Object-Conditioned Differential Marking in Chintang and Nepali
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2013 Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali Schikowski, Robert Abstract: This study deals with two syntactic alternation patterns found in two languages of Nepal: differential object marking (DOM) in Nepali (Indo-European > Indo-Aryan) and differential objectin- dexing (DOI) linked to differential agent marking in Chintang (Tibeto-Burman > Kiranti). The aim of the study is to conduct in-depth analyses of these two phenomena based on corpus annotations and including necessary methodological innovations, as well as to compare them in order to reach conclusions about alternations conditioned by properties of objects in general. The investigation of Nepali DOM showed that while this phenomenon is formally simple, it is functionally highly complex. It is condi- tioned by a plethora of properties of the object, many of which had not been noticed before, such as animacy, specificity, quantifiability, topicality, part of speech, focus, affectedness, and role ambiguity. A rule-based approach can neither cover the full range of variation found in this area in natural language nor can it model DOM in a conceptually sound way. For these reasons, a probabilistic analysis was conducted in the form of logistic regression and shown to be superior to the rule-based analysis. By con- trast, Chintang DOI turned out to be functionally simple in being basically conditioned by a single factor (specificity) but to be formally intertwined in complex ways with many other areas of morphosyntax such as valency classes, non-finite clauses, raising, and marking of aspect. In addition, it could be shownthat quantifiability is a pre-condition for specificity and that these two properties interact in various ways in Chintang. Most of the differences between Nepali DOM and Chintang DOI can be traced backto fundamental differences between case marking and agreement. The general picture emerging is thatthe main function of DOM is to mark objects with unusual properties, whereas DOI marks objects that are easy to track in discourse. Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-85666 Dissertation Originally published at: Schikowski, Robert. Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. 2013, University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts. Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali Abhandlung zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Zürich vorgelegt von Robert Schikowski Angenommen im Frühjahrssemester 2013 auf Antrag der Promotionskommission: Prof. Dr. Balthasar Bickel (hauptverantwortliche Betreuungsperson) Prof. Dr. Fernando Zûñiga Zürich 2013 Contents Anowledgements v Conventions vii 0.1 Transcription . vii 0.2 Interlinearisation . x 0.3 Abbreviations . xi 0.4 Sources of data . xiii 1 Preliminary considerations 1 1.1 A quick introduction to the problem . 1 1.2 Some basic definitions . 2 1.2.1 Valency . 2 1.2.2 Roles . 4 1.2.3 Grammatical relation . 7 1.2.4 Verb class and frames . 8 1.3 Object-conditioned differential marking . 10 1.3.1 Differential marking in general . 10 1.3.2 Differential marking of and conditioned by arguments . 11 1.3.3 Differential marking conditioned by objects . 13 1.4 Analytical questions . 15 1.4.1 Description versus explanation . 15 1.4.2 Functions versus conditions . 16 1.4.3 Modelling grammatical decisions . 17 2 Chintang: S/A detransitivisation 21 2.1 Language background . 21 2.2 Overview of relevant morphology . 23 2.2.1 Parts of speech . 23 2.2.2 Nominal morphology . 24 2.2.3 Verbal morphology . 26 2.3 Overview of relevant syntax . 28 2.3.1 Valency and basic frames . 28 2.3.2 Word order . 29 2.3.3 Frames and classes . 30 2.3.4 Differential marking . 32 2.3.5 Raising of case and agreement . 35 2.4 Formal properties of S/A detransitivisation . 38 2.4.1 S/A detransitivisation as differential framing . 38 2.4.2 Arguments selected by S/A detransitivisation . 41 2.4.3 Syntactic independence of detransitivised objects . 45 2.4.4 S/A detransitivisation in complex sentences . 49 2.5 Functional preliminaries: Identifying referents . 57 i CONTENTS 2.5.1 Introduction . 57 2.5.2 e identification process . 58 2.5.3 Definiteness . 62 2.5.4 Specificity . 64 2.5.5 e basis of unique identifiability . 67 2.6 Functional properties of S/A detransitivisation . 68 2.6.1 antifiability . 68 2.6.2 Specificity and arbitrary reference . 69 2.6.3 antifiability in detail . 74 2.6.4 Interaction with other factors . 84 2.6.5 Conventionalisation . 91 2.6.6 Some irrelevant variables . 101 2.7 antitative analysis based on corpus data . 105 2.7.1 Introduction . 105 2.7.2 Syntactic annotation and primary variables . 105 2.7.3 e centrality of quantifiability . 107 2.7.4 e role of exceptions . 109 2.8 Summary . 110 2.9 S/A detransitivisation in other Kiranti languages . 111 2.9.1 Overview . 111 2.9.2 Limbu . 113 2.9.3 Yakkha . 115 2.9.4 Athpare . 115 2.9.5 Belhare . 116 2.9.6 Chiling . 116 2.9.7 Bantawa . 117 2.9.8 Puma . 117 2.9.9 Summary . 119 3 Nepali: Differential A and O marking 121 3.1 Language background . 121 3.2 Overview of relevant morphology . 122 3.2.1 Parts of speech . 122 3.2.2 Nominal morphology . 122 3.2.3 Verbal morphology . 124 3.3 Overview of relevant syntax . 125 3.3.1 Word order . 125 3.3.2 Frames and classes . 125 3.3.3 Differential marking and valency manipulation . 130 3.4 Formal properties of DOM . 132 3.4.1 DOM as an isolated paern . 132 3.4.2 Arguments selected by DOM . 133 3.4.3 Position of the marker . 135 3.4.4 Double datives . 136 3.4.5 e question of incorporation . 138 3.4.6 DOM and agreement . 140 3.4.7 DOM in complex predicates . 141 3.5 Functional properties of DOM . 144 3.5.1 Uses of the dative . 144 3.5.2 Literature review . 146 3.5.3 Animacy . 148 3.5.4 Specificity . 150 3.5.5 antifiability . 153 3.5.6 Interplay of animacy and specificity . 154 ii CONTENTS 3.5.7 Topicality . 156 3.5.8 DOM with demonstratives and pronouns . 159 3.5.9 DOM with proper nouns . 161 3.5.10 Modification ..