How to Be Inclusive Overt Coding

Home , Argument (linguistics), Clusivity, Feature (linguistics), Markedness, Privative adjective

Beata Moskal

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number How to be inclusive Overt coding

Conclusion Beata Moskal [email protected]

10 September 2020

CamCoS 9

1 / 62 Beata Moskal Suppletion

Introduction Suppletion • Attested adjectival suppletion patterns in comparative Clusivity morphology (Bobaljik 2012): Number

Overt coding (1) positive comparative superlative

Conclusion long longer longest AAA good better best ABB bonus melior optimus ABC

• Unattested adjectival suppletion patterns in comparative morphology (Bobaljik 2012):

(2) positive comparative superlative good better goodest ABA good gooder best AAB

• Based on 73 distinct adjectival cognate triples.

2 / 62 Beata Moskal Suppletion

Introduction Suppletion • Attested adjectival suppletion patterns in comparative Clusivity morphology (Bobaljik 2012): Number

Overt coding (3) positive comparative superlative

Conclusion long longer longest AAA good better best ABB bonus melior optimus ABC

• Unattested adjectival suppletion patterns in comparative morphology (Bobaljik 2012):

(4) positive comparative superlative good better goodest ABA good gooder best AAB

• Based on 73 distinct adjectival cognate triples.

3 / 62 Beata Moskal Case

Introduction • Similarly, in case-driven pronominal suppletion, we found no Suppletion ABA patterns (Smith et al. 2019). Clusivity • Number The relevant triple is composed of unmarked case (nom, abs), dependent case ( ) and oblique case (e.g. ). Overt coding acc, erg dat

Conclusion • AAA (Lezgian) abs erg dat ade ine 1sg zun za zaz zaw za • ABB (Icelandic) nom acc dat 2pl θiD ykkur ykkur • ABC (Khinalugh) abs erg dat 1.sg z1 j¨a as(1r) • AAB (Wardaman) abs erg dat 3pl narnaj-bulu narnaj-bulu-yi wurrugu • Based on over 160 languages.

4 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity

Introduction • Clusivity: captures the difference whether the addressee(s) are Suppletion included or excluded from the set of referents which also contains the Clusivity speaker (Cysouw 2003, Filimonova 2005, Siewierska & Bakker 2005). Number (5) Inclusive: 1+2(+3) Overt coding Exclusive: 1+3 Conclusion • Attested clusivity suppletion in free pronouns (Moskal 2014, 2018): 1sg 1excl 1incl ju juNo jude AAA Ayiwo (Smith 2011) yau gim git ABB Ura (Smith 2011) yé,yi má,ma kúé,ko ABC Dan (Smith 2011) bi bu mit AAB Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997) • (so far) unattested suppletion in free pronouns (except in maybe 1 data point): 1sg 1excl 1incl bi mit bu ABA • Based on 226 languages. 5 / 62 Beata Moskal Number

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • Attested number suppletion patterns in free pronouns (Smith

Number et al. 2019):

Overt coding sg pl du

Conclusion 1 iñché iñchiñ iñchiu AAA Mapuche (Smeets 2008) 1 iau gim giur ABB Sursurunga (Harbour 2014) 2 nrü wiri kou ABC Tiri (Smith 2011) • However, we see an apparent ABA pattern in the following lexical nouns (Smith et al. 2019):

sg pl du w`uuti momoyam w`uutit ‘woman’ Hopi (Smeets 2008) vo’vou tulav vo’voul ‘boy’ Lavukaleve (Terrill 2003) panmal payum panmalcrm ‘man’ Yimas (Foley 1991)

• Based on 52+ distinct cognate triples.

6 / 62 Beata Moskal Major claims

Introduction Suppletion is a tool not only for revealing structure (Bobaljik Suppletion 2012), but also markedness relations; Clusivity

Number Clusivity-driven suppletion supports the hypothesis that the inclusive is more marked than the exclusive (Noyer 1992, Overt coding Siewierska 2004, Cysouw 2003, LaPolla 2005, a.o.); Conclusion Clusivity-driven suppletion shows another case of *ABA (Moskal 2014, 2018); Number-driven suppletion unexpectedly shows ABA, reanalysed in (Smith et al. 2019) as AAB due to a markedness-reversal; No markedness-reversal is observed in clusivity-driven suppletion supporting binary number features (allowing for markedness- reversal), but privative person features (no markedness-reversal); Overt coding correlates to markedness within a feature: [+F] or [-F] can be (un)marked, but [F] cannot; Evidence from suppletion is in opposition to (some) evidence from overt coding with regard to clusivity.

