Morphosyntactic coding of proper names in Mapudungun

The morphosyntactic status of proper names in Mapudungun

with special attention to differential object marking

Lukas Denk, University of Regensburg ALT 11 in Albuquerque, NM (08/03/15)

Outline

INTRODUCTIONMapudunguntransitive argument marking in Mapudungun

PROPER NAMES (Anthroponyms)proper names as transitive argumentsdifferential object marker -fimorphosyntactic status of proper names

CONCLUSION

Mapudungun

Also known as: Araucano (pej.), Mapuche, Mapudungun

Classification: Mapudungu (but also Araucanian)

Population: 258.620 in Argentina and Chile (250,000 in Chile)

Language Status: 6b (Threatened)

(Ethnologue)

Argument marking in Mapudungun

Locus of marking: head of the clause

(1)

Iñche nie-Ø-n kiñe fütra lasu (cf. Zúñiga 2007:24)1sPRO have-Ø-1sIND one big lasso'I have a big lasso.'


Some morphemes are co-argument sensitive

(1)

Iñche nie-Ø-n kiñe fütra lasu (Zúñiga 2007:24)1sPRO have-Ø-1sIND one big lasso'I have a big lasso.'

-Ø: not 3rd person cross-referencing!

→ appears (here) when 1st singular is A and 3rd singular is P.


Locus of marking: head of the clause

(1)

Iñche nie-Ø-n kiñe fütra lasu (cf. Zúñiga 2007:24)1sPRO have-Ø-1sIND one big lasso'I have a big lasso.'

Ø-1sIND refers to the scenario ''1st person singular acting on 3rd singular'' (1>3)

1st ↔ 2nd

-e: if A and P are 1st or 2nd person singular 1s>2s; 2s>1s;

(2) 2s>1s (Zúñiga 2006: 217)pe-e-nsee-E-1s.IND'you(sg.) see me.'

(3) 1s>2s (Zúñiga 2006: 217)pe-e-yusee-E-1d.IND'I saw you(sing)'

1st ↔ 2nd

-w: if 1st person is A and 2nd person is P and one participant of the scenario is not singular.

(4)pe-w-iyiñ (Zúñiga 2006: 217)

see-W-1p.IND'I saw you(d/p) / we(d/p) saw you (s/d/p), we saw ourselves.'

1st ↔ 2nd

-mu: if 2nd person is A and 1st person is P and one participant of the scenario is notsingular.

(5)pe-mu-n/ pe-mu-yu/ pe-mu-iñ. (cf. Zúñiga 2006: 217)

see-MU-1s.IND see-MU-1d.IND see-MU-1p.IND'you(d/p) saw me.'/ 'you(s/d/p) saw us(d)'/ 'you(s/d/p) saw us(p)'.

Co-argument sensitive markers

-e: if A and P are 1st or 2nd person singular 1s>2s; 2s>1s; -w: if 1st person is A and 2nd person is P and one participant of the scenario is not singular.

-mu: if 2nd person is A and 1st person is P and one participant of the scenario is not singular.

→ indicates the role of both arguments (co-argument sensitivity)(cf. Witzlack-Makarevich & al. 2012)

Co-argument sensitive markers

-e: if A and P are 1st or 2nd person singular 1s>2s; 2s>1s; -w: if 1st person is A and 2nd person is P and one participant of the scenario is not singular.

-mu: if 2nd person is A and 1st person is P and one participant of the scenario is not singular.

-Ø/-fi: if 1st or 2nd person is A on 3rd person is P; if 3rd person proximate is A and 3rd person obviative is P.

-e: if 1st or 2nd person is P and 3rd person is A; if 3rd person proximate is P and 3rd person obviative is A.

→ indicates the role of both arguments (co-argument sensitivity)(cf. Witzlack-Makarevich & al. 2012)

1st/ 2nd → 3rd

-Ø/-fi: if 1st or 2nd person is A on 3rd person is P

(6)Pe-Ø-n kura.see-Ø-1s.IND stone'I saw a stone/ stones.'

(7)Feymew fey entu-fi-y-iñ tüfa-chi kiñe küđaw.therefore that take.out-FI-IND-1p this-ADJ one work.'Therefore we have undertaken this particular project.'

(Smeets 2008: 271)

3rd → 1st/ 2nd

-e: if 1st or 2nd person is P and 3rd person is A

(8)Kallfüpan engu Antüpan kellu-e-n-ew (Zúñiga 2007:25)Calfupán 3dPRO Antipán help-E-1s-3A'Calfupán and Antipán helped me.'

