DOCSLIB.ORG

External Possession and the Undisentanglability of Syntax and Semantics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
External Possession and the Undisentanglability of Syntax and Semantics External Possession and the Undisentanglability of Syntax and Semantics Luke What is language? (Page 1) The Intuitive View of Language Well, languages are made of sound. And language has meaning. So language is ‘sound with meaning.’ (Aristotle) Saussure’s signifinnt (sound) and signifi (meaning) !ut language is far more than that""" In fact, most of linguistics is the study of the traits of language apart from meaning and sound per se# S!nta$ Phonolog! # Sound and meaning # Phonology # Syntax # $ormal semantics # Mor&hology %dramati&ation' Can I have an orange? inguistics ' the study of the lower iceberg Linguistics generally is the study of what makes us diferent from other apes. )If we want to study the lower iceberg, we ha+e to hold the upper iceberg onstant,- (An assum"tion of Stru tural and .enerati+e Linguisti s,) Traditional Generative Linguistics )techni/ues which enable 0linguists] 0...1 to determine the state and structure of natural languages winthount seminntic reference- (2homsky 1953) )I think that we are for ed to onclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning.” (Chomsky 1957: 17) )*s&ects” Theory of (rammar ,-./01 (from Searle 1368) The Theoretical Problem S!ntax precedes semantics… (Interpreti+e) Primi ficie, shouldn’t the linguistic s!stem know the semantics of a sentence it makes9 Additionall!, the s!nta tic engine has to rule out semanticall! anomalous sentences. Selectional features and Subcat $rames *the *o! ela"sed. ela"se 0;, re/uires 0<tem"oral1 =P1 Why do this when semanti s will alread! >?:?9 an anomalous senten e9 If s!nta$ "re edes semanti s, there is alwa!s redundincy. )021alling 0@tumor1 or 0@"rawn1 synnticntic feintures "arallel to 0@transiti+e1 or 0@"lural1 re*els against an! traditional notion of synta$.- (Aarris 1335B 183) The Em&irical Problem Semanti s conditions nearly every s!nta tic "henomenon. Cnergati+es vs. una cusati+es vP H!"othesis - agent θDrole is uni+ersal and identi al Cniform θDrole Assignment H!"othesis (CFAA) Syntactic structure = semantic (?) Adjecti+e orderings are stable across languages (Scott 8HH2). DETERMINER > ORDINAL NUMBER > CARDINAL NUMBER > SUBJECTIVE COMMENT > ?EVIDENTIAL > SIZE > LENGTH > HEIGHT > SPEED > ? DEPTH > WIDTH > WEIGHT > TEMPERATURE > ?WETNESS > AGE > SHAPE > COLOR > NATIONALITY/ORIGIN > MATERIAL > COMPOUND ELEMENT > NOUN Languages show ibsoluntely sntible orderings of fun tional heads and ad+erbs. (Cinque 1999) Ourmese SanioDAiowe 2hinese Fau!a .aro Cna Kachin Nareba Patami Wahgi Fshangla =a-Mene Aleut 2anela-2raho 2entral Alaskan Miegueño Lala!alam Irench C*ykh Kammu Italian Lezgian Fhai Jnglish Arabi Lala! Spanish Lofu-.udur Kwaio Welsh Magaare Ponapean Greek Iula Kiribatese Aindi Gungbe AneGom Iinnish Isekiri Samoan Aungarian Kako Fokelau J+enki Kom Oig =ambas Korean Lakaa Walmadjari Furkish Sotho =gi!ambaa Abkha& Noruba Iore Len!a # Aidatsa, Ika, La ushi, Que hua, Ute, Waorani, Oer*ice Dut h Creole, .u!anese Creole, Aaitian 2reole, Louisiana 2reole, Nd!uka, Nigerian Pidgin, Se!chelles Creole, Sierra Leone Krio, Sranan, Oas/ue, 2oahuilte o, Runi… (Let’s just sa! ill of nthem for now…) Fhe more we understand human s!nta$, the deeper are the onnections we see between s!ntax and semantics, Prediction: S!nta$ and semanti s and undisenntinglible in the human linguisti s!stem. If s!ntax and semanti s are fundamentally linked or e+en identi al at the core of language, we should expect seminnticilly similar alternations to show similar s!ntacti constraints. What we4re going to fnd: J$ternal Possession is a semanti alternation that "rodu es some s!nta tic ‘glitches’ in di(erent languages. Interesting thing is that these glitches are highly uniform. Why should this be the case if s!ntax and semanti s are se"arate s!stems9 Oh and be ske"ti al, External Possession/Spanish 10- ‘I washed the child’s face.’ #La+é la ara del niño. Le la+é la ara al niño. Lit. ‘I washed the fa e to the bo!.’ External Possession External Possession (EP) onstru tions onsist in the possessor of an argument being ‘promoted’ into full argumenthood. 0la ara del niño] U one +er*al argument 0la ara1 0al niño] → two +erbal arguments !asic Syntactic Traits Externali&ed possessors an mo+e and fun tion independentl!7 Era 0al niPo] que le la+T 0la ara] nt. (JP) :9Jra del niño que la+T la ara nt. (IP) 8orean Mar!Dga 0John-uy dari-reul] chatda. (IP) Mar!D=SL John-.J= leg-A22 kicked ‘Mary kicked John’s leg.’ Mar!Dga 0John-eul1 0dari-reul] chatda. (JP) Mar!D=SL John-A22 leg-A22 kicked ‘Mary kicked John’s leg.’ or ‘...Vohn in the leg’ *9ectedness condition JP?IP are nont free +ariants, JP entails "ossessor ifecntedness! Lar!Dga VohnDeul eogurDeul ttaer!eotda (JP) Lar!D=SL VohnDA22 fa eDA22 hit ‘Lar! hit Vohn’s fa e.’ :Lar!Dga VohnDeul eogurDeul saranghaetda. (JP) Lar!D=SL VohnDA22 fa eDA22 lo+ed puntintively7 ‘Lar! lo+ed John’s fa e.’ :iferent interpretations of EP/IP: Le abrieron el estómago a Oill!. (JP) ‘Fhey opened Oilly’s stomach.’ (Ae was emotionally and ph!sically afected.) Abrieron el estómago de Bill!. (IP) ‘Fhey opened Oilly’s stomach.’ (Ma!*e he was dead or unconscious.) Same Afectedness (Pomo) 0ha!u yačuʔ ʔu!-nam] mo ː w xa*e-wih baneh (IP) dog OBL e!eDMJF he ro k-I=SF hit ‘Ae hit the dog’s e!e with a ro k (ma!*e he’s okay…)’ 0ha!u yačul] moː w $a*eDwih [ ʔ uy] baneh (JP) dog A22 he ro kDINSF e!e hit ‘Ae hit the dog’s e!e w/ a ro k (and now the dog can’t see)’ EP in ;oun Incorporation (Guaraní1 A-joheiDta "e-mitY ro+a. (IP) 1A2-washDICF thatDchild fa e ‘I’ll wash that child’s fa e.’ A-ho+aDheiDta "e-mitY. (JP) 1A2Dfa e-washDICF thatDchild ‘I’ll wash that child’s mouth.’ (lit: fa e) *gain, same semantics… (afectedness) *A-ho+a-heiDse pe-mitY, 1-faceDwash-DJS thatDchild pero i-s! he’i nda-i-ky’a-i ha. but mom sa! =J.D5Ddirt!D=J. that ‘I washed the child’s fa e but his mother said it wasn’t dirt!.’ ?kayA %remember to *reath> So these alterations ha+e similar seminntics. But the! also ha+e these same weird s!ntactic glitches, EP cannot occur from agentsA Mar!-u! dari-ga John-eul chatda. (IP) Mar!D.J= leg-=SL JohnDA22 kicked ‘Mary’s leg kicked John.’ :Lar!Dga dari-ga John-eul chatda. (JP) Mar!D=SL leg-=SL JohnDA22 kicked puntintively7 ‘Lary’s leg kicked John.’ !ut it4s not because of subBecthoodA Mar!Dga dari-ga bureojida. (una usati+e) Mar!D=SL leg-=SL broke ‘Mary’s leg *roke.’ :Lar!Dga ip-i malhaetda. (unergati+e) Mar!D=SL mouth-=SL spoke puntintively7 ‘Lary’s mouth spoke.’ *nd Spanish> Se le rompió el *ra&o a Bill!. (una usati+e) ‘Oilly’s arm broke.’ *(Se) le habló la boca a Bill!. (unergati+e) puntintively7 ‘Billy’s mouth spoke.’ Same in Hebrew… ha-kele+ ne’elamleDRina. (Borer [ Grod&insky 13\]) theDdog disappeared to-Rina ‘Rina’s dog disappeared.’ (una usati+e) *ha-kele+ hitrocec leDRina. theDdog ran-around to-Rina puntintively7 ‘Rina’s dog ran around.’ (unergati+e) *nd (erman> Mer Arm ist mir eingeschlafen. (LeeDSchoenfeld 2006) ‘Ly arm fell asleep.’ :Mer Hund ist Lena herumgelaufen. (LeeDSchoenfeld 8HH6) ‘Lena’s dog ran around.’ DToken syntax treeE Er ruinierte mir die Wohnung. )Ae ruined m! pla e.” (JP) mir an raise from a patient, *ut not fall from an agent, (;lees h 2006) *djectival Modifcation Fhe possessa of EP2s cannot *e modifed by nonD restri ti+e adGe ti+es, :Je lui ai la+T les che+eux blonds. (GuTron 13\]) puntintively: ‘I washed his *lond hair.’ :Le la+T la bella ara al niPo. (i*id.) puntintively: ‘I washed the boy’s beautiful fa e.’ *djectival Modifcation 9John-i Mar!-reul yey&&un son-eul cha"atda. (O’Grad! 1991) John-N Mar!DA beautiful hand-A held puntintively: ‘John held Mary’s beautiful hand.’ :haDrofe *adak l-o ‘et haDroʃ ha'&acu’a the-doctor e$amined to-him A22 the-head the-wounded puntintively: ‘Fhe do tor e$amined his wounded head.’ (Siloni 2HH8) *djectival Modifcation *CheDresa-tuichaDse. (;elasque&D2astillo 133]) 1I=De!eDbig-;SL ‘I want to ha+e big e!es.’ Meep s!ntactic similarity with noun incorporation? T F:G Ior more information: Smith (forthcoming) Agentivity limitation *Adje ti+al modifcation Sh and a lot of other things7 Distributed pluralit! Jl médi o les e$aminW la garganta?:las gargantas. Anaphoric diferences Pragmatics et . So what do we see in External Possession? Diferent semanti s _ diferent s!nta$ 2onsisten ! Why should two segmented s!stems afect each other in such predictable wa!s9 This isn4t only true of EPA Mati+e alternation onstructions obe! the same onstraints across languages, (Jnglish, Spanish, Mutch, Korean) Pragmatics of passi+es/topic/focus The Problem! Which omes frst9 ➢s!ntax ' semantics (inter"reti+e semantics) ➢semantics ' s!ntax (generati+e semantics) *syntax > semantics %aforementioned theoretical "roblems> Why should all of these s!ntactic onstraints in language hippen to *e onditioned *y semantic changes9 *semantics > syntax .enerati+e semantics7 formal logic → transformations → language Why are some logical statements unsa!able9 Semantic holes in languageA :Ve lui ai la+T les che+eux blonds. ✓ wash(I, his hair) ✓ wash(I, his hair) & blond(his hair) ✓wash(I, his hair) & afected(him) *wash(I, his hair) & *lond(his hair) & afected(him) Semantic holes in languageA Mar!Dga John-eul dari-reul chatda.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English
    Running head: ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 1 Animacy and Alienability A Reconsideration of English Possession Jaimee Jones A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Jaeshil Kim, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Paul Müller, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Jeffrey Ritchey, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 3 Abstract Current scholarship on English possessive constructions, the s-genitive and the of- construction, largely ignores the possessive relationships inherent in certain English compound nouns. Scholars agree that, in general, an animate possessor predicts the s- genitive while an inanimate possessor predicts the of-construction. However, the current literature rarely discusses noun compounds, such as the table leg, which also express possessive relationships. However, pragmatically and syntactically, a compound cannot be considered as a true possessive construction. Thus, this paper will examine why some compounds still display possessive semantics epiphenomenally. The noun compounds that imply possession seem to exhibit relationships prototypical of inalienable possession such as body part, part whole, and spatial relationships. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the possessor and possessum in the compound construction is reminiscent of inalienable possession in other languages. Therefore, this paper proposes that inalienability, a phenomenon not thought to be relevant in English, actually imbues noun compounds whose components exhibit an inalienable relationship with possessive semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns
    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Inalienable Possession in Swedish and Danish – a Diachronic Perspective 27
    FOLIA SCANDINAVICA VOL. 23 POZNAŃ 20 17 DOI: 10.1515/fsp - 2017 - 000 5 INALIENABLE POSSESSI ON IN SWEDISH AND DANISH – A DIACHRONIC PERSP ECTIVE 1 A LICJA P IOTROWSKA D OMINIKA S KRZYPEK Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań A BSTRACT . In this paper we discuss the alienability splits in two Mainland Scandinavian language s, Swedish and Danish, in a diachronic context. Although it is not universally acknowledged that such splits exist in modern Scandinavian languages, many nouns typically included in inalienable structures such as kinship terms, body part nouns and nouns de scribing culturally important items show different behaviour from those considered alienable. The differences involve the use of (reflexive) possessive pronouns vs. the definite article, which differentiates the Scandinavian languages from e.g. English. As the definite article is a relatively new arrival in the Scandinavian languages, we look at when the modern pattern could have evolved by a close examination of possessive structures with potential inalienables in Old Swedish and Old Danish. Our results re veal that to begin with, inalienables are usually bare nouns and come to be marked with the definite article in the course of its grammaticalization. 1. INTRODUCTION One of the striking differences between the North Germanic languages Swedish and Danish on the one hand and English on the other is the possibility to use definite forms of nouns without a realized possessive in inalienable possession constructions. Consider the following examples: 1 The work on this paper was funded by the grant Diachrony of article systems in Scandi - navian languages , UMO - 2015/19/B/HS2/00143, from the National Science Centre, Poland.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific'
