Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir · Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir Sergey Say (Institute for linguistic studies, RAS) [email protected]. Workshop on Prominent

Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir

Sergey Say (Institute for linguistic studies, RAS)

[email protected]

Workshop on Prominent Internal Possessors September 22–23, 2016

SOAS, University of London

Introductory example and goals

2 2

! Bolat-təŋ kös-ö böt-öp eš-tän tuqta-nə B.-GEN strength-P.3 end-CV work-ABL stop-PST ‘Bulat got exhausted and stopped working.’ Lit.: ‘As Bulat’si strength finished, (hei) stopped working’

Research questions In which ways are the clause-combining strategies in

Bashkir sensitive to the same- vs. different-subject distinction?

Under what conditions can possessors trigger same-subject behaviour?

In what ways is this ability related to other properties of possessors in Bashkir?

Outline of the talk

1. The Bashkir language 2. The –p-converb 3. Other clause-combining strategies (overview) 4. Genitival possessors and constituency 5. Conclusions

Outline of the talk

1. The Bashkir language 1.1. The language 1.2. Data and methods 1.3. Possessive constructions in Bashkir 1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir 2. The converb in –p 3. Other clause-combining strategies (overview) 4. Genitival possessors and constituency 5. Discussion

1.1. The language

5 5

Bashkir < Kipchak < Turkic < “ALtaic” Closely related to and sometimes mixed with Tatar Spoken in the republic of Bashkortostan (< Russia) and

some neighboring regions in the Southern Urals Over one million (≈1 400 000) native speakers Most speakers are bilingual with Russian

6 6 http://joshuaproject.net

Raxmetovo

1.1. The language

1.1. The language

7 7

Typological profile flexible SOV consistently head-final phrases pro-drop, 3rd person pronouns are rare (coincide with

demonstrative pronouns) nominative-accusative (both flagging and indexing) 6 cases differential object marking: “marked” vs. “unmarked”

accusative subject-verb agreement (obligatory for 1st & 2nd person

subjects, optional for 3PL subjects)

1.1. The language

8 8

morphological marking is associated with specific syntactic configurations rather than with lexical specifications of individual words (≈ high part-of-speech flexibility in terms of Hengeveld [1992]) most morphological markers are phrasal in scope morphological markers are consistently phrase-final weak differentiation between nouns and adjectives so-called participles (e.g. PC.PST, -ɣan) can be used as adnominal modifiers (no further marking, as in adjectives) heads of complement clauses (marked as nominal objects) finite predicates (person agreement, similar to finite verbs)

Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication. Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series, 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

1.2. Data and methods

9 9

Fieldwork May 2016, St. Petersburg, two educated speakers from Ufa August 2016, the village of Raxmetovo, 10 different speakers

Mainly elicitation Translation from and to Russian Grammaticality judgments

Very limited use of natural texts «Machine fund of the Bashkir language» (sic!), corpus-like

collection of literary texts run by IHLL RAS, Ufa (http://mfbl2.ru)

Toolbox-based transcriptions of oral texts that were gathered in and around Raxmetovo in 2011-2015 (74 texts, 3,5 hours, 2000 sentences)

1.2. Data and methods

10 10

Grammaticality judgments are often mixed or indeterminate Throughout this paper grammaticality symbols reflect

averaged speakers’ judgments; 2-7 speakers per sentence symbol description: the sentence in question is… […] taken from a natural text, reference given in square brackets ! consistently judged grammatical by native speakers, at least one

speaker used this structure when translating from Russian OK was constructed by the investigator, but consistently judged

grammatical by native speakers OK? predominantly judged grammatical by native speakers, some doubts /

exceptions ? received mixed judgments and/or some awkwardness was reported ?? predominantly judged ungrammatical by native speakers, some

doubts / exceptions * consistently judged ungrammatical

1.3. Possessive constructions in Bashkir

11 11

1.3.1. Three types of “izafet” constructions 1.3.2. NP-structure: an overview 1.3.3. Genitival (= “izafet III”) NPs: basic facts 1.3.4. External possessors 1.3.5. Clause-level agreement

1.3.1. Three types of “Izafet” constructions

12 12

Label Example Structure

IC I timer köräk-te iron spade-ACC ‘iron spade (acc.)’

No marking

IC II tarix uqətəwsə-hə-n history teacher-P.3-ACC ‘teacher of history (acc.)’

Head-marking

IC III uqətəwsə-nəŋ ata-hə-n teacher-GEN father-P.3-ACC ‘the teacher’s father (acc.)’

Double marking

“Izafet” (sometimes “ezafe”) constructions in Turkic linguistics: constructions with nouns as modifiers in the NP

13 13

Label Example Function

IC I timer köräk-te iron spade-ACC ‘iron spade (acc.)’

Material, some lexicalized uses

IC II tarix uqətəwsə-hə-n history teacher-P.3-ACC ‘teacher of history (acc.)’

Other non-referential “possessors”: function, purpose, quality, etc.

IC III uqətəwsə-nəŋ ata-hə-n teacher-GEN father-P.3-ACC ‘the teacher’s father (acc.)’

Referential possessors, “anchors”: kinship, body-parts, legal ownership, etc.

1.3.1. Three types of “Izafet” constructions

Functions of “Izafet constructions” in Bashkir

In the focus today!

