Bert Remijsen Otto Gwado Ayoker University of Edinburgh 1 Shilluk is a West Nilotic language spoken in South Sudan This work is part of an overall descriptive analysis of the language ID: 747894
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The structure of the Shilluk verb paradi..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
The structure of the Shilluk verb paradigm
Bert Remijsen Otto Gwado AyokerUniversity of Edinburgh
1Slide2
Shilluk is a West Nilotic language spoken in South Sudan.
This work is part of an overall descriptive analysis of the language.Figure. Map from Storch
(2005), shows the West Nilotic languages.
2
Introduction
2
Sudan
Uganda
Kenya
Ethiopia
South Sudan
Dem. Rep. Congo
Slide3
The question:
What is the morphological structure of Shilluk transitive verbs, and how does it interact with the syntax of the clause? Challenge / opportunity: Lots of stem-internal morphology, especially in terms of tone:
3
IntroductionSlide4
4
Introduction
Tone
pattern
Example
Gloss
Low
á-lɛ̀ŋ
pst
-take:
2sg
Mid
á-lɛ̄ŋ
pst
-take:
xv
High
á-lɛ́ŋ
pst
-drum:
xv:2sg
Rise
á-lɛ̌ŋ
pst
-take:xv:2sgMid to Low Fallá-lɛ̂ŋpst-drum:2sgHigh to Mid Fallá-lɛ̂́ŋ̄pst-drum:xvEarly High Fall (to Low)á-lɛ̂́ŋpst-take/drumLate High Fall (to Low)á-lɛ́ŋ̀pst-take:fugSlide5
Low
ɲjēɲ
á-
lɛ̀ŋ
kɪ
̀
kɛ̂ɲ
money
pst-take
:2sg prp
place:
s.dem
‘You took money gradually here.’
High
lôot
̪ á-
lɛ́ŋ
bùul
stick:
s
pst-beat:xv:2s drum:s‘You used a stick to beat the drum.’Midmʌ̂ʌt á-lɛ̄ŋ ɲjēɲfriend:s pst-take:xv money‘Somebody used a friend to take money gradually.’Low Fallbùul á-lɛ̂ŋ kɪ̀ kɛ̂ɲdrum:s pst-beat prp place:s.dem
‘You beat the drum
here.’
Early High Fall
bùul
á-
lɛ
̂́ŋ
kɪ
̀ kɛ̂ɲdrum:s pst-beat prp place:s.dem‘Somebody has beaten the drum here.’Late High Fallɲjēɲ á-lɛ́ŋ̀ pâacmoney:p pst-take:fug village:s‘Smb. went to the village to take money gradually.’High Fall to Midmʌ̂ʌt á-lɛ́ŋ̄ ɲjēɲfriend:s pst-take:xv money:p‘Somebody used a stick to beat the drum.’Risemʌ̂ʌt á-lɛ̌ŋ ɲjēɲfriend:s pst-take:xv:2s money:p‘You used a friend to take money gradually.’Slide6
6
Shilluk verbs presents many morphological operations marking voice (semantic role of core arguments) and valency (number of core arguments)Slide7
7
(1)
lùm
á-
cấm
(
ɪ̄ɪ
ɟɪ̀ɪ
)
grass:p pst-eat:ov
prp.p people
‘The people ate the vegetables.’
(2)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat
grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (object focused)Slide8
8
(1)
lùm
á-
cấm
(
ɪ̄ɪ
ɟɪ̀ɪ
)
grass:p pst-eat:ov
prp.p people
‘The people ate the vegetables.’
(2)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat
grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (object focused)‘Object Voice’‘Subject Voice’Slide9
9
(1)
lùm
á-
cấm
(
ɪ̄ɪ
ɟɪ̀ɪ
)
grass:p pst-eat:ov
prp.p people
‘The people ate the vegetables.’
(2)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat
grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (object focused)(3)pʌ̂t á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-eat:xv grass:p‘With spoons the vegetables were eaten.’‘Object Voice’‘Subject Voice’‘Applicative Voice’Slide10
10
(1)
lùm
á-
cấm
(
ɪ̄ɪ
ɟɪ̀ɪ
)
grass:p pst-eat:ov
prp.p people
‘The people ate the vegetables.’