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2021 Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific Bugaeva, Anna ; Nichols, Johanna ; Bickel, Balthasar Abstract: Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/i- nalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum, and has only one class of alienables. The Japanese language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper givesa first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding pre- vious coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2079 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-204338 Journal Article Published Version The following work is licensed under a Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions University of Georgia1
    The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions 1 2 VERA LEE-SCHOENFELD , GABRIELE DIEWALD University of Georgia1; Leibniz Universität Hannover2 1 The Phenomenon and Previous Syntactic/Pragmatic Analyses The prototypical inalienable possession construction in German has a dative (DAT)-marked external possessor: (0) Bello hat mir die Hand geleckt. Bello has me.DAT the hand licked ‘Bello licked my hand.’ This is an instance of external possession because the understood possessor of the body part, the possessum, is expressed outside of the nominal phrase containing the possessum, showing up as 1 an object pronoun (mir ‘me.DAT) in the verbal argument domain. Notice that the literal translation of the dative does not work in English. This is because English generally prefers internal possessors and thus makes use of the possessive pronoun my rather than the object pronoun me in examples like (0) (see e.g. Haspelmath 2001, König and Gast 2012). In German inalienable possession constructions with a PP-embedded possessum, there is considerable variation between the prototypical possessor dative construction and four others, so that there are a total of five different construction types: external possession with a dative- marked possessor (1a), external possession with an accusative (ACC)-marked possessor (1b), internal possession, with a genitive (GEN)-marked possessor (2), and doubly-marked possession, with both external and internal possessor, where the external possessor is again either dative- marked (3a) or accusative-marked (3b).2 (1) a. Bello hat mir in die Hand gebissen. Bello has me.DAT in the hand bitten ‘Bello bit me in the hand.’ b.
    [Show full text]
  • A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-05-28 Projecting possessors: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya Gebregziabher, Keffyalew Gebregziabher, K. (2013). Projecting possessors: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27453 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/741 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Projecting possessors: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya By Keffyalew Gebregziabher A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS CALGARY, ALBERTA May 2013 © Keffyalew Gebregziabher 2013 Abstract In this dissertation, I examine the grammatical expression of possession in Tigrinya, a lesser-studied Semitic language of Ethiopia and Eritrea. I show that possession in Tigrinya is encoded by two strategies, which differ in both structure and function: (i) PREDICATIONAL STRATEGY has the particle nay and is used for alienable possession; (ii) ARGUMENTAL STRATEGY or BARE POSSESSION has no nay and is used for inalienable possession. To account for such differences, I propose different treatments for both types of possession.