1.3.2. NP-structure: an overview

14 14

NPs are consistently head-final Morphosyntactic locus (e.g. case-marking) is always in the

rightmost position of the NP (1) ! Bolat [ike stakan eθe käzä höt-ö-n] es-te B. two glass hot goat milk-P.3-ACC drink-PST ‘Bulat drank two glasses of hot goat’s milk.’

Typically it is a noun, but can be otherwise head ellipsis, e.g. [red-DAT] ‘to the red one’ elective constructions, e.g.

(2) ! malaj-ðar-ðəŋ bötö-he-nä boy-PL-GEN all-P.3-DAT ‘to all of the boys’

15 15

Linear structure of the NP is relatively rigid:

GEN IC III

DEM INDEF

NUM Q

ADJ

N IC (II)

N (IC I) HEAD

(3) mineŋ I.GEN

ošo this

ike two

matur beautiful

ul-əm son-P.1SG

‘those two beautiful sons of mine’

(4)

eθe hot

käzä goat

höt-ö milk-P.3

‘hot goat milk’

1.3.2. NP-structure: an overview

Word order corresponds to e.g. Rijkhoff’s [2008] layers of the NP [Location [Quantity [Quality [Head ]]]

Rijkhoff, Jan. 1998. Order in the noun phrase in the languages of Europe. In: Siewierska, A. (ed.). 1998. Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-382.

1.3.3. Genitival (Izafet III) NPs: basic facts

16 16

The genitive is always in the leftmost position within the NP Very rarely in texts possessors are detached (afterthought?) (5) təw-ɣan kön-ö bul-də-mə äle Israfil-dəŋ? be.born-PC.PST day-P.3 be-PST-Q yet Israfil-GEN ≈ ‘His birthday has not yet passed, Israfil’s?’ [texts]

If there is a genitival nominal dependent, the head always bears a possessive suffix (the reverse is not true) There are some disturbances with 1st / 2nd person pronominal

possessors, not very relevant today


17 17

The genitival construction is used for a wide variety of possessive meanings legal ownership, part-whole, kinship, elective (e.g. ‘some of them’, ‘the best of the pupils’) etc.


18 18

Recursion [[[…]NP-GEN N]NP-GEN N]NP is possible and grammatically unlimited

(6) ! beð-ðeŋ mäktä-teŋ / mäktäb-ebeð-ðeŋ direktor-ə-nəŋ aɣa-hə we-GEN school-GEN school-P.1PL-GEN director-P.3-GEN brother-P.3 ‘our school’s director’s elder brother’ Notice optionality of possessive agreement with the 1st person

pronominal possessor

Stacking of possessors: mixed judgments, especially if there is a person clash

(7) mineŋ Öföneŋ OK?karta-hə-n / OK?karta-m-də hin kür-mä-ne-ŋ-me? I.GEN Ufa-GEN map-P.3-ACC / map-P.1SG-ACC thou see-NEG-PST-2SG-Q ‘Have not you seen my map of Ufa?’

For a detailed discussion of constituency, see Section 4.

1.3.4. External possessors

19 19

Possessive constructions apart from the three “izafet constructions” are used very rarely

The closest Bashkir gets to external possessor constructions: agentive verbs of contact possessor in a lexically subcategorized position body-part in a peripheral adjunct-like position

(8b) ! min [besäj-ðe] [arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back -P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’ These structures meet only a subset of the defining criteria of

external possessive constructions from [König 2001: 971] Cf. “possessor splitting” in [Podlesskaya & Rakhilina 1999]

König E. 2001. Internal and External Possessors. Haspelmath M. et al. (eds.). Language typology and language universals: an international handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin; New York. P. 370–379. Podlesskaya V. I., Rakhilina E. V. 1999. External Possession, Reflexivization and Body Parts in Russian. Payne D. L., Barshi I. (eds.). External possession. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. P. 505–522.


20 20

Further complications with “external possessors” Apart from a NP-external possessor in the verb-argument

slot, possessor is also expressed NP-internally by the suffix: (8b) ! min [besäj-ðe ] [ arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back-P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’


21 21

Further complications with “external possessors” Apart from a NP-external possessor in the verb-argument

slot, possessor is also expressed NP-internally by the suffix: (8b) ! min [besäj-ðei] [∅-GENi arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back-P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’


22 22

Further complications with “external possessors” Structures of this kind typically co-exist with two other options, e.g.

with həjpa- ‘stroke’

possessor body-part interpretation GEN ACC internal possessor ACC ABL external (+ internal) possessor GEN ABL “peripheral possessee construction” [Kholodilova 2009]

Kholodilova, M.A. 2009. Konstrukcii s periferijnym obladaemym v kalmyckom jazyke. Acta Linguistica

Petropolitana, V, 2. 76-93.


23 23

The usual internal possessor construction: (8a) ! min [besäj-ðeŋ arqa-he-n] həjpa-nə-m I cat-GEN back-P.3-ACC stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’ External possessor construction (?) (8b) ! min [besäj-ðe] [arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back -P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’ Peripheral possessee construction (?) (8c) ! min [besäj-ðeŋ arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-GEN back -P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’

Kholodilova, M.A. 2009. Konstrukcii s periferijnym obladaemym v kalmyckom jazyke. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, V, 2. 76-93.


