Clases de adposiciones en tres lenguas otomangues (original) (raw)

Abstract

A contrastive description of the adpositions of Amuzgo, Mazahua and Ma-zateco (Otomanguean family) is presented. In particular, the grammatical categorization of adpositions is discussed, as well as the ‘adjunct’ label. It should be noted that the adjuncts are syntactic units of different classes, so they are able to share properties with the central arguments, expand the meaning of the predicate, and form part of the event. The proposal is based on recognizing three types of adpositive phrases: non-predicative, predica-tive, and specific, which show their own grammatical properties. It is obser-ved that the grammatical category ‘adposition’ covers the different levels of analysis of the language. Morphologically, an instability is detected because the realizations of the adpositions vary in some cases they are realized as linked morphemes and, in others, as free morphemes. Regarding its syntax, it is concluded that the revised adpositions codify the semantic nature of the thematic roles that are performed as adjunct-arguments. Semantically, the adpositions have restrictions in terms of thematic roles, they have scope over the predicate and its arguments, or only over the predicate. At the clause, they mark case in intransitive, transitive or ditransitive verbs.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (24)

  1. Las frases prepositivas como adjuntos de diferente nivel En los últimos años se ha intentado caracterizar y definir gramatical- mente la etiqueta de 'adjunto'. No obstante, estos intentos se restringen a exponer propiedades de estas unidades lingüísticas propias de cada len- gua; es decir, hasta donde se tiene conocimiento el concepto de adjunto no es comparativo translingüísticamente (Goldberg & Ackerman 2001; Ernst 2002; Gärtner, Law & Sabel 2006; Hasselgård 2010; Haspelmath 2014; Forker 2014; Creissels 2014; Arka 2014; Lizárraga & Mora 2015). Referencias
  2. Agee, Daniel M. 1993. Modal clitics in San Jerónimo Mazatec. SIL-Mexi- co Workpapers, 10. 1-28.
  3. Ameka, Felix K. & Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. The typology and seman- tics of locative predicates: postural, positional and other beasts (In- troduction to a special volume). Linguistics 45(5). 847-871. https:// doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.025
  4. Apóstol, Jair. 2014. Clases flexivas verbales en el amuzgo de Xochist- lahuaca, Guerrero. Ciudad de México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. (Tesis de maestría.)
  5. Arka, I Wayan. 2014. Locative-related roles and the argument-adjunct distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery 12(2). 56-84. https:// 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.446
  6. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3). 343-434. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178286
  7. Campbell, Lyle. 1996. American Indian languages. The historical linguis- tics of Native America. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Creissels, Denis. 2014. Cross-linguistic variations in the treatment of beneficiaries and the argument vs. adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery 12(2). 41-55. 0.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.445
  9. Dryer, Matthew. S. 2013. Order of adposition and noun phrase. En Dr- yer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of lan- guage structures (online). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolu- tionary Anthropology.
  10. Kurzon, Dennis & Adler, Silvia. 2008. Adpositions: pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
  11. Levinson, Stephen C. & Wilkins, David P. 2006. Grammars of space. Ex- plorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Libert, Alan R. 2006. Ambipositions. (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology). Múnich: Lincom Europa.
  13. Libert, Alan R. 2013. Adpositions and other parts of speech. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  14. Lizárraga, Glenda & Mora-Bustos, Armando. 2015. Estructura grama- tical de los adjuntos. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 61. 225-252. https://doi.org/10.22201/enallt.01852647p.2015.61.157
  15. Mora-Bustos, Armando. 2022. Predicados no nucleares en mazahua (otomangue). Lengua y Sociedad 21(2). 149-176. http://dx.doi. org/10.15381/lengsoc.v21i2.23233
  16. Ortiz Villegas, Alejandra; Mora-Bustos, Armando & García Zúñiga, H. Antonio. 2018. Sistema de demostrativos en tres lenguas otoman- gues. (Ponencia presentada en el XV Encuentro Internacional de Lin- güística en el Noroeste. Universidad de Sonora.)
  17. Ortiz Villegas, Alejandra; García Zúñiga, H. Antonio & Mora-Bustos, Armando. 2018. Sistema de pronombres personales en cuatro len- guas otomangues. (Ponencia presentada en Symposium on American Indian Languages. Universidad de Ottawa, Canadá.)
  18. Ortiz Villegas, Alejandra; Hernández Hernández, Natalia; Mora-Bus- tos, Armando & García Zúñiga, H. Antonio. 2021. Sistema locativo en tres lenguas otomangues. Anales de Antropología 55(2). 125-141. https://doi.org/10.22201/iia.24486221e.2021.77971
  19. Pacchiarotti, Sara & Zúñiga, Fernando (eds.). 2022. Applicative morpho- logy: neglected syntactic and non-syntactic functions. (Trends in lin- guistics series). Berlín: De Gruyter.
  20. Pike, Kenneth. 1948. Tone language. Michigan: University of Michigan. Smith-Stark, Thomas & Tapia, Fermín. 1984. Los tonos del amuzgo de San Pedro Amuzgos. Anales de Antropología 21. 199-220. https://doi. org/10.22201/iia.24486221e.1984.1.15916
  21. Tallerman, Maggie. 2009. Understanding syntax. Londres: Hodder Arnold.
  22. Van Valin, Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: structure, mea- ning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Jottings on adpositions, case inflections, gov- ernment, and agreement. En Brentari, Diane; Larson, Gary N. & MacLeod, Lynn A. (eds.), The joy of grammar. A festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley, 369-383. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.