programa 2014.pmd
TRANSCRIPT
Maestría en LingüísticaDivisión de Humanidades y Bellas Artes
Departamento de Letras y Lingüística
UNIVERSIDAD DE SONORA
Cuerpos académicos“Estudios lingüístico-tipológicos
y etnoculturales en lenguas indígenas y minoritarias”Universidad de Sonora ( )CA-81
y“Análisis y documentación en lenguas indígenas”
Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia ( )CA-14
Seminariode complejidad sintáctica 2014
Seminariode complejidad sintáctica 2014
Inin
ihyo
inin
tēnyo
pohpoli
huīz
inai
cin
neh
nem
iliz
ye
tlap
alih
cuil
iuhto
c“S
ufa
ma
ysu
honra
nunca
per
ecer
án,su
his
tori
aen
pin
tura
ses
crit
aes
tá”
1
Seminario de complejidad sintáctica2014
3
PROGRAMA
5
Sala de Usos MúltiplesDepartamento de Letras y LingüísticaEdifício 3Q, 2o. Piso
Lunes 10 de noviembre
9:00-9:55 Nominalization, de-subordination andre-finitizationT. GivónUniversity of Oregon and White Cloud Ranch,Ignacio, Colorado
10:00-10:25 RECESO
10:30-10:55 Inflecting compounding in Mixe languagesRodrigo Romero MéndezIIFL-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
11:00-11:25 Topicalización en lacandón del surIsrael Martínez CorripioEscuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia
11:30-11:55 RECESO
12:00-12:25 The rise of the nominalizations: The case of thegrammaticalization of clause types in EcuadorianSionaMartine BruilUniversity of California at Berkeley
6
12:30-12:55 Adverbial clauses in Southeastern Tepehuan(O’dam)Gabriela García SalidoUniversidad de Sonora-CONACyT
13:00-15:55 COMIDA
16:00-16:55 On being an adjunct. Evidence from AlgonquianFernando ZúñigaUniversity of Bern
17:00-17:25 RECESO
17:30-17:55 Posesión externa en mazahuaArmando Mora-BustosUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana-UnidadIztapalapa
18:00-18:25 Lexical and clausal nominalization in MochicaRita ElorantaUniversiteit Leiden
18:30-18:55 The diachrony of grammatical nominalizations inCahita (Uto-Aztecan)Albert Alvarez GonzalezUniversidad de Sonora
19:00 CENA LIBRE
7
Martes 11 de noviembre
9:00-9:55 On the role of person marking in finiteness anddiscourseWalter BisangUniversity of Mainz
10:00-10:25 RECESO
10:30-10:55 Temporal sentences in Yaqui: Topical arguments,coreference and switch-referenceLilián GuerreroIIFL-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
11:00-11:25 Destinative construction in Q’anjob’al (Maya): Acomplex predicate analysisEladio Mateo Toledo (B’alam)Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superio-res en Antropología Social-Sureste
11:30-11:55 RECESO
12:00-12:25 Los predicados no finitos como construccionesdesiderativas, y su restricción aspectual y depersona en el nawat de Pajapan, VeracruzValentín Peralta RamírezEscuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia
12:30-12:55 Clause chaining and nominalization inTarahumara: A corpus oriented researchZarina Estrada Fernández y Jesús VillalpandoQuiñónezUniversidad de Sonora y University of Colora-do, Boulder
8
13:00-15:55 COMIDA
SECCIÓN DE POSTERS
16:00-16:20 Oraciones adverbiales temporales y correferenciade sujetosRebeca Gerardo TaviraMaestría en Lingüística HispánicaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México
16:20-16:40 La alternancia de a y para en construccionescomplejas con verbos de movimiento: ¿oracionesfinales o de propósito?Paola Gutiérrez y Valeria BenítezMaestría en Lingüística Hispánica y Doctoradoen Lingüística-Universidad Nacional Autóno-ma de México
16:40-17:00 Comportamiento del verbo sentir en oracionescomplejas: un estudio a partir de corpusIrasema Cruz DomínguezMaestría en Lingüística HispánicaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México
17:00-17:25 RECESO
17:30-17:55 Entre pedir y el deseo. Gramaticalización deldesiderativo en maayat’aanFidencio Briceño ChelCentro INAH; Yucatán
9
18:00-18:25 The syncretism between antipassive and causativein MocoviCristian Juárez y Albert Alvarez GonzalezUniversidad de Sonora
19:00 CENA
1 1
RESÚMENES
1 3
Nominalization, de-subordination and re-finitization
T. GivónUniversity of Oregon and White Cloud Ranch, Ignacio, Colorado
Across the Uto-Aztecan family, one finds a sharp distinctionbetween the extreme nominalizing north and the resolutely finitesouth. The two northern-most sub-families, Numic and Takic,nominalize every subordinate clause in sight. The same seems tobe true of Yaqui and Huichol. But further south one finds uniformlyfinite subordinate clauses in Tepiman (Tepehuan, Pima Bajo) allthe way to Nahuatl. The transition zone between the two extre-mes, Guarijío, Trahumara and perhaps Cora, is surprisingly thin.
There are good reasons for suggesting that the Uto-Aztecannorth is both culturally (hunting-gathering) and linguistically (OVsyntax) more conservative, and that the family’s south, due to eithernatural drift or contact with the Meso-American substratum is moreinnovative. So the question I would like to pose here is this: Howdoes the drift from nominalized to finite subordinate clauses takeplace? Especially natural drift that is not induced by contact. Thestrategy I will pursue here is two-fold:
• Try to understand the internal logic of nominalization andrelated processes.
• Try to find evidence, in the middle zone of the family andelsewhere, for the dynamics of change.
1 4
Inflecting compounding in Mixe languages
Rodrigo Romero MéndezSeminario de Lenguas Indígenas, IIFl, UNAM
Verb-verb compounding in Mixe-Zoque languages has beendocumented as one of the polysynthetic characteristics of theselanguages. It has been called nuclear serialization (Bril 2007; Foley& Olson 1985; Foley 1991; Romero 2009; Zavala 2000) inreference to the type of juncture (Foley & van Valin 1984). Thus,verb-verb compounding is a mechanism to create complexpredicates, as shown in (1):
(1) Nyijkxy muum, jakam pues este... To’okëtejtp.y-nëjkx-y muum jakam pues este to’ok-jëtet-p3S-go-DEP some.where far.away hmm DISC [3S]sell-walk-INDEP‘He went far away hmm... He went to sell.’
On the other hand, compounding is also regarded as amorphological process usually restricted to word formation (cf.Lieber & Štekauer 2009), but, as Beck (2011) points out, there isno reason why we should confine, a priori, any formal mechanismto a particular function. According to this author, in Upper NecaxaTotonac compounding is also used to perform inflecting functions(something that Mel’cuk 2006:124 calls quasi-inflection), inaddition to being used in word formation.
The same situation occurs in Mixe: two roots can create a newlexical item, as in (2a), but compounding is also used to expressgrammatical meanings, as in (2b).
(2) a. Jëts, ¿pën käjpxtä’kp?jëts pëën käjpx-tä’äk-pand who speak-embroider-INDEP‘And, who was praying?’
1 5
b. Pedro të pyujttsoony.Pedro të y-put-tsoon-yPedro PERF 3S-run-go.away-DEP‘Pedro started running.’
In both examples in (2), as well as in the example in (1), thelast root bears the stress, something that affixes cannot do. Inaddition, the last root in these examples undergoes apophony (Ro-mero 2009), something unique to verb roots.
Furthermore, this pattern is also found in nouns, as shown in(3). Thus, it is a widespread formal mechanism in the language useto convey grammatical meanings usually associated with inflection.
(3) tsäkäj-anä’äkcow-lads‘cattle’
As Beck (2011) points out, it is possible that this situation existsnot just Totonac, but in other polysynthetic languages, but it haspreviously missed. This paper addresses this issue.
References
Beck, David. 2011. Lexical, quasi-inflectional, and inflectionalcompounding in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In A. Aikhenvald &P. Muysken (eds.), Multi-verb Constructions: A view fromthe Americas, 63-106. Leiden: Brill.
Bril, Isabelle. 2007. Nexus and juncture types of complexpredicates in oceanic languages: Functions and semantics.Language and linguistics 8 (1): 276-310.
Foley, William, & Olson, Mike. 1985. Clausehood and verbserialization. In J. Nichols and A. C. Woodbury (eds.),Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches
1 6
to theory from the field, 17-67. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Foley, William, & Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional syntaxand universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Foley, William. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol Štekauer. 2009. The Oxford handbookof compounding. Oxford, UK: OUP.
Mel’cuk, Igor. 2006. Aspects of the theory of morphology. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Romero Méndez, Rodrigo. 2009. A reference grammar of AyutlaMixe. University at Buffalo: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Zavala Maldonado, Roberto. 2000. Inversion and other topics inthe grammar of Olutec (Mixe), University of Oregon: Ph.D.Dissertation.
Topicalización en lacandón del sur
Israel Martínez CorripioEscuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia
En este trabajo presento algunos rasgos respecto a la topicaliza-ción en lacandón del sur, lengua maya de la rama yucatecana. Latopicalización se utiliza para atraer la atención del oyente hacía unparticipante en el discurso, de tal forma que el constituyentetopicalizado regularmente es definido y, preferiblemente, se colo-ca frente al predicado (Aissen 1992: 50). En las lenguas mayasyucatecanas, el marcador de tópico -e’ sirve para indicar límitesde cláusulas que incluyen cláusulas relativas, condicionales y su-
1 7
bordinadas adverbiales (Bohnemeyer 1998; Hofling 2000;Bergqvist 2008).
En lacandón del sur, específicamente, el elemento léxicotopicalizado puede aparecer antes o después del predicado comose muestra en (1a) y (1b). Por lo tanto, al igual que en otras len-guas yucatecanas, el lacandón del sur distingue al elementotopicalizado por medio de la marca -e’, que la mayoría de lasveces tiene correlación con el determinante a. Sin embargo, exis-ten casos en los cuales el topicalizador aparece sin este determi-nante (1c).1
(1)a. peero a baarum-e’ k-u-ka’a=nuk-ik-øpero DET jaguar-TOP IPF-A3-NUM=contestar-ICTR-B3‘pero es el tigre el que vuelve a contestar’
(HombreTigreJCHK014)
b. ba’k a-kuch-(i)k-ø a teech-e’qué A2-cargar-ICTR-B3 DET EF2-TOP‘entonces ¿qué cargas tú?’
(JNSQC059)
c. chen ts’om-e’ k-u-mäk-ik-øsólo seso-TOP IPF-A3-comer-ICTR-B3‘sólo sesos come’
(HombreMono04)
El rol gramatical del constituyente topicalizado puede ser el desujeto de una estructura transitiva, sujeto de una estructura
1 Abreviaturas: A3 Ergativo Tercera Persona A2 Ergativo Segunda Perso-na B3 Absolutivo Tercera Persona DET Determinante DI Deíctico EF2Enfático Segunda Persona ICTR Incompletivo Transitivo IPF ImprerfectivoNUM Numeral TOP Topicalizador.
1 8
intransitiva, sujeto de un predicado no verbal o bien, el objeto deuna estructura transitiva. Por otro lado, los elementos que no sonargumentos del núcleo también pueden ser topicalizados, lo cualya ha sido reportado para otras lenguas mayas como el chol(Vázquez-Álvarez 2011) y el tseltal (Polian 2013). De tal formaque en lacandón del sur los adverbios, los locativos y cláusulascompletas, se pueden topicalizar a partir de -e’. Finalmente, estemarcador también se utiliza para indicar los límites de diferentestipos de cláusulas, como cláusulas relativas, condicionales y cláu-sulas adverbiales subordinadas. En este trabajo presento con ma-yor detalle cada uno de estos casos.
Referencias
Aissen, Judith. 1992. “Topic and Focus in Mayan”, en Language68, 43-80.
Bergqvist, Henrik G. 2008. Temporal Reference in LakandonMaya: Speaker-and Event-perspectives. PhD. Dissertation.University of London.
Bohnemeyer, J. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 1998. Time relations indiscourse: Evidence from a comparative approach to YukatekMaya. PhD. Dissertation. Tilburg University.
Hofling, Charles A. 2000. Itzaj Maya Grammar. The Universityof Utah Press.
Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del tseltal de Oxchuc. Centrode Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología So-cial. México.
Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús. 2011. A Grammar of Chol, A MayanLanguage. PhD. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
1 9
The rise of the nominalizations: The case of thegrammaticalization of clause types in Ecuadorian Siona
Martine BruilUniversity of California at Berkeley
Ecuadorian Siona, a Western Tukanoan language spoken in theeastern lowlands of Ecuador, marks the clause type of a sentenceor clause in its verbal morphology. The language has distinct markingfor assertive, interrogative, reportative and dependent clauses. Thismarking of clause type consists of a portmanteau suffix that alsomarks subject agreement and tense, and some additional clausetype specific morphology. Interestingly, the portmanteau subjectagreement suffixes for interrogative, reportative and dependentclauses are very similar in form to the nominalizers in the language.The similarities in form are illustrated in the examples below:
(1) a. sa-i-hi. (Assertive)go-IMPF-3S.M.PRS.ASS‘He is going.’
b. sa-i-ki? (Interrogative)go-IMPF-2/3S.M.PRS.N.ASS‘Are you (M)/ is he going?’
c. sa-i-ki-jã. (Reportative)go-IMPF-2/3S.M.PRS.N.ASS-REP‘You (M) are/ he is going, they say.’
d. sa-i-ki-na jã-wi. (Dependent)go-IMPF-S.M.PRS.DEP-DS see-OTH.PST.ASS‘While he was going, I saw (him).’