24 24

Further complications with “external possessors” Structures of this kind typically co-exist with two other options, e.g.

with həjpa- ‘stroke’

possessor body-part interpretation GEN ACC internal possessor ACC ABL external (+ internal) possessor GEN ABL “peripheral possessee construction” [Kholodilova 2009]

It is thus unclear whether the peripheral position of the possessed nominal is triggered by the “promotion” of the possessor

Kholodilova, M.A. 2009. Konstrukcii s periferijnym obladaemym v kalmyckom jazyke. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, V, 2. 76-93.

1.3.5. Clause-level agreement

25 25

Clause-level agreement can only be triggered by nominative subjects

Possessors are never relevant for clause-level agreement

1.3.5. Clause-level agreement

26 26

Plural markers in possessive NP heads often create ambiguity

(9a) ular-ðəŋ bala-hə they-GEN child-P.3 ‘their child’ / * ‘their children’ (9b) ular-ðəŋ bala-lar-ə they-GEN child-PL-P.3 ‘their child’ / ‘their children’ Plurality of possessors can lead to plural marking of the NP’s

head, but not clause-level agreement (9c) ular-ðəŋ bala-lar-ə ös-önsö klass-ta uqə-j-ðar they-GEN child-PL-P.3 three-ORD class-LOC study-PRS-PL ‘Their children are in the third year’ / # ‘Their child is in the third year’

1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir

27 27

Embedding is very rare The main clause in a clause-combining chain is typically

sentence-final Conjunctions are used infrequently; the only non-borrowed

conjunction-like elements are grammaticalised non-finite forms of the verb of speech, tip [say.CV] and tigän [say.PC.PST]


28 28

non-finite, no conjunction

finite + tip [say.CV]

finite, no conjunction

relative clauses caseless participles

− −

complement clauses

case-marked participles

− −

adverbial clauses

converbs + +

narrative tense-iconic chains

converbs − +


29 29 Relevant for further discussion

non-finite, no conjunction

finite + tip [say.CV]

finite, no conjunction

relative clauses caseless participles

− −

complement clauses

case-marked participles

− −

adverbial clauses

converbs + +

narrative tense-iconic chains

converbs − +


30 30

Most converbs can be used with or without an overt nominative subject (see 3.3 for an exception)

Most converbs can be used in both same-subject and different-subject configurations

(10) unda higeð-ense klass-qa jet-känse uqə-nə-q that.LOC eight-ORD class-DAT reach-CV.TERM study-PST-1PL ‘We studied there until (we) reached the eighth year’ [110710_aga_ss_Uchjoba.004]

(11) milicija kil-gänse , ular police come-CV.TERM they üð-ðär-e-neŋ ɣäjeb-e-n tanə-nə-lar self-PL-P.3-GEN fault-P.3-ACC know-PST-PL ‘They (=the burglars) acknowledged their fault before the police came’ [130715_bbm_EV_txtBA_KrazhaVMagazine.026]


31 31

With both finite and most types of non-finite dependent clauses there is a tendency: non-identical subjects are overtly expressed in each clause identical subjects are expressed only once, typically in the

beginning of the first clause

(12a) ! Zöxrä qajt-qan-da Bulat qəwan-də Zuxra come-PC.PST-LOC Bulat rejoice-PST ‘Bulat was glad when Zuxra returned’ S1 … V1 … S2 … V2: different-subject

(12b) OK Bulat xat-tə uqə-ɣan-da qəwan-də Bulat letter-ACC read-PC.PST-LOC rejoice-PST ‘Bulat was glad when he read the letter’ S1 … V1 … V2: same-subject


32 32

However, this tendency is not a strict rule of grammar (“Equi”) Rather, it is a common discourse-oriented reference-tracking

device, which can be violated in both directions: lack of overt subjects in DS-configurations (more rarely) redundant pronouns in SS-configurations


33 33

{A soldier from among the enemies was harassing Jamila, and she plotted a revenge. She invited him for a walk along the river}. (13) Aɣiðel-deŋ iŋ tärän jer-e-nä jet-käs, Agidel-GEN most deep earth-P.3-DAT reach-CV.ANT tege haldat-tə =la höjrä-p, üð-e =lä that soldier-ACC =also drag-CV self-P.3 =also iŋ tärän jer-gä tašla-n-a, ül-ä-lär most deep earth-DAT throw-REFL-PRS die-PRS-PL ‘When she? / they? reach the deepest part of (the river of ) Agidel, she drags the soldier and throws herself into this deepest part, (so that) they (both) die’ [150716_aamB_SS_KA_OmutJamili.006-007]

2. The –p-converb

34 34

By definition, this converb cannot be used as the head of an independent clause

The most frequent type of converb Multifunctional Uniformly interlinearized as –CV

2. The –p-converb

35 35

2.1. Types of use 2.2. Quasi-coordination 2.3. Same-subject constraint 2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb 2.5. Other prominent non-subjects

2.1. The –p-converb: types of use

36 36

A. As part of “complex verbs” (a.k.a. “quasi auxiliary constructions”, “clause union”, “serial verb construcions” etc.) A close set of verbs that can be used as finite heads Linear inseparability Express aspectual, modal or spatial meanings A unitary argument structure (14) ikmäg-e-n täðrä-gä ultər-əp quj-ɣan =da, bread-P.3-ACC window-DAT sit-CV put-PC.PST also üð-e səɣ-əp kit-kän self-P.3 go.out-CV go.away-PC.PST ‘(She) placed the leavened dough on the window sill, and then she went away’ [140709_izg_MO_Kolobok.004]

