Split-Ergativity in Mäori

SPLIT-ERGATIVITY IN MÄORI __________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics in the University of Canterbury by Anna Pucilowski ________________________ University of Canterbury 2006 Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………….................. 1 Abbreviations………………………………...………………………………….. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction..……………………………………………………. 3 1.1 Background………………………………………………………..... 5 1.2 Verbs in Mäori………………………………………………………. 6 1.2.1 Two argument verbs……………………………………… 6 1.2.2 Intransitive verbs…………………………………………. 7 1.3 Passive universals……………………………………………………. 9 Chapter 2: Mäori: accusative or ergative……………………………….... 11 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………... 11 2.2 Mäori as an accusative language…………………………………….. 14 2.2.1 Morphological “markedness”…………………………….. 14 2.2.2 Control……………………………………………………. 14 2.2.2.1 Restrictions on the controller……………………... 15 2.2.2.2 Restrictions on the controllee – ki te……………… 18 2.2.2.3 Restrictions on the controllee – hei control………. 20 2.2.2.4 Restrictions on the controllee – participle formation 22 2.2.2.5 Summary of control………………………………. 23 2.2.3 Raising……………………………………………………. 24 2.3 Mäori as an ergative language……………………………………….. 26 2.3.1 Frequency and “basicness”……………………………….. 28 2.3.2 Imperatives……………………………………………….. 28 2.3.3 Raising……………………………………………………. 29 2.3.4 ko-clefting………………………………………………… 29 2.3.5 Relative clauses…………………………………………... 31 2.3.6 The preposition i…………………………………………. 33 2.3.7 Pronominalisation and definiteness………………………. 34 2.4 Accounting for the –Cia suffix………………………………………. 36 2.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 42 Chapter 3: The Split-Ergative Hypothesis………………………………. 43 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 43 3.2 Morphological split-ergativity……………………………………….. 46 3.2.1 The Transitivity Hypothesis (Hopper & Thompson 1980).. 47 3.2.2 The Transitivity Hypothesis and Mäori………………….. 48 3.2.2.1 Participants………………………………………. 48 3.2.2.2 Aspect…………………………………………….. 50 3.2.2.3 Affectedness of O………………………………… 53 3.2.2.4 Punctuality and dynamism………………………… 56 3.2.2.5 Individuation of O………………………………… 58 3.2.2.6 Accounting for pattern II………………………….. 59 3.2.3 Split-ergativity in main clauses – conclusion……………… 62 3.3 Syntactic split-ergativity and the Inverse Grammatical Relations Hypothesis……………………………………………………….. 62 3.3.1 Argument structure……………………………………….. 67 3.3.1.1 Control……………………………………………. 68 3.3.1.2 Binding……………………………………………. 70 3.3.1.3 Imperative addressee……………………………… 70 3.3.2 Grammatical Relations Structure…………………………. 73 3.3.2.1 Topicalisation……………………………………… 75 3.3.2.2 Question formation………………………………… 79 3.3.2.3 Relative clauses……………………………………. 82 3.3.2.4 Quantifier float…………………………………….. 86 3.3.2.5 Raising with negatives…………………………….. 87 3.3.2.6 Raising with completion complement clauses…….. 89 3.3.2.7 Specificity and definiteness……………………….. 93 3.4 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 101 Chapter 4: Mäori in its Proto-Polynesian context……………………… 104 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….. 104 4.1.1 Background……………………………………………….. 104 4.2 The accusative analysis…………………………………………… 106 4.3 The ergative analysis……………………………………………… 109 4.4 Mäori: from ergative to split-ergative…………………………….. 113 4.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 115 Chapter 5: Conclusion……………………………………………………….. 116 References………………………………………………………………………… 120 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………… 130 1 Abstract The so-called passive in Mäori has been the topic of a long-standing debate in the linguistics literature. Its frequency, especially in past tense narratives, makes this construction an atypical passive. It has been suggested that the passive in Mäori is used with perfective (Clark 1973) and dynamic (Bauer 1997) events, and when the clause contains an affected direct object (Chung 1978). This thesis finds that all of these suggestions are correct, but, rather than a passive construction, it is ergative, so that Mäori has split-ergativity. As predicted under the Transitivity Hypothesis (Hopper & Thompson 1980), the most transitive clauses in Mäori have ergative marking, and less transitive clauses are accusatively marked. Transitivity is understood as a property of an entire clause, involving a number of factors, and the most important features of transitivity in Mäori are PARTICIPANTS, AFFECTEDNESS OF O, ASPECT and PUNCTUALITY. Clauses that are low in transitivity are uniformly accusative, in both their morphology and syntax. However, highly transitive clauses, which we expect to follow ergative alignment, have some evidence of syntactic accusativity. This mixed behaviour follows directly from the Inverse Grammatical Relations Hypothesis (Manning 1996). Manning claims syntactic