    [Show full text]
  • Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific
    Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific Anna Bugaeva1,2, Johanna Nichols3,4,5, and Balthasar Bickel6 1 Tokyo University of Science, 2 National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo, 3 University of California, Berkeley, 4 University of Helsinki, 5 Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 6 University of Zü rich Abstract: Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/inalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum and has only one class of alienables. The language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper gives a first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding previous coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms. Keywords: Pacific Rim, Circum-Pacific, Ainu, possessive, appositive, classifier Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Genericity and Definiteness in English and Spanish*
    Learning definite determiners: genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish* Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux1, Alan Munn2, Cristina Schmitt2, Michelle DeIrish1 University of Toronto1 and Michigan State University2 1. Introduction Languages are characterized by an intricate system of form-to-sense correspondences. In the vocabulary part of the mental lexicon, researchers believe that children solve part of the mapping problem by making use of the linguistic context in which lexical items appear (Gillette et al. 1999). A more complex variant of this problem is the problem of mapping form to sense in the functional subdomain of the mental lexicon, where the problem of polysemy is often complicated by complex grammatical constraints. We are particularly interested in the crosslinguistic comparison of the acquisition of functional elements such as the definite determiner, which can have comparable syntactic distributions across languages, but map into overlapping but non-identical semantic spaces. This paper is part of ongoing work (Pérez-Leroux, Munn and Schmitt, 2003, Pérez-Leroux, Munn and Schmitt, in press) examining the development of the acquisition of the definite determiner in contexts where a) the definite does not have its canonical use/interpretation of referring to a unique and specific discourse-identified entity; and b) there is cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic variation in the distribution of non-canonical uses. We present here two studies examining the effect of the determiner and tense on children’s generic interpretations in English and Spanish. 2. Linguistic background The syntactic literature has identified a series of differences on the syntax/semantic mappings of noun phrases across languages, even in situations where languages share comparable morphosyntactic inventory of determiners and number, as is the case of the Romance and the Germanic languages (Chierchia 1998, Longobardi 1994, 2001, Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Inalienable Possession in Amele a Role and Reference Grammar Account
    DigitalResources Electronic Working Paper 2015-002 Inalienable Possession in Amele A Role and Reference Grammar Account John R. Roberts Inalienable Possession in Amele A Role and Reference Grammar Account John R. Roberts SIL International® 2015 SIL Electronic Working Papers 2015-002, January 2015 © 2015 SIL International® All rights reserved Abstract In this paper the forms and functions of the Amele inalienably possessed noun system are examined. It is shown that semantically, inalienably possessed nouns can be categorised as kinship terms, body part terms or personal attributes. The kinship terms also express an anthropological distinction between those terms which refer to the family of orientation and those which refer to the family of procreation. The inalienably possessed noun system is analysed in terms of the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) model. RRG has a semantic representation independent of the syntactic representation and the operation of the inalienably possessed noun system can be better accounted for with reference to the semantic representation rather than the syntactic representation. Contents Abstract Abbreviations 1 Introduction 2 Alienable possession 3 Inalienable possession 3.1 Agreement within the inalienable possession RP 3.2 Inalienable possession paradigms 3.3 An account of the morphology 4 Reflexive possession 5 Derivations involving inalienably possessed forms 6 Inalienably possessed forms and impersonal verb constructions 7 The possessable and unpossessable 8 Conclusion References iii Abbreviations ADJ adjective
    [Show full text]
  • DIFFERENTIAL MARKING in KINANDE MONICA ALEXANDRINA IRIMIA & PATRICIA SCHNEIDER-ZIOGA (Unimore) & (CSU, Fullerton)
