Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages (original) (raw)
Linguistics, 2023
A distinction between inalienable and alienable possession is considered to be crosslinguistically common. For the Tungusic languages, it is generally illustrated with examples that contrast inherently possessed body parts with body parts belonging to a non-inherent possessor, with the latter being formally marked with a suffix-ŋ(V). However, as we argue here for Negidal (Northern Tungusic), rather than marking 'alienable' or 'indirect' possession, the suffix-ŋ(i) flags the occurrence of non-canonical possessive constructions; the supposedly straightforward interpretation of the oft-cited examples involving body parts is merely a secondary effect of the particular kind of non-canonical construction involved. This analysis unifies the diverse constructions in which-ŋ(i) occurs, namely with obligatorily possessed body parts, with non-possessible items such as nouns denoting humans or environment terms as well as demonstratives or adjectives, and with other modifiers when the possessee is elided. We complement our investigation with the analysis of the cognate suffix-ŋi, whose main function is to mark the possessor in possessive constructions with an elided head. The function of both suffixes can thus be subsumed under the marking of non-canonical possessive constructions. This analysis can be extended to several Tungusic languages, as the comparison with Negidal's sister languages shows.
Chapter 7. Genealogically motivated grammaticalization
Studies in Language Companion Series, 2013
The present contribution suggests how grammaticalization theory may contribute to establishing remote linguistic relationships, more particularly to distinguishing genealogical residue from the effects of areal influence, universal factors and coincidence. The five different types of shared grammaticalization discussed in the introductory chapter of this volume are characterized according to their likelihood of being global (displaying a full correspondence including form) or selective (involving only a partial correspondence excluding form). Globally shared grammaticalization is taken as a strong indication of genealogical relatedness and is supplemented with six other criteria that help to reduce the likelihood of contact effects or universal principles. When these criteria are applied to the verb morphology shared among the Transeurasian languages, a strong case can be made for genealogical relatedness.
The Origins of Nominative Case in Austronesian*
2021
This paper proposes a reconstruction of subject marking in Proto-Austronesian (PAn). I depart from previous approaches in not reconstructing nominative case, per se. Rather, I propose that subjects in PAn surfaced as bare DPs, and the case markers that are reflected in present day Formosan and Philippine languages resulted from later innovations. The marking with initial /k-/ that appears widely on subjects projected from common nominals originated as a topic marker *kin PAn. In contrast to this, case-marking on personal nominals like names and pronouns derives from the PAn locative preposition *i. The preposition was used in differential object marking of personal nominal absolutives in the newly innovated ergative clause type in a daughter of PAn, Proto-Ergative Austronesian. The preposition further grammaticalized into a determiner and subsequently into the marker of [PERSON] in PEAn’s daughter Proto-Nuclear Austronesian. The person marker iis ubiquitously reflected in case marke...
Austroasiatic Affixes and Grammatical Lexicon
Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective, 2020
The editors of this volume collaborated to create this Austroasiatic grammatical lexicon as a resource for the investigation of the history of PAA syntax. It began as a simple compilation of grammatical and grammaticalised items extracted from Shorto's (2006) reconstruction of Proto-Austroasiatic/Mon-Khmer, and was then augmented with data from the SEAlang Mon-Khmer and Munda Languages Project. Later, special sections on pronouns and morphology were added, extending beyond Shorto's work with other published sources. As noted in the introduction, in the history of Austroasiatic research, mor-phosyntax has been somewhat neglected in favour of lexical and phonological studies, and this has affected the quality and quantity of available grammatical data and remains a serious ongoing problem. This is not to denigrate previous work; researchers legitimately prioritized those facets of language, especially phonology and lexicon that were important to them, and were largely consistent with their immediate professional milieu. In the second half of the 20th century, the diverse and highly dynamic world of grammatical theory often seemed remote from the concerns of those collecting primary data, and work presented within the constraints of particular theoretical approaches was not made more accessible by that fact. Consequently, we feel that it is appropriate to take a back-to-basics approach and present a broad index of grammatical items in etymological context. Austroasiatic reconstruction remains a maturing field. Thus, it is not possible to simply list proto-AA forms for any or all grammatical items, yet it is still often premature to set aside particular etyma that are not widely attested, so we must proceed carefully while always making clear our data sources and reasoning. The compilation presented here is to be regarded as a working document and resource in a highly contingent field of inquiry. Some reconstructions involve only a couple of branches (with a number of items moved to the the final subsection of this paper as items of less likely PAA items or complete exclusions), while others appear in several branches and thus can be considered stronger candidates for original Proto-AA status rather than later innovations which spread aross multiple branches. This data thus gives a sense of Proto-AA grammar, from personal and demonstrative pronouns, to negation and time, to location and comparison.