Different- vs. same-subjectness is irrelevant


37 37

B. As part of concessive constructions The converb is followed by the multifunctional clitic –la

(interlinearized as ‘also’) There is no tendency towards same-subjectness (15) ! Bulat kil-ep =ta kür-mä-ne -m Bulat come-CV also see-NEG-PST-1SG ‘Although Bulat came, I did not see him’


38 38

C. Quasi-coordination Clearly biclausal Elusive meaning (many usage types in traditional grammars) temporal sequence manner of action causal coordination-like

(16) ! at-ə soqor-ɣa qola-p töš-öp ajaɣ-ə-n hən-dər-ðə horse-P.3 pit-DAT fall-CV descend-CV foot-P.3-ACC break-CAUS-PST ‘The horse fell into a pit and broke a leg’ / ‘When the horse fell into a pit, it broke a leg’ / ‘The horse broke a leg, because it fell into a pit’

Relative temporal interpretation depends on the actionality of the verbs involved, but tense-iconicity is prevalent


39 39

C. Quasi-coordination Clearly biclausal Elusive meaning (many usage types in traditional grammars) temporal sequence manner of action causal coordination-like

(16) ! at-ə soqor-ɣa qola-p töš-öp ajaɣ-ə-n hən-dər-ðə horse-P.3 pit-DAT fall-CV descend-CV foot-P.3-ACC break-CAUS-PST ‘The horse fell into a pit and broke a leg’ / ‘When the horse fell into a pit, it broke a leg’ / ‘The horse broke a leg, because it fell into a pit’

Relative temporal interpretation depends on the actionality of the verbs involved, but tense-iconicity is prevalent

Relevant for further discussion

2.2. The –p-converb: quasi-coordination

40 40

Conjunct illocutionary force: the clause headed by the –p-converb falls under the scope of the illocutionary operators in the finite clause

(17) OK klass-tan səɣ-əp išek-te jap-hən class-ABL go.out-CV door-ACC close-JUSS ‘Let him go out of the classroom and close the door’ This property has been reported for the cognate converb in

the closely related Mishar Tatar [Pazelskaja, Shluinskij 2004] This is not possible for classical subordinate clauses, cf.: (18) OK klass-tan səq-qan-da išek-te jap-hən class-ABL go.out-PC.PST-LOC door-ACC close-JUSS ‘Let him close the door after he goes out of the classroom’

Pazelskaja, A.G., Shluinskij A.B. 2004. Obstojatel’stvennye predlozhenija. In: E.A. Ljutikova et al. (eds.) Miasharskij dialekt tatarskogo jazyka. Kazan.: Magarif. 38-82.


41 41

Extraction for e.g. relativization or questioning is possible, i.e. no “island constraints”

(19) OK [qojma aša töš-öp järäxätlän-ep fence through descend-CV wound-CV quj-ɣan] barmaɣ-əm jünäl-mä-j put-PC.PST finger-P.1SG fix-NEG-PRS ‘My finger that got hurt when I was climbing over the fence is not healing up’. (Cf. # ‘My fingeri that [I was climbing over the fence and ti got hurt] is not healing up’) Clear cases of embedding are rare, but attested

=> These two properties are typical of subordination


42 42

Mixed co- and subordination behaviour Cf. “cosubordination” [Foley & Van Valin 1984] and other

attempts to avoid a strict coordination vs. subordination dichotomy, from the prototypical approach in [Haiman & Thompson 1984] to multivariate analysis in [Bickel 2009]

Foley, W. & R.D.Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, J. & S.A.Thompson. 1984. “Subordination” in universal grammar’. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistic Society. 510–23. Bickel, B. 2009. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: a multivariate analysis. In: Bril, I. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy : Syntax and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51-102.

2.3. The –p-converb: same-subject constraint

43 43

In the vast majority of cases, clauses headed by the –p-converb are attested in same-subject configurations

In these cases, the subject is overtly expressed only once (or not at all)

It is not entirely clear whether the overt copy is expressed in the main or the dependent clause

(20a) unəŋ ata-hə [ügäj äsäj al-əp] ül-gän ti or (20b) [unəŋ ata-hə ügäj äsäj al-əp] ül-gän ti

that.GEN father-P.3 step- mother take-CV die-PC.PST say.PRS ‘Her father married once again and died’ or ‘After marrying once again her father died’ [140708_izg_MO_DevochkaNaLune.003]


44 44

Same-subject constraint is clearly visible when it coerces a pragmatically implausible interpretation

(21) kemder Bulat-təŋ tanaw-ə-n jemer-ep bolnica-la jat-a someone Bulat-GEN nose-P.3-ACC destroy-CV hospital-LOC lie-PRS ‘Someonei broke Bulat’sj nose so that hei,*j is now in the hospital’ => Unexpressed subject in the second clause can only be interpreted as coreferential with the subject from the first clause


45 45

Same-subjectness can be achieved by way of applying valency-changing operations, such as causative

(22a) * Bulat jər-ðə təŋla-p ber xäl Bulat song-ACC listen-CV one state.of.affairs iθ-e-nä töš-tö mind-P.3-DAT descend-PST (22b) OK Bulat jər-ðə təŋla-p ber xäl Bulat song-ACC listen-CV one state.of.affairs iθ-e-nä töš-ör-ðö mind-P.3-DAT descend-CAUS-PST ‘Bulat was listening to a song and a story (from the past) came to his mind’ NB: The causative is used even though Bulat has no control over the event!