7 / 62 Beata Moskal Overview

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity 1 Introduction Number

Overt coding 2 Suppletion Conclusion

3 Clusivity

4 Number

5 Overt coding

6 Conclusion

8 / 62 Beata Moskal Suppletion

Introduction • Adjectival suppletion patterns (Bobaljik 2012): Suppletion Clusivity Number AAA, ABB, ABC AAB, ABA Overt coding Conclusion • Case-driven pronominal suppletion (Smith et al. 2019): AAA, ABB, ABC, AAB ABA

• Clusivity-driven pronominal suppletion (Moskal 2018): AAA, ABB, ABC, AAB ABA

• Number-driven pronominal suppletion (Smith et al. 2019): AAA, ABB, AAB, ABC, ABA!?

9 / 62 Beata Moskal Suppletion as a structure detector

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • ABA is ruled out if we assume (i) the containment Number hypothesis, and (ii) late insertion (Bobaljik 2012). Overt coding

Conclusion • The containment hypothesis: The superlative always properly contains the comparative.

• s • *s

a c sprl sprl

a cmpr adj

adj

10 / 62 Beata Moskal Suppletion as a structure detector (Bobaljik 2012)

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity

Number • Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993). Overt coding • Late insertion: Morphology converts syntactic structure Conclusion into phonological material (Vocabulary Insertion, VI). • Crucially, phonological substance is provided post-syntactically, and occurs cyclically starting from the most deeply embedded element (Bobaljik 2000). • Suppletion is modelled as contextual allomorphy: a feature (set) has a context-free default exponent, but in a more speciﬁc exponent takes precedence in the relevant context, per the Elsewhere Principle (Kiparsky 1973).

11 / 62 Beata Moskal Suppletion as a structure detector (Bobaljik 2012)

Introduction Suppletion • s • *ABA: Given precedence of the Clusivity most speciﬁc VI-rule and the Number c sprl containment hypothesis, if the Overt coding comparative suppletes, then the Conclusion a cmpr superlative must do so too.

adj

√ • AAA • long ⇔ long √ • ABB • good ⇔ be(tt) / ] cmpr ] √ • good ⇔ good √ • ABC • good ⇔ opt / ] cmpr ] sprl ]1 √ • good ⇔ mel / ] cmpr ] √ • good ⇔ bon

1Simpliﬁed; see Bobaljik (2012) for details. 12 / 62 Beata Moskal Overview

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity 1 Introduction Number

Overt coding 2 Suppletion Conclusion

3 Clusivity

4 Number

5 Overt coding

6 Conclusion

13 / 62 Beata Moskal (A)symmetry in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • Morphological marking of inclusive and exclusive person is Overt coding relatively frequent cross-linguistically (Cysouw 2003, Conclusion Filimonova 2005). • Either form can be morphologically marked: • Itzaj Maya (Hoﬂing 2000) 1excl (in-)to’on 1incl (in-)to’one’ex • Limbu (van Driem 1987) 1excl anige 1incl ani

14 / 62 Beata Moskal (A)symmetry in clusivity

Introduction Suppletion • However, 1incl has been argued to be a marked category Clusivity (Noyer 1992, Siewierska 2004, Cysouw 2003, LaPolla Number 2005, a.o.) Overt coding • Conclusion E.g. languages can have a special pronoun for 1incl, but 1excl and 1sg are syncretic (Cysouw 2005): • Canela-Krahˆo(Popjes & Popjes 1986) 1sg wa 1excl wa 1incl cu • In contrast, there do not seem cases of 1incl and 1sg being syncretic with a separate pronoun for 1excl.2 • The relevant clusivity triple should then be seen as 1sg-1excl-1incl (I will return to this later).