    CSUF LINGUISTICS COLLOQIUM Irimia & Schneider-Zioga Fullerton, Oct 16, 2020 DIFFERENTIAL MARKING IN KINANDE MONICA ALEXANDRINA IRIMIA & PATRICIA SCHNEIDER-ZIOGA (UniMoRe) & (CSU, Fullerton) GOALS - present previously undiscussed contexts of differential dependent marking in Kinande - explore an account which places differential marking in the syntax 1. BACKGROUND • differential marking: splits in the morpho-syntactic encoding of arguments regulated by features such as animacy, definiteness, specificity, topicality, etc. (Silverstein 1976, Aissen 2003, López 2012, a.o.) • a typical example: animacy-based differential object marking (DOM) in Spanish (López 2012, Ormazabal and Romero 2013, a.o.), via a locative preposition (1) DOM IN SPANISH – ANIMACY [DEPENDENT MARKING] a. He encontrado *(a) la niña. have.1S found DAT/LOC=DOM1 DEF.F.SG girl ‘I have found the girl.’ b. He encontrado (*a) el libro. have.1S found DAT/LOC=DOM DEF.M.SG book ‘I have found the book.’ • another typical example: animacy & specificity based DOM in Swahili (Bantu; Riedel 2009: 42, 46—cited in Downing 2018, adapted here), via ‘object agreement’ (2) DOM IN SWAHILI – ANIMACY (HUMANS) & DEFINITENESS [HEAD MARKING] a. Ni-li-mw-ona mwana-we. 1S-PST-1OM-see 1child-POSS.3S ‘I saw his child.’ b. *Ni-li-ona mwana-we 1S-PST-see 1child-POSS.3S c. Ni-li-(zi)-ona picha hizo. 1S-PST-(10OM)-see 10picture those ‘I saw those pictures.’ 1 Abbreviations: ACC = accusative, AFF = affirmative, ANIM = animate, APPL = applied, ASSOC = associative, CL = clitic, DEF = definite, DIR = directional, DOM = differential object marking, F = feminine, FV = final vowel, LK = linker, LOC = locative, M = masculine, N = neuter, NOM = nominative, OM = object marker, PL = plural, PASS = passive, POSS = possessive, PST = past, REV = reversive, SG = singular, TAM = tense-aspect-mood, TRANS = transitivizer, 1s = first person, 3s = third person, 1 =class one, 2 = class two, 3 = class three, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on Possessive Constructions in Palikur (Arawak, Brazil)1
    Some Notes on Possessive Constructions in Palikur (Arawak, Brazil)1 Simoni M. B. Valadares University of New Mexico, USA Universidade Federal do Amapá, Brazil 1. Introduction This study presents a preliminary survey and an analysis of possessive constructions in the Palikur language. “Possession” is taken as a universal concept due to the fact that languages usually show conventionalized ways to express it (Heine 1997). The category of possession can be manifested in languages in different ways, reflecting a wide variety of construction types. It also shows a range of senses that are not restricted solely to possession or ownership. This study presents a semantic and morphosyntactic analysis of some possessive constructions observed in Palikur (Arawák), focusing in particular on: (i) the semantic distinction between alienable and inalienable possession, expressed morphologically with the presence or absence of suffixes relating to alienability; (ii) possessive constructions with certain type of verbs, with the attached prefixes ka- and ma-, respectively, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ attributive; and (iii) constructions with the postpositions -dahan ‘to’ and -kak ‘with’, showing types of relationships such as ‘benefactive’, ‘means’, and ‘comitative’. The data for this presentation is drawn mainly from my fieldwork2 undertaken among the Palikur communities living in the Urucawá river, in the Oiapoque Basin, in the Uaçá Indigenous Land, Oiapoque, Amapá State, Brazil. Other sources consulted were Launey (2003), Aikhenvald and Green (1998), Green and Green (1972). The language is spoken by approximately 1,000 people in Brazil. This language is also spoken in French Guyana. The aim of this paper is threefold. First, it aims to describe the range of constructions that encode the relationship of possession in the Palikur language, that is, constructions having possession as a generic or umbrella label (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Case and Affectedness in German Inalienable Possession Constructions*
    Case and Affectedness in German Inalienable Possession Constructions* VERA LEE-SCHOENFELD University of Georgia [email protected] Abstract: The possessor in German inalienable possession constructions can be an accusative or dative-marked nominal, as in Der Junge hat ihn/ihm in die Nase gebissen 'The boy bit him (ACC/DAT) into the nose' (see also Wegener 1985, Draye 1996, and Lamiroy and Delbecque 1998). Not all participating verbs allow this case optionality. Some require accusative, others seem to require dative when modified by one kind of PP but take accusative when modified by another kind of PP. This paper argues that the option of having a possessor dative, an instance of 'external possession,' depends on the possibility of using the verb intransitively, with a Goal PP indicating the endpoint of a directed motion. 0. Introduction: A Data Puzzle As previously noted by Wegener (1985), Draye (1996), and Lamiroy and Delbecque (1998), the possessor of a PP-embedded body part in German inalienable possession constructions can be an accusative or dative-marked nominal. The data in (1-4) illustrate the seemingly random distribu- tion of accusative and dative case.1 (1) Der Junge hat ihn/ihm in die Nase gebissen. the boy has him-ACC/DAT in the nose bitten 'The boy bit him in the nose.' (2) Das Kind hat sie/ihr in den Unterleib getreten. the child has her-ACC/DAT in the abdomen kicked 'The child kicked her in the abdomen.' (3) Der Mann hat sie/?*ihr auf den Mund geküsst. ? the man has her-ACC/ *DAT on the mouth kissed 'The man kissed her on the mouth.' *A number of people have made significant contributions to this research.
    [Show full text]