46 46

Same-subjectness can be achieved by way of applying valency-changing operations, such as causative or passive

(23a) *qaraŋɣə uram-dan bar-əp arqa-m-a kem-der dark street-ABL go-CV back-P.1SG-DAT who-maybe huq-tə hit-PST Intended: ‘I was walking along a dark street when / so that someone hit me in the back’ (23b) OK qaraŋɣə uram-dan bar-əp kem-dän-der dark street-ABL go-CV who-ABL-maybe arqa-m-a huɣ-əl-də-m back-P.1SG-DAT hit-PASS-PST-1SG ‘I was walking along a dark street when / so that I got hit by someone in the back’

2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb

47 47

2.4.1. The claim Prominent genitival possessors can control the same-subject

relation in constructions with clauses headed by the –p-converb

(24) ati, [∅-GENi qarəw-ə qajt-əp], tiððän baš bir-ðe horse force-P.3 come-CV soon head give-PST Lit.: ‘The horsei, once / because itsi force was gone, yielded (to those who were chasing her)’ [mfbl2.ru]

There is an overt nominative subject in each of the two clauses: a possessive NP and the possessor, correspondingly

For the discussion of whether such possessors are indeed internal, see section 4.


48 48

2.4.2. Overt / non-overt realization of the possessor

If a prominent possessor of one clause is expressed by a genitival group, typically there is zero anaphora in the other clause

(25) OK [Bulat-təŋi iθ-e-nä ber xäl töš-öp] Bulat-GEN mind-P.3-DAT one state.of.affairs descend-CV ∅i qəsqər-əp köl-dö cry-CV laugh-PST ‘A story came to Bulat’s mind and (he) started laughing out loud’. Elsewhere, this type of anaphora is typical of SS-

configurations


49 49

2.4.2. Overt / non-overt realization of the possessor Thus, biclausal constructions involving prominent

possessors and –p-converbs are different from other clause-linkage devices, where switch-reference (non-identity of subjects) is signaled by pronominal anaphora

(26) Bulat-təŋi käjef-e töš-tö häm *(uli) öj-ðä ultər-a Bulat-GEN mood-P.3 descend-PST and he house-LOC sit-PRS ‘Bulat’s mood got spoiled and he stays at home’. (27) ! min Bulat-təŋi tanaw-ə-n həndər-ɣas, I Bulat-GEN nose-P.3-ACC break-CV.ANT uli ila-j bašla-nə that cry-CV.IPFV begin-PST ‘I broke Bulat’si nose and hei started to cry’


50 50

2.4.2. Overt / non-overt realization of the possessor If the possessive NP is in the dependent clause, there are

three main possibilities: (28a) [Bulat-təŋi asəw-ə kil-ep] ∅i išek-te šapəldat-əp jap-tə Bulat-GEN anger-P.3 come-CV door-ACC clap-CV close-PST ‘Bulat got angry and clapped the door’ (28b) Bulati [∅i asəw-ə kil-ep] išek-te šapəldat-əp jap-tə (28c) [∅i asəw-ə kil-ep] Bulati išek-te šapəldat-əp jap-tə

All these variants are accepted, but the order (28a) > (28b) > (28c) reflects the order of speakers’ judgments

Probably, linear precedence is more important for anaphora than main vs. dependent or NOM vs. GEN distinction

NB: constructions like (28b) clearly show embedding


51 51

2.4.3. PIPs in main and dependent clauses Prominent possessors can be located in the dependent

clause

(29) ! Bulati [∅-GENi baš-ə awərt-əp] kitap Bulat head-P.3 ache-CV book uqə-w-ə-n tuqta-t-tə read-NMLZ-P.3-ACC stop-CAUS-PST ‘Bulat’s head started to ache and he stopped reading the book’


52 52


clause, in the main clause (30) ! [∅-NOMi bäšmäk aša-p] Bulat-təŋi es-e awərt-tə mushroom eat-CV Bulat-GEN inside-P.3 ache-PST ‘Bulat’s stomach ached because he ate some mushrooms’.


53 53


clause, in the main clause and even in both clauses simultaneously

(31) ! ul-əm təw-əp küŋel-em kütär-el-de son-P.1SG be.born-CV soul-P.1SG lift-PASS-PST ‘When my son was born my spirits got higher’ / ‘My son was born and my spirits got higher’ / ‘My spirits got higher because my son was born’


54 54

2.4.4. Syntactic role of the possessed nominal In the examples discussed so far there was a co-reference

relation between the (possessor of the) nominative subject of the main clause and (the possessor of the) nominative subject of the dependent clause

In fact, possessed nominals can occupy other positions as well


55 55

2.4.4. Syntactic role of the possessed nominal Dative argument

(32)=(25) OK [Bulat-təŋi iθ-e-nä ber xäl töš-öp] Bulat-GEN mind-P.3-DAT one state.of.affairs descend-CV ∅i qəsqər-əp köl-dö cry-CV laugh-PST ‘A story came to Bulat’s mind and (he) started laughing out loud’. Ablative:

(33) OK huɣan tura-p küð-ðär-em-dän jäš aɣ-a onion chop-CV eye-PL-P.1SG-ABL tear flow-PRS Lit. ‘While chopping onions, tears were welling in my eyes’.