2Bar one example from Binandere; see Cysouw (2005). 15 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity-driven suppletion: AAA

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity Ayiwo (Smith 2011): Number Overt coding (6) Conclusion sg pl du 1 ju 1excl juNo juNole 1incl jude judele 2 jumu jumi jumile 3 ina judy judyle

• No suppletion in the context of either the exclusive or the inclusive: AAA.

16 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity-driven suppletion: ABB

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity Ura (Smith 2011): Number Overt coding (7) Conclusion sg pl 1 yau 1excl gim 1incl git 2 ga Nimi 3 iyi leil

• Suppletion in the context of the exclusive and the inclusive, but the two share their base: ABB.

17 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity-driven suppletion: ABC

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity Dan (Smith 2011): Number Overt coding (8) Conclusion sg pl 1 yé,yi 1excl má,ma 1incl kúé,ko 2 bá,bi ká,ka 3 wà,wo yà,yø

• Suppletion in the context of both the exclusive and the inclusive: ABC.

18 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity-driven suppletion: AAB

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997) Number Overt coding (9) Conclusion sg pl 1 bi 1excl bu 1incl mit 2 si su 3 nungan nungartyn

• Suppletion in the context of only the inclusive, whilst the exclusive and 1sg share their base: AAB.

19 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity-driven suppletion

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • Attested clusivity suppletion patterns in free pronouns: Number Overt coding (10) Conclusion 1sg 1excl 1incl ju juNo jude AAA Ayiwo (Smith 2011) yau gim git ABB Ura (Smith 2011) yé,yi má,ma kúé,ko ABC Dan (Smith 2011) bi bu mit AAB Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997)

• *ABA, where 1excl suppletes with respect to 1sg but 1incl does not. • Three (types of) counterexamples to *ABA are discussed below.

20 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • Consider the representations for person below (McGinnis 2005, Number Bobaljik 2008; see also Harley & Ritter 2002, Cysouw 2003, Overt coding Nevins 2007, Harbour 2011, a.o.): Conclusion notational privative 1+2 [speaker, hearer] 1+2+3 1 [speaker] 1+3 2 [hearer] 2+3 3 [ ] (unspeciﬁed) • 1incl is more marked than 1excl, given that the features of the exclusive are contained within those of the inclusive.

21 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • Taking into account number, this leads to the following Number representations for ﬁrst and second person pronouns which Overt coding make a clusivity distinction: Conclusion (11) 1sg [speaker, +singular] 1excl [speaker, -singular] 1incl [speaker, hearer, -singular] 2sg [hearer, +singular] 2pl [hearer, -singular]

• Assuming that (morphologically) [+singular] is unmarked (Bale et al. 2011), this results in the following markedness hierarchy for ﬁrst person pronouns: 1sg < 1excl < 1incl.

22 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion • According to Calabrese (1995, 2005), phonological processes

Clusivity can be sensitive to all values, marked values or contrastive

Number values of a feature (see Nevins (2007) for an extension of this

Overt coding idea to morphology). Conclusion • In earlier work, I use this insight to explain the clusivity-driven suppletion patterns: either marked features can govern suppletion, or both unmarked and marked features can govern suppletion, but unmarked features alone cannot (Moskal 2014).

• Suppletion for both 1incl and 1excl (ABB, ABC): all features can govern suppletion, both (unmarked) exclusive and (marked) inclusive. • Suppletion for only 1incl (AAB): only marked features can govern suppletion, (marked) inclusive. • Suppletion for only 1excl (ABA): unattested, since this requires only unmarked features to be able to govern suppletion.

23 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • Here, the observation that suppletion can pick out marked Number features only, or both marked and unmarked features is derived Overt coding through (featural) containment: there simply is no way for a Conclusion rule to pick out only an unmarked feature when the marked feature properly contains the marked value.