2 0
e. sa-i-ki-bi jã-bi. (Nominalization)go-IMPF-NLZ.S.M-SBJ see-3S.M.PST.ASS‘The one who was going saw (it).’
The assertive suffix -hi in (1a) is different from the other clause-typing portmanteau suffixes. The form -ki is used for interrogative(1b), reportative (1c), and dependent clauses (1d). Additionally, itis also the masculine agentive nominalizer (1e). The differencebetween these clause types and the nominalization is marked bymeans of additional morphology, such as the reportative suffix -jã(1c), the dependent different subject suffix -na (1d), and the subjectcase marker -bi (1e). Another way to differentiate between theclause types is the organization of the subject agreement categories.For instance, in interrogative and the reportative clauses -ki marksonly second and third person singular masculine, while in dependentclauses it marks all singular masculine persons. In this paper, I willclaim that the similarities between the markings of the different clausetypes are not a coincidence. I will propose that nominalizers wereused in the past to mark complement clauses that were used ininterrogative and reportative constructions and in adverbialsubordination. These constructions grammaticalized as the clause-typing system that is found in Ecuadorian Siona today.
Adverbial clauses in Southeastern Tepehuan (O’dam)
Gabriela García SalidoUniversidad de Sonora-CONACyT
Strategies for adverbial clauses in Southeastern Tepehuan includesubordinating morphemes and word order. Furthermore, thelanguage has morphology that is exclusively used for adverbial
2 1
clauses (1), as well as adverbial morphology that is shared withother subordinating structures, such as complement clauses andrelative clauses (2). With respect to adverbial-clause marking (e.g.,affixes, particles, and order), Southeastern Tepehuan exhibits aunique behavior insofar as second-position clitics act as an indicatorof thematic continuity for the subject (1-2). This suggests that theseclitics have evolved independently with the function of markingswitch reference. This presentation, based on a corpus of 30 hoursof data, sheds light on formal and semantic resources for encodingadverbial clauses, as well as the communicative functions ofadverbial clauses in discourse. It further shows how this languageconveys adverbial meanings by non-embedded clauses (as withjuxtaposition for ‘when’ clauses), as in (3), and possibly in a laterstage by embedded clauses introduced by different subordinators(i.e., overt morphology (1-2)), in a similar way to creole andAustralian languages (Cristofaro 2003). This talk will also allow usto understand the complexity of O’dam and the way speakersestablish coherence with respect to several aspects of its grammar,such as syntactic dependency; the roles of the participants; tense,aspect, and mood markers; as well as the communicative functionof these clauses.
(1)Px pui’ muk-ix-kam mu katMIR SENS die-RES-POSP:origin DIR lie.down
na=ñich-pai’dhuk mu jiiSUB=1SG.SBJ.PFV-ADVR DIR go.PFV‘He was already dead, lying down/on the ground when I wentthere.’
(Text_102010_HMA_GGS_Suesposo, 03:38)
2 2
(2)Mu sap na=t ai ba-chia-mtDIR REP.UI SUB=3SG.SBJ.PFV arrive CMP-order-3PL.SBJ.PFV
na tbañ-dha’ ma’n kaja gu kokaSUB take.down-APPL one box DET cokes‘When he arrived there, they asked him to take down a box ofcokes.’
(Text_102010_PSC_GGS_Lavidademiesposo, 30:13)
(3)Ba-ji-chu sas-ji gui’ sap bhamm kCMP-start-CAUS play-DC DEM REP.UI DIR leave.PFV‘Hei started playing when hei left.’
(Text_092011_MCC_GGS_Elhielo, 07:49)
References
Comrie, B. 1983. Switch-Reference in Huichol: A TypologicalStudy. Switch-Reference and Universal grammar.Typological Studies in Language 2, ed. by J. Haiman and P.Munro, 17-37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publications.
Cristofaro, S. 2003. Subordination. Oxford; New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Mithun, M. 1993. Switch Reference: Clause Linking in CentralPomo. International Journal of American Linguistics 59,119-137.
2 3
On being an adjunct. Evidence from Algonquian
Fernando ZúñigaUniversity of Bern
The Algonquian languages of North America are well known forphenomena like animacy-based gender, obviation, andmorphosyntactic inversion, as well as for the intricate verbmorphology they show. The issue of grammatical relations,however, in particular the question of how Algonquian syntacticfunctions are to be compared with those developed based on fa-miliar western European languages, has received attention onlycomparatively recently. Work on Ojibwe (Central Algonquian) byRhodes (2006, 2010) proposed an Algonquian-specificgrammatical relation called “relative root complement” (RRC) thatcame to complement the inventory of functions to be acknowledgeddescriptively and theoretically. The present paper argues that, inBlackfoot (Western Algonquian), RRCs are not distinct fromsecondary objects, and that the most striking feature in the syntaxof the language is probably the fact that run-of-the-mill adjunctsmay not be found at all. This leaves us with a twofold intriguingpicture to be further explored by in-depth research: (i) thatBlackfoot has, unlike Ojibwe, not actually more grammaticalrelations than non-Algonquian languages, but less, and (ii) thatadjuncts may not be universal at all.
2 4
Posesión externa en mazahua
Armando Mora-BustosUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Unidad Iztapalapa
El objetivo de esta presentación es describir y caracterizar lasconstrucciones de posesión externa en mazahua (lengua delsubgrupo pame perteneciente a la familia otomangue) y establecersu pertinencia dentro del ámbito translingüístico. En esta lengua lasfrases nominales posesivas que aparecen en función de objeto di-recto expresan una relación de posesión entre el poseedor y loposeído a través de una forma de posesión interna o de una formade posesión externa (Payne y Barshi 1999), como en (1). En lafrase nominal compleja de (1a), ot’ii nuzo ‘el niño del señor’,se establece una relación de posesión interna. La FN nu zomodifica al sustantivo t’ii. Esta relación está marcada por el prefi-jo posesivo o-. Por su parte, en (1b), la relación de posesión ex-terna que se establece entre el poseedor nu zo ‘señor’ y loposeído ot’ii ‘el niño’, se codifica por fuera de la FN, en un mor-fema de dativo en el verbo. El dativo hace referencia cruzada conel poseedor.
(1)a. o-ma O-got’ö=hi o-t’iÛi nu=zo3.PST-ir 3.PST-encerrar=PL 3POSS-niño ART=señor‘encerraron al niño del señor’
b. o-ma O-gor-p’ö=hi o-t’iÛi nu=zo3.PST-ir 3.PST-encerrar-3DAT=PL 3POSS-niño ART=señor‘le encerraron al niño del señor’
En (1b) aparece una construcción de posesión externa condativo. En este tipo de construcción la unidad gramatical que re-fiere al poseedor funciona como un típico objeto indirecto. Tanto
2 5
el objeto indirecto como la FN que refiere al poseedor aparecendespués del objeto directo (SVO-OI); igualmente, el objeto indi-recto como el dativo se codifica en un repertorio amplio de sufijosverbales que hacen referencia cruzada con una FN.
Es imperativo conocer la distribución de la construcción deposesión externa; Haspelmath (1999) estable un conjunto de je-rarquías para la construcción de posesión externa de las lenguasindoeuropeas. De este conjunto de propiedades (animacidad delposeedor, situación, inalienabilidad de lo poseído y relación gra-matical de lo poseído); aquí, se mostrará la relevancia y la jerar-quía, como en (2). Generalmente, el poseedor es una entidad ani-mada, el estado de cosas que expresa el verbo corresponde a unadinámica con afectación, la entidad poseída es inalienable y la re-lación gramatical que expresa lo poseído es el objeto directo.
(2)a. riÛ-phØr-k’ö i-tiÛi1.FUT-cuidar-2DAT 2POSS-niño‘cuidaré a tus niños’
b. nu=Pedro o-j’Økö-zö iÛ-ñiÛi-j’=khØART=Pedro 3.PST-cortar-1DAT 1POSS-cabeza-mano=1POSS.ENF‘Pedro me cortó el dedo’
c. nu=ndam8a o-pa-giÛ i-thus’öART=viento 3.PST-aventar-1DAT 1.POSS-sombrero‘el viento aventó mi sombrero’
A lo largo del trabajo se presentará una variedad de datos queapoyen la caracterización, distribución y restricción de este tipode construcción. Tipológicamente estas construcciones de dativoson propias de las lenguas indoeuropeas; en las lenguas originariasde México han sido identificadas en el otomí (Palancar 2009), enconsecuencia, es importante resaltar el hecho de que estas cons-trucciones son viables en otros sistemas.
2 6
Referencias
Aikhenvald Alexandra Y. y R.M.W. Dixon. 2013. Possession andownership. A cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford. OxfordUniversity Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. ‘External Possession in a EuropeanAreal Perspective’ en External possession. Doris L. Payney Immanuel Barshi (eds). Amsterdam. John BenjaminsPublishing.
Ortiz Alejandra, Armando Mora-Bustos, Francisco Arellanes yH. Antonio García. 2014. ‘Codificación de las relacionessemánticas no eventivas en cuatro lenguas otomangues’. VIColoquio sobre lenguas Otomangues y Vecinas MarioMolina Cruz. Oaxaca. Oaxaca.
Palancar Enrique L. 2009. Gramática y textos del hñoñho. Otomíde San Ildefonso. Tultepec, Querétaro. México. Universi-dad de Querétaro y Plaza y Valdes.
Payne, Doris L. y Immanuel Barshi. (eds.). 1999. Externalpossession. Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing.
Lexical and clausal nominalization in Mochica
Rita ElorantaUniversiteit Leiden
Mochica is an extinct linguistic isolate spoken until the mid-to-latenineteenth century in the northern coastal area of Peru. Mochica istypologically and different than other Andean languages. TheMochica language has been preserved whilst it was still beenspoken in two colonial documents: Rituale, Sev ManvalePervanvm by Jerónimo de Oré (1607) and Arte de la lengua
2 7
yunga, a grammatical description by Fernando de la Carrera(1644). The latter is the main source for the data analyzed in thepresent investigation.
Despite nominalization being prominent in Mochica there hasnot been systematic treatment of Mochica nominalization pro-cesses so far. In this presentation I aim to offer a completeclassification and description of Mochica lexical and clausal(grammatical) nominalizations. The subordinate clauses in Mochicaare formed by means of nominalizing and subordinating suffixes.Subordination is not only restricted to complement clauses (1),but concerns also relative (2) and adverbial clauses (3) as shownin the following examples:
(1)Confessar læ-çæc fe p-oc penitençia.confess be.NMLZ.RESULT COP PASS-name/call penance‘The confession is named/called penance’.
(2)Tzhang ai-apæco tzhang chi-co-pæco Dios2SG do-NMLZ.AG 2SG be-CAUS-NMLZ.AG God‘God who has made and created you’
(3)Mæiñ ef ang læm-ædo tzhang Lima-c1S.GEN father 3S COP die-PART 2SG Lima-LOC
chilæcTO BE-NMLZ‘My father died when you were in Lima’
Besides these cases of clausal nominalizations, I will presentsome other nominalizers such as <-næm>, <–chæm> and <–top>.<–næm> (called dative gerund by De la Carrera 1644: 53, 60) isa purposive nominalizer and is used in connection with verbsmeaning ‘to wish’ (<loc->) and ‘to say’ (<eng->). Example (4)represents how <–næm> functions in a purposive clause:
2 8
(4)Funo-næm eiñ-locEat NMLZ.PURP 1SG-wish/want‘I want to eat’.
<–chæm> which was called “future in – rus” by De la Carrera(1644: 202) is a nominalizer that has, for instance, the modality ofobligation, see example (5):
(5)Chi-ñ-chæmbe-1SG-NMLZ.OBL
Finally, <–top> is a sequential suffix that expresses a sequenceof events or actions as shown in (6):
(6)al-top olo infierno- ng nic çocdescend-NMLZ.SEQ fire hell- GEN LOC three
lun-ær nico choc- topday-GEN LOC get up NMLZ.SEQ‘(He) descended to the fire of hell and after three days (he) rose’
<-næm>, <–chæm> and <–top> have been previouslyconsidered subordinate suffixes (Hovdhaugen 2004: 46) but in thisstudy I intend to demonstrate that they form part of the complexMochica nominalizers system. The final intention of this researchis to offer a systematic analysis of all processes of nominalizationin Mochica.
References
Carrera, Fernando de la. 1644. El Arte de la Lengva Yvnga delos valles del Obispado de Truxillo del Peru, con vnConfessonario, y todas las Oraciones Christianas, tradu-
2 9
cidas en la lengua, y otras cosas, de Fernando de la Ca-rrera Daza, impreso en Lima. Lima: Joseph Contreras.
Hovdhaugen, Even. 2004. Mochica (Languages of the World/Materials 433). Munich: LINCOM.
Oré, Luis Jerónimo. 1607. Rituale, Sev Manvale Pervanvm,Naples: Iacobum Carlinum, & Constantinum Vitalem.