56 56

2.4.4. Syntactic role of the possessed nominal And even possessor of the possessor of the subject

(34) OK alma-nə tešlä-p teš-em-deŋ ber ölöš-ö töš-tö apple-ACC bite-CV tooth-P.1SG-GEN one part-P.3 descend-PST ‘I bit an apple and a piece of my tooth fell apart’.


57 57

2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases PIPs are animate (see examples above) But not always (35) OK olon-o ser-ep aɣas qola-nə trunk-P.3 rotten-CV tree fall-PST ‘When its trunk got rotten, the tree fell down’


58 58

2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases PIPs are inalienable (see examples above) But not always (36) OK Bulat tið bar-əp mašina-hə hən-də Bulat fast go-CV car-P.3 break(vi)-PST ‘Bulat was driving fast and his car broke down’


59 59

2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases possessed nominals in constructions with

PIPs are inanimate (see examples above) But not always (37) ! [Bulat-təŋi malaj-ə təw-əp] ∅i qəwan-əp Bulat-GEN boy-P.3 be.born-CV rejoice-CV end-CV.IPFV böt-ä al-ma-j take-NEG-PRS Lit. ‘Bulat’si son has been born and hei can’t stop feeling happy’.


60 60

2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases PIPs are definite (see examples above) But not always; in principle, they can be non-specific (hence,

non-topical) (38) ! kem-der bäšmäk aša-p es-e awərt-ha who-maybe mushroom eat-CV inside-P.3 ache-COND tabip-qa šaltəra-t-Ø-əɣəð doctor-DAT ring-CAUS-IMP-2PL ‘If anyone eats mushrooms and their stomach starts to ache, call the doctor’


61 61

2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? No one of the individual atomic properties of possessive

constructions seems to be decisive, although there are expected preferences inanimate possessed nominals (especially body-parts and

‘spiritual parts’, such as ‘soul’, ‘mood’) > animate possessed nominals

inalienable > alienable animate possessor > inanimate possessor definite possessor > indefinite / non-specific possessor possessed nominal: subject > other


62 62

2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? Generalization. The one property that is shared by all PIPs is

their relative salience: within the context of their clauses PIPs are more salient than other participants, starting with the possessed nominal

In order to control co-reference across clauses possessors should outrank other NPs that are present in the same clause


63 63

2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? Examples in which non-dominant atomic properties are

attested are especially illustrative animate possessed nominals, e.g. ‘Bulat’s son was born…’: the

possessed nominal has no control over the situation alienable possession, e.g. ‘Bulat’s car broke down’: Bulat was in

the car inanimate possessors, e.g. ‘the tree’s trunk got rotten’: more

salient inanimate possessed nominals non-specific possessors, e.g. ‘if anyone eats mushrooms and their

stomach starts to ache…’: irrealis, no definite NPs non-subject possessed nominals, e.g. ‘a story came to Bulat’s

mind’, ‘tears emerged from Bulat’s eyes’: physical or mental event involving the possessor


64 64

2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? PIPs can also control clause-internal reflexivization Similar to co-reference across clauses, control of the

reflexives is possible if there is no more salient NP (39) OK üð-e-neŋi öj-ö-ndä Bulat-təŋi käjef-e self-P.3-GEN house-P.3-LOC Bulat-GEN mood-P.3 kütär-el-de lift-PASS-PST ‘Bulat’s mood got elevated once he was at home’

2.5. Other prominent non-subjects

65 65

Apart from genitival possessors, there are other types of prominent NPs that can control clause-combining with –p-converbs Subject-like genitives in grammaticalized clauses with

nominalizations Dative subjects in modal constructions of necessity and

possibility Co-extensional NPs Joint co-reference NPs participating in set-subset relations


66 66

Subject-like genitives in grammaticalized clauses with nominalizations

(40) OK aša-ɣə-m kil-ep, šäb-eräk atla-j bašla-nə-m eat-ADJ-P.1SG come-CV fast-CMPR step-CV.IPFV begin-PST-1SG Lit. ‘My hunger came and (I) started to walk faster’.

Dative subjects in modal constructions of necessity or possibility (41) ! ∅-NOMi keše-ne bel-mä-j tor-op, person-ACC know-NEG-CV.IPFV stand-CV ∅-DATi nasar höjlä-r-gä jara-ma-j bad speak-POT-DAT fit-NEG-PRS ‘Not knowing a person (properly), (one) shouldn’t say bad (things about that person)’.


67 67

Co-extensional NPs (42) ! Morat-təŋ ös ul-əi bul-əp, Murat-GEN three son-P.3 be-CV ös-äw-he =läi üð-e-nä jarðam-sə-lar three-NUM.SUBST-P.3 also self-P.3-DAT help-AG-PL ‘Murat has three sons, and all three of them help him’. Joint co-reference

(43) ! Bulat Mansur-ðə ögötlä-p, bergäläp öj kütär-ðe-lär Bulat Mansur-ACC persuade-CV together house raise-PST-PL ‘Bulat persuaded Mansur and they have together built a house’.


68 68

NPs participating in set-subset relations (44) ! klass jarəš-tar-ða jeŋ-ep , class competition-PL-LOC win-CV iŋ jaqšə uqəwsə-lar büläk-tär al-də most good rather-NMLZ-AG-PL gift-PL take-PST ‘The class won the competition and the best pupils received prizes’


69 69

Strict subject identity is not a necessary condition for the use of –p-converbs in quasi-coordinate configurations

Rather, there is a restriction that the subjects of the two clauses cannot be distinct salient entities

Non-overlapping different-subject configurations are sometimes judged acceptable if the subjects are low on saliency scales

(45) OK qəš üt-ep, jað kil-de winter pass-CV spring come-PST ‘The winter has passed and the the spring came’.