• Exclusive • Inclusive:

[-sg] D π [-sg] D π [speaker] [speaker] [hearer]

24 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • AAA: Ayiwo (Smith 2011) Overt coding 1sg 1excl 1incl Conclusion ju juNo jude

• • [speaker, hearer, -sg] ⇔ -de • [speaker, -sg] ⇔ -No [-sg] • D ⇔ ju D π

[speaker] [hearer]

25 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • ABB: Ura (Smith 2011) Overt coding 1sg 1excl 1incl Conclusion yau gim git

• • [speaker] ⇔ gi / ] -sg ] • [-sg] ⇔ -t / ] hearer ] [-sg] • [speaker] ⇔ yau D π • [-sg] ⇔ -m

[speaker] [hearer]

26 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • ABC: Dan (Smith 2011) Overt coding 1sg 1excl 1incl Conclusion yé,yi má,ma kúé,ko

• • [speaker, hearer, -sg] ⇔ kúé,ko • [speaker, -sg] ⇔ má,ma [-sg]• [speaker] ⇔ yé,yi D π

[speaker] [hearer]

27 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • AAB: Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997) Overt coding 1sg 1excl 1incl Conclusion bi bu mit

• • [speaker, hearer, -sg] ⇔ mit • [speaker] ⇔ b [-sg] • [-sg] ⇔ -u D π • [+sg] ⇔ -i

[speaker] [hearer]

28 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in clusivity

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • *ABA: Evenki-B

Number 1sg 1excl 1incl bi mit bu Overt coding

Conclusion • • [speaker, -sg] ⇔ mit • [speaker] ⇔ b [-sg] • [+sg] ⇔ -i D π

[speaker] [hearer]

• =⇒ 1sg 1excl 1incl bi mit mit

29 / 62 Beata Moskal

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity

Number

Overt coding Conclusion Apparent counter-examples to *ABA

30 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction Suppletion • Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007) sg pl Clusivity seems to show an ABA pat- 1 ji

Number tern, where 1sg and 1incl 1excl isi

Overt coding share ji to the exclusion of 1incl chiji : Conclusion 1excl 2 chi chipen • Inclusive: a compound pronoun transparently composed of a morpheme for hearer (chi) and a morpheme for speaker (ji). • • [speaker] ⇔ isi / ] -sg ] • [speaker] ⇔ ji [-sg] • [hearer] ⇔ chi D π • [-sg] ⇔ -pen

[speaker] [hearer] 0 [-sg] ∅ / ] sp,hr ] • The impoverishment rule nulliﬁes the containment relation and 1sg-1excl-1incl no longer constitutes a relevant triple in DN.

31 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction Suppletion • Tok Pisin pronouns: Clusivity Number sg pl du tr Overt coding 1 mi Conclusion 1excl mi-pela mi-tu-pela mi-tri-pela 1incl yu-mi / yu-mi-tu-pela yu-mi-tri-pela yu-mi-pela 2 yu yu-pela yu-tu-pela yu-tri-pela 3 em ol tu-pela tri-pela • According to (Verhaar 1995, 72), 1incl yumipela is non-existent, but according to (Smith 2002, 83) 1incl yumipela “occurs from time to time”. • Prediction: In compound pronoun languages without an impoverishment such as in Dolakha Newar, 1sg-1excl-1incl triples are subject to containment and should obey *ABA.

32 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • Macush´ı(Abbott 1991) also show an ABA pattern, where 1sg Number and 1incl share a base to the exclusion of 1excl: Overt coding Conclusion sg pl du 1 uurˆı 1excl anna anna 1incl uurˆı’kon uurˆınˆıkon 2 amˆırˆı amˆırˆı’nˆıkon 3prox mˆıserˆı insemoro 3med mˆıˆıkˆırˆı inkamoro • This anna form has clear cognates in various Cariban languages (Meira 2002) (and thus constitutes a single data point).

33 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction • Reasons to be suspicious whether anna is a true pronoun: Suppletion • Unlike the other 1 and 2 pronouns, it appears only as a Clusivity free form, without an aﬃxal variant; Number • It does not seem to control plural agreement on the verb Overt coding in Carib languages (Meira 2002). Conclusion • E.g., in Waiwai, the verb contains a collective (plural) suﬃx -cow, when there is a plural argument present, a second plural object in (12) or a third person plural subject in (13).

(12) K-en-cow so yuruma 1+2o-see-coll+tp coll duck ‘The duck saw us(.incl).’ (13) Tooto komo nˆı-wˆınn-tˆıka-cow people coll 3s-sleep-compl-tp+coll ‘All the people went to sleep.’

