Upload
della-franklin
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
4/20/2007Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec 3 Case Assignment in Tlapanec head-marking case is assigned only to animate arguments (no distinctions between trans. vs. intrans., but A(I) vs. AA (and AAA, not mentioned here) ) four distinct classes of case markers (= 4 cases) feature: highly vs. lowly affecting portmanteau morphemes: case + person
Citation preview
Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
Andreas OpitzLeipzig University
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
2
Tlapanec shows some unusual behavior regarding the case assignment to its arguments. (Wichmann, to app.).
The analysis provided here helps to explain this unusual behavior of case and case markers by: a competition of typologically motivated markedness
constraints (OT) (Smolensky, 1995; Aissen, 1999) a sub-analysis of case markers (DM) (Noyer, 1992;
Trommer, 1999)
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
3
Case Assignment in Tlapanec head-marking case is assigned only to animate arguments
(no distinctions between trans. vs. intrans., but A(I) vs. AA (and AAA, not mentioned here))
four distinct classes of case markers (= 4 cases)
feature: highly vs. lowly affecting portmanteau morphemes: case + person
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
4
mono-personal verbs (A): (A) (intrans.):
Absolutive (high affectedness) ‘s/he is alone’ Dative (low affectedness?): ‘s/he is nude’)
(A,I) (trans.): (Absolutive (‘non-actor’, high affectedness) ) Pegative (‘source’ ‘weak actor’, low affectedness) ‘x is seeing
something’ Dativ (‘non-actor’, low affectedness) ‘s/he wants something’ Ergativ (‘actor’, high affectedness) ‘s/he is burning something’
di-personal verbs (AA) (A,A):
Dative (low affectedness) Absolutive (high affectedness)
(A,A3sgl): Absolutive (high affectedness)
(A,A3sgl): Pegative (low affectedness)
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
5
Case Assignment in Tlapanec
general rules of case assignment in Tlapanec:1. case is assigned only to animate arguments2. maximally one argument is marked with case3. if there is no (anim.) object, the subject is marked4. otherwise the (anim.) object is marked5. if the object is animate, 3rd singular and the verb is
‘lowly affecting’, the subject is marked
If an animate and inanimate argument is involved, the animate must always rank higher on the hierarchy actor>undergoer>theme. “Thus, an expression like ‘the hammer killed the man’ is impossible.” Wichmann (to app.)
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
6
Macro Role
Affectedness
Actor Undergoer
High Ergative Absolutive
Low Pegative* Dative
Wichmann, 2006:
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
7
Ergative Pegative Dative Absolutive
Sg 1 Ø –u / -o –uʔ ~ -oʔ –ũʔ
2 Ø -a / -I -aʔ -ãʔ / -ĩʔ
3 Ø –u / -o –u / -o -i
Pl 1i Ø -a / -i -aʔ -ãʔ
1x Ø -a / -i -aʔ -ãʔ
2 Ø -a / -i -aʔ -ãʔ
3 Ø -a / -i –ũ - ĩ
Case Markers in Tlapanec
‘unusual behavior’ of case markers:
• zero-marked ergative
• marked absolutive
• pegative
note: ‘/’ and ~ stand for phonologically driven alternations
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
8
The idea behind the analysis Syntax > Impov (OT) > morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl[..Ob..]
V Cl[…] [..Su..] [/a/ /b/ /c/]
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
9
Hypothesis: There are only two functionally distinct cases, that split each into
two different instances due to the factor of affectedness: Pegative is - in fact - the same as ergative but with the feature “low” (or
without the feature “high”) Dative is absolutive with the feature “low”
The two cases mark external arguments (“subject”) on the one hand and internal arguments (“object”) on the other.
(From an A/AA-perspective Tlapanec shows active case alignment.) The “missing” marker for the actor of highly affecting verbs (“zero-
ergative marking”) can be explained by a competition of markedness constraints. (Smolensky, 1995; Aissen, 1999)
The morphonological more complex marker of the absolutive (the normally “unmarked” case) results from an additional coding of markedness, namely ‘animate object’ and ‘high affecting’.
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
10
2. Impoverishment of the morpho-syntactical context
All constraints emerge from prominence scales and harmonic alignment.
(Silverstein, 1976; Prince and Smolensky, 1993; Aissen, 1999, 2003)
scales involved in Tlapanec case marking: gram. relation:su > ob person: local > 3 affectedness: high > low animacy: animate > inanimate
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
11
Harmonic Alignment These three scales interact all together
simultaneously, thus it becomes necessary to extend the notion of harmonic alignment.
I suggest a hierarchy of scales:1. gram. relation: su > ob2. person: local > 33. affectedness: high > low4. animacy: an. > inan.
