case and markedness in tlapanec andreas opitz leipzig university

Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

Andreas OpitzLeipzig University

4/20/2007 Andreas Opitz: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

2

Tlapanec shows some unusual behavior regarding the case assignment to its arguments. (Wichmann, to app.).

The analysis provided here helps to explain this unusual behavior of case and case markers by: a competition of typologically motivated markedness

constraints (OT) (Smolensky, 1995; Aissen, 1999) a sub-analysis of case markers (DM) (Noyer, 1992;

Trommer, 1999)


3

Case Assignment in Tlapanec head-marking case is assigned only to animate arguments

(no distinctions between trans. vs. intrans., but A(I) vs. AA (and AAA, not mentioned here))

four distinct classes of case markers (= 4 cases)

feature: highly vs. lowly affecting portmanteau morphemes: case + person


4

mono-personal verbs (A): (A) (intrans.):

Absolutive (high affectedness) ‘s/he is alone’ Dative (low affectedness?): ‘s/he is nude’)

(A,I) (trans.): (Absolutive (‘non-actor’, high affectedness) ) Pegative (‘source’ ‘weak actor’, low affectedness) ‘x is seeing

something’ Dativ (‘non-actor’, low affectedness) ‘s/he wants something’ Ergativ (‘actor’, high affectedness) ‘s/he is burning something’

di-personal verbs (AA) (A,A):

Dative (low affectedness) Absolutive (high affectedness)

(A,A3sgl): Absolutive (high affectedness)

(A,A3sgl): Pegative (low affectedness)


5

Case Assignment in Tlapanec

general rules of case assignment in Tlapanec:1. case is assigned only to animate arguments2. maximally one argument is marked with case3. if there is no (anim.) object, the subject is marked4. otherwise the (anim.) object is marked5. if the object is animate, 3rd singular and the verb is

‘lowly affecting’, the subject is marked

If an animate and inanimate argument is involved, the animate must always rank higher on the hierarchy actor>undergoer>theme. “Thus, an expression like ‘the hammer killed the man’ is impossible.” Wichmann (to app.)


6

Macro Role

Affectedness

Actor Undergoer

High Ergative Absolutive

Low Pegative* Dative

Wichmann, 2006:


7

Ergative Pegative Dative Absolutive

Sg 1 Ø –u / -o –uʔ ~ -oʔ –ũʔ

2 Ø -a / -I -aʔ -ãʔ / -ĩʔ

3 Ø –u / -o –u / -o -i

Pl 1i Ø -a / -i -aʔ -ãʔ

1x Ø -a / -i -aʔ -ãʔ

2 Ø -a / -i -aʔ -ãʔ

3 Ø -a / -i –ũ - ĩ

Case Markers in Tlapanec

‘unusual behavior’ of case markers:

• zero-marked ergative

• marked absolutive

• pegative

note: ‘/’ and ~ stand for phonologically driven alternations


8

The idea behind the analysis Syntax > Impov (OT) > morphol. Realization (DM)

V

V Cl[..Ob..]

V Cl[…] [..Su..] [/a/ /b/ /c/]


9

Hypothesis: There are only two functionally distinct cases, that split each into

two different instances due to the factor of affectedness: Pegative is - in fact - the same as ergative but with the feature “low” (or

without the feature “high”) Dative is absolutive with the feature “low”

The two cases mark external arguments (“subject”) on the one hand and internal arguments (“object”) on the other.

(From an A/AA-perspective Tlapanec shows active case alignment.) The “missing” marker for the actor of highly affecting verbs (“zero-

ergative marking”) can be explained by a competition of markedness constraints. (Smolensky, 1995; Aissen, 1999)

The morphonological more complex marker of the absolutive (the normally “unmarked” case) results from an additional coding of markedness, namely ‘animate object’ and ‘high affecting’.


10

2. Impoverishment of the morpho-syntactical context

All constraints emerge from prominence scales and harmonic alignment.

(Silverstein, 1976; Prince and Smolensky, 1993; Aissen, 1999, 2003)

scales involved in Tlapanec case marking: gram. relation:su > ob person: local > 3 affectedness: high > low animacy: animate > inanimate


11

Harmonic Alignment These three scales interact all together

simultaneously, thus it becomes necessary to extend the notion of harmonic alignment.

I suggest a hierarchy of scales:1. gram. relation: su > ob2. person: local > 33. affectedness: high > low4. animacy: an. > inan.


12

Harmonic Alignment In a first step, the highest ranking scales are harmonically

aligned. Alignment of gram. function and person:

scales: Su > Ob local > 3

harmonic alignment: Su/local Su/3≻ Ob/3 Ob/local≻

constraint alignment: *Su/3 *Su/Local≫ *Ob/Local *Ob/3≫


13

Harmonic AlignmentIn a second step, the output of the first harmonic alignment is

taken as a base for harmonic alignment with the next feature of the hierarchy:

Alignment of output1 and affectedness: Scales (input):

Su/Local Su/3≻ Ob/3 Ob/Local≻High > low High > low

Harmonic Alignment:Su/Local/high Su/Local/low≻ Ob/3/High Ob/3/low≻Su/3/low Su/3/high≻ Ob/Local/low Ob/Local/high≻


14

Harmonic Alignment

Alignment of output2 and animacy: Scales (input):

Su/Local/high Su/Local/low≻ Su/3/low Su/3/high≻Ob/3/High Ob/3/low≻Ob/Local/low Ob/Local/high≻

anim. > inanim.


15

Harmonic Alignments:Su/Local/high/an Su/Local/high/in≻Su/Local/low/in Su/Local/low/an≻Su/3/low/an Su/3/low/in≻Su/3/high/in Su/3/high/an≻Ob/3/High/an Ob/3/High/in≻Ob/3/low/in Ob/3/low/an≻Ob/Local/low/an Ob/Local/low/in ≻Ob/Local/high/in Ob/Local/high/an ≻


16

Constraint Alignments:*Su/Local/high/in ≫ *Su/Local/high/an *Su/Local/low/an ≫ *Su/Local/low/in *Su/3/low/in ≫ *Su/3/low/an *Su/3/high/an ≫ *Su/3/high/in *Ob/3/High/in ≫ *Ob/3/High/an *Ob/3/low/an ≫ *Ob/3/low/in *Ob/Local/low/in ≫ *Ob/Local/low/an*Ob/Local/high/an ≫ *Ob/Local/high/in


17

Constraint Alignments:{*Su/3/high/an *Su/Local/high/an } ‘*Su/high/’{*Su/Local/low/an *Su/3/low/an } ‘*Su/low/’

*Ob/3/High/an ‘*Ob/3/high’*Ob/3/low/an ‘*Ob/3/low’

Note that these (here abbreviated) constraints, although derived via harmonic alignment, are not ordered. In contrast the ‘real’ *Su/high and *Su/low are: *Su/low >> *Su/high !(These constraint are also part of the constraint hierarchy, but they are supposed to be ordered low enough, thus they don’t interfere the derivation.)


18

decomposition of “subject” vs. “object”, and “high” vs. “low” into combinations of binary features (Jakobson, 1962; Bierwisch, 1965; Wunderlich, 1997):

subject: {+su -ob} (=external argument) object: {-su +ob} (=internal argument) high: {+ high} low: {-high}

central assumption:

If one set of features (= one argument) violates a constraint, the whole set of features (argument) is deleted. (as it is supposed for instance by Wunderlich (2004); and in contrast to Aissen (1999)).


19

Su, Ob, high

{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob +high}

Uniq *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low

Ø **!

{+su –ob +high} *! *

{-su +ob +high} *

{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob +high}

*! *


20

Su, Ob, low

{+su –ob -high}{-su +ob -high}


Ø **!

{+su –ob -high} * *!

{-su +ob -high} *

{+su –ob -high}{-su +ob -high}

*! *


21

Su, Ob3, high

{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob 3 +high}


Ø **!

{+su –ob +high} *! *

{-su +ob 3 +high} * *

{+su –ob +high}{-su +ob 3 +high}

*! *


22

Su, Ob 3, low

{+su –ob -high}{-su +ob 3 -high}


Ø **!

{+su –ob -high} * *

{-su +ob 3 -high} *! *

{+su –ob -high}{-su+ob 3 -high}

*! * *


23

Su, high

{+su –ob +high} *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low

Ø *

{+su –ob high} *!


24

Su, low

{+su –ob -high} *O/3/low *S/high *Ø *O/3/high *S/low

Ø *!

{+su –ob -high} *


25

output candidates for all possible inputs:

Input Output{+su –ob} {+high} Ø

{+su –ob} {-high} {+su –ob -high} = S

{+su –ob} {-su +ob} {+high} {-su +ob +high} = O

{+su –ob} {-su +ob} {-high} {-su +ob -high} = O

{+su –ob} {-su +ob 3} {+high} {-su +ob 3 +high} = O

{+su –ob} {-su +ob 3} {-high} {+su –ob -high} = S


26

The optimization process introduced in the last chapter leads to an impoverished morpho-syntactical context.

In a next step, this context is the base for the concrete morphonological realization of the case markers.

This second step of the analysis is carried out within the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993).

Concept of Fission by Noyer (1992)

3. Insertion of Markers (Distributed Morphology)


27

Ergative Pegative Dative Absolutive

Sg 1 Ø –u –uʔ –ũʔ

2 Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ

3 Ø –u –u -i

Pl 1i Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ

1x Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ

2 Ø -a -aʔ -ãʔ

3 Ø -a –ũ - ĩ

inventory of markers without phonologically driven alternations


28

Ø {+sub -ob} {-high}

{-sub +ob} {-high}

{-sub +ob} {+high}

-pl +1-2 Ø –u –u -ʔ –u [+nasal] -ʔ-1+2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ-1-2 Ø –u –u -i

+pl +1-2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ

+1+2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ

-1+2 Ø -a -a -ʔ -a [+nasal] -ʔ

-1-2 Ø -a –ũ - ĩ

inventory of markers labeled with binary features

and output of case assignment and sub-analyzed markers


29

Vocabulary Items: /ũ/ ↔ [cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, +pl] / ĩ / ↔ [cl, -subj, +high (/) -1,-2,

+pl] /i/ ↔ [cl, -subj, +high (/) -1,-2, -pl] /u/ ↔ [cl, -2, -pl] /a/ ↔ [cl] /Ø/ ↔ [+object] /(-1,-2) /[nasal]/ ↔ [+high] /-ʔ/ ↔ [+object]

ordering is derived by the specificity condition and a feature hierarchy [cl] > [± ob] [± high] …

Trommer (1999)

30

Vocabulary Items: /ũ/ ↔ [cl, -su, -high -1,-2, +pl] /ĩ/ ↔ [cl, -su, +high -1,-2, +pl] /i/ ↔ [cl, -su +high -1,-2, -pl] /u/ ↔ [cl, -2, -pl] /a/ ↔ [cl]

/Ø/ ↔ [+ob] /(-1,-2) /[nasal]/ ↔ [+high] /-ʔ/ ↔ [+ob] (animate!)

Ø {+sub -ob} {-high}

{-sub +ob} {-high}

{-sub +ob} {+high}

-pl +1-2 Ø u u ʔ ũ ʔ

-1+2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ

-1-2 Ø u u *[+ob] -i *[+ob]

+pl +1-2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ

+1+2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ

-1+2 Ø a a ʔ ã ʔ

-1-2 Ø a –ũ[*+ob] -ĩ [*+ob]


31

Conclusion The complex forms of case markers in Tlapanec

emerge by the marking of: ‘bearing case’ (i.e. the vowel /a/ or /u/)and the additional marking of markedness mark (animate!) objects by /-ʔ/ mark high affectedness by nasalization

The zero-marked ergative and other general patterns of case alignment in Tlapanec emerge from: markedness constraints derived by (multiple) harmonic

alignment of prominence scales.


32

References Aissen, Judith (1999). Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673-711. Bierwisch, Manfred (1967): Syntactic Features in Morphology: General Problems of So-Called Pronominal Inection in German. In:

To Honour Roman Jakobson. Mouton, The Hague/Paris, pp. 239-270. Frampton, John (2002): Syncretism, Impoverishment, and the Structure of Person Features. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistics

Society Meeting, vol. 38, eds M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha & K. Yoshimura, 207- 222. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz (1993): Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Infection. In: K. Hale & S. Keyser, eds., The View

from Building 20. MIT Press, pp. 111{176. Jakobson, Roman (1962): Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In: Selected Writings.

Vol. 2, Mouton, The Hague and Paris, pp. 23-71. Noyer, Rolf (1992): Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky (2004): Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell. (Original

version from 1993). Smolensky, Paul. (1995): On the Internal Structure of Con, the Constraint Component of UG. Ms., Johns Hopkins University. Silverstein, Michael (1976): Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: R. M. W. Dixon, ed., Grammatical Categories in Australian

Languages. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Stiebels, Barbara (2002): Typologie des Argumentlinkings. Ökonomie und Expressivität, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Stump, Gregory (2001): Inectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Trommer, Jochen (1999): Morphology Consuming Syntax' Resources. In: Procceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource

Logics and Minimalist Grammars. University of Nijmegen. Wichman, Søren (to app.): Case relations in a head-marking language: verb-marked cases in Tlapanec. In: Malchukov, Andrej and

Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiese, Bernd (1994): Die Personal- und Numerusendungen der deutschen Verbformen. In: K.-M. Köpcke, ed., Funktionale

Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 161-191. Wiese, Bernd (1999): Unterspezifzierte Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination, Linguistik Online4. (

www.linguistikonline.de/ 3 99) Wunderlich, Dieter (1996): Minimalist Morphology: The Role of Paradigms. In: G. Booij & J. van Marle, eds., Yearbook of

Morphology 1995. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 93-114. Wunderlich, Dieter (1997): Cause and the Structure of Verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 27:27-68. Wunderlich, Dieter (2004): Is There Any Need for the Concept of Directional Syncretism?. In: G. Müller, L. Gunkel & G. Zifonun,

eds., Explorations in Nominal Inection. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 373-395.

http://www.linguistikonline.de/

http://www.linguistikonline.de/

case and markedness in tlapanec andreas opitz leipzig university

Documents