70 70

Similar patterns are found in other Turkic languages as well Mishar Tatar

[these constructions are possible under the condition that there is] “a sufficiently close semantic link between the subject of the dependent clause and the subject of the main clause” [Pazelskaja, Shluinskij 2004: 48]; [they are ungrammatical with] “totally non-identical subjects” [ibid.: 59]

Pazelskaja, A.G., Shluinskij A.B. 2004. Obstojatel’stvennye predlozhenija. In: E.A. Ljutikova et al. (eds.) Miasharskij dialekt tatarskogo jazyka. Kazan.: Magarif. 38-82.


71 71

Similar patterns are found in other Turkic languages as well Tuvan:

“If there are two subject NPs and their referents are clearly coreferential or clearly referentially disjoint, then the same-subject marker or the different-subject marker, respectively, is chosen. If the subjects … are sufficiently nonprototypical (indefinite personal zero, nonconcrete meaning, etc.), the switch-reference mechanism “loses its orientation” and is unable to establish the identity or distinctness of insufficiently identified entities. Strictly speaking, these entities are distinct … but their distinctness is not sufficiently clear, so the same-subject marker is possible as well” [Bergel’son, Kibrik 1995: 389]

Bergelson, Mira B., and Andrej A. Kibrik. 1995. ‘The System of Switch-Reference in Tuva: Converbal and Masdar-Case Forms’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, 373–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

3. Other clause-combining strategies

72 72

A large number of formal types of adverbial clauses in Bashkir Formal markers: converbs sensu stricto cased forms of participles participles + postpositions nominalizations + postpositions grammaticalized constructions based on direct speech


73 73

Most of these strategies can be used in both same- and different-subject constructions Same- vs. different-subjecthood plays a role in the choice of

anaphoric devices and reference-tracking, to be discussed elsewhere

Possible exceptions: Reduplicated converb in –a/-j

only in same-subject constructions (?) somewhat obsolete in the dialect under study

Purpose clauses and complements of manipulative verbs the so-called “infinitive” in –r-ɣa [POT-DAT] under coreference Jussive forms of the verbs followed by the complementizer tip

[say.CV] / postposition ösön ‘for’ otherwise


74 74

Most of these strategies can be used in both same- and different-subject constructions Same- vs. different-subjecthood plays a role in the choice of

anaphoric devices and reference-tracking, to be discussed elsewhere

Possible exceptions: Reduplicated converb in –a/-j

only in same-subject constructions (?) somewhat obsolete in the dialect under study

Purpose clauses and complements of manipulative verbs the so-called “infinitive” in –r-ɣa [POT-DAT] under coreference Jussive forms of the verbs followed by the complementizer tip

[say.CV] / postposition ösön ‘for’ otherwise


75 75

What matters is the coreference between the subject of the dependent clause and the subject of the main clause with e.g. verbs of motion (‘Hei went

to town ∅i to sell berries’) the direct object of the main clause with e.g. verbs of caused

motion (‘He sent his soni to the town ∅i to sell berries’)


76 76

The so-called “infinitive”: obligatory SS (46) ! Bulati qala-ɣa [∅i höt hat-ər-ɣa] bar-ðə Bulat town-DAT milk sell-POT-DAT go-PST ‘Bulat went to the town to sell milk’ (47) [* ul-əi awərə-p kit-mäθ-kä] Zöxrä (uɣai) son-P.3 be.ill-CV go.away-NEG.POT-DAT Zuxra that.DAT darəw bir-ðe medicine give-PST Expected: ‘Zuxra gave her son a medicine in order for him not to be ill’


77 77

Jussive + ösön ‘for’: obligatory DS (48) ! [bala-lar-əm aša-hən ösön] min aš beš-er-ðe-m child-PL-P.1SG eat-JUSS for I food boil-CAUS-PST-1SG ‘I prepared some food in order for my children to eat’ (49) * Kisäge mini qala-ɣa [∅i höt hat-hən ösön bar-ðə-m yesterday I town-DAT milk sell-JUSS for go-PST-1SG ‘Yesterday, I went to the town in order to sell milk’.

Gorlova, A.A. In prep. Formy imperativa v zavisimyx predikacijax v bashkirskom jazyke.


78 78

Purpose clauses are oriented exclusively towards the syntactic subject = nominative NP triggering verb agreement

If there is a coreference relation between a subject from one clause and a possessor from another, the DS strategy is chosen

(50a) ! baš-əm awərt-ma-hən ösön min darəw aša-nə-m head-P.1SG ache-NEG-JUSS for I medicine eat-PST-1SG ‘I took a pill in order for my head not to ache’. (50b) ?? baš-əm awərt-maθ-qa min darəw aša-nə-m head-P.1SG ache-NEG.POT-DAT I medicine eat-PST-1SG


79 79

Various parts of the clause-combining system work on different bases clause-combining strategy condition

purpose clauses strict SS vs. DS quasi-narrative –p-converbs looser coreference, including PIPs other strategies coreference is irrelevant

4. Genitival possessors and constituency

80 80

Are genitival possessors in Bashkir (always) internal? For a detailed account see [Ovsjannikova, Say 2014] To deny their internal status completely would lead to a

typological paradox: a language without internal possessors


81 81

Basic idea: genitival possessors are not necessarily identical to each other in terms of their internal / external status

Hence: several types of [GEN + N] uses constituency tests are applied to these uses individually


82 82

Types of constructions A. [GEN + N] in the so-called predicative possessive construction (51) Morat-təŋ qəð-ə bar Murat-GEN daughter-P.3 there.is ‘Murat has a daughter’, lit. ‘Murat’s daughter there is’.