34 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • In contrast, amna does not control plural (collective)

Number agreement on verbs, appearing only with singular marking

Overt coding (Hawkins 1998).

Conclusion (14) Pahxaxa amna ø-c-e-sˆı tomorrow 1+3PRO 3s-go-sf-inp ‘Tomorrow we(.excl) will go.’

• As such, I speculate that anna has a different structure than the other pronouns in Carib languages, which has a dual effect: • it prevents the anna from reducing into an afixal form (cf. Cardinaletti & Starke 1999); and • its phi-information is inaccessible to agreement.

35 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction

Suppletion • A ﬁnal case of a surface ABA pattern is found in Mangarayi

Clusivity (Merlan 1989), which is a minimal-augmented-unit-augmented

Number system. Following Harbour (2016) (for number), the features

Overt coding for such a system are as follows:

Conclusion 1excl.min [speaker, +minimal] 1excl.augm [speaker, -minimal] 1excl.uaugm [speaker, +minimal, -minimal] 1incl.min [speaker, hearer, +minimal] 1incl.augm [speaker, hearer, -minimal] 1incl.uaugm [speaker, hearer, +minimal, -minimal] 2min [hearer, +minimal] 2augm [hearer, -minimal] 2uaugm [hearer, +minimal, -minimal] • Thus, if [+minimal] is unmarked (cf. [+sg]), the relevant triple here is 1excl.min-1excl.augm-1incl.augm.3

3Here, I put aside the role of the 1.incl.min, which is a superset of the 1.excl.min. 36 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction

Suppletion • The Mangarayi data shows that and Clusivity 1excl.min 1incl.augm share a base Na to the exclusion of 1excl.augm, which has a Number base Ni: an ABA pattern. Overt coding Conclusion Minimal Augmented Unit-augmented 1excl Naya Ni.la Nir 1incl Ni Na.la Nar 2 ˜naNgi n.ul.a n.ur • However, the problem runs deeper than the person containment structure: the real issue is that neither the forms that take Na nor the forms that take Ni as their base form a natural class. • Informally, the puzzle is that the Na/Ni distinction tracks neither the vertical axis (person: clusivity) nor the horizontal axes (number: minimal, augmented, unit-augmented).

37 / 62 Beata Moskal ABA?

Introduction • Mangarayi ﬁrst person pronouns that take Na as their base Suppletion

Clusivity notational form features

Number 1excl.min Naya [speaker, +minimal]

Overt coding 1incl.augm Nal.a [speaker, hearer, -minimal] Nar [speaker, hearer, +minimal, -minimal] Conclusion 1incl.uaugm • Mangarayi ﬁrst person pronouns that take Ni as their base notational form features 1excl.augm Nil.a [speaker, -minimal] 1excl.uaugm Nir [speaker, +minimal, -minimal] 1incl.min Ni [speaker, hearer, +minimal] • Crucially, neither the Na-pronouns, nor the Ni-pronouns have a feature in common, other than [speaker], which however is part of both groups. • Consequently, it is not possible at this stage to determine the relevant feature(s) responsible for the irregularity in this pronominal paradigm.

38 / 62 Beata Moskal Overview

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity 1 Introduction Number

Overt coding 2 Suppletion Conclusion

3 Clusivity

4 Number

5 Overt coding

6 Conclusion

39 / 62 Beata Moskal Number-driven suppletion

Introduction Suppletion • Number-driven pronominal suppletion (Smith et al. 2019): Clusivity

Number

Overt coding AAA, ABB, AAB, ABC, ABA!?

Conclusion • In Smith et al. (2019), in order to test the containment hypothesis, we needed a three-way number distinction: singular, plural and dual. • Markedness statements, such as Universal 34, lead to a markedness hierarchy in (15). • Universal 34 (Greenberg 1963, Corbett 2000): No language has a dual unless it has a plural.

