC-atethe pizza He completely-atethe pizza

  35. Verb-NMLZ-CASE V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]

  36. The shareinthenumber of speakers Larsson 2005, slide 45

  37. Udmurt:caseonn-nominalizations 1. Nominative s’ikmyn-on(verb+n+case) 2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-on-len(verb+n+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-on-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-on-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-on-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-on-yn 10. Illative s’ik-emyn-on-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’myn-on-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

  38. Caseonm-nominalizations 1. Nominative s’ikmyn-em(verb+m+case) 2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-em-len (verb+m+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-em-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-em-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-em-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-em-yn 10. Illative s’ik-emyn-em-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)myn-em-ys’ 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’myn-em-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

  39. FU Sourcecasesablative, elative, partitive, delative, egressive, exessive • Egressive (Veps, Udmurt) marking thebeginning of a movementortime (e.g., beginningfromthe house) • Exessive (Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, Votic, Estonian, etc ) transitionawayfrom a state (froma house) • Delative (Hungarian) denotesmovementfromthesurface (e.g., from (the top of) the house) • Ablative(Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mansi, Vepsian, Votic, etc)denotesmovementawayfromsomething (e.g., awayfromthe house) • Elative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Lule Sámi, Pite Sámi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of the house). • Partitive (Finnic, Sámilanguages) denotes "of, from, out of something" (theidentityconditionwiththesourcematter). • Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

  40. Somemanure, too

  41. Affectedness of theincrementalthemeand theobjectcase

  42. The whole pizza is intheoven!ButEugenio’saction is incomplete. Eugeniopanipitsa-tahju. E[nom] put-past3s pizza-ptvoven.ill ‘Eugeniois puttingthe pizza intheoven.’

  43. Abessivenegation: modalconstraints/presuppositions #Kivistvoodi on tege-mata. stone-ela bed[nom] be.3s make-m_abe ‘The stone bed has not been made.’ #Marmorkuju on söö-mata. marble.statue[nom] be.3s eat-m_abe ‘The marble statue has not eaten.’

  44. An MDS map based on theWALS by Michael Cysouw

More Related