Linguistic Typology - Possession
This report discusses grammatical possession in ten languages. In terms of genetic affiliation, they span nine language families: Sino-Tibetan (Hokkien and Mandarin), Indo-European (English), Afro-Asiatic (Dime), Niger-Congo (Tafi), Austronesian (Ughele), Trans-New Guinea (Klon), Uto-Aztecan (Cupeño), Chapacuran (Wariˈ) and language isolate (Movima). In terms of geographical origin, they range eight continental regions: Northern America (Cupeño), Southern America (Wariˈ and Movima), Northern Europe (English), Western Africa (Tafi), Eastern Africa (Dime), Eastern Asia (Hokkien and Mandarin), South-Eastern Asia (Klon) and Melanesia (Ughele). The sample languages were selected principally for their genetic distinctness, and additionally for their geographical spread globally. With the exception of Hokkien and Mandarin, all sample languages come from different language families, and have no significant history of mutual contact.
University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 18
2009
Building up Complex Temporal Constructions (8) a. antes *(de) las ocho Spanish prima *(del)le otto Italian Lit. 'before *(of) the eight' b. después *(de) la cena Spanish Lit. 'after *(of) the dinner' As the examples in (8) illustrate, in Spanish the functional preposition is de, the same particle which is used to express genitive case in nominal constructions. Marácz (1984), Plann (1986) and Bresnan (1994) argued that complex prepositions are some kind of defective nominals because they introduce genitive complements. 6 Across Romance languages, however, there is a microparametrical variation with respect to the realization or omission of this functional preposition. In standard Spanish, for instance, it always appears whenever a complement occurs, (8). The same situation holds for Portuguese: (9) a. antes/depois do atentado/ de mim Portuguese b. antes/depois de ocorrer o atentado c. antes/depois de que ocorresse o atentado In Catalan the same preposition, de, always appears except for inflected sentences: (10) a. abans/després de l'atemptat/ de mi Catalan b. abans/després de passar l'atemptat c. abans/després (*de) que passés l'atemptat 6. The distinction between two types of prepositions was noticed long time ago by Antonio de Nebrija (1492, cap. XV), the first Spanish grammarian. According to him, in Spanish there are prepositions that require genitive, such as cerca 'near/close'; antes 'before'; delante 'in front of'; dentro 'inside' (locative)/'in' (temporal), etc., and prepositions that introduce accusative complements, such as contra 'against'; hasta, 'until' (temporal)/'to' (locative); entre 'between/among' (locative), etc. Nebrija also pointed out that some of the prepositions of the first group might also be used without the genitive marker. This alternation goes on holding in contemporary Spanish (and Catalan) and nowadays a large microparametric variation within dialects and registers can be found: encima de la mesa/ col. encima la mesa (Spanish) 'on the table'; darrera de la casa/ (dar)rera la casa (Catalan) 'behind the house'. We refer the reader to Bartra and Suñer (1992) for more details about this topic. 7. Rizzi (1988:523) notes that in Italian the preposition di does not obligatorily follow dopo in the case in which the complement is a free personal pronoun, (i.a), and that the same preposition can never appear when the free personal pronoun is modified, (i.b): (i) a. Dopo (di) lui non c'è nessuno. 'After (of) him there is noboby' b. Gianni viene dopo (*di) noi tutti. 'G. comes after (*of) us all' We agree with Rizzi's judgements, but we also think that the optionality of di with free personal pronouns (cf. (13a) and (i.a)) is restricted to some particular cases. 8. In Romanian, unlike the other Romance languages, the sentence introduced by dupa 'after' cannot appear in infinitive: (i) *A sosit (cu dua zile) dupa ce a se intampla (atentatul). '(S/he) arrived (two days) after (the terroristic attack) take Inf place' 15 Laura Brugè and Avel. lina Suñer projected even though in some cases it is phonologically unrealized. 9 We also propose that this preposition-pronounced or unpronounced-is a Case marker that dominates the eventive nominal expression and that expresses the complement-relationship between this expression and a silent TIME that selects it, as we will discuss in section 3.3. 10 c) as Plann (1986) pointed out for locative particles, a related question to this last property is that in Spanish this 'particles' can combine with postposed possessives, detrás mío 'Lit. behind mine', delante tuyo 'Lit. in front of yours', etc. 11 These constructions are not allowed by prescriptive grammar, but they are extremely frequent in colloquial speech, and in Catalan they belong to the standard language, darrera meu, davant teu. 12 d) Larson (1985) pointed out another interesting property of this construction. While complex prepositions can be modified by certain adverbs with a focalizing function, 9. See the crosslinguistic data provided by Cinque (2008) and the references mentioned there for locative complex prepositions. 10. In this paper we will not deal with why this preposition can be either unpronounced or phonologically realized. Romance languages may differ in the way of assigning Case to sentential or nominal complements and perhaps the categorial origin of the particle in each language plays a crucial role in this choice. 11. See Terzi (2008: §3) for an explanation of these data with locative particles. Postposed possessives with temporal particles are much more restricted, but we can find some examples in very colloquial speech: (i) a. Leo Dan, que cantó antes mío… Lit. 'Leo Dan, who sung before mine Masc. Sing. b. Habló con Madelman y Unai (…) que pinchan después mío.