constructions like control, binding and imperative addressee are accusatively aligned in all languages, because they are restricted at argument structure. Languages can only be ergative at the level of grammatical relations, where syntactic processes such as relative clauses, question formation and topicalisation are restricted. It then follows that ergativity is only present in Mäori at gr-structure in the most highly transitive clauses. We also look at Mäori from a diachronic perspective, and see that it differs from its Eastern Polynesian sisters, which are all accusative. Mäori is different because the extension of the imperfective pattern did not spread to all transitive clauses, thus preventing a reanalysis of imperfective clauses as active. 2 Abbreviations 1,2,3 first, second, third IND indicative mood person INFIN infinitive ABL ablative case INTENS intensifier ABS absolutive case INTR intransitive ending ACC accusative case MASC masculine AGT agent NEG negative AV active voice NOM nominative case CAUS causative prefix OBL oblique case CAUSE cause marker PART partitive case CLS clause marker PASS passive voice COMP complement marker PERS person marker DAT dative case PL plural DEF definite article POSS possessive marker DIST distant from speaker PRON pronominal copy DL dual Q question word DO direct object SBJ subjunctive mood ERG ergative case SING singular FEM feminine TAM tense/aspect/mood marker* GEN genitive case TOP topic marker IMP imperative mood TRANS transitive INCL inclusive voc vocative marker * Following Bauer (1997) I gloss all tense, aspect and mood markers as TAM. Where it is relevant to the discussion, the particular tense, aspect or mood will be made clear in the text. 3 1 Introduction This thesis is an attempt to resolve the long-standing debate in the linguistic literature on the passive in Mäori (Churchward 1928, Williams 1928, Hale 1968, Hohepa 1969, Sinclair 1976, Chung 1977 and others). I will propose that Mäori is a split-ergative language; what has been called “passive” is, in fact, ergative case marking, and the “active” is the accusative construction. The split in Mäori is based on the transitivity of a clause, so that more highly transitive clauses are ergative, and accusativity occurs in less transitive clauses. It is traditionally assumed that Mäori is an accusative language with an active- passive contrast. Under this view, sentences such as (1) represent the basic active type, and sentences such as (2) are a derived passive. (1) ka inu te tangata i te wai TAM drink the man DO the water ‘the man drinks the water’ (2) ka inumia e te tangata te wai TAM drink.Cia AGT the man the water ‘the water is drunk by the man’ (Clark 1976: 67) It is, however, often noted that the passive in Mäori is unusually frequent, especially in past tense narratives (e.g., Clark 1976: 68). The frequency of the passive in Mäori, and its odd use, has led some linguists to suggest that Mäori is an ergative language (e.g., Sinclair 1976). Under this view, sentences such as (1) represent an antipassive construction, while sentences such as (2) represent the basic active construction. Both the accusative and the ergative hypotheses can account, to some extent, for the behaviour of this construction, but both analyses are also problematic. Under the accusative hypothesis, Mäori has an odd and frequent passive, and under the ergative hypothesis, the basic clause type is the more morphologically complex one. As a solution, I propose that Mäori has both ergative and accusative constructions, and is a split-ergative language. Clauses that are called passive under the accusative hypothesis are, in fact, ergative under the split-ergative hypothesis. 4 Split-ergativity in Mäori is based on the transitivity of the clause, as predicted by the Transitivity Hypothesis (Hopper and Thompson 1980). The most transitive clauses are ergative, and less transitive clauses are accusatively marked. “Transitivity” involves a variety of factors, and it is understood as a property of an entire clause. I suggest that the factors that cause high transitivity in Mäori are: the number of participants in a clause, the aspect of a clause, the affectedness of the direct object and the dynamism (as opposed to the stativity) of a clause. One or more of these features is always present in an ergative clause. Clauses that are low in transitivity features are uniformly accusative, both in their morphology and their syntax. In highly transitive clauses, where we predict ergative alignment, Mäori has some accusative alignment. I argue that this mixed behaviour follows naturally from the Inverse Grammatical Relations Hypothesis (Manning 1996). According to Manning’s theory of ergativity, some syntactic constructions, like control, binding and imperative addressee, are universally accusative, because they

Load more