(2)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat
grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (object focused)(3)pʌ̂t á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-eat:xv grass:p‘With spoons the vegetables were eaten.’(4)ábác á-cʌ́m-ɪ̀ lùm Abac pst-eat-bnf grass:p‘The vegetables were eaten for Abac.’(5)lùm á-cáaam̀ kàl grass:p pst-eat:fug
home:p
‘Somebody went home to eat the vegetables.’
‘Object Voice’
‘Subject Voice’
‘Applicative Voice’
‘Benefactive Voice’
‘Centrifugal Voice’Slide11
11
(5)
lùm
á-
cáaam
̀
kàl
grass:
p pst-eat:xv home
‘Smb. went home to eat the vegetables.’
(6)
lùm
á-
cʌ́ʌʌm
̀
kàl
grass:
p
pst-
eat:pet home‘Smb. came home to eat the vegetables.’(7)ábác á-cʌ̀ʌʌm Abac pst-eat:atp‘Abac was eating.’(8)ábác á-cʌ̀m-ɪ̀ (kàl) Abac pst-eat-amb home‘Abac ate (at home).’‘Antipassive Voice’‘Ambitransitive Voice’‘Centripetal Voice’‘Centrifugal Voice’Slide12
12
Shilluk verbs have many morphological operations marking voice and
valency
.
The system is characterised by head-marking: the relation between the head of the predicate is marked on the verb, not on the noun-phrase arguments.
How is the paradigm structured?
This question is left open in earlier work (
Remijsen
, Miller-
Naud
é & Gilley 2016), which focused on establishing the patterns of morphological exponence.
Morphological operations on Shilluk transitive verbsSlide13
13
How is the paradigm structured?Slide14
Consider how Andersen (1992-1994) analysed the structure of the transitive verbs in Dinka. Here is an extract from his overview table (1992-1994:26-27).
14Slide15
Consider how Andersen (1992-1994) analysed the structure of the transitive verbs in Dinka. Here is an extract from his overview table (1992-1994:26-27).
15
Voice in derivation
Voice in inflectionSlide16
Important insight from Andersen (1992-1994): operations that recur across derivations are inflectional.
For example, the operation NTS (non-topical subject) is to be interpreted as inflectional, because it combines with centrifugal and benefactive, just as it is found in the base paradigm. In contrast, the operations of centrifugal and benefactive are best interpreted as derivations, because they come in a full set of inflections.Applying this approach to Shilluk we get the following:
16
Inflections and derivations of Shilluk transitive verbsSlide17
17
Inflections and derivations of Shilluk transitive verbs
Table. Paradigm of transitive {
cam
} ‘eat’, showing voice inflections by derivation. Not shown: TAM, subject-marking, verb classes.
Voice
inflections
Derivations
Subject Voice
Object Voice
Applic
. Voice
Base
á-
càm
á-cấm
á-
cāaam
Centrifugal
á-
câaam
á-
cáaam̀á-cáaam̀Centripetalá-cʌ̂ʌʌm á-cʌ́ʌʌm̀á-cʌ́ʌʌm̀ Benefactiveá-cʌ̂m-ɪ
̀
á-
cʌ́m-ɪ
̀
á-
cʌ́m-ɪ
̀
Iterative
á-câam-ɪ̀á-cáam-ɪ̀á-cáam-ɪ̀Ambitransitiveá-cʌ̀m-ɪ̀á-cʌ̄m-ɪ̄Antipassiveá-cʌ̀ʌʌmá-cʌ̄ʌʌmSlide18
18
Inflections and derivations of Shilluk transitive verbs
Voice
inflections
Derivations
Subject Voice
Object Voice
Applic
. Voice
Base
á-
càm
á-cấm
á-
cāaam
Centrifugal
á-
câaam
á-
cáaam
̀
á-
cáaam̀Centripetalá-cʌ̂ʌʌm á-cʌ́ʌʌm̀á-cʌ́ʌʌm̀ Benefactiveá-cʌ̂m-ɪ̀á-cʌ́m-ɪ̀á-cʌ́m-ɪ̀
Iterative
á-
câam-ɪ
̀
á-
cáam-ɪ
̀
á-
cáam-ɪ̀Ambitransitiveá-cʌ̀m-ɪ̀á-cʌ̄m-ɪ̄Antipassiveá-cʌ̀ʌʌmá-cʌ̄ʌʌmThree voices marked in base paradigm; two in derivations.Slide19
19
BASE
PARADIGM
CENTRIFUGAL DERIVATION
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people pst
-eat goat‘The people ate the goat.’