(9)mütrüm-e-ym-ew (Smeets 2008:156)call-E-2s.IND-3A'he/she/they called you.'

3rd → 3rd (obviation scenario)

In Mapudungun, Obviation is a nominal category which is only reflected in the verbal morphology.

With two 3rd person referents acting upon each other, the speaker has to determine which person is proximate (≈ more salient, known in the discourse) and which is obviative (≈less salient, new to the discourse) in order to assign the syntactic roles by the verbal morphemes.

3rd (prox) → 3rd (obv)

-Ø/-fi: if 3rd person proximate is A and 3rd person obviative is P.

(10) (Smeets 2008: 231)pichin plata nie-fu-Ø-y welu fill antü ngilla-ki-Ø-y kofkelittle money have-RI-Ø-IND but every day buy-CF-Ø-IND bread

'He(prox) had little money(obv) but still he(prox) would buy bread(obv) every day.'

(11)Chi wenüy feypi-fi-y:... (Zúñiga 2006: 214 ff.)ART friend say-FI-IND'The friend(prox) said to them.(obv):...'

3rd (obv) → 3rd (prox)

-e: if 3rd person proximate is P and 3rd person obviative is A.

(12)Ni chaw duam-urke-la-e-y-ew. (Zúñiga 2006: 214 ff.)3POSS father care-REP-NEG-E-IND-3A'His father(obv.) did not care for him(prox).'

Distinction of nominal status

-e, -w, -mu : appears in local scenarios (indicate the presence of 1st and 2nd person)

-Ø/-fi/-e appear in mixed and non-local scenarios (indicate the presence of one or two third person referents)

→ those markers are co-referent sensitive! (and, in addition, are accompanied by proper person markers which further determine the status and role of the referents:

(13)mütrüm-e-ym-ew (Smeets 2008:156)call-E-2s.IND-3A'he/she/they called you.'

Summary

argument co-sensitive markers indicate/reflect

role of the arguments referential status of the arguments (A; P) (1st, 2nd, 3rd person proximate, 3rd

obviative)

Ranking of referents

The argument markers are not merely co-argument sensitive; nominal expressions are ranked in a hierarchy:

SAPs>(3rd proximate > 3rd obviative)

actions occurring along this hierarchy are marked with -Ø/-fi; actions occurring against the hierarchy are marked with -e

Ranking of referents

The argument markers are not merely co-argument sensitive; nominal expressions are ranked in a hierarchy:


actions occurring along this hierarchy are marked with -Ø/-fi; actions occurring against the hierarchy are marked with -e

→ 'direction' markers -Ø/-fi: direct -e: inverse

proper names

Is there any special coding for proper names as arguments?

If yes, do proper names occupy a position in the previously mentioned referential hierarchy?

Proper names and SAP's

(14) PN as A, SAP as P ( PN--> SAP) (Coña 1995: 44)Kiñe antü mütrüm-e-n-ew P. ConstancioOne day call-INV-1s-3A P. Constancio'One day P. Constancio called me.'

(15) PN as P, SAP as A (SAP--> PN) (Coña 1995: 54)(...) pi-fi-ñ P. Constancio:say-DIR.DOM-1s.IND P. Constancio'I said to P. Constancio:'

Proper names and SAP's

(14) PN as A, SAP as P ( PN--> SAP) (Coña 1995: 44)Kiñe antü mütrüm-e-n-ew P. ConstancioOne day call-INV-1s-3A P. Constancio'One day P. Constancio called me.'

(15) PN as P, SAP as A (SAP--> PN) (Coña 1995: 54)(...) pi-fi-ñ P. Constancio:say-DIR.DOM-1s.IND P. Constancio'I said to P. Constancio:'

→ same marking as with SAP's ↔ 3rd person

Proper names and other 3rd persons

(16) PN(prox) as A, 3rd(obv) as P ( PN.prox--> 3rd.obv) Nie-fu-Ø-y kiñe fotüm Domingo Coñahave-RI-DIR-IND one son Domingo Coña'Domingo Coña(prox.) had a son(obv.).'

(Coña 1995:21)


(17) PN(obv) as A, 3rd(prox) as P (PN.obv--> 3rd.prox) Wüdetulu Carmelita, fei nief-e-y-ew Ignacio Melillanghaving.separed Carmelita, 3sPRO have.RI-INV-IND-3A Ignacio Melillang

'Having separed Carmelita (from her first husband), Ignacio Melillang(obv) had her(prox.) (as his wife).'