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
12
Harmonic Alignment In a first step, the highest ranking scales are harmonically
aligned. Alignment of gram. function and person:
scales: Su > Ob local > 3
harmonic alignment: Su/local Su/3≻ Ob/3 Ob/local≻
constraint alignment: *Su/3 *Su/Local≫ *Ob/Local *Ob/3≫
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
13
Harmonic AlignmentIn a second step, the output of the first harmonic alignment is
taken as a base for harmonic alignment with the next feature of the hierarchy:
Alignment of output1 and affectedness: Scales (input):
Su/Local Su/3≻ Ob/3 Ob/Local≻High > low High > low
Harmonic Alignment:Su/Local/high Su/Local/low≻ Ob/3/High Ob/3/low≻Su/3/low Su/3/high≻ Ob/Local/low Ob/Local/high≻
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
14
Harmonic Alignment
Alignment of output2 and animacy: Scales (input):
Su/Local/high Su/Local/low≻ Su/3/low Su/3/high≻Ob/3/High Ob/3/low≻Ob/Local/low Ob/Local/high≻
anim. > inanim.
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
15
Harmonic Alignments:Su/Local/high/an Su/Local/high/in≻Su/Local/low/in Su/Local/low/an≻Su/3/low/an Su/3/low/in≻Su/3/high/in Su/3/high/an≻Ob/3/High/an Ob/3/High/in≻Ob/3/low/in Ob/3/low/an≻Ob/Local/low/an Ob/Local/low/in ≻Ob/Local/high/in Ob/Local/high/an ≻
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
16
Constraint Alignments:*Su/Local/high/in ≫ *Su/Local/high/an *Su/Local/low/an ≫ *Su/Local/low/in *Su/3/low/in ≫ *Su/3/low/an *Su/3/high/an ≫ *Su/3/high/in *Ob/3/High/in ≫ *Ob/3/High/an *Ob/3/low/an ≫ *Ob/3/low/in *Ob/Local/low/in ≫ *Ob/Local/low/an*Ob/Local/high/an ≫ *Ob/Local/high/in
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
17
Constraint Alignments:{*Su/3/high/an *Su/Local/high/an } ‘*Su/high/’{*Su/Local/low/an *Su/3/low/an } ‘*Su/low/’
*Ob/3/High/an ‘*Ob/3/high’*Ob/3/low/an ‘*Ob/3/low’
Note that these (here abbreviated) constraints, although derived via harmonic alignment, are not ordered. In contrast the ‘real’ *Su/high and *Su/low are: *Su/low >> *Su/high !(These constraint are also part of the constraint hierarchy, but they are supposed to be ordered low enough, thus they don’t interfere the derivation.)
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
18
decomposition of “subject” vs. “object”, and “high” vs. “low” into combinations of binary features (Jakobson, 1962; Bierwisch, 1965; Wunderlich, 1997):
subject: {+su -ob} (=external argument) object: {-su +ob} (=internal argument) high: {+ high} low: {-high}
central assumption:
If one set of features (= one argument) violates a constraint, the whole set of features (argument) is deleted. (as it is supposed for instance by Wunderlich (2004); and in contrast to Aissen (1999)).
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
19
Su, Ob, high
{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob +high}
Uniq *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low
Ø **!
{+su –ob +high} *! *
{-su +ob +high} *
{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob +high}
*! *
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
20
Su, Ob, low
{+su –ob -high}{-su +ob -high}
Uniq *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low
Ø **!
{+su –ob -high} * *!
{-su +ob -high} *
{+su –ob -high}{-su +ob -high}
*! *
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
21
Su, Ob3, high
{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob 3 +high}
Uniq *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low
Ø **!
{+su –ob +high} *! *
{-su +ob 3 +high} * *
{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob 3 +high}
*! *
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
22
Su, Ob 3, low
{+su –ob -high}{-su +ob 3 -high}
Uniq *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low
Ø **!
{+su –ob -high} * *
{-su +ob 3 -high} *! *
{+su –ob -high}{-su+ob 3 -high}
*! * *
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
23
Su, high
{+su –ob +high} *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low
Ø *
{+su –ob high} *!
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
24
Su, low
{+su –ob -high} *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low
Ø *!
{+su –ob -high} *
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
25
output candidates for all possible inputs:
Input Output{+su –ob} {+high} Ø
{+su –ob} {-high} {+su –ob -high} = S
{+su –ob} {-su +ob} {+high} {-su +ob +high} = O
{+su –ob} {-su +ob} {-high} {-su +ob -high} = O
{+su –ob} {-su +ob 3} {+high} {-su +ob 3 +high} = O
{+su –ob} {-su +ob 3} {-high} {+su –ob -high} = S
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
26
The optimization process introduced in the last chapter leads to an impoverished morpho-syntactical context.
In a next step, this context is the base for the concrete morphonological realization of the case markers.
This second step of the analysis is carried out within the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993).