The diachrony of grammatical nominalizations in Cahita(Uto-Aztecan)
Albert Alvarez GonzalezUniversidad de Sonora
Based on the approach developed by Shibatani (2009; also inShibatani & Awhad 2009) concerning the connection betweenrelativization and nominalization in different languages around theglobe, in a previous work (Alvarez 2012) I have proposed that“relative clauses” in Yaqui (a language from the Uto-Aztecan familyspoken in the Northwest of Mexico) are in fact grammaticallynominalized expressions. Considering mostly synchronic evidences,I have argued that these grammatical nominalizations may havetwo major functions (referential and noun-modifying functions)depending on the syntactic uses of the nominalized expression(respectively, as NP-head and as NP-dependent in apposition),and that relativization in Yaqui has to be actually considered asmerely one specialized function of nominalization: the modifyingfunction of an appositive grammatical nominalization.
In this contribution I will present new diachronic evidences insupport of this nominalization approach. In doing so, I will surveythe origin of the nominalization markers in Cahita (Yaqui, Mayo,
3 0
…Tehueco) as well as the evolution undergone by the nominalizedexpressions marked by the suffix -(’)u which has changed frombeing an old agent nominalizer with tempo-aspectual restrictionsto being the current patient nominalizer. I will show that thesediachronic data clearly advocate for the nominal status of thesupposed “relative clauses” in Cahita.
References
Alvarez, A. 2012. Relativization and Nominalizations in Yaqui. InRelative clauses in Languages of the Americas. Atypological overview. [Typological Studies in Language 102],Comrie, B. and Z. Estrada-Fernandez (eds.), 97-126.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, M. 2009. Elements of complex structures, whererecursion isn’t it. The case of relativization. In SyntacticComplexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition,evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], Givón, T.and M. Shibatani (eds), 163-198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, M. and K. Awadh Bin Makhashen. 2009.Nominalization in Soqotri, a South Arabian language of Yemen.In Endangered languages: Contributions to Morphologyand Morpho-syntax, L. W. Wetzels (ed.). Leiden: Brill. 9-31.
3 1
On the role of person marking in finiteness and discourse
Walter BisangUniversidad de Mainz
Person marking is used for reference tracking within individualsentences as maximalsyntactic units as well as beyond sentenceswithin units of discourse. In addition to this function and motivatedby it, the same markers can also be used as indicators of finitenessat the level of the sentence and, in the case of co-subordination(Van Valin 2005), also at the level of discourse units (cf. Bisang2007 on finiteness/non-finiteness asymmetries). In fact, it is oftenhard if not impossible to find criteria for clearly distinguishingsentences from discourse units in co-subordination.
Reference-tracking can be expressed by elaborate systems ofperson marking as well as by zero marking (zero pronouns). Thepresent paper will show that morphologically complex switch-reference systems with different sets of person marking fornonfinite/dependent and finite/independent verb forms (e.g. in Ameleand Fore, Papua New Guinea) can serve the same purpose ofcreating discourse units as zero pronouns in East and mainlandSoutheast Asian languages like Chinese, Khmer or Thai.
Two cases will be discussed. One case is the creation ofdiscourse units by the use of finite verb morphology instead ofswitch-reference morphology. The other case is the use of different-subject markers even though there is no change of subject. Thisphenomenon is well-known for a number of switch-referencelanguages (e.g. Roberts 1988). Typical criteria are deictic continuityvs. deictic change in the area of time, place or world. If there is nodeictic change, a marker from the same-subject system is selected,while the different-subject system is employed in instances of deicticchange.
3 2
In both cases, East and mainland Southeast Asian languagesuse the opposition of overt person marking by a pronoun vs. zeromarking.
The similarity of the discourse functions expressed by thesetwo rather different types of marking is quite remarkable. As I willargue in this paper, the two systems represent two rather extremepoles of two different types of complexity, i.e., overt vs. hiddencomplexity (Bisang 2009, 2014). More particularly, they can beseen as the result of two different types of maturation. The switch-reference system is a result of explicitness oriented maturation inthe sense of Dahl (2004), while the systems based on zero vs.pronoun are instances of economy-oriented maturation.
References
Bisang, W. 2007. Categories that make finiteness: discretenessfrom a functional perspective and some of its repercussions.In: Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical andempirical foundations, 115-137. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Bisang, W. 2009. On the evolution of complexity-sometimes lessis more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In: Sampson, G.;Gil, D. & and Trudgill, P. (eds.), LanguageComplexity asan Evolving Variable, 34-49. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Bisang, W. 2014. Overt and hidden complexity-two types ofcomplexity and their implications. Poznan Studies inContemporary Linguistics 50(2), 2014, 127-143.
Dahl, Ö. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of LinguisticComplexity. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Roberts, J. R. 1988. Amele switch-reference and the theory ofgrammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 19.1, 45-63.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics In-terface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3 3
Temporal sentences in Yaqui: Topical arguments,coreference and switch-reference
Lilián GuerreroIIFL-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
This paper offers a corpus-based study of temporal adverbialclauses in Yaqui. Temporal clauses are introduced by two majoradverbial subordinators: -kai (-ka when the clause is non-final),as in (1a), and -o, as in (1b); in addition, specific temporal clausesas those in (2) are also possible. In a previous work, I suggestedthat the analysis of Yaqui temporal clauses turns particularlyproblematic for the following reasons. First, the two most commonlinkage markers encode other adverbial relations, i.e., they aresemantically ambiguous. Thus, simultaneous and sequential relationsare not formally distinguished. Hence, one may expect that clauseslike those in (2) are more frequent in discourse than clauses in (1).This initial hypothesis turns to be false. Since general temporalclauses marked by o-/-kai are the most frequent in corpus, onemay wonder how posterior vs. anterior temporal relations aredistinguished. Two valid hypotheses: (i) the ordering between themain and adverbial units, (ii) the TAM information on the verb.With respect to ordering, and regardless of the temporal relationbetween the two events, the adverbial unit tends to be sentenceinitial, meaning the sequential iconicity motivation is not relevant.We cannot fully rely on TAM information either since o-, and mainlykai-clauses, tend to be unmarked.
In this paper, the analysis focuses on the argument realizationand coreferential patterns found inside temporal clauses. On onehand, kai-clauses demand a missing syntactic argument in theadverbial unit, which must be in co-reference with the main subject.Since temporal clauses tend to occur sentence-initial, then the lexicalsubject is overtly expressed in the following clause, i.e., cataphoric
3 4
relations. There are a few cases where the subject is expressed asa nominative argument at the beginning of the sentence, i.e.,nominative subjects are unexpected in subordinated clauses. Incontrast, o-clauses prefer different-subjects, but still there are afew examples of identical subjects in the corpus. Regardless theidentity of the subject, the dependent subject must be overt andcoded accusative inside the adverbial unit, i.e., cataphoric relationsare uncommon. In terms of argument coding, specific temporalclauses are less tight when compared to general temporal clauses:the two subjects in (2) are also identical, but there is a co-referentialnominative pronoun in the main unit.
(1)a. [bea sechupti _ i pensasaroa-ka]1º nei amanM D suddenly think-CLM 1SG.NOM theresiika2ºgo.SG.PFV‘And, when I suddenly thought [about it], I went there.’
b. [Ju-ka Sulumai-tai omotria-u yepsa-k-o]1º
DET-ACC Sulumai-ACC brush-DIR arrive-PFV-CLM
jaibu _i kaa enchi tea-k2º
already NEG 2SG.ACC find-PFV‘When Sulumai got back to the brushes, she couldn’t find you.’
(2)[kee Sulumai-tai bwij-wa-o]2º aapoi enchiADV.NEG Sulumai-ACC capture-PAS-CLM 3SG.NOM 2SG.ACC
juya-m nasuk e’e-ria-k1ºbrush-PL middle hide-APPL-PFV‘Before Sulamai was captured, she was able to hide you insidethe brush.’
The marking of the adverbial clause, the coreferential patternsand the lexical coding of shared participants in Yaqui temporal
3 5
clauses will be discussed in terms of the well-known system ofswitch-reference marking.
Destinative construction in Q’anjob’al (Maya):A complex predicate analysis
Eladio Mateo Toledo (B’alam)Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores
en Antropología Social (CIESAS)[email protected]
Purpose constructions are complex clauses with two situationslinked by a PURPOSIVE RELATION where the matrix predicate isperformed with the intention/goal of obtaining the realization of asituation, the purpose clause (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 20, andothers). This means that they involve intentionality on the part of anargument of the main clause, the purpose clause has an intrinsicfuture orientation, and the outcome is intended/desired orhypothetical, like in (1).
Q’anjob’al (a Mayan language spoken in Guatemala) has finitepurpose clauses and motion-cum purpose clauses, example (2),whose properties are no different from those of the English purposeclause. However, Polian, Mateo and Can (2013), followingSimonin’s (2011) analysis of weak purpose clauses in English, showthat Q’anjob’al and Tseltal (Mayan) have a DESTINATIVE
CONSTRUCTION defined as ‘the construction denotes a situationwhere the matrix verb makes available an entity that is earmarkedfor a particular use, specified by the second verb’. The destinativeis shown in (3); it resembles purpose clauses, but differs from themin structure and semantics, and has been unrecognized in thetypology of purpose clauses (Schmidtke-Bode 2009). One
3 6
difference is that intentionality is not necessary, (3). Polian, Mateoand Can suggest that destinative constructions are complex clausesthat differ from infinitives and nonfinite clauses.
The goal of this paper is twofold. First, I provide a detaileddescription of the features the destinative construction, which isnot yet available, the data come from my own corpus of naturaltexts. Second, I show that destinative constructions share theproperties of nonfinite clauses and complex predicates inQ’anjob’al. In particular, I show that the destinative constructionwith transitive verbs patterns like ditransitive and causative complexpredicates in that they all involve argument structure fusion (Butt1995; Mateo 2012; among others). The ditransitive complexpredicate in (4) and the destinative in (3) have argument fusion;their second verbs lack inflection of their ABS2SG logical objects(vs. the nonfinite clause in (2)) and this cannot be explained undercontrol. However, destinative constructions with intransitive verbsare syntactically similar to infinitives whose features can be explainedunder control, though they undergo integration that resemblesresultative serial verbs.
(1)A: A monkey picked leaves or fruit to eat them.B: So did it eat them?A: I have no idea, but that was certainly its intention. {based on
Simonin 2011:2}
(2)Kax max-ach b’et hin ha-kol-on-ithen COM-ABS2SG go_return ABS1SG ERG2SG-help-DEP-FF‘Then, you went [to help me].’
(3)chot-an hach ek’ j-il-a’sitting-POSS ABS2SG DIR ERG1PL-see-TV‘You are sitting for us to see you.’
3 7
(4) Ch-ach ul hin-say w-il-a’INC-ABS 2SG come ERG1SG-look.for‘I come to look for you (for myself).’ {txt062}
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates.Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2012b. Complex Predicates in Q’anjob’al(Maya): The Verbal Resultative. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics vol. 78(4), pp. 465-95.
Polian, Gilles, Eladio Mateo and Telma Can Pixabaj. 2013. Cons-trucciones destinativas en lenguas mayas. ms.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A typology of purpose clauses.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Simonin, Olivier. 2011. Adverbial and relative to-infinitives, Journalof English Linguistics, available online at: http://eng.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/03/0075424211428337.
Los predicados no finitos como construccionesdesiderativas, y su restricción aspectual y de persona
en el nawat de Pajapan, Veracruz
Valentín Peralta RamírezEscuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. México
El objetivo principal de este trabajo es describir las propiedadesmorfosintácticas de ciertas cláusulas de complemento que se pre-sentan en el nawat de Pajapan, una variedad del nawat que sehabla en el sur del estado de Veracruz, México. De acuerdo a los
3 8
objetivos particulares de esta presentación, voy centrarme en aque-llas cláusulas complejas cuyas cláusulas de complemento estánreducidas en sus marcas tiempo-aspectuales, manifestándose unamayor dependencia tanto sintáctica como semántica con la cláu-sula matriz, y por lo tanto, pueden ser consideradas como cláusu-las complejas con mayor integración clausal. Esto último, puedeser confirmado por el mecanismo de la incorporación, esto es,siendo el nawat una lengua polisintética (cf. Baker 1996) y conmarcación en el núcleo (cf. Nichols 1986 ), los complementosoracionales no-finitos pueden ser incorporados al verbo matriz,confirmándose así una mayor integración entre la cláusula matriz ysu complemento. Por lo tanto, en este trabajo voy a presentar trestipos de cláusulas de complemento, las cuales serán consideradascomo cláusulas complejas con una mayor dependencia con el pre-dicado matriz:
(1)ni-mis-go:wi-li:-s-negi mo-tegak1SUJ-2OP-comprar-APL-IRR-querer 3POS-ZAPATO‘Quiero comprarte tus zapatos.’
(2)ni-k-negi [ ni-mitz-go:wi-li:-s mo-tekak ]1SUJ-3OP-querer 1SUJ-2OP-comprar-APL-IRR 2POS-zapato‘Quiero comprar tus zapatos.’
Todas estas construcciones comparten, al menos dos rasgossimilares, por ejemplo, el evento expresado por el verbo de com-plemento es posterior al evento expresado por el predicado ma-triz, y todas estas construcciones presentas restricciones de per-sona. Estos rasgos permiten pensar que este tipo de construccionesson más dependientes del predicado matriz, y presentan distintosgrados de integración clausal, de modo que, como predicados nofinitos son más cercanos a los predicados nominalizados. Estosfactores sintácticos y semánticos presentes en la unión de cláusu-las complejas serán los tópicos centrales de esta presentación.