(obj. focus)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
câaam
lùm
kàl
spoon:
p
pst-eat:xv grass:p‘The people went home to eat vegetables.’ (obj. focus)lùm á-cấm ɪ̄ɪ ɟɪ̀ɪgrass:p pst-eat:ov prp.p people‘The people ate the goat.’lùm á-cáaam̀ kàl grass:p past-eat:fug home:p‘Smb. went home to eat the vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-eat:xv grass:
p‘With spoons the
vegetables were eaten.’
pʌ̂t
á-
cáaam
̀
lùm
kàl spoon:p past-eat:fug home:p‘Somebody took the spoons home to eat the vegetables.’SUBJ. VOICEOBJ. VOICEAPPLIC. VOICEThree voices marked in base paradigm; two in derivations. Inflections and derivations of Shilluk transitive verbsSlide20
This approach makes accurate predictions as to which forms are found in defective paradigms. E.g., {
keeem} ‘visit’, only in centrifugal/spatial and ambitransitive.20
Support from defective paradigms
Voice
inflections
Derivations
SV
OV
XV
Base
---
---
---
Centrifugal
á-
kêeem
á-
kéeem
̀
á-
kéeem
̀
Centripetal---------Benefactive---------Iterative---
---
---
Ambitransitive
á-
kèem-ɪ
̀
á-
kēem-ɪ
̄Antipassive------Slide21
This approach makes accurate predictions as to which forms are found in defective paradigms. E.g., {
weekɪ} ‘give in exchange’, only in benefactive.21
Support from defective paradigms
Voice
inflections
Derivations
SV
OV
XV
Base
---
---
---
Centrifugal
---
---
---
Centripetal
---
---
---
Benefactive
á-
wêekɪ̀ á-wéekɪ̀ á-wéekɪ̀ Iterative---
---
---
Ambitransitive
---
---
---
Antipassive
---
------Slide22
22
Layering stem-internal morphologySlide23
Re. Dinka, Andersen (1992-1994) shows how stem-internal markers (tone, vowel length, voice quality) are spent to mark derivation and inflection:
23
Layering
morphological markingSlide24
Re. Dinka, Andersen (1992-1994) shows how stem-internal markers (tone, vowel length, voice quality) are spent to mark derivation and inflection:
Example (Andersen 1992-1994:61): wé̤ec
‘kick:pet:2s’ “Kick it hither!”
Voice Length Tone
Root -------- 1 (short) FallDerivation (
pet
) Breathy +1 (=long) Low
Inflection -------- 2 (long) High
24
Layering morphological markingSlide25
Re. Dinka, Andersen (1992-1994) shows how stem-internal markers (tone, vowel length, voice quality) are spent to mark derivation and inflection.
Important difference between Dinka and Shilluk: whereas Agar Dinka has three tonemes, Shilluk has eight (Remijsen
& Ayoker
2014). Shilluk grammar exploits this richer tone system to trace substrate layers:
25
Layering
morphological
markingSlide26
26
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (obj. focus)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
mâat
̪
càak
people
pst
-
drink
milk:
p
‘The people drank milk.’ (object focus)Subject Voice displays the lexical specification for tone:SUBJ. VOICE Layering morphological markingSlide27
27
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (
obj. focus)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
mâat
̪
càak
people
pst
-
drink
milk:
p‘The people drank milk.’ (obj. focus)pāal á-cāaam lùm spoon pst-eat:xv grass:p‘With a spoon the vegetables were eaten.’lwɔ̂ɔl á-mấaat̪̄ càak cup:p pst-drink:xv milk:p‘With a cup the milk was drunk.’Applicative Voice lengthens the vowel, raises the tone:SUBJ. VOICEAPPLIC. VOICE Layering morphological markingSlide28
28
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-
eat grass:p‘The people ate the vegetables.’ (
obj. focus)
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
mâat
̪
càak
people
pst
-
drink
milk:
p‘The people drank milk.’ (obj. focus)pāal á-cāaam lùm spoon pst-eat:xv grass:p‘With a spoon the vegetables were eaten.’lwɔ̂ɔl á-mấaat̪̄ càak cup:p pst-drink:xv milk:p‘With a cup the milk was drunk.’pāal á-cā̌aam lùm spoon pst-eat:xv:2s grass:p‘With a spoon you ate the vegetables.’