Concept of Fission by Noyer (1992)
3. Insertion of Markers (Distributed Morphology)
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
27
Ergative Pegative Dative Absolutive
Sg 1 Ø –u –uʔ –ũʔ
2 Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ
3 Ø –u –u -i
Pl 1i Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ
1x Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ
2 Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ
3 Ø -a –ũ - ĩ
inventory of markers without phonologically driven alternations
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
28
Ø {+sub -ob} {-high}
{-sub +ob} {-high}
{-sub +ob} {+high}
-pl +1-2 Ø –u –u -ʔ –u [+nasal] -ʔ-1+2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ-1-2 Ø –u –u -i
+pl +1-2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ
+1+2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ
-1+2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ
-1-2 Ø -a –ũ - ĩ
inventory of markers labeled with binary features
and output of case assignment and sub-analyzed markers
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
29
Vocabulary Items: /ũ/ ↔ [cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, +pl] / ĩ / ↔ [cl, -subj, +high (/) -1,-2,
+pl] /i/ ↔ [cl, -subj, +high (/) -1,-2, -pl] /u/ ↔ [cl, -2, -pl] /a/ ↔ [cl] /Ø/ ↔ [+object] /(-1,-2) /[nasal]/ ↔ [+high] /-ʔ/ ↔ [+object]
ordering is derived by the specificity condition and a feature hierarchy [cl] > [± ob] [± high] …
Trommer (1999)
30
Vocabulary Items: /ũ/ ↔ [cl, -su, -high -1,-2, +pl] /ĩ/ ↔ [cl, -su, +high -1,-2, +pl] /i/ ↔ [cl, -su +high -1,-2, -pl] /u/ ↔ [cl, -2, -pl] /a/ ↔ [cl]
/Ø/ ↔ [+ob] /(-1,-2) /[nasal]/ ↔ [+high] /-ʔ/ ↔ [+ob] (animate!)
Ø {+sub -ob} {-high}
{-sub +ob} {-high}
{-sub +ob} {+high}
-pl +1-2 Ø u u ʔ ũ ʔ
-1+2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ
-1-2 Ø u u *[+ob] -i *[+ob]
+pl +1-2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ
+1+2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ
-1+2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ
-1-2 Ø a –ũ[*+ob] -ĩ [*+ob]
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
31
Conclusion The complex forms of case markers in Tlapanec
emerge by the marking of: ‘bearing case’ (i.e. the vowel /a/ or /u/)and the additional marking of markedness mark (animate!) objects by /-ʔ/ mark high affectedness by nasalization
The zero-marked ergative and other general patterns of case alignment in Tlapanec emerge from: markedness constraints derived by (multiple) harmonic
alignment of prominence scales.
4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec
32
References Aissen, Judith (1999). Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673-711. Bierwisch, Manfred (1967): Syntactic Features in Morphology: General Problems of So-Called Pronominal Inection in German. In:
To Honour Roman Jakobson. Mouton, The Hague/Paris, pp. 239-270. Frampton, John (2002): Syncretism, Impoverishment, and the Structure of Person Features. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistics
Society Meeting, vol. 38, eds M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha & K. Yoshimura, 207- 222. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz (1993): Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Infection. In: K. Hale & S. Keyser, eds., The View
from Building 20. MIT Press, pp. 111{176. Jakobson, Roman (1962): Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In: Selected Writings.
Vol. 2, Mouton, The Hague and Paris, pp. 23-71. Noyer, Rolf (1992): Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky (2004): Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell. (Original
version from 1993). Smolensky, Paul. (1995): On the Internal Structure of Con, the Constraint Component of UG. Ms., Johns Hopkins University. Silverstein, Michael (1976): Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: R. M. W. Dixon, ed., Grammatical Categories in Australian
Languages. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Stiebels, Barbara (2002): Typologie des Argumentlinkings. Ökonomie und Expressivität, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Stump, Gregory (2001): Inectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Trommer, Jochen (1999): Morphology Consuming Syntax' Resources. In: Procceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource
Logics and Minimalist Grammars. University of Nijmegen. Wichman, Søren (to app.): Case relations in a head-marking language: verb-marked cases in Tlapanec. In: Malchukov, Andrej and
Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiese, Bernd (1994): Die Personal- und Numerusendungen der deutschen Verbformen. In: K.-M. Köpcke, ed., Funktionale
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 161-191. Wiese, Bernd (1999): Unterspezifzierte Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination, Linguistik Online4. (
www.linguistikonline.de/ 3 99) Wunderlich, Dieter (1996): Minimalist Morphology: The Role of Paradigms. In: G. Booij & J. van Marle, eds., Yearbook of
Morphology 1995. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 93-114. Wunderlich, Dieter (1997): Cause and the Structure of Verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 27:27-68. Wunderlich, Dieter (2004): Is There Any Need for the Concept of Directional Syncretism?. In: G. Müller, L. Gunkel & G. Zifonun,
eds., Explorations in Nominal Inection. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 373-395.