(15) Markedness hierarchy for number: sg < pl < du

40 / 62 Beata Moskal Number-driven suppletion

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • Attested number suppletion patterns in free pronouns (Smith Number et al. 2019): Overt coding sg pl du Conclusion 1 iñché iñchiñ iñchiu AAA Mapuche (Smeets 2008) 1 iau gim giur ABB Sursurunga (Harbour 2014) 2 nrü wiri kou ABC Tiri (Smith 2011) • However, we see an apparent ABA pattern in the following lexical nouns (Smith et al. 2019):

sg pl du wùuti momoyam wùutit ‘woman’ Hopi (Smeets 2008) vo’vou tulav vo’voul ‘boy’ Lavukaleve (Terrill 2003) panmal payum panmalcrm ‘man’ Yimas (Foley 1991) ˇclóvek ljudje ˇclóveka ‘person’ Slovenian (Corbett 2007)

41 / 62 Beata Moskal Number-driven suppletion

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • However, number seems to be the only category in which there Overt coding is an apparent ABA suppletion pattern. Conclusion • Suppletion data from adjectives, (pronominal) clusivity and (pronominal) case supports *ABA. • Recall that *ABA in adjectives and (pronominal) clusivity was derived through containment: the impossibility of having a VI-rule refer to the comparative without also applying to the superlative, or the impossibility of having a VI-rule refer to [speaker] without also applying to the [speaker, hearer]. (the same holds for (pronominal) case)

42 / 62 Beata Moskal Number-driven suppletion

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • The representation of singular, dual and plural according to

Number Harbour (2014): Overt coding • singular = [+singular, -augmented] Conclusion • dual = [-singular, -augmented] • plural = [-singular, +augmented]

• There is no containment relations in these representations, and, as such, ABA becomes a possible suppletive pattern. • Lavukaleve (Terrill 2003) • sg pl du vo’vou tulav vo’voul ‘boy’ √ • √boy ⇔ tula / ] +augm ] boy ⇔ vo’vou

43 / 62 Beata Moskal Number-driven suppletion

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity • However, as we note in Smith et al. (2019), this now leads to an

Number overgeneration problem: Why did we not ﬁnd any instances of

Overt coding dual-only or plural-only suppletion in pronouns? Conclusion • We argue that, in the context of [-singular], there is cross- linguistic variation as to which value of [±augmented] is marked. • Following the idea explored in Moskal (2014) that either marked features, or both unmarked and marked features can govern suppletion (cf. Calabrese 1995, 2005), but crucially that unmarked features alone cannot, we see that:

• If [+augm] is marked, then it alone can cause suppletion; the markedness hierarchy is: sg < du < pl. • If [-augm] is marked, then it alone can cause suppletion; the markedness hierarchy is: sg < pl < du.

44 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness in number

Introduction Suppletion • As such, the apparent ABA patterns reﬂect the markedness Clusivity hierarchy sg < pl < du; Number

Overt coding • Consequently, it is actually an AAB pattern.

Conclusion (16) sg du pl wùuti wùutit momoyam ‘woman’ Hopi vo’vou vo’voul tulav ‘boy’ Lavukaleve panmal panmalcrm payum ‘man’ Yimas ˇclóvek ˇclóveka ljudje ‘person’ Slovenian

• Number-driven pronominal suppletion (Smith et al. 2019): AAA, ABB, AAB, ABC ABA!

45 / 62 Beata Moskal Markedness

Introduction

Suppletion • In number, the markedness reversal involving Clusivity

Number [±augmented], in the context of [-singular], is possible

Overt coding since there are two values: [+augmented] and

Conclusion [-augmented]. • In contrast, in clusivity, a markedness reversal is impossible, since there is only a privative feature [hearer] involved, and a ‘reversal’ would require the literal absence of a feature. • Thus, based on markedness reversals observed in number-driven suppletion and the absence of such markedness reversals in clusivity-driven suppletion, I argue in favour of number features to be represented as binary, but person features to be presented as privative.

46 / 62 Beata Moskal Overview

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity 1 Introduction Number

Overt coding 2 Suppletion Conclusion

3 Clusivity

4 Number

5 Overt coding

6 Conclusion

47 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Smith et al. (2019)

Introduction • Suppletion How do we know which value is marked? Clusivity • When we look at transparent containment of aﬃxes (overt Number coding), we see both pl < du (Sursurunga) and du < pl Overt coding (Panytyima): Conclusion (17) Sursurunga (Harbour 2014) sg pl du pcl gr.pcl 1excl iau gim gi-ur gim-tul gim-hat 1incl git git-ar git-tul git-hat 2 i´au gam ga-ur gam-tul gam-hat