lwɔ̂ɔl á-
máaat̪
càak
cup
pst-drink:
xv:2s
milk:p‘With a cup you drank the milk.’2nd singular raises the tone again:SUBJ. VOICEAPPLIC. VOICEAPPLIC .V + 2SG Layering morphological markingSlide29
Tonal
exponence does not just overwrite the tonal exponence of layer(s) below, it combines with the substrate specifications in a compositional way.
29
Layering
morphological
markingSlide30
Tonal
exponence does not just overwrite the tonal exponence of layer(s) below, it combines with the substrate specifications in a compositional way. The high functional load of tone in the morphology is a key factor in the development of an timing contrast in high-falling contours (
Remijsen
& Ayoker 2014; cf. Blevins 2004).
30
Layering
morphological
markingSlide31
31
The alignment of thematic subject and thematic objectSlide32
The syntactic alignment of semantic subject and semantic object
Our analysis: Shilluk has a voice system, whereby the verb signposts the semantic role of the topic, which is in preverbal position:Slide33
The syntactic alignment of semantic subject and semantic object
Our analysis: Shilluk has a voice system, whereby the verb signposts the semantic role of the topic, which is in preverbal position:
lùm
á-
gwɔ
̂́k
kɪ
̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́ á-cấm
grass:
p
pst-
make:
ov
prp
how
pr3p
pst-
eat:ov‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten.’ɟɪ̀ɪ á-càm ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’OBJ. VOICESUBJ. VOICEAPPLIC. VOICESlide34
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ
̀ dɪ
̄
gɛ
́ á-cấm
grass:
p
pst-make:ov prp how pr3p pst-eat:ov‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten.’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ
́ á-
càm
lùm
people
pst
-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass:p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’ The syntactic alignment of semantic subject and semantic objectCrucially, information structure determines the choice from among the three inflectional voices:OBJ. VOICESUBJ. VOICEAPPLIC. VOICESlide35
The syntactic alignment of semantic subject and semantic object
The Subject Voice form conveys contrastive focus on the object, even in the absence of the focus marker (cf. Andersen 1988 on
P
är
i
).
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ
́ á-
càm
lùm
people pst-eat
what pr3p
pst
-
eat
grass::
p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’Slide36
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
gôook
kɪ
̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́ á-
cʌ̀ʌʌm (kɪ́ lùm
)people pst-make:atp
prp how pr3p
pst-eat
prp
grass::p
‘What did the people do?’ ‘They were eating (vegetables).’
There are three other
morphosyntactic
structures that are frequently used when the semantic subject is the topic:
A) Through an antipassive. The semantic object may be expressed as a peripheral argument:
B) Through an ambitransitive, also a
valency
-decreasing operation (á-cʌ̀m-ɪ̀). Again, the semantic object may be expressed through as a peripheral argument.C) Through a subject-indexed verb form: á-cʌ̀m-gɛ̀n. The syntactic alignment of semantic subject and semantic objectSlide37
37
DiscussionSlide38
Discussion
Shilluk presents a voice system, whereby the verb signposts the semantic role of the topic, which is in preverbal position – cf. Dinka (Andersen 1991).
The notion of topic explains how discourse structure determines the choice between Object Voice, Subject Voice and Applicative Voice.Slide39
In earlier work the Object Voice has been analysed as passive (Tucker 1955) and as ergative (Miller & Gilley 2001). Neither of these interpretations fit with the phenomena:
The passive analysis of Object Voice predicts that this form of the verb is marked in terms of information structure. However, it is functionally unmarked.
