/
The structure of the Shilluk verb paradigm The structure of the Shilluk verb paradigm

The structure of the Shilluk verb paradigm - PowerPoint Presentation

natalia-silvester
natalia-silvester . @natalia-silvester
Follow
348 views
Uploaded On 2019-01-23

The structure of the Shilluk verb paradigm - PPT Presentation

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

eat pst voice ca

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

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.


Presentation Transcript

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

̀

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-

̂́ŋ

̀ 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

̀

̄

́ 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

̀ dɪ

̄

́ 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

̄

́ 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

̄

́ á-

càm

lùm

people pst-eat

what pr3p

pst

-

eat

grass::

p‘What did the people eat?’ ‘They ate vegetables.’Slide36

ɟɪ̀ɪ

á-

gôook

̀

̄

́ 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

̄

́

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

̄

́

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

̄

́

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

̄

́

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

̀

̄

́

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

̀

̄

́

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

̄

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)

́

̄ à

mʌ̄ʌʌt

̪

gɛ́n

pr3p why

foc

greet

:xv

pr3p

‘Why are

they

being greeted?’Slide51

51

gɛ́

̄ 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

̄

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

̄ à

mʌ̄ʌʌt̪

gɛ́n

pr3p why

foc

greet:xv pr3p‘Why are they being greeted?’

́

̄ à

mʌ̄ʌt

̪-

̀

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

̄ à mʌ̄ʌʌt

̪

gɛ́n

pr3p why

foc

greet:xv pr3p‘Why are they being greeted?’

́

̄ 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

̄ 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