(18) Panytyima (Smith 2011) sg pl du 1excl Natha Naliya-kuru Naliya 1incl Nali-kuru Nali 2 njinta nhupalu-kuru nhupalu

48 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Smith et al. (2019)

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • In eﬀect, Smith et al. (2019) argue that markedness Number correlates with overt coding (see also Croft 2003). Overt coding • Conclusion If [+augm] is the marked value, then • [+augm] is overtly coded; and • [+augm] can serve as a context for suppletion; and • [-augm] is phonologically null; and • [-augm] cannot serve as a context for suppletion. • If [-augm] is the marked value, then • [-augm] is overtly coded; and • [-augm] can serve as a context for suppletion; and • [+augm] is phonologically null; and • [+augm] cannot serve as a context for suppletion.

49 / 62 Beata Moskal Hopi containment

Introduction

Suppletion • Clusivity In Hopi, containment supports the embedding where the

Number plural is built from the dual form. Overt coding • The dual is formed by suﬃxation of -m or -t. Conclusion • Plural is sometimes marked with the dual suﬃx and partial reduplication.

(19) Hopi sg du pl sino sino-t sino-m ‘person’ kawayo kawayo-t kawayo-m ‘horse’ mooro mooro-t moo-moro-t ‘donkey’ tsay tsaayo-m tsaa-tsayo-m ‘child’4 w`uuti w`uuti-t momoyam ‘woman’

4= ‘young.animate’ 50 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity

Number • If markedness correlates with (i) overt coding, and (ii) Overt coding suppletion, then we expect markedness reversals in Conclusion clusivity as well, since either form can be overtly coded: • Itzaj Maya • Limbu 1excl (in-)to’on 1excl anige 1incl (in-)to’one’ex 1incl ani • Given that I observed no markedness reversals, however, I suggest that overt coding tracks markedness if complexity or containment are uninformative.

51 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number • Overt coding tracks markedness within a single feature: Overt coding either [+F] or [-F] can be (un)marked, but this does not Conclusion apply to [F] itself. • In a binary feature [±singular] it can track either feature value as (un)marked, [+singular] or [-singular]; • In a privative feature [hearer], there is no markedness contrast since there is only one ‘value’. • If this is on the right track, markedness reversals would be indicative of binary features, whilst their absence would be suggestive of privative features.

52 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding

Introduction

Suppletion • The fact that languages either overtly code the inclusive or the exclusive poses another problem. Clusivity Number • Itzaj Maya Overt coding 1excl (in-)to’on Conclusion 1incl (in-)to’one’ex • A unique inclusive morpheme is the realisation of [hearer] in the context of [speaker]. • Limbu 1excl anige 1incl ani • A unique exclusive morpheme is more complicated, since the features of the exclusive ([speaker, -sg]) are a subset of those of the inclusive ([speaker, hearer,-sg]). • Problem: The exclusive can contain no morphemes that are not also present in the inclusive (see also Harbour 2016).

53 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Limbu

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity • Limbu pronouns: Number Overt coding sg pl du Conclusion 1 aNga 1excl anige anˇcige 1incl ani anˇci 2 khEnEP khEni khEnˇci 3.anim khunEP khENhaP khunˇci 3.unm khEN

• A binary feature for clusivity distinctions can readily account for a unique exclusive morpheme (Harbour 2016).

54 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Limbu

Introduction Suppletion • Focusing only on the singular and plural, Harbour’s features are Clusivity as follows: Number 1sg [+author, -participant, +atomic] Overt coding 1excl [+author, -participant, -atomic] Conclusion 1incl [+author, +participant, -atomic] 2sg [-author, +participant, +atomic] 2pl [-author, +participant, -atomic] 3sg [-author, -participant, +atomic] 3pl [-author, -participant, -atomic] • Crucially, the exclusive contains a feature, [-participant], that is not part of the inclusive. • In a binary approach to the clusivity distinction, the containment relations argued for here no longer hold: there is no subset-superset relation between the exclusive and inclusive. • I.e., the absence of ABA suppletion becomes a coincidence.