The ergative analysis of the Object Voice predicts that this form of the verb is morphologically unmarked. However, it is instead the Subject Voice form that is formally unmarked, while the Object Voice is formally marked.
DiscussionSlide40
40
Acknowledgements
The Shilluk Language Council, and SIL South Sudan, for enabling our research in South Sudan.
The
Leverhulme
Trust, for research funding through the project “A descriptive analysis of the Shilluk language” (RPG-2015-055).Slide41
41
References
Blevins, J. (2004).
Evolutionary Phonology – The Emergence of Sound Patterns
. Cambridge University Press.
Andersen, T. (1988). Ergativity in
Päri
, a Nilotic OVS language.
Lingua
75, 289-324.Andersen, T. (1991). Subject and topic in Dinka. Studies in Language 15(2), 265-294.Andersen, T. (1992-1994). Morphological stratification in Dinka: on the alternations of voice quality, vowel length and tone in the morphology of transitive verbal roots in a monosyllabic language. Studies in African Linguistics 23(1), 1-63.
Hyman L.M. (1988). Syllable structure constraints on tonal contours. Linguistique Africaine 1, 49-60.Miller, C.L. & L.G. Gilley (2001). Evidence for ergativity in Shilluk. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 22, 33-68.
Odden, D. (1995). Tone: African languages. In Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory
. Blackwell, 444-475.Remijsen, B. & O.G. Ayoker (2014). Contrastive tonal alignment in falling contours in Shilluk
. Phonology 31(3), 435-462.Remijsen, B., C.L. Miller-
Naudé & L.G. Gilley (2016). The morphology of Shilluk transitive verbs. Journal of African Languages and Lingusitics
37, 201-245. Storch, A. (2005). The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic
. Nilo-Saharan vol. 21. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Tucker, A.N. (1955). The verb in Shilluk. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung
3:421-462.
Slide42
42
Abbreviations
AMB ambitransitive
ATP antipassive
BNF benefactive
FUG centrifugal
OV object voice
P plural
PET centripetal
PRP Preposition
PST pastS singular
XV applicative voiceSlide43
43
Extra 1 – alternative analysesSlide44
44
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́
á-cấm (
ɪ̀ɪ ábác)
grass:p pst-make:ov
prp
how pr3p
pst-eat:ov
prp Abac
‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten (by Abac
).’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄ gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’ Alternative analysis 1: Active vs. passive (Tucker 1955)OBJ. VOICE = PASSIVESUBJ. VOICE = ACTIVESlide45
45
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́
á-cấm (
ɪ̀ɪ ábác)
grass:p pst-make:ov
prp
how pr3p
pst-eat:ov
prp Abac
‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten (by Abac).’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’ Alternative analysis 1: Active vs. passive (Tucker 1955)Supporting evidenceSubject Voice is unmarked (cf. Active). Object Voice is marked (cf. Passive).With Object Voice, expression of semantic subject is optional (cf. Passive). With Subject Voice, it is not (topic drop is restricted). With Object Voice, semantic subject is marked by function morphemeSlide46
46
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́
á-cấm (
ɪ̀ɪ ábác)
grass:p pst-make:ov
prp
how pr3p
pst-eat:ov
prp Abac
‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten (by
Abac).’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’ Alternative analysis 1: Active vs. passive (Tucker 1955)Evidence againstSubject Voice is information- structurally marked.Status of Applicative Voice unclear.OBJ. VOICESUBJ. VOICEAPPLIC. VOICESlide47
47
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́
á-cấm (
ɪ̀ɪ ábác)grass:
p pst-make:ov
prp how
pr3p pst-eat:
ov prp
Abac
‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten (by
Abac).’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’OBJ. VOICE = ERGATIVESUBJ. VOICE = ABSOLUTIVE Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)Slide48
48
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ
̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́
á-cấm (ɪ̀ɪ ábác)
grass:p pst-make:ov
prp
how pr3p
pst-eat:ov
prp Abac
‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten (by Abac).’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’ Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)Evidence in supportObject Voice is information- structurally unmarked, cf. Ergative.Slide49
49
lùm
á-
gwɔ̂́k
kɪ
̀
dɪ
̄
gɛ
́
á-cấm (ɪ̀ɪ ábác)
grass:p pst-make:ov
prp
how pr3p
pst-eat:ov
prp Abac
‘What was done with the vegetables?’ ‘They were eaten (by Abac).’