B. Constructions with the verbs awərt ‘ache’, təw ‘be.born’, qal ‘remain’: argument-like possessors (e.g. ‘Bulat’s head aches’)

C. Constructions with body-parts in the subject position of change-of-state verbs (e.g. ‘Bulat’s eyes reddened’)

D. [GEN+N] in the subject position of agentive verbs


83 83

Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Separability Type A (52) OK Morat-təŋ küptän haqal-ə bar Murat-GEN long.ago beard-P.3 there.is ‘Murat has been wearing a beard for a long time’. Type D

(53) ?? Morat-təŋ bögön həjər-ə kärtä-he-n jemer-gän Murat-GEN today cow-P.3 fence-P.3-ACC destroy-PC.PST ‘Today Murat’s cow broke his fence’.


84 84

Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Pronominalization of the possessed nominal: personal pronouns Type A (54) ? Morat-təŋ kötöw-e bar, ä Bulat-təŋ unəhə =la juq Murat-GEN herd-P.3 there.is and Bulat-GEN that.P.3 also NEG.COP ‘Murat has a herd (of cows), but Bulat doesn’t have one’.


85 85

Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Pronominalization of the possessed nominal: negative and

interrogative pronouns Type C (55) OK Morat-təŋ ber nämä-he =lä qəðar-ma-ɣan Murat-GEN one thing-P.3 also redden-NEG-PC.PST {Although bees have stung Murat all over}, ‘no part of Murat’s turned red’.


86 86

Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Pronominal expression of the possessor: presence of a free

pronoun (along with a possessive suffix) Type A (56) ? (mineŋ) haqal-əm bar I.GEN beard-P.1SG there.is ‘I wear a beard’.


87 87

Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Ellipsis of the possessed nominal (headless possessors):

obligatory use of the POSS.SUBST marker (-nəqə) on the possessor

Type D (57) ! Morat-təŋ qəð-ə kil-de, ä Bulat-təqə kil-mä-ne Murat-GEN girl-P.3 come-PST and Bulat-POSS.SUBST come-NEG-PST ‘Murat’s daughter has come, and Bulat’s (daughter) hasn’t’. Cf. pronouns like mine of


88 88

Results: from more clause-level (+) to more phrase-level (–)

A B C D Pronominalization: interrogative and negative pronouns

+ + + ?

Separability + + + ? Relativization n/a + ? – The use of the pronominal possessor + ? – – Pronominalization: personal pronouns

? – – –

Ellipsis of head (POSS.SUBST) – – – –

A: ‘Bulat has a car’; B: ‘Bulat’s leg aches’; C: ‘Bulat’s eyes reddened’; D: ‘Bulat’s brother came’


89 89

Results: from more clause-level (+) to more phrase-level (–)

A B C D Pronominalization: interrogative and negative pronouns

+ + + ?

Separability + + + ? Relativization n/a + ? – The use of the pronominal possessor + ? – – Pronominalization: personal pronouns

? – – –

Ellipsis of head (POSS.SUBST) – – – –

A: ‘Bulat has a car’; B: ‘Bulat’s leg aches’; C: ‘Bulat’s eyes reddened’; D: ‘Bulat’s brother came’

These constructions can often be used as PIPs in clause-combining (section 2)


90 90

Bashkir GEN+N constructions do not show consistent behaviour with respect to constituency tests

Types of uses that were distinguished on a priori grounds do not behave identically

A huge methodological problem with tests: tests are applied to individual sentences, but inferences are being made for sets of potential sentences

5. Conclusions

91 91

Constructions with the -p-converb in Bashkir Mixed co- and subordination properties. Cosubordination? Speakers’ judgments are better if there is some sort of a

natural causal relation between the two events Do not tolerate saliently distinct subject referents and

typically are used in same-subject clause-combining

5. Conclusions

92 92

Bashkir genitives are salient in many respects Exclusive relation to the head Always referential, typically definite Always trigger possessive marking on the possessed

nominal Always found on the left periphery of the NP Predicative possessive constructions uses the Genitive

strategy (in terms of Heine, Stassen etc.) No conclusive evidence for a non-genitive external

possessive construction

5. Conclusions

93 93

Prominent possessors in Bashkir Genitive possessors can be sufficiently prominent to control

same-subject relations in clauses with the –p-converb Individual atomic properties (animacy, inalienability,

topicality…) are neither necessary nor sufficient The crucial factor is relative salience: the possessor must be

construed as the most salient NP in its clause

5. Conclusions

94 94

Bashkir genitival possessors: internal or external? Can a language possess internal and external possessors

that are marked identically? Constituency tests show a gradation from agentive

possessed nouns (phrase-level properties of possessors) to predicative possessive constructions (clause-level properties of possessors)

Methodological problem with constituency tests

Thank you!

95 95

Documents

Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir · Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir Sergey Say (Institute for linguistic studies, RAS) [email protected]. Workshop on Prominent