55 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Limbu

Introduction

Suppletion • Harbour’s analysis (binary

Clusivity clusivity):

Number sg pl • [+author] ⇔ an Overt coding 1 aNga Conclusion • [-part] ⇔ -ge 1excl anige 1incl ani • [-sg] ⇔ -i 2 khEnEP khEni 3.anim khunEP khENhaP 3.unm khEN Q1 Why does -ge ([-part]) not surface in 1sg? Q2 Why does -ge ([-part]) not surface in 3rd person? A1 Maybe it does, and -ga is a variant on -ge; or, -ge only is realised in the plural. A2 3rd person is contextually unspeciﬁed for [±participant]; or, -ge is only realised in the context of [+author].

56 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Limbu

Introduction

Suppletion • Alternative analysis

Clusivity (privative clusivity):

Number sg pl • [D] ⇔ an / ] spkr ] Overt coding 1 aNga • Conclusion 1excl anige [D] ⇔ khEn 1incl ani • [speaker] ⇔ -ge 2 khEnEP khEni • [-sg] ⇔ -i 3.anim khunEP khENhaP 3.unm khEN Q1 Why does -ge ([spkr]) not surface in 1sg? Q2 Why does -ge ([spkr]) not surface in 1incl? A1 Maybe it does, and -ga is a variant on -ge; or, -ge only is realised in the plural. A2 [spkr] is not realised in the inclusive due to a VI-rule in which [spkr] is null in the context of [hearer].

57 / 62 Beata Moskal Overt coding: Limbu

Introduction Suppletion • Both approaches face some problems with overt coding. Clusivity

Number Q1 Why does -ge ([-part]/[spkr]) not surface in 1sg? Overt coding Q2 Binary clusivity (Harbour): Why does -ge ([-part]) not surface Conclusion in 3rd person? Privative clusivity: Why does -ge ([spkr]) not surface in 1incl? • Binary clusivity (Harbour): a context-sensitive realisation in the context of ﬁrst person: • [-participant] ⇔ -ge / [+author] • [-participant] ⇔ ∅ • Privative clusivity: a context-sensitive null realisation in the context of [hearer] (eﬀectively, the inclusive): • [speaker] ⇔ ∅ / [hearer] • [speaker] ⇔ -ge

58 / 62 Beata Moskal Clusivity

Introduction Suppletion • When we compare the two approaches, we seem to be at a Clusivity bit of an impasse: Number • Overt coding favours a binary account. Overt coding • Suppletion favours a privative account. Conclusion • At this stage, an in-depth study is required of languages in which the exclusive is marked overtly. • Assuming a privative clusivity feature, the question is whether the exclusive marker can always be analysed as a realisation of [speaker]; • Assuming a binary clusivity feature (Harbour 2016), we can combine it with the insights of Smith et al. (2019), where markedness is correlated with overt coding: in languages in which the exclusive ([-part]) is overtly coded, we predict that the exclusive should be able to supplete alone, whereas the inclusive should not.

59 / 62 Beata Moskal Overview

Introduction

Suppletion Clusivity 1 Introduction Number

Overt coding 2 Suppletion Conclusion

3 Clusivity

4 Number

5 Overt coding

6 Conclusion

60 / 62 Beata Moskal Conclusion

Introduction Suppletion is a tool not only for revealing structure (Bobaljik Suppletion 2012), but also markedness relations; Clusivity

Number Clusivity-driven suppletion supports the hypothesis that the inclusive is more marked than the exclusive (Noyer 1992, Overt coding Siewierska 2004, Cysouw 2003, a.o.); Conclusion Clusivity-driven suppletion shows another case of *ABA (except perhaps in Mangarayi?); Number-driven suppletion unexpectedly shows ABA, reanalysed in (Smith et al. 2019) as AAB due to a markedness-reversal; No markedness-reversal is observed in clusivity-driven suppletion supporting binary number features (allowing for markedness-reversal), but privative person features (no markedness-reversal); Overt coding correlates to markedness within a feature: [+F] or [-F] can be (un)marked, but [F] cannot; Evidence from suppletion is in opposition to (some) evidence from overt coding with regard to clusivity. 61 / 62 Beata Moskal Thank you!

Introduction

Suppletion

Clusivity Number Thank you! Overt coding

Conclusion

62 / 62