ɟɪ̀ɪ
á-
càm
ŋɔ
̄
gɛ́ á-càm lùmpeople pst-eat what pr3p pst-eat grass::p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’pʌ̂t á-gwɔ̂́ɔɔk̄ ŋɔ̄ gɛ́ á-cāaam lùm spoon:p pst-make:xv what pr3p pst-eat:xv grass::p‘What were the spoons used for?’ ‘They were used to eat vegetables.’ Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)Evidence againstObject Voice is in fact morphologically marked on verb, whereas Subject Voice is not.The constituent hypothesized to be an ergative term is a non-core argument (see evidence on following slides):Slide50
50
Question-word questions involving
dɛ
̄
query a reason, in relation to a semantic role that is signposted by the initial pronoun. The pronoun corresponds to a core argument:
Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)
gɛ
́
dɛ
̄ à
mʌ̄ʌʌt
̪
gɛ́n
pr3p why
foc
greet
:xv
pr3p
‘Why are
they
being greeted?’Slide51
51
gɛ́
dɛ
̄ à
mʌ̄ʌʌt̪
gɛ́n
pr3p why
foc
greet:xv pr3p‘Why are they being greeted?’
Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)
Pronoun in question term controlled by core-argument object (
gɛ́n
):
Question-word questions involving
dɛ
̄
query a reason, in relation to a semantic role that is signposted by the initial pronoun. The pronoun corresponds to a core argument:Slide52
52
gɛ́
dɛ
̄ à
mʌ̄ʌʌt̪
gɛ́n
pr3p why
foc
greet:xv pr3p‘Why are they being greeted?’
gɛ
́
dɛ
̄ à
mʌ̄ʌt
̪-
gɛ
̀
jín
pr3p why
foc
greet:xv-3p pr2s‘Why are they greeting you?’ Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)Pronoun in question term controlled by core-argument object (gɛ́n):Pronoun in question term controlled by core-argument subject (suffix -gɛ̀):Question-word questions involving dɛ̄ query a reason, in relation to a semantic role that is signposted by the initial pronoun. The pronoun corresponds to a core argument:Slide53
53
gɛ́
dɛ
̄ à mʌ̄ʌʌt
̪
gɛ́n
pr3p why
foc
greet:xv pr3p‘Why are they being greeted?’
gɛ
́
dɛ
̄ à
mʌ̄ʌt
̪-
gɛ̀
jín
pr3p why
foc
greet
:xv-3p pr2s‘Why are they greeting you?’*gɛ́ dɛ̄ à mʌ̄ʌʌt̪ jín ɪ̄ɪ gɛ́n pr3p why foc greet:xv-3p pr2s‘Why are they greeting you?’ Alternative analysis 2: Ergativity (Miller & Gilley 2001)Pronoun in question term controlled by core-argument object (gɛ́n):Pronoun in question term controlled by core-argument subject (suffix -gɛ̀):
Ungrammatical if pronoun in question term is controlled by subject in
ɪ̄ɪ
/
ɪ̄ɪ
constituent (
gɛ́n): the latter is peripheral.
Question-word questions involving
dɛ
̄ query a reason, in relation to a semantic role that is signposted by the initial pronoun. The pronoun corresponds to a core argument:Slide54
54
Extra 2 – contrastive tonal alignment (see Remijsen & Ayoker
2014)Slide55
Contrastive alignment in falling contours
Early High FallLate High FallSlide56
“[T]here is no possible opposition between two HL or two LH contours where the two tones are synchronized differently within the syllable.”
[Hyman 1988:51]“[I]t might be that in some languages pitch changes are timed relatively early in the syllable, and in other languages they are timed relatively late. Such control would only be phonetic, never phonological.”
[Odden 1995:450]
56
C
ontrastive
alignment in falling contours