3 9
Refeencias
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. OxfordUniversity Press, New York. pp. 338-396.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1995. Complement clauses and complementstrategies. Meaning and Grammar, F.R. Palmer (ed).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 174-220.
Givón, T. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology ofcomplements. Studies in Language 4.3, 333-377.
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. “Head-marking and dependent-markinggrammar”, en: Language 62. pp. 56-119.
Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. Language Typology andsyntactic description. Volume 2.
Clause chaining and nominalization in Tarahumara:A corpus oriented research
Zarina Estrada FernándezUniversidad de [email protected]
Jesús Villalpando QuiñónezBoulder University
According to Dooley (2010: 90), clause chaining is a term referringto “long sequences of foreground clauses” or “sequential eventclauses”. The author also considers that the most important propertyof such sequences is the presence of switch-reference markers.On the other hand, Overall (2014) considers that clause chainingcan be defined as a “multi-clausal construction consisting of one or
4 0
more dependent clauses associated with a single finite clause.” (p.314). In line with the aforementioned definitions, this paper providesan analysis of clause chaining in Tarahumara, a Uto-Aztecanlanguage from northwestern Mexico.
The analysis that we develop assumes a functional corpus-oriented perspective and argues that the phenomenon of clausechaining in Tarahumara makes use of other operators rather thanswitch-reference markers (lacking in Tarahumara).
The organization of sequences of clauses in Tarahumara isachieved by means of simple and complex conjunctions andsubordinators, as it is shown in (1) and (2), as well as by a set ofdifferent nominalizing suffixes:
(1)Simple conjunctionsa’rí ko échi kochí wirísi-ri,CONJ EMPH DEM dog stand_up-PFV
a’rí chóta-ri échi músa neká-mia.CONJ start-PFV DEM cat bark-PURP
EN: ‘And then the dog stood up and started to bark to the cat.’ESP: ‘Y entonces el perro se levantó y empezó a ladrar al gato.’
(2)Complex conjunctionsmapu-a’rí chóta-ri bacháwara ukí wichí-yaSUB-SIM start-PFV first rain fall-NMLZ
Pedro simí-re iwé-chiPedro go-PFV field-LOC
a’rí karéwi-ri échi iwé kíti ichi-méa sunú.CONJ weed_out-PFV DEM field PURP sow-IRR corn
EN: ‘When the first rains started to fall down, Pedro went to thefield / and weed it out in order to sow corn.’
ESP: ‘Cuando comenzaron a caer las primeras lluvias, Pedro fue alcampo y desyerbó la milpa para sembrar maíz.’
4 1
The nominalizing suffixes observed in clause chaining are: -a, -ka and -cho. These suffixes seem to belong to different functionaldomain: -a is relevant in complement clauses, -ka in some adjectivalconstructions, and -cho in adverbial clauses.
Clause chaining in Tarahumara demonstrates that theboundaries between clauses at discourse level are not always clearand that clause types may overlap.
Referencias
Dooley, Robert A. 2010. Exploring Clause Chaining. SILElectronic Working Papers in Linguistics. http://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/13/04/21/130421360311569160306235201738876375986/silewp2010_001.pdf[September 30, 2014]
Overall, Simon E. 2014. “Clause chaining, switch reference andnominalisations in Aguaruna (Jivaroan).” In InformationStructure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences.Rik van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matic, Saskia vanPutten and Ana Vilacy Gaucio, 309-340. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
4 2
Oraciones adverbiales temporales y correferenciade sujetos
Rebeca Gerardo TaviraUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Las oraciones adverbiales temporales funcionan como escenariotemporal o punto de referencia para el estado de cosas expresadomediante el verbo de la oración principal (Heinämäki 1974;Cristofaro 2003; García 2000). Uno de los factores que permiteevaluar el grado de integración de las relaciones complejas es lacorreferencia de los participantes de ambos estados de cosas. Ensu trabajo tipológico sobre subordinación, Cristofaro (2003: 166)postula que rasgos como la referencia temporal, el valor aspectualy el valor modal deben estar predeterminados si se usan losconectores del tipo after, before y when, cuando éstos estable-cen relaciones de anterioridad, posterioridad y simultaneidad, res-pectivamente. En cambio, las oraciones temporales parecen nopredeterminar la identidad de los participantes.
Un estudio a partir de corpus del español permite observaralgunas tendencias interesantes con respecto a la realizaciónargumental de los participantes tipo sujeto, tanto en términos decorreferencialidad como de codificación léxica. En trabajos pre-vios (García 2000) se ha dicho que, por ejemplo, antes y des-pués pueden introducir una oración de infinitivo con sujeto explicito,siempre y cuando este sujeto no sea correferencial con el sujetode la oración principal, ej. Te fuiste antes de llegar yo. Además,si el sujeto es explícito, entonces no puede ser correferente con elsujeto principal:
(1) a. *Antes de entrar Juani en la habitación, __i se había dadocuenta de todo.
b. *Después de entrar Juani en la habitación, __i se dio cuentade todo.
4 3
No obstante, los datos en un corpus amplio que incluye lenguaoral y escrita (2000 oraciones, aproximadamente), se han podidocomprobar las dos situaciones. En efecto, hay oraciones tempo-rales (en infinitivo y finitas) con sujeto explícito y distinto del sujetode la principal (2), pero también hay casos en los que el sujetoexplícito está en correferencia con el sujeto de la principal:
(2) a. Y antes de que Zoraidai pudiera hacerle ninguna otra pre-gunta Matildej escapó (BC)
b. Ya después de que mi abuelitai falleció así como que __j
dejé de ir a la iglesia (CM)
(3) a. Cástuloi, antes de __i avisar a la señora, __i se fue a lacocina seguido de Estefanía (RP)
b. Después de __i cenar, mi madrei, que __i está muy cansa-da, __i fue a acostarse. (BC)
c. Don Roquei, el sacristán, después de __i bajar a los santos__i se alejaba respetuoso (RP)
d. El visitantei antes de entrar al recinto __i debe firmar unacarta responsiva en la que __i manifiesta haber “leído yentendido el texto de SIN” (La Jornada)
Entre los factores que pudieran estar afectando la correferenciase han señalado el carácter factual o contrafactual de las oracio-nes, el orden en que aparecen las mismas, el tipo de relación (i.e.,simultaneidad o secuencialidad) y el tipo de codificación del suje-to en ambas oraciones. El objetivo particular de este trabajo esexplorar las posibles motivaciones que permiten (o no) la ocu-rrencia de sujetos explícitos, en oraciones temporales en infinitivoy finitas, establecer los patrones de correferencia (i.e. relacionesanafóricas), así como los contextos que presentan mayor ambi-güedad referencial, (i.e. referencia libre).
4 4
La alternancia de a y para en construcciones complejascon verbos de movimiento: ¿oraciones finales
o de propósito?
Paola Gutiérrez y Valeria BenítezMaestría en Lingüística Hispánicay Doctorado en Lingüística-UNAM
[email protected]@gmail.com
El criterio formal que ha predominado en la tradición hispánicapara definir y clasificar construcciones subordinadas adverbialeses el nexo. Específicamente, las oraciones finales en español seidentifican con las formas para (que) y a (que), aunque existenotros conectores menos prototípicos (Herrera 2002); estas cons-trucciones se definen como aquellas que “expresan el fin o la in-tensión con que se produce la acción del verbo principal” (Galán1992), por ejemplo en hice un postre [para sorprenderte], salíal parque [a buscarte].
Se ha observado que a y para pueden, en muchos casos,alternar sin un cambio aparente de significado como sucede encorrí [a/para preguntarle el teléfono] (Gaviño 2009), sin em-bargo, esta posibilidad de permutación ocurre especialmente converbos de movimiento y con algunos otros predicados cuya claseen común no está bien definida (ej. me ofrecí [?para/a ayudar-lo], me autorizó [?para/a venir]), aunque no siempre es posi-ble (ej. corrí [para/*a sentirme mejor]). De hecho, cuando lasoraciones finales no codifican movimiento en la unidad principal,sino otro tipo de predicados, suelen aparecer con para(que), talcomo se observa en ahorre mucho [para/*a viajar], me desve-lé [para/*a terminar]. En general, en la literatura poco se hadicho sobre las construcciones complejas finales en corpus, y aúnmenos sobre las restricciones de orden y alternancia de nexo queestas estructuras pueden presentar (ej. Juan viene [a comer][para/*a complacerte]).
4 5
En los trabajos tipológicos, por otro lado, las llamadas cláusu-las de propósito remiten a una definición semántico-conceptual(Cristofaro 2003; Schmidtke-Bode 2009), en la cual se subrayaque un agente lleva a cabo una acción intencionalmente; ademásexiste un vínculo entre dos eventos, de manera tal que el evento dela unidad principal se realiza con el objetivo, meta, intención deque el evento descrito en la unidad dependiente ocurra (Cristofaro2003: 157). En apariencia, los rasgos de propósito coinciden conaquellos de las oraciones finales, sin embargo, una visión tipológicano consideraría algunas construcciones que se han tratado comofinales en español, por ejemplo tengo la libertad [para esco-ger], vine a la biblioteca [para encontrarla cerrada], dondeno hay un agente que actúe con volición o bien, el segundo eventono es deseado. Las construcciones con verbos de movimiento, encambio, empatan mejor con la idea de propósito que se describeen muchas otras lenguas (Schmidtke-Bode 2009).
Los objetivos de esta presentación son, primero, hacer unacaracterización de las construcciones complejas que codifican mo-vimiento y de sus restricciones en la alternancia de los nexos a(que) y para (que); segundo, retomando los trabajos tipológicos,subrayar la pertinencia de distinguir en español entre propósito yfinalidad, ya que el nexo no es un criterio suficiente para delimitaroraciones, pues sólo algunas de las llamadas finales responden arasgos semánticos particulares (i.e. agente, volición, posteriori-dad, etc.). El estudio se basa principalmente en datos de lenguaoral obtenidos de entrevistas y en pruebas de agramaticalidad.
Referencias
Cristofaro, S. 2003. Subordination. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Galán R., C. 1992. Las oraciones finales en español. Estudio sin-crónico. Cáseres: Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, Anejo No. 9.
4 6
Gaviño R., V. 2009. La finalidad como función lingüística.Oviedo: Septem Ediciones.
Herrera, M.E. 2002. Nexos adverbiales en las hablas cultas ypopular de la Ciudad de México. México: UNAM.
Schmidtke-Bode, K. 2009. A typology of purpose clauses.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Comportamiento del verbo sentir en oraciones complejas:un estudio a partir de corpus
Irasema Cruz DomínguezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Generalmente, se asume que los verbos de percepción codifican,de manera preferencial y primaria, la noción de percepción física;como tal, se espera que estos verbos aparezcan dentro de unaestructura transitiva con dos participantes obligatorios: sujeto yobjeto (Cano Aguilar 1987). En un estudio previo a partir de cor-pus oral, encontramos que las cláusulas simples con el verbo sen-tir muestran varias particularidades tanto a nivel sintáctico, comosemántico. A partir de oraciones como las de (1) y (2), se encon-tró que las cláusulas simples con sentir aparecen preferentementecomo oraciones intransitivas, con un solo participante: el sujetoexperimentante. Se mostró también que sentir suele acompañarsede complementos predicativos para completar su significación, ej.sentirse alegre, sentirse abogados. En términos semánticos, es-tas estructuras suelen adscribirse al dominio emotivo (1) y, en menormedida, codificar percepción física o cognitiva (2).me siento una persona muy alegre/ muy cotorra/ o sea// a vecesdigo/ estupideces/ estupideces/ tontería y media y/ y surge la risa/¿no?/ [CSCM: 6, 176]
4 7
los compañeros que son jovencitos/ son los más egoístas/// sonlos que/ todavía ni siquiera terminan la carrera y ya se sienten abo-gados/// en serio/ [CSCM: 9, 222]
Esta segunda fase de investigación tiene dos objetivos: (i) exa-minar si las características encontradas a nivel de la oración simpleestán presentes (o no) en construcciones complejas, y (ii) compa-rar el comportamiento de las cláusulas complejas con sentir comoverbo matriz en un corpus amplio de lengua oral y lengua escrita.2En términos sintácticos, sentir aparece en oraciones completivasintroducidas con que (1) y, en menor medida, atribuciones, comoel par en (2), usualmente denominadas cláusulas mínimas (Demontey Masullo 1999). Además, también encontramos cláusulascompletivas introducidas por nexos adverbiales, los cuales pro-porcionan información adicional al segundo evento (3).
(1)[…] siento [que no puede estar tomando pastillas de emergen-cia y pastillas de emergencia] le dije “pues no / porque despuésse va a hacer estéril [CSCM: 95, 306]
(2)a. no pude dejar de sentir [que la humanidad es como el ra-tón Miguelito cuando toma el libro de un mago y comienza ajugar con su inmenso poder.][CREA: Caminitos de plata,2001]
b. no pude dejar de sentir a la humanidad como el ratónMiguelito […]
(3) La voz de Agustín Lara inundó la recámara: Sol de mi vida Luzde mis ojos siente [cómo mis manos acarician tu tersa piel mispobres manos.] [CREA: Tan veloz como el deseo, 2001]
2 Corpus Sociolingüístico de la Ciudad de México (CSCM) (MartínButragueño y Lastra) y Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual� (CREA).