(Coña 1995:21)


(18) PN(obv) as P, 3rd(prox) as A (3rd.prox-->PN.obv )Feymew amu-y-Ø, ina-fi-y Pedrothen go-IND-3s, follow-DIR-IND Pedro(obv)'Then he went, he followed Pedro.'

(Zúñiga 2010: 152)

→ same marking as with 3rd proximate ↔ 3rd obviative


(19) PN(prox) as P, 3rd(obv) as A (3rd.obv--> PN.prox) Xasinta püna-e-y-ew ti chikletJacinta paste-INV-IND-3-3A the chewing.gum.'Jacinta(prox) got stuck onto the chewing gum(obv)'

(Smeets 2008: 228)

Proper names and the co-argument-sensitive hierarchy


hierarchy:


Proper Names

Proper names and the co-argument-sensitive hierarchy


hierarchy:


Proper Names

→ the scenario is not specifically marked for proper names, proper names, as all third person participants, can be obviated.

Proper names as patients

common nouns as Pproper names as P

-fi

However, proper names are distinguished by the fact that they always trigger -fi when being obviative and patients:

(20) PN(obv) as P, 3rd(prox) as A (3rd.prox →PN.obv )ina-fi-y Pedrofollow-DIR-IND Pedro(obv)'(…) he followed Pedro.'

(21) PN(obv) as P, 3rd(prox) as A (3rd.prox → PN.obv )*ina-Ø-y Pedro follow-DIR-IND Pedro(obv)'(…) he followed Pedro.'

-fi

Other 3rd person expressions can appear with -fi, but not necessarily.Alternation of -fi referring to [+human, + definite] (Zúñiga 2010: 151):

(22) Ina-fi-y ñi epu peñi. follow-DIR-IND 3PSR two brother.'He followed his two brothers [+human, + definite].'

(23) Feymew ka in-ka-tu-Ø-y ñi epu peñi.then again follow-CONT-again-DIR-IND 3PSR two brother.'Then he kept following his two brothers [+human, + definite].'

-fi

Other 3rd person expressions can appear with -fi, but not necessarily:

alternation of -fi referring to [+specific] (Zúñiga cf. 2010:151)(24)pe-fi kiñe kawellu, kiñe flang-ürke pe-Ø-y.see-DIR.DOM one horse, one white-MIR see-DIR-IND.'(He stood up at midnight and) saw one horse [+specific], one white horse [+specific].'

that means, the co-argument sensitive marker -fi additionally covaries with the status of the object and can be seen as a differential object marking (better term: differential indexing!)

-fi: a differential object marker?

as to other 3rd person referents, -fi is governed by 'soft constraints' as a corpus study in Zúñiga (2010) reveals:

Semantic/pragmatic features triggering -fi

[+given]: the referent is not new in the discourse

[+accessible]: the referent has been mentioned in the 1st , 2nd or 3rd clause before. (anaphoric persistence)

[+important]: the referent has been mentioned at least 3 times in the 10 following clauses (cataphoric persistence)

Semantic/pragmatic features triggering -fi

→ This can be interpreted as a probability of properties (of referents triggering -fi) and ordered in a cline:

[+HUM](78%) > [+IMPORT](64%) > [ACCES](56%) >> [+DEF](55%) > [+GIV](54%) > [-ACCES](36%) > [-GIV](32%) >

>[-IMPORT](28%) > [-HUM](25%) > [-DEF](16%).

Hard constraints on -fi

- proper names


- proper names- also ''3rd person pronouns''

(25)Ngilla-fi-mubuy-PRO.3-2d'We two bought it/them.'

→ in this case: -fi understood as an anaphoric element than a differential object marker.


- proper names- also ''3rd person pronouns''- SAP's in non-finite clauses


- SAP's in non-finite clauses

(26)Iñche newe kim-la-fi-ñ ñi chem düngu1s.PRO not.much know-NEG-DIR.DOM-1s.IND 3PSR what matter

ñi pi~pi-nge-fi-el.3PSR ITER~say-ITER-DOM-NFIN'I didn't know what exactly he said.' lit. 'I didn't know his what matter saying-to-me.'

(cf. Smeets 2008:211):


- SAP's in non-finite clauses

(27) (Smeets 2008:211)iñche mi pe-fi-el eymi1s.PRO 2s.PSR see-DOM-NFIN 2s.PRO'I seeing you.' (more literally: I your seing.DOM you)

(28) (Smeets 2008:211)eymi mi pe-fi-el iñche2s.PRO 2s.PSR see-DOM-NFIN 1s.PRO'You seeing me.' (literally: I your seeing.DOM I)

→ -fi has no different (inverse/allomorphic) counterpart when SAP's act upon each other (cf. in finite clauses: -e, -w, -mu)

DOM-hierarchy

Compared to other languages (based on Aissen 2003):

DOM-hierarchy

Definiteness hierarchy (Aissen 2003:437):

Personal pronoun > Proper name > Definite NP > Indefinite specific NP > Non-specific NP

DOM-hierarchy

Definiteness hierarchy (Aissen 2003:437):

Personal pronoun > Proper name > Definite NP > Indefinite specific NP > Non-specific NP

→ supports to some extent the prediction given by the definiteness hierarchy

Status of proper names

- PNs are sensitive to DOM, as in other languages, too

- In Mapudungun, PNs are a hard constraint for DOM, like pronouns, but unlike common nouns

- the status of PNs in Mapudungun supports to some extent the predictions given by the definiteness hierarchy, but challenge them due to the presence of ''soft constraints'' on other NP types

- PNs do not form a distinctive class in the co-argument sensitive hierarchy of Mapudungun.

Status of proper names

- proper names as a category are not considered in the co-argument sensitive marking hierarchy

- proper names as a category are sensitive to differential object marking

Why are proper names distinguished for DOM but not for co-argument sensitivity?

What could have determined the specific status?

1) In Mapudungun, co-argument sensitive marking is also co-referent sensitive marking:

the nominal feature cannot be represented twice in a sentence:

3rd (proximate) > 3rd (obviative)/ 1st /2nd

* 3rd (proximate) > 3rd (proximate)1st > 3rd / 2nd

* 1st > 1st


1) In Mapudungun, co-argument sensitive marking is also co-referent sensitive marking:

the nominal feature cannot be represented twice in a sentence:

3rd (proximate) > 3rd (obviative)/ 1st /2nd

* 3rd (proximate) > 3rd (proximate)1st > 3rd / 2nd

* 1st > 1st

the feature [+proper] is not dependent on the feature of the co-argument:Mary [+prop] saw him[+pro]Peter [+prop] saw Mary [+prop]


2) Differential object marking is only dependent on one argument (object).The features which govern DOM do not depend on the features of the other arguments

[+pro][+proper][+human][+definite][+given][+accessible][+important]

→ the feature [+proper] belongs to a different referential domain as the features [+proximate] [+obviative]; actually, those features can be attributed to the features triggering DOM.

Language Contact?

3) Proper names in Mapudungun are mostly Spanish namesIn Spanish, differential object marking is obligatory for proper names

(29)Pedro vio a JacintaPedro saw DOM Jacinta'Pedro saw Jacinta.' *Pedro vio Jacinta→ Spanish proper names might have caused a reinterpretation of the co-argument sensitive marker -fi as a differential object marker, and proper nouns are those third person referents which were first perceived as a trigger. (not pronouns, because of special head-marking strategies)→ this tendency/ development has still to be properly investigated.

Conclusion

The status of proper names is determined by differential object marking

Furthermore, the status of proper names in Mapudungun has shown that differential object marking and co-argument sensitive marking might conform to referential hierarchies, but those hierarchies are governed by different referential properties and belong to different referential domains.

Thank you for your attention!

References

Aissen, Judith 2003. Differential Object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. In Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 435-483.

Coña, Pascual. 1995. Lonco Pascual Coña ñi tuculpazugun. Testimonio de un cacique mapuche. Texto dictado al padre Ernesto Wilhelm de Moesbach. 5th edition. Santiago: Pehuén. [Original edition: Moesbach 1930.]

Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin [u.a.]: Mouton de Gruyter.

Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Bickel, B., Zakharko T., and Bierkandt, L. 2012. Decomposinghierarchical alignment: co-arguments as conditions on alignment. Presented at Meeting ofthe Project Referential hierarchies in morphosyntax: description, typology, diachrony,Zurich, Mai 31.

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment. Inverse systems in indigenous languages of theAmericas. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Benjamins.

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2007. Mapudungun. Munchen: LINCOM.

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2010. La marca diferencial del objeto en Mapudungun. Lingu.stica 24.141-164.

Abbreviations

Date post:	10-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	unm
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Morphosyntactic coding of proper names in Mapudungun

Documents