TAM/Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic

ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011Anne Tamm

anne.tamm@unifi.itCentral European University

Case (typically involves dependent Ns)

• Blake (2001: 1) defines case as an inflectional “system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads.”

Cross-Categorial Case (CCC)

• case as a TAM/negation marker • Narrower focus in this talk:

– case as part of non-finites – the partitive, the abessive, the spatial cases– Estonian

Blake (2001): Kalaw Lagaw Ya

• the comitative—habituality• the ablative—yesterday past• the locative—immediate past• the dative-allative—incompletivity• the ergative and the accusative—completivity

Nordlinger & Sadler (2004):Pitta Pitta

• objects of non-future tense clauses have an accusative marker –nha

• objects of future-tense clauses have the morpheme –ku as the accusative marker (Nordlinger and Sadler 2004:611)

Aikhenvald (2008): Manambu

Aspect marked on the verb: OBJ/LOC

Wun [de-ke-m] wukemar-e-mI he-LK-OBJ/LOC forget-LK-OBJ/LOC‘I completely forgot him.’ (Aikhenvald 2008:587)

Adelaar and Muysken (2004): Quechua

Accusative infinitive:Rima-y-ta xalayu-ru-n.speak-INF-ACC begin-PRF-3S‘He began to speak.’ (Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer

[2009: 189])

Recapitulation: nominal marking

• on V (bare stems)• on nominal arguments and verbs, TAM

marking function• on nominal arguments, but in the function of

TAM marking• on nonfinites that have reduced nominal

properties

Number of cases at wals.info

Rich case systems• Uralic languages are typically characterized by rich case systems

with approximately 10 members, and many have case systems of approximately 15 or 20 cases.

• According to the selection of languages in WALS on the map on Case by Iggesen (2008), there are 24 languages with more than 10 cases. – The following languages have more than 10 cases in WALS: Awa Pit,

Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, Epena Pedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt.

• Five of those listed are Uralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).

CASE NOUN VERB: ‘to go’1. Nominative s’ik2. Genitive s’ik-len3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’5. Datives’ik-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek myny-tek 9. Inessive s’ik-yn10. Illative s’ik-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Udmurt: negation--abessive on verbs

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Finnic aspect--two object casesMari sõi pitsa-t. M ate pizza-PARTITIVE‘Mary was eating the pizza.’

Mari sõi pitsa. M ate pizza.TOTAL‘It was a pizza that Mary ate up.’

Aspect in general

Telic - complete

Atelic – incomplete

NO PARTITIVE PARTITIVE

Hungarian aspectual particles and goal cases

INTO:Réka be-ment az épület-be. R INTO-go-3s.pst def building-INTO‘Réka entered the building.’ (”into-went”)ONTO:Ágnes rá-lépett a sajt-ra.A ONTO-step-3s.pst def cheese-ONTO‘Agnes stepped on cheese.’ (”on-stepped”)

productivepartitiveprtcpl-vat-vat-infinitive

productive...-da-da-t-infinitive

Historicalinstructive-da... Gerundive

Historical, productive-s, inessive-da-desGerundive

Historical, productive-ta, abessive-ma-mataAbessive of the m-infinitive

Artificial, productive-ks, translative-ma-maksTranslative of the m-infinitive

Dialectal, Finnish-Livonian-lt, ablative-ma(-malt)Ablative of the m-infinitive

Dialectal-l(a), adessive-ma-mallaAdessive of the m-infinitive

Coast dialectal-le, allative-ma-malleAllative of the m-infinitive

Historical, productive-st, elative-ma-mastElative of the m-infinitive

Historical, productive-s, inessive-ma-masInessive of the m-infinitive

Historical, productive-, illative-ma-maIllative of the m-infinitive (supine)

Diachronic statusCase NMLZ form

FormName

Estonian cross-categorial case

– illative and elative are linked to situation bounding (and not yet the possibility of the future or the past)

– inessive – the absentive and the progressive (Tommola 2000, De Groot 2000, Metslang 1994)

– abessive – negation (Hamari 2009)– partitive - aspect, epistemic modality and

evidentiality (Tamm 2009, Campbell 1991, Aikhenvald 2004, Erelt, Metslang&Pajusalu 2007)

Ma lähe-n Hong Kongi I[nom] go-1sg HK.illative‘I am going to Hong Kong.’

Goal: noun

Ma lähe-n uju-ma. I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative‘I am going swimming, I am going to swim.’ (# I’m gonna swim, I will swim.)

Goal: non-finite

Ma olen Hong Kongi-s. I[nom] be-1sg HK-inessive‘I am in Hong Kong.’

Location: noun

Ma olen uju-mas. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive‘I am off swimming.’(# I am swimming – progressive)

Location: non-finite

Ma tule-n Hong Kongi-st. I[nom] come-1s HK-elative‘I am coming from Hong Kong.’

Source: noun

Ma tule-n uju-mast. I[nom] come-1s swim-m_elative‘I am coming from swimming.’(# Je viens de nager – I have just swum.)

Source: non-finite

Ma ole-n programmi-ta. I[nom] be-1s program-abessive‘I don’t have a/the program, I am without

a/the program, I lack the program.’Ma ole-n registreeri-mata. I[nom] be-1s register-m_abessive‘I have not done my registration.’

Abessive: negation

The shared semantics of the partitives

Partitive marking

No partitive marking

NP Incomplete object

Complete object

Telicity Incomplete event

Complete event

Epistemic modality

Incomplete evidence

Complete evidence

Is this just a snowman or Father Frost’s agent of influence?

Allegedly, he has asked Father

Frost to give15

degrees below zero!

ole-va-t be-personal present participle - partitive

Mari ole-vat KGB agent.M be-PART.EVID kgb agent‘Allegedly/reportedly, Mary is a KGB agent.’

Mari on KGB agent.M be.3.s KGB agent‘Mary is a KGB agent.’

Evidentiality

Finnic Verb-Nominalizer-Case:Diachronic composition process

• V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE]• V [[Verb-[NMLZ]-CASE]]• V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]]• Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]

V (+ nominalizer + nominal marking non-finite or TAM verbal marking)

Nominal C vs CCC• Systems with CCC paradigms are complemented by

rich nominal case paradigms, but the reverse does not hold.

• The correspondences display cross-linguistic regularity although there are variations in the CCC inventories (abessive, translative, inessive).

• Cases in the paradigms are not identical: e.g., the Finnish abessive appears as a CCC but is infrequent as nominal case.

• Some cases (e.g., essive) are associated with various constraints that prevent them from appearing freely with nominalizations.

Nominalization scale• A language may contain CCCs that appear with items that are

located at different parts of the nominalization scale. • The degree of nominalization of the base plays a role in the

structure of CCC hierarchies and grammaticalization: the abessive may combine with the verb stem, while many other cases combine with various nominalizations in Udmurt.

• Since CCCs tend to be related to specific functional domains, they form hierarchies that diverge from the nominal ones (abessive, locatives are higher up on the implicational scale).

• If the degree of nominalization of the base verb is higher in a system containing several possibilities on the nominalization scale, then the cross-categorial and nominal case paradigms tend to be more similar. nom acc/erg gen dat loc abl/inst other (Blake 2001: 156)

CCC, nominalization, TAM+neg• Several generalizations can be established that cover CCCs

and infinitival adpositions (e.g., the Indo-European prepositional infinitives).

• In a case system with several goal markers, the more frequent ‘infinitives’ are based on the illative (Finnic) or translative (Selkup) instead of the earlier attested allative.

• The fact that abessive and translative (purposive) combine more readily with stems connects with the predictions of the frequency hierarchy established for Romance infinitives ([purposive>abessive> …] Schulte (2007)).

CCC, Uralic examples

• CCCs are rarely markers of prototypical predicate categories but have retained much of their nominal core semantics.

• In addition to their idiosyncratic morphosyntactic constraints, CCCs impose semantic and pragmatic constraints on their environment. Those constraints may be strikingly similar cross-linguistically.

• Spatial cases tend to give rise to tense-aspect marking, comitatives to Aktionsart (intensification, habituality), and abessives to negation.

Cross-categorial case

• Typical nominal or originally nominal marking• appearing on other categories• or encoding grammatical information typically

associated with predicates.

Completely=ACC, LOC, ERG He-ERG ate (one complete) pizza-ACC/LOCHe ERG/LOC/ACC-ate the pizzaHe completely-ate the pizza

Verb-NMLZ-CASEV [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE]V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]]Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]

EstonianFinnishMordvaMariKomiUdmurtHungarianother FUSami

Source:Larsson 2005, slide 45

The share in the number of speakers

Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations1. Nominative s’ik myn-on (verb+n+case) 2. Genitive s’ik-len myn-on-len (verb+n+len) 3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-on-les’5. Datives’ik-ly myn-on-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len 7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-on-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn myn-on-yn10. Illative s’ik-e myn-on-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ myn-on-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Case on m-nominalizations

1. Nominative s’ik myn-em (verb+m+case)2. Genitive s’ik-len myn-em-len (verb+m+len)3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-em-les’5. Datives’ik-ly myn-em-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-em-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn myn-em-yn10. Illative s’ik-e myn-em-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) myn-em-ys’12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ myn-em-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

FU Source cases ablative, elative, partitive, delative, egressive, exessive

• Egressive (Veps, Udmurt) marking the beginning of a movement or time (e.g., beginning from the house)

• Exessive (Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, Votic, Estonian, etc ) transition away from a state (from a house)

• Delative (Hungarian) denotes movement from the surface (e.g., from (the top of) the house)

• Ablative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mansi, Vepsian, Votic, etc) denotes movement away from something (e.g., away from the house)

• Elative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Lule Sámi, Pite Sámi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of the house).

• Partitive (Finnic, Sámi languages) denotes "of, from, out of something" (the identity condition with the source matter).

• Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

Some manure, too

Affectedness of the incremental theme and the object case

Incremental theme argument totally affected

Incremental theme argument

partially affected

NO PARTITIVE

PARTITIVE

The whole pizza is in the oven!But Eugenio’s action is incomplete.

Eugenio pani pitsa-t ahju.E[nom] put-past3s pizza-ptv oven.ill‘Eugenio is putting the pizza in the oven.’

Abessive negation: modal constraints/presuppositions

#Kivist voodi on tege-mata.stone-ELA bed[NOM] be.3S make-

M_ABE‘The stone bed has not been made.’

#Marmorkuju on söö-mata.marble.statue[NOM] be.3S eat-M_ABE‘The marble statue has not eaten.’

An MDS map based on the WALS by Michael Cysouw