4 8
En términos semánticos, el análisis de los datos sugiere que,tanto en lengua oral como escrita, sentir como verbo matriz secomporta como un predicado cognitivo de tal forma que codificavalores de actitud propositiva y/o epistémicos (6). Llama la aten-ción que, solo en el corpus textual, se documentan complementosproposicionales (certeza), como la expresión de lamento en (7).
(4) me siento orgulloso de lo que Dios me dio/ porque no es micapacidad/ sino que yo siento [que Dios a cada uno nos pone untalento ¿no?] [CSCM: 75, 707]
(5) Explica que desde su juventud añoraba y sentía profundamente[que sus amigos y los jóvenes mexicanos no tuvieran un museo][para inspirarse]. [CREA: Revista Digital Universitaria, v. 4, nº1, 03/2003]
Entre pedir y el deseo. Gramaticalización del desiderativoen maayat’aan
Fidencio Briceño ChelCentro INAH; Yucatán
En este trabajo presentaré datos del maya peninsular actual sobrela caracterización de predicados desiderativos en esta lenguamayance, por un lado evidenciaré la estructura sintáctica que mues-tra su proceso de gramaticalización y por otro caracterizaré sufuncionamiento, las condiciones de uso y los cambios de significa-do originados por este proceso.
Los datos aquí presentados nos ayudarán a mostrar que unode esos predicados (k’áat) puede tener un sentido que va desde‘querer’, ‘desear’, ‘anhelar’ hasta ‘esperar’, tal como ha sidoespecificado por Noonan en su clasificación de verbos (2007: 145);
4 9
sin embargo en yucateco observamos que el punto de arranqueviene de un predicado con el sentido de ‘pedir’-‘querer’, quedependiendo de sus avances de gramaticalización desarrolla elsentido de ‘desear’, lo cual nos lleva a buscar la divisiónsemánticamente en tres clases planteado por Noonan (op. cit.) deacuerdo a su función: (a) ‘esperar’, (b) ‘desear’ y (c) ‘querer’.
Por otro lado, mostraré que otro de los predicados con senti-do desiderativo (Taak) muy probablemente parte de construccio-nes donde está presente el deseo de una necesidad fisiológica,pero que con el paso del tiempo y a través de su gramaticalizacióncomo desiderativo empieza a usarse con otros verbos que no im-plican una necesidad fisiológica inmediata.
Con esto pretendo mostrar que a pesar de haber cierta coin-cidencia semántica entre oraciones desiderativas formuladas conk’áat o con taak, la estructura sintáctica evidencia distintos mo-mentos de gramaticalización y por otro también veremos que elsentido de usar uno u otro muestra la posibilidad de referir unanecesidad inmediata o un deseo a futuro.
Referencias
Berbeira Gardón, José Luis. 1998. Dimensiones pragmáticasde la gramatización, Valencia, Universidad de Valencia.
Bybee, J. L. y W. Pagliuca. 1985. “Cross-linguistic comparisonand the development of grammatical meaning”, HistoricalSemantics. Historical Word Formation, J. Fisiak, ed.,Amsterdam Mouton, 59-83.
Noonan, M. 2007 [1985]. “Complementation”. En: T. Shopen(Ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description.Volume. II: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 52-150.
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential constructions inYucatec Maya, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
5 0
The syncretism between antipassive and causativein Mocovi
Cristian JuárezUniversidad de [email protected]
Albert Álvarez GonzálezUniversidad de Sonora
In terms of valency changing operations, antipassive and causativeconstructions are considered as opposite since the antipassivizationprocess corresponds to a valency decreasing operation whereasthe causativization process implies a valency increasing (Dixon andAikhenvald 2000; Givón 2001; among many others). Therefore,the same marker is not expected to be involved simultaneously inboth processes.
This presentation will show that the syncretism antipassive/causative is recognized by the use of the verbal marker -(a)an inMocovi, a Guaycuruan language spoken mainly between Chacoand Santa Fe provinces in Argentina. Although such syncretismseems to be unusual cross-linguistically, it is also attested in someWest Mande languages, such as Creissels (2012) reports.
Firstly, we will describe how the -(a)an suffix is used toexpress antipassive clauses and to also mark causative clauses inMocovi. Secondly, we will explain the syncretism antipassive/causative, considering the functional similarities between both typesof valency mechanisms. Finally, we will adopt a diachronicperspective in order to determine the source of this verbal markerand to describe the grammaticalization pathway that has originatedthe syncretism currently observed.
5 1
References
Creissels, D. 2012. The origin of antipassive markers in West Mandelanguages. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting ofSocietas Linguistica Europea, Stockolm, 29 August-1September. Available in http://deniscreissels.fr
Dixon, R.M.W. and Alexandra Aikhenvald (Eds.). 2000.Changing Valency. Case studies in Transitivity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax I. An introduction. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
5 3
CONFERENCIA
5 5
Nominalization, de-subordination and re-finitization*
T. GivónLinguistic DepartmentUniversity of Oregon
andWhite Cloud RanchIgnacio, Colorado
1. Background1
1.1. The Uto-Aztecan continuum
Across the Uto-Aztecan family, one finds a sharp distinctionbetween the extreme nominalizing north and the resolutely finitesouth. The two northern-most sub-families, Numic and Takic,nominalize every subordinate clause in sight. The same seems to
* In the preceding two chapters we noted that in some languages allsubordinate clauses are nominalized, and thus exhibit less-finite features.In this chapter it is suggested that the nominalization of subordinateclauses, however natural in itself, leads to certain synchronic anomalies interms of language processing strategies. Speakers devote one processingstrategy to the most frequent clause-type in discourse, main clauses, butmust change their processing strategy, often radically, to processsubordinate clauses. It is suggested here that the process of re-finitizationof nominalized subordinate clauses, which seems to occur eventually inmany nominalizing languages, is prima facie evidence to this synchronicprocessing anomaly. What this chapter attempts to do is, first, discussanother diachronic process, the de-subordination of subordinate clause,and how it might intersect with re-finitization. It then probes thediachronic mechanisms by which re-finitization of subordinate clausesmay take place.
1 An early version of this paper was presented at the CNRS Symposiumon Finiteness and Nominalization, Paris, Sept. 2011. I am grateful to the
5 6
be true of Yaqui and Huichol. But further south one finds uniformlyfinite subordinate clauses in Tepiman (Tepehuan, Pima Bajo) allthe way to Nahuatl. The transition zone between the two extre-mes, Guarijío, Trahumara and perhaps Cora, is surprisingly thin.
There are good reasons for suggesting that the Uto-Aztecannorth is both culturally (hunting-gathering) and linguistically (OVsyntax) more conservative, and that the family’s south, due to eithernatural drift or contact with the Meso-American substratum is moreinnovative. So the question I would like to pose here is this: Howdoes the drift from nominalized to finite subordinate clauses takeplace? Especially natural drift that is not induced by contact. Thestrategy I will pursue here is two-fold:
• Try to understand the internal logic of nominalization andrelated processes.
• Try to find evidence, in the middle zone of the family andelsewhere, for the dynamics of change.
1.2. Finiteness and nominalization
At first glance it is tempting to assume a logical identity, i.e. bi-conditional, between nominalization and non-finiteness, as in:
(1) NOM NON-FIN
organizers, Claudine Chamoreau and Zarina Estrada-Fernández, as well asthe participants, for the most stimulating discussion and enjoyableambiance. An expanded version of the paper was presented at the Semi-nario de Complejidad Sintáctica, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo,November 2014. Special thanks are due to Scott DeLancey for sharing anddiscussing the data on Tibeto-Burman nominalizations.
5 7
Excess caution may suggest a non-committal partial overlap,as in (Bisang 2011):
(2) NOM NON-FIN
What I suspect the data will support better is a proper inclusionrelation, i.e. one-way conditional, as in (3) below, wherebynominalized clauses are always non-finite, but some less-finitestructures are not necessarily the product of nominalization:
(3) NOM NON-FIN
While finiteness is often discussed as a property of verbs, amore comprehensive view would recognize it as a property ofclauses. If one takes the main-declarative-affirmative-active clausesto be the prototype of the finite verbal clause, then its syntacticproperties may be viewed as the benchmark from which less-finiteclauses, whether nominalized or not, may diverge. Such divergencemoves the nominalized clause towards another prototype, that ofthe nominal phrase (NP). And one may then view nominalizationas a diachronic derivational process via which the prototype finiteverbal clause is converted, as close as it can go, to the prototypeof nominal phrase. That is:
(4) Nominalization as a diachronic process:Nominalization is the process via which a finite verbalclause-either in its entirety or just a subject-less verb phrase-is converted into a noun phrase.
Nominalized or non-finite clauses can be then described in termsof the structural adjustments that apply to the clause upon itsconversion from the finite/verbal to the non-finite/nominal prototype(Hopper and Thompson 1984). The major components of suchadjustment are:
5 8
(5) Structural adjustments from verbal to nominal prototype:
finite verbal clause nominalized(non-finite) clause
============== ==============a. lexical category: verb > head nounb. nominal marking: ——— > nominal marking
on verbc. verbal modalities: T-A-M > loss or reductiond. pronouns: pronominal AGR > loss or reductione. case marking: subject/object > genitivef. restriction: ——— > added determinersg. modification: adverbs > adjectivesh. clausal marking: ——— > case-marking on
clause
The inventory of syntactic features associated with clausenominalization as given in (5) is the expanded inventory of allpossible features. As elsewhere in typology, individual languagesmay display the entire set or just a sub-set of features (5a-h), givingrise to a more fine-grained typology. Presumably, by comparingthe cross-language distribution of these features one may arrive atan implicational-hierarchic scale that would tell us which of thesefeatures are more necessary and universal, and which are moreoptional and ancillary. And as often happens in synchronicimplicational hierarchies, the scale may turn out to reflect thediachony.
But why should one want to nominalize a clause to begin with?The answer to this may be given at several levels. At the mostconcrete level, one may rephrase the question as:
• In what syntactic or communicative context(s) does one mostcommonly find nominalized clauses?
The most obvious answer to this question is that a verbal clauseis nominalized most commonly in contexts where it occupies a
5 9
prototypical nominal position, that of subject, direct object,indirect object or nominal predicate inside another clause. In otherwords, nominalization tends to march in tandem with clausalembedding and syntactic complexity.
As an illustration of the structural pattern that emerges out of(5) above, contrast the finite clause (6a) below with its non-finitenominalized counterpart (6b):
(6)a. Finite verbal clause:She knew mathematics extensively
b. Nominalized NP:Her extensive knowledge of mathematics
The same tradition that views finiteness as a property of verbsalso treats it as a discrete either-or phenomenon. But since thefinite verbal prototype, or its nominal converse, is defined by multiplefeatures (5a-h), finiteness is in principle a matter of degree.Consider, for example, the graduated finiteness scale in English, asin (7) below. At the very bottom, one finds the prototype finiteclause (7h). At the very top, one finds the radically nominalizednon-finite clauses (7a). But most clause-types on scale (7) fall in-between, exhibiting intermediate degrees of finiteness andnominalization.
(7) least finite (nominalized) ======================================
a. [Her good knowledge of math] surely helpedb. [Her knowing math well] surely helpedc. [For her to know math so well] surely helpedd. She wanted [to know math well]e. [Knowing math well], she then...f. [Having known math well since childhood], she...g. He assumed [(that)she knew math well]h. She knew math well
======================================most finite
6 0
2. Typological variation in the distribution of finite vs. nominalizedstructures
2.1. ‘Permissive’ languages
English is a rather convenient language to open the discussion ofnominalization with, in that it exhibits a whole range of structures,from the fully finite (7h) to fully nominalized (7a), all presumablyused in their proper syntactic-communicative contexts. WhatEnglish also illustrates is that in a single language, and in the verysame grammatical contexts, one can have the option of using eithera more finite or a more nominalized structure. Thus consider:
(8)context finite nominalized(less finite)
===============================================================a) ADV-clause: After she returned After her return home
homeb) V-complement: He knew she loved He knew of her love
flowers of flowersc) V-complement: I hope I can do it I hope to do it
tomorrow tomorrowd) V-complement: I expect that he I expect him to do it
would do ite) Clausal subject: That she loved Her love of flowers
flowers surprised surprised himhim
f) REL-clause: She was looking She was looking forfor someone someone to loveshe could love
6 1
What examples (8) illustrate is that a language may have con-siderable leeway in using variant levels of finiteness in roughly-the-same syntactic contexts, presumably yielding more subtle semanticor pragmatic effects. Often, such variation points either to emergingdiachronic expansion of syntactic patterns, or to survivingvestiges of older patterns that are being modified and reshaped.
Languages like English, whether due to an innovative orreductive diachronic trajectory, are interesting because they illustratethe mid-range of the finiteness typological continuum, exhibiting alarge variety of finite and less-finite structures. Such variability withinthe same language is found in families such as Indo-European,Semitic, Bantu and others2. But there are also languages –andlanguage families– that occupy either extreme position on thefiniteness scale. We will survey one such extreme directly below,having surveyed an example of the other extreme in ch. 25, above(see also vol. II, ch. 15).
2.2. Extreme nominalizing (embedding) languages
The extreme-nominalizing language type is found in a number oflanguage families or sub-families-Tibeto-Burman (Watters 1998,2008; Genetti et al. 2008; Hyslop 2011; DeLancey 2011), Turkic(Lewis 1967), Carib (Gildea 1998), Quechuan (Weber 1996),Gorokan (Thurman 1978), and No. Uto-Aztecan (Hill 2005;Givón 2011). We will illustrate this type with Ute (Numic, Uto-
2 In two of these families, Semitic and Indo-European, there is internalevidence to suggest that the typology of finiteness has probably shifted—perhaps even back and forth—over historical time. In Bantu likewise, anolder extreme-finite (serial-verb) syntax was most likely re-shaped into thecurrent English-like mix of finite and less-finite subordinate clauses (Givón1975; see vol. I, ch. 7).
6 2
Aztecan). The three most conspicuous structural features of clausenominalization in Ute are:
• nominalizer suffix on the verb (5b)• genitive case-marking of the subject (5e)• object case-marking of the entire clause (5h)
Compare first the finite verbal clause (9a) below with itsnominalized counterpart (9b), serving as the subject of anotherclause, and (9c), serving as another clause’s object:
(9) a.Finite main clause:ta’wachi ‘u yoghovchi pakha-ukh-kwaman/S the/S coyote/O kill-go-ANT‘the man killed the coyote’
b. Nominalized clausal subject:[‘uru ta’wachi ‘uway yoghovchi[that/O man/G the/G coyote/Opakha-ukh-kwa-na] t-’aykill-go-ANT-NOM/S] good-IMM‘it is good that the man killed the coyote’(hist.: ‘the man’s killing (of) the coyote is good’)
c. Nominalized clausal object:puchuchugwa-qha [‘uru ta’wachi ‘uway
know-ANT [that/O man/G the/Gyoghovchi pakha-ukh-kwa-na-y]coyote/O kill-go-ANT-NOM-O]‘(she) knew that the man killed the coyote’(hist.: ‘(s/he) knew the man’s killing (of) the coyote’)
The nominalized clauses in (9b, c) show at least one conspicuouselement of finite structure -tense-aspect-modality. Indeed, manyhistorically-nominalized clauses in Ute exhibit this finite feature, anissue we will return to further below.
6 3
The very same nominalized structure is found in Ute objectREL-clauses:
(10)yoghovchi ‘u [ta’wachi ‘uwáycoyote/S the/S [man/G the/Gpakha-khwa-kwa-na]-y pnikya-qhay-’ukill-go-ANT-NOM]-O see-ANT-3s‘(I) saw the coyote that the man killed’(hist.: ‘(I) saw the coyote of the man’s killing’)
In equi-subject complements of modal-aspectual andmanipulation verbs, the verb is marked with either of two othernominalizing suffixes, and the only T-A-M marking allowed is theirrealis modality:
(11) a. Finite main clause:na’acichi ‘u tkuavi ‘uru tka-qhagirl/S the/S meat/O the/O eat-ANT
‘The girl ate the meat’b. SS complement of modal-aspectual verb:
na’acichi ‘u tkuavi ‘uru tka-vaa-chi girl/S the/S meat/O the/O eat-IRR-NOM/SS
‘ásti’i-kyawant-ANT
‘the girl wanted to eat the meat ‘ (hist.: ‘the girl wanted (the) eating of the meat’)
c. DS complement of manipulation verb:mamachi ‘u na’acichi ‘uway tkuavi ‘uruwoman/S the/S girl/O the/O meat-O the/Otka-vaa-ku máy-kyaeat-IRR-NOM/DS tell-ANT‘the woman told the girl to eat the meat ‘(hist.: ‘the woman told/ordered the girl the eating (of) the meat’)
6 4
Adverbial clauses are also nominalized in Ute, using the sameDS suffix -ku used in complements of manipulation verbs (11c).Some ADV-clauses carry no T-A-M marking, which is predictablefrom the associated main clause. Thus consider:
(12) a. Realis ‘when’-clause:ta’wachi ‘uway kani-naagha yga-khu-’uru,man/G the/G house-in enter-NOM-thatmamachi ‘u págha-kwa-qhawoman/S the/S go-go-ANT‘when the man entered the house, the woman took off’(hist.: ‘(upon) the man’s entering the house, the womantook off)
b. Irrealis ‘if’/’when’ clause:ta’wachi ‘uway kani-naagha yga-khw-’uru,man/G the/G house-in enter-NOM-thatmamachi ‘u págha-kwa-vaa-niwoman/S the/S go-go-IRR-FUT‘if/when the man enters the house, the woman will take off’(hist.: ‘(upon) the man’s entering the house, the womanwill take off’)
The anterior-perfect aspect can also appear in ADV-clauses,with the predictable meaning of subsequence (‘after’). Thus, com-pare (13) below to (12a) above:
(13) ta’wach-i ‘uway kani-naagha yga-qhay-khu-’uru,man-G the/G house-in enter-ANT-NOM-thatmamach ‘u págha-kwa-qhawoman/S the/S go-go-ANT‘After the man entered the house, the woman took off’(Lit.: ‘(following) the man’s having entered the house, thewoman took off)
6 5
And the irrealis marker can be added to the anterior-perfect, yieldinga counter-fact conditional sense, as in:
(14) ta’wachi ‘uway kani-naagha yga-qha-vaa-ku,...man/G the/G house-in enter-ANT-IRR-NOM‘if the man had entered the house (tho he didn’t)...’
As noted earlier (ch. 26), subject REL-clauses in Ute displaytheir own pattern of nominalization, with the subject/agentnominalizer -t and no restrictions on finite T-A-M marking. Thusconsider:
(15) a. Finite main clause:‘áapachi ‘u tkuavi ‘uru tka-qhaboy/S the/S meat/O the/O eat-ANT‘the boy ate the meat’
b. Subject REL-clause:‘áapachi ‘u tkuavi tka-qa-t pnikya-qhaboy/S the/S meat/O eat-ANT-NOM/O see-AND‘(I) saw the boy who ate the meat’(hist.: ‘(I) saw the meat-eating boy’)
c. Nominalized predicate:‘áapach ‘u tkua-tka-mi-t ‘ura-’ayboy/S the/S meat-eat-HAB-NOM be-IMM‘the boy is a meat-eater’
The same subject- nominalizer -t is used widely in other subject/agent nominalizations, as in:
(16)a. Possessor:puwa-gha-t ‘medicine-man’power-have-NOM
b. Negative possessor:ka-p’i-’a-t ‘blind person’NEG-eye-have/NEG-NOM’
6 6
c. Subject-of -passive (old form):p’-kwa-t ‘book’ (hist. ‘what was written’)write-PASS-NOM
d. Adjective:‘aka-gha-r ‘red’ (inan.; hist: ‘that has redness’)red-have-NOM
In one hard-to-characterize subordinate construction, the main-clause verb is nominalized with the subject nominalizer -t, and isthen subordinated, perhaps as subject, to the finite main verb ‘be’.Some typical text-derived examples of this are3:
(17) a....nachuwa-pi ‘apagha-pi ‘úru, ‘úru ‘ava’nafancy-NOM/O talk-NOM/S that/S that/S much‘ura-t ‘ura-yi-s ‘iya-na...be-NOM be-IMM-C here-LOC‘...talking fancy talk, there’s lot of that here...’
b....míiya-ni-naagha ‘uni-’ni-kya-t-m ‘ura-yi-s...far-LOC-maybe do-INT-PL-NOM-PL be-IMM-C‘...(or) maybe those who live far...’
c. ...p-pa kar-khwa-ta radio ‘uru turn-ony-ta,road-DIR sit-go-NOM radio that/O turn-on-NOM
pa’a-’ura-t-s ‘ura-mi...complete-be-NOM-C be-HAB
‘...driving on the road (through their reservation) and turningthe radio on, it is completely that (speaking Navajo on theradio)...’
d....’ava’na-aqh ‘uni-kya-t-m ‘ura-’ay...many-it do-PL-NOM-PL be-IMM‘...they do a lot of it...’
3 Talk by the late Harvey Natchez (Uncompaghre, No. Ute) to the Tri-Ute Language Conference, March 30, 1979.
6 7
e. ...puchuchugwa-vaa-ni-’uru, ‘át-mani-kya-t-mknow-IRR-FUT-that well-do.like-PL-NOM-PL
‘ura-yi-s...be-IMM-C‘...they will (be able to) learn and do well like this...’
Lastly, as noted earlier (vol. I, ch. 16), the passive in Ute isalso a diachronic product of nominalization, in this case of asubjectless VP. Thus compare:
(18)a. Active-transitive:‘áapachi ‘u tkuavi ‘uru tka-qhaboy/S the/S meat/O the/O eat-ANT‘the boy ate the meat’
b. Passive:tkuavi ‘uru tka-ta-qhameat/O the/O eat-PASS-ANT‘the meat was eaten’, ‘someone at the meat’
c. Action nominal:tka-ta t’a-t ‘ura-’ayeat-NOM good-NOM be-IMM‘eating is good’
d. VP nominalization:tkuavi ‘uru tka-ta t’a-t ‘ura-qhameat/O the/O eat-NOM good-NOM be-ANT‘eating the meat was good’
One may suggest that in extreme nominalizing languages suchas Ute, the feature subordinate clause is grammaticalized to themax via nominalization. Such a strategy is akin to treatingsubordinate clauses, by analogy, as subject or object nominals.
6 8
2.3. Extreme finite languages
At the other extreme of the typological continuum one findslanguages in which all clause-types are finite, including, in somelanguages, even lexical nominalizations. Several Amerindian familiesdisplay this phenomenon, e.g. Iroquois, (Mithun 1991),Algonquian, Siouan-Cadoan, So. Arawak, and Athabaskan. Thesame may be seen in many serial-verb languages in Southeast Asia(Thai, Burmese, Mon-Khmer, Yao-Miao; Lahu, Matisoff 1972)and Africa (Akan, Osam 1994; Senufu, Carlson 1994; and manyother Niger-Congo languages; see vol. I, ch. 7). An extensiveillustration of this extreme type with data from Tolowa Athabaskanmay be found in vol. I, ch. 15, as well as ch. 25 above and ch. 29,below.
3. The diachronic logic of clause nominalization
As noted earlier above (see also chs 25, 26), the underlying logicof clausal nominalization is most likely analogical:
(19)If a clause occupies a prototypical nominal position, it may betreated syntactically as a noun phrase.
The logic of (19) seems fairly straight-forward in V-complements, whose main verbs are originally transitive verbs thattake nominal objects. Extending their semantic scope to modal-aspectual, manipulation or perception-cognition-utterance sensesis ubiquitous (Dixon 1991). Thus consider:
6 9
(20)old sense with new sense withnominal object clausal complement=================== =====================Modal-aspectual verbs:She wanted an apple > She wanted to eat an appleShe stopped the car > She stopped driving the carShe avoided the bridge > She avoided crossing the bridgeManipulation verbs:He told her a storey > He told her to leaveHe stopped her > She stopped her from leavingHe wanted her > He wanted to marry herP-C-U verbs:They saw him > They saw him working >
They saw he was workingHe knew her > He knew she was thereShe told him a story > She told him that she was busy
The logic of nominalized REL-clauses is less obvious. Whilemodifying REL-clauses are embedded in a noun phrase, theirposition as restrictive modifiers is more akin to that of adjectivesor quantifiers, i.e. predicates. The logic of nominalizing REL-clauses becomes more transparent, however, as noted earlier (seech. 26), the early source of modifying REL-clauses is often aheadless REL-clause used first as a paratactic, non-restrictiveREL-clauses. Thus compare:
(21)a. Finite main clause:ta’wachi ‘u yoghovchi ‘a-qaman/S the/S coyote/O trap-ANT‘the man trapped the coyote’
b. Headless REL-clause:puchuchugwa-y [‘uway yoghovchi ‘a-qa-t]know-IMM-3s that/O coyote/O trap-ANT-NOM/O‘(I) know the one who trapped the coyote’(hist.: ‘I know that coyote trapper’)
7 0
c. Non-restrictive REL-clause:puchuchugwa-y ta’wachi ‘uway, [‘uwayknow-IMM man/O the/O that/Oyoghovchi ‘a-qa-t]coyote/O trap-ANT-NOM/O‘(I) knows the man, the one who trapped the coyote’(hist.: ‘I know the man, that coyote trapper’)
d. Restrictive subject REL-clause:puchuchugwa-y ta’wachi ‘uway yoghovchiknow-IMM-3s man/O the/O coyote/O‘a-qa-ttrap-ANT-NOM/O‘(I) know the man who trapped the coyote’
Likewise for object REL-clauses:
(22)a. Finite main clause:mamachi ‘u páanay ‘uru chíir’a-qa woman/S the/S bread/O the/O fry-ANT‘The woman fried the bread’
b. Headless REL-clause:pnikya-qhay-ku [‘uru mamachi chíir’a-qha-na-y]see-ANT-it that/O woman/G fry-ANT-NOM-O‘(I) saw what the woman fried’(hist.: ‘I saw that of the-woman’s-frying’)
c. Non-restrictive REL-clause:pnikya-qhay-ku páanay, [‘uru mamachisee-ANT-it bread/O that/O woman/G‘uway chíir’a-qha-na-y]the/G fry-ANT-NOM-O‘(I) saw the bread, which the woman fried’(hist. ‘I saw the bread, that of the woman’s frying’)
7 1
d. Restrictive REL-clause:pnikya-qha páanay [‘uru mamachisee-ANT bread/O that/O woman/G‘uway chíir’a-qha-na-y]the/G fry-ANT-NOM-O‘(I) saw the bread that the woman fried’
4. De-subordination
I have earlier defined re-finitization as the acquisition of finitefeatures by an erstwhile nominalized clause (Givón 1993). Mithun(2011) has suggested that the phenomenon called by Evans (2007)insubordination is also an instance of re-finitization. It seems tome that we have two distinct phenomena here that arise via differentdiachronic pathways, under different functional-adaptive pressures,and thus require distinct description.
The synchronic phenomenon described by Evans (2007) as‘insubordination’, and that earlier I called the ‘re-surfacing’ or‘liberation’ of erstwhile subordinate clauses, may be bettercharacterized in diachronic terms as de-subordination. This is aprocess whereby erstwhile subordinate clauses, often nominalizedand/or less finite, become main clauses. A most succinct descriptionof this process in Tibeto-Burman languages has been given byDeLancey (2011):
“...TB languages frequently innovate new, marked clausalconstructions with nominalized verbs and finite copulas...Frequentlysuch constructions lose their marked status and become ordinaryfinite constructions...Many TB verbal systems transparently reflectthis origin, for example modern Tibetan tense/aspect forms like -pa-yin, -pa-red, both consisting of the nominalizer -pa inconstruction with an equational copula...” (2011, p. 1)
The grammaticalizaion of main verbs as T-A-M markers is acommon mechanism in de-subordination, often resulting in the
7 2
introduction of other syntactic features into the de-subordinatedmain clause. Thus, for example, both in Tibeto-Burman and Caribande-subordination has introduced ergative case-marking, in Caribanby re-analyzing erstwhile dative-marked agents (Gildea 1998), inTibetan by re-analyzing erstwhile genitive-marked agents. InJapanese, the current -ga subject marker in finite main clauses isa re-analyzed genitive of earlier nominalized subordinate clauses(Akiba 1978; Shibatani 2007). And in No. Uto-Aztecan the de-subordination of nominalized VPs is responsible for the merger ofobject and genitive case-marking in main clauses (see vol. II, ch.18).
As an illustration of the latter mechanism, consider thegrammaticalization of the remote-past marker -pga in Ute, derivedfrom the combination of the inanimate/object noun-suffix -p, usedin many types of nominalization, and the irregular–objectincorporating–verb -ga ‘have’:
(23) a. Possessed noun: kani-gya-y ‘(s/he) has a house’house-have-IMM
b. Nominalized object: tka-p ‘eating’eat-NOM
c. Possessed nominalizedverb: tka-p-ga-y ‘(s/he) has eating’
eat-NOM-have-IMMd. Re-analyzed as
remote-past: tka-pga ‘(s/he) ate’eat-REM
In the same vein, the current English present-progressive is theproduct of the de-subordination of a nominalized VP, preservingthe grammaticalized copula ‘be’ and the nominalizer -ing as telltaletraces.
7 3
While tense-aspect renovation is a common mechanism drivingde-subordination, other mechanisms also exist. A common one isthe re-interpretation of complement clauses of modality ormanipulation verbs as independent main-clauses that performdeontic (subjunctive, hortative) speech-acts (Givón 1971b). In thisprocess, the main verb is simply elided and its modal value isassumed by the erstwhile complement clause. Thus, in Ute:
(24) a. Complement of modality verb:tka-vaa-chi ‘ásti-’ieat-IRR-NOM want-IMM
‘(I) want to eat’b. Subjunctive main clause:
tka-vaa-chi-neat-IRR-NOM-1s‘I intend to/should/might eat’
c. Hortative main clause:tka-vaa-chi-ramieat-IRR-NOM-2d/INCL‘let’s (you and I) eat’
d. Complement of manipulative verb:tka-qha-paa-ku máy-pga-ameat-PL-IRR-NOM tell-REM-3p‘(I) told them to eat’
e. Hortative main clause:tka-qha-paa-ku-ameat-PL-IRR-NOM-3p‘they should eat’, ‘let them eat’
A similar mechanism converts conditional ADV-clauses intomanipulative (‘indirect’) speech-acts, eliding their main clauses,as in English:
7 4
(25) a. Subordinate ADV-clause: It would be nice if you couldget me a spoon...
b. Indirect speech-act: Now if you could get me aspoon?
Another mechanism, reminiscent of tense-aspect development,involves the grammaticalization of the main verb ‘be’, initially usedas an emphatic cleft-like devise. When ‘be’ becomesgrammaticalized, the construction loses its emphatic sense andbecome de-marked. Something like this must have happened inKikuyu, where the old Bantu copula -ni is now the generalizedmarker of simple declarative clauses. The Ute emphatic constructioncited in (17) above has the potential for developing in this direction.Thus, recall (17d) above, reproduced as4:
(26)...’ava’na-aqh ‘uni-kya-t-m ‘ura-’ay...many-it do-PL-NOM-PL be-IMM‘...they do a lot of it...’
Lastly, a more complex mechanism of de-subordination maybe seen in the recruitment of participial clauses into the grammar ofclause chaining. Such clauses start their life as noun modifiersinside the NP. Next they become participial adverbial clauses, andeventually chain-medial same-subject (SS) clauses. The early stageof this development was noted in Latin (Haiman 1983). A more
4 Ute has grammaticalized the same ‘be’, -’ura or -’ara, as a topicalizingsuffix on nouns, marking important discontinuous referents when comingback into the discourse, either at chain-initial or at chain-medial (switch-reference) position. This suffix is also part of clause-initial adverbialconnectives (Givón 2011, ch. 18). The grammaticalization of ni ‘be’ inKikuyu, first as an emphatic/cleft marker, then as a de-marked declarative-clause marker, is an instance of the same process.
7 5
advanced stage has been reported in Jiwarli (Austin 1992).Schematically, the process may be illustrated with English data as(see Givón 2001, ch. 18):
(27) a. Participial noun modifier:The running man took off
b. Participial adverbial:The man, running, took offThe man took off runningRunning, the man took off
c. Chain-medial participial (OV pattern):Coming into the room, looking around and seeing nobodythere, she relaxed.
d. Chain-medial participial (VO pattern):She came into the room, looking around, seeing nobody,then relaxing.
Through all these diachronic pathways, the de-subordinatedclause pulls into its new-found main-clause status whatever non-finite structural features it had as a subordinate clause. Thesubsequent addition of more finite features, what I would like tocall re-finitization, is a separate process. Indeed, de-subordinations itself most commonly leads to the introduction ofnon-finite, nominalized features into main-clause syntax. So in astrict sense it does the very opposite of re-finitization.
5. Re-finitization
5.1. Preliminaries
The re-interpretation of de-subordinated clauses as the new stan-dard of finite main clauses, described by DeLancey (2011), isundoubtedly an important phenomenon. What I would like to focus
7 6
on here, however, is a different diachronic process–the refinitizationof nominalized subordinate clauses.
In attempting to account for the distribution of nominalized,non-finite morpho-syntax across the various types of subordinateclauses, one may consider invoking two alternative explanationsto the seeming association between nominalization and subordinateclauses, one diachronic-syntactic, as in (19) above, the othercommunicative:
(28) a. Diachronic syntactic explanation:Nominalized syntax occurs in subordinate clauses when theyoccupy a prototypical nominal position inside main clauses.
b. Communicative explanation:Non-finite syntax occurs in subordinate clauses that showmaximal referential and tense-aspect-modal continuity(coherence) vis-a-vis their main clause.
These two explanations are not exclusive of each other, andthe communicative (28b) may help explain, perhaps even in someway drive, the diachronic-syntactic (28a). For example, thenominalization of complements of modal-aspectual and manipulationverb does signal higher referential, temporal and thematic integrationof main and complement clauses (see ch. 25, above). Likewise,nominalized or participial adverbial and chain-medial clauses exhibitstrong referential and tense-aspect continuity vis-a-vis their mainclauses (see examples (12) and (27) above). Still, for the momentit might be helpful to consider the two explanations separately.
As suggested earlier above, clause nominalization is bestunderstood as a diachronic process that, whatever its originalmotivation, winds up creating grammatical patterns that distinguishsubordinate clauses from main clause—and from each other. Ofthe eight structural features that characterize nominalized clauses(5), one in particular—tense-aspect-modal marking (5c)—seemsto vary greatly among the various types of subordinate clauses. Is
7 7
such variation predictable? And if so, by what logic? And doesthat logic operate during the original diachronic process ofnominalization, or during a subsequent process of re-finitization?Table (29) below present a tentative ranking of the likelihood of T-A-M marking in the various types of subordinate clauses in English,a mid-range language. All such clauses would be nominalized in anextreme nominalizing language like Ute.
(29) Likelihood of finite T-A-M marking in subordinateclauses:least likely examples
================= ================lexical nominalizations Knowledge is power
——————————————————————a. modality complements
(equi-S) She wanted to leaveb. manipulation complements
(equi-O) She told him to leavec. purpose clauses (equi-S) She wet to school to study mathd. participial clauses
(equi-S) Running late, she took a cab(equi-O) She saw him running
—————————————————––—————e. ADV clauses (SS) After he left, he called a taxi
(DS) After he left, she called a taxi—————————————————————––—f. C-P-U verb complements, He knew she would rather leaveg. REL-clauses The man you’ll meet was my
teacherh. clausal subjects It’s a pity he didn’t show up=======================================
most likely
7 8
The first thing to note is that the scalar continuum in (29) doesnot only rank the likelihood of finite T-A-M marking in a nominalizinglanguage like Ute, but also the likelihood of using the nominalizationstrategy in a mid-range language like English. At the bottom of thescale (29e,f,g,h) are clause types that are not commonly nominalizedin English. In Ute, those are precisely the nominalized clauses thatcan carry finite T-A-M marking.
Next to notice is that the syntactic position of a subordinateclause within the main clause, our structural explanation (29a), isnot the best predictor of whether it will be nominalized or non-finite. A much better predictor is the functional explanation (29b)—degree of continuity/coherence between main and subordinateclause, reducible to two major grammar-coded factors(Givón1983):
• referential continuity• tense aspect-modal continuity
The subordinate clauses at the bottom of the scale (29e-h) arethose that do not require referential continuity, and can have T-A-M values independent of their main clause5. Indeed, much of theexpressive power of these subordinate clauses rests in their abilityto diverge from their main clause in these two core aspects ofthematic continuity.
In one clause-type, ADV-clauses (29e), the two possiblepredictors—continuity and syntactic position—make identicalclaims. Unlike V-complements and REL-clauses, ADV clausesdo not occupy an obvious nominal position (S, O, IO, PRED)
5 Ute allows only two T-A-M markers in ADV-clauses, anterior-perfect-ka and the irrealis -vaa, but no tense marking (immediate, remote, habi-tual).
7 9
inside their main clause. Indeed, syntactically they are not part ofthe main clause at all, and are most typically packaged under aseparate intonation contour. They also don’t require referential orT-A-M continuity with the main clause, except in the case of onesub-type—participial clauses (see further below).
Notice, however, that while optional in both English and Ute,referential and T-A-M continuity between main and adverbialclauses often is the case, giving rise to less-finite ADV clauses inlanguages such as English. Thus contrast the finite ADV-clausewith fully independent reference and T-A-M in (30a), below, withthe non-finite ones with zero-marked reference and T-A-M in (30b):
(30) a. Finite ADV clause:After she came over to the house, he left. (> she came, he left)
b. Non-finite ADV clause:After coming over to the house, she left. (> she came, she left)Having come over to the house, she left. (> she came,she left)
Since in the rest of the examples in (29) continuity suffices as apredictor, perhaps in (29e) too syntactic position is not the realpredictor. Similar observations were made by Watters (2008) aboutmore finite vs. less finite nominalized complement clauses in Kham(Central Himalayan, Tibeto-Burman), correlating the degree of finitesubject/object agreement marking with the degree of referentialcontinuity.
Whatever factor predicts the ranking of subordinate clauses in(29), we still need to determine at what diachronic stage it operates:
• during the original stage of nominalization, where it mayshield clause-types (29e-h) from loss of T-A-M marking;or
• during a subsequent stage of re-finitization.
8 0
To answer this question fully would require finding andcomparing languages in the early stages of nominalization, or in theearly stages of re-finitization6.
5.2. Re-finitization and tense-aspect-modal marking
When I first played with the concept of re-finitization in (Givón1993), I proposed that the appearance of T-A-M marking in UteREL-clauses, ADV-clauses and verbal complements should beinterpreted diachronically the following way:
(31) a. Stage I–nominalization:When subordinate clauses are nominalized, they lose theirT-A-M marking.
b. Stage II–re-finitization:Over time, for functional reasons (expressive power),nominalized clauses are gradually re-finitized and, amongother adjustments, re-acquiring T-A-M marking.
Two things were wrong with hypothesis (31). First, the 1993paper presented no time-continuum data to support the proposedtwo-stage scenario. So it may well be that nominalized subordinateclauses in Ute had never lost their T-A-M marking to begin with.And second, the 1993 paper presented no quantified distributionaldata, only hand-picked examples of T-A-M marking in nominalizedsubordinate clauses. So it may well be that those examples werepossible but not statistically representative.
While a quantified assessment of the distribution of T-A-Mmarking in Ute subordinate clauses is not quite the requisite data-base, it may help shed some light on a related question:
6 Ute, alas, is at neither point.
8 1
• What type of nominalized subordinate clauses are morelikely to exhibit a wider range of T-A-M marking, and why?
Table (32) below presents the frequency distribution of T-A-M marking in subordinate clauses in three Ute oral texts: Twonarratives about the distant past, where the bulk of the main-clauseinformation is marked with the remote-past suffix -pga; and anexpository discussion of current issues, with most finite main clausesmarked by either the immediate/present suffix -y or the habitualsuffix -mi(ya)7.
(32) Distribution of T-A-M in subordinate clauses in Ute oraltexts subordinate-clause type
====================================================== ADV-clause OBJ-REL-clause SUBJ-REL-clause
============== ============== =============T-A-M suffix -ga -ku -chi -na -p -chi -t========== ===== ===== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====Mollie C.========zero 3 6 1 1 1 1 3HAB (mi) 1 1 / / / / /ANT (qa) / 11 / / / / /REM (pga) / 1 / 3 1 / /IRR (vaa) / / 1 / / / /
7 From Givón (ed. 2013). Text 1: “Sinawav and the Seven Sisters”, toldby Mollie B. Cloud. Text 2: “The Last War Party”, told by Harry Richards.Text 3: “Talk to the Tri-Ute Language Conference” (1977) by HarveyNatchez. The texts are ca. 15 pp.-long each (three-line format).
8 2
Harry R.=======zero 6 12 3 2 / 1 /HAB (miya) / 2 / / / / /ANT (qa) / 1 / 1 / / /REM (pga) / 2 / / / / /IRR (vaa) / 1 / / / / /
Harvey N.========zero 4 12 / 11 1 1 4HAB (mi) / / / 2 / / /ANT (qa) / 6 / 7 1 / /REM (pga) / / / / / / /IRR (vaa) / 1 / 1 / / /====================================================================TOTAL: 14 55 5 28 4 3 7
Examples of these subordinate clauses from the three texts aregiven in the Appendix, below.
Two types of nominalized subordinate clauses were not includedin the count: the SS complements of modal-aspectual-modal verbs(‘want’), and the DS complements of manipulation verbs (‘tell’).Their T-A-M marking is obligatory and limited to the irrealis suffix-vaa.
The first thing to note in table (32) is that obligatory equi-subjectsubordinate clauses—the participial with -ga, the ADV-clause with-chi and the subject-REL-clauses with either -chi or -t—mostoften receive zero T-A-M marking. Put another way, referentialcontinuity goes hand-in-hand with T-A-M continuity.
The second observation is that even in the two clause-typeswhere more referential freedom is in principle possible, ADV-clauses marked by -ku and object REL-clauses marked by -na,zero T-A-M marking is still very frequent, often with just the ante-
8 3
rior—here pluperfect marker— -qa. This once again suggests thatthe option of zero T-A-M marking is exercised judiciously, mostlikely in conjunction with referential continuity.
Lastly, the distributions in (32) suggest that, as noted earlier,T-A-M marking in subordinate clauses, and thus their degree offiniteness, is controlled by general functional considerations thatare largely independent of nominalization per se8.
6. In search of mechanisms
The recruitment of nominalization to create subordinate clauses isa natural, widespread diachronic phenomenon (see chs 25, 26above). But as natural and widespread as it may be, the end resultis often less than natural, tampering with the speakers’ normal/frequent strategy for processing nominal case-marking and verbalmorphology in main clauses. It may thus not be an accident that inall language families with historically-nominalized subordinateclauses, an eventual drift toward re-finitization is observed. InUto-Aztecan, the conservative north (Numic, Takic, Yaqui,Huichol) shows little evidence of such a drift, yet. In the innovativesouth, on the other hand, re-finitization of subordinate clauses hasbeen completed and nominalization has disappeared with few tra-ces. It is the middle strip—Guarijío, Tarahumara, perhaps Cora—that is of interest for studying the diachronic process of re-finitization9.
8 It is perhaps not entirely an accident that the name for ‘God’ in Ute, alexical nominalization par excellence, is Núu-maroghoma-pga-t ‘He whocreated the people’, a nominalization that is still marked by the finite remote-past tense suffix -pga.9 In So. Tepehuan, where all subordinate clauses have been re-finitized,the nominalizer suffix -d-am is still preserved, a relic of the old nominalized
8 4
In Guarijio, one finds several surviving old nominalizingsuffixes in subordinate clauses, re-interpreted now as just partand parcel of the new finite morphology. The genitive marking ofsubjects in both object REL-clauses and ADV-clauses hasdisappeared in nouns, but it still survives in pronouns. Thus com-pare (Félix-Armandáriz 2006):
(33) a. Subject REL-clause: tihoé tapaná u’má-ka-(a)me man/S yesterday run-PAR-NOM
‘the man who ran away yesterday...’b. Object REL-clause, nominal subject:
kari amó karí-ta-ri-a Huaníhouse you/O house-build-PFV-NOM John/S‘the house that John built for you...’(hist.: ‘the house of John’s building for you’)
c. Object REL-clause, pronominal subject: owítiame Mochibámpo no’ó tetewá-ri-a
woman Mochibámpo 1s/G see-PFV-NOM‘the woman I saw in Mochibámpo...’(hist.: ‘the woman of my seeing in Mochibampo’)
d. ADV-clause, nominal subject:temé neipá asi-má asi-só Huanita2p/S last arrive-FUT arrive-NOM Juanita/S‘we will arrive after Juanita has arrived’ (Hist: ‘we willarrive after Juanita’s arrival’)
e. ADV-clause, pronominal subject:neipá yau-má-ni-a amó yau-só-palast dance-FUT-1s-EMPH 2s/G dance-NOM-INCH‘I will dance after you dance’ (Hist.: ‘I will dance afteryour dancing’)
structure, in both subject REL-clauses and subject/agent lexicalnominalization (García-Salido 2014). This suffix is probably cognate to theGuarijío/Tarahumara -ame subject REL-clause suffix and the Yaqui -me.
8 5
Complements of utterance verbs have been further re-finitized,with both their nominal and their pronominal subjects now markedas nominative. This may be due to analogical pressure from direct-quote complements, probably the most common complements forutterance verbs. Further, no nominalizing suffix has survived in suchcomplements , although the participial suffix may be consideredquasi-nominal. In contrast, the complements of cognition verbssuch as ‘know’ still preserve a genitive pronominal subject and anold nominalizing suffix. Thus compare:
(34)a. Complement of ‘say’, nominative pronominal subject: apoé chaní temé noka-ri-áta wewe-ka 3s/S say 1p/S move-PFV-QU hit-PAR
‘he said that we hit him’(hist. ‘he told our hitting him’)
b. Complement of ‘know’, nominative nominal subject:aapóe nané-na peniátiame wikaht-ó María3s/S know-PRES pretty sing-NOM Maria/S‘They know that María sings pretty’(hist.: ‘They know of María’s singing pretty’)
c. Complement of ‘know’, genitive pronominal subject:nané-na-ne amó peniási-ka amó yau-yoknow-PRES-1s 2s/GEN pretty-PAR 2s/GEN dance-NOM‘I know that you dance pretty’(hist.: ‘I know of your dancing pretty’)
Finally, both equi-subject and switch-subject verbalcomplements still take the old nominalizing suffix -(a)me, as in:
(35) a. Equi-subject complement of modal-aspectual verbs:simi-nare-ne ehtudiarwa-ni-áme kechewékago-DESID-1s study-PRES-NOM Quechehueca‘I want to study (the) Quechehueca (language)’(hist.: ‘I want studying Quchehueca’)
8 6
b. Switch-subject complement of manipulation verbs:Hustína nahkí ki-kio’ko-ri-áme ini-míchio kuitáAgustina want NEG-get.sick-PFV-NOM be-PURP child‘Agustina wants her child to be healthy’(hist.: ‘Agustina wants her child being healthy’
Re-finization, the diachronic reversion to finite structure, itseems, may be gradual and piecemeal, progressing constructionby construction and creating various intermediate structures, somemore nominalized, others more finite. From the perspective of idealiconicity and speech processing, such intermediate synchronic statesmake grammars less transparent, harder to learn and process, andin that sense ‘less natural’.
7. Discussion
The diachronic trajectory of erstwhile nominalized clauses mayinvolve both the re-finitization of subordinate clauses and their de-subordination. Still, the two processes need to be consideredindependently, all along conceding that the facts relevant to re-finitization are rather meager, especially in terms of frequencydistribution data. The suggestion made below are thus at besttentative.
7.1. Re-finitization of subordinate clauses
When a language re-finitizes its erstwhile non-finite subordinateclauses, chances are this is done gradually along well-knownimplicational hierarchies, the first of which is attested in Guarijíoand probably has much to do with usage frequency and Zip’s law:
(36) nouns > pronouns
8 7
The other hierarchies probably have more to do with howindependent a subordinate-clause is from its main clause in termsof the two main strands of thematic coherence—reference andtense-aspect-modality. This is where the Ute frequency distributionfigures in table (32) may be relevant to our discussion, and wherethey seem to cohere with the—admittedly meager—Guarijio andUte data:
(37) a. REL-clauses > V-complementsb. Non-equi complements > equi complementsc. Utterance V-complements > perception/cognition
V-complementsd. non-equi-subject ADV-clauses > equi-subject
ADV-clauses
The vestige of old nominalizations that seems to survive longest,to judge by both the Tibeto-Burman (DeLancey 2011) and Uto-Aztecan data (Félix-Armandáriz 2006; García-Salido 2014), arethe nominalizing verb suffixes, probably for the simple reasonthat they are quickly shorn of any meaning, and are soon re-interpreted as just part of the tense-aspect marking of finite clauses.This is just as true of the Ute remote-past marker -pga (see (23)above) as it is of the English progressive marker -ing. This is, Isuspect, the story of survival of the Uto-Aztecan subject nominalizer-(a)me along the cline of re-finitized subordinate-clause syntax:
Yaqui > Guarijío > So. Tepehuan
7.2. De-subordination and vestigial nominal structure in mainclauses
The story of how vestigial traces of nominalized morpho-syntaxsurvive in main clauses is the story of de-subordination and
8 8
subsequent re-structuring. In principle, this story has little to dowith nominalization per se. However, if a subordinate clausehappens to have been nominalized in its former incarnation, itsnominal features will surface out in main clauses as by-products ofde-subordinated.
This is how the ergative morphology in Tibeto-Burman andCariban main clauses came into being, as by-product of de-subordination (Gildea 1998; DeLancey 2011). This is how theUte nominalizer -p became part of the remote-past marker -p-gain main clauses. This is how the Japanese genitive suffix -ga wasre-analyzed as a nominative marker (Akiba 1978; Shibatani 2007).
This is also how the Numic and Takic genitive suffix -y/-ibecame an object suffix, as by-product of the de-subordination ofnominalized VPs (see ch 18). And this is, lastly, how subordinateverb-complement morphology was pulled into subjunctive andhortative main-clauses in Bantu (Givón 1971b) and Ute (see (24)above).
De-subordination is a highly universal mechanism, transcendingthe typological distinction between nominalizing and finite languages.When it occurs in a nominalizing language, through whatevermechanism, de-subordination introduces the nominalized structureof erstwhile subordinate clauses into main-clause syntax.
ABBREVIATIONS
ANT anterior 1s 1st person singularDESID desiderative 2s 2nd person singularDIR directional 3s 3rd person singularDS different subject 1p 1st person pluralEMPH emphasis 3p 3rd person pliuralFUT future du dualG genitiveHAB habitual
8 9
IMM immediateINCH inchoativeINCL inclusiveIO indirect objectIRR irrealisLOC locativeNEG negativeNOM nominalizerO objectPAR participlePASS passivePFV perfectivePL pluralPRES presentPURP purposiveQU quotativeREM remoteS subjectSS same subjectT-A-M tense-aspect-modality
9 0
References
Akiba, K. (1978) Topics in Japanese Historical Syntax, Universityof California, Los Angeles, PhD dissertation (ms.).
Austin, P. (1992) “Cases and clauses in Jiwarli, Western Ausrtralia”,La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics, 5.
Bisang, W. (2011) “Finiteness and nominalization—convergenceand divergence”, Symposium on Finiteness andNominalization, CNRS, Paris (ms.).
Bommelyn, L. and T. Givón (1998) “Internal reconstruction in theTolowa Athabaskan verb”, Cuarto Encuentro Internacio-nal de Linguística en el Noroeste, Universidad de Sonora,Hermosillo, Son.
Carlson, R. (1994) A Grammar of Supyire, Berlin/NY: MoutonDe Gruyter.
DeLancey, S. (2011) “Finite structure from clausal nominalizationin Tibeto-Burman”, in Yap, F.-H., K. Grunow-Harsta and J.Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian Languages:Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, 343-62.Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Dixon, R.M.W (1991) A New Approach to English GrammarBased on Semantic Principles, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Evans, N. (2007) “Insubordination and its uses”, in I. Nikolaeva(ed.) Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations,Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Félix-Armandariz, R. (2006) A Grammar of River Warihío, RiceUniversity, Houston, TX, PhD. Dissertation (ms.).
García-Salido, G. (2014) Clause Linkage in SoutheasternTepehuan, a Uto-Aztecan language of Northern Mexico,University of Texas, Austin, PhD. Dissertation (ms.).
Genetti, C., A.R. Coupe, E. Bartee, K. Hildebrandt and Y.-J. Lin(2008) “Syntactic Aspects of Nominalization in five Tibeto-
9 1
Burman languages of the Himalayan Area”, Linguistics of theTibeto-Burman area, 31.2.
Gildea, S. (1998) On Reconstructing Grammar, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Givón, T. (1971b) “Dependent modals, performatives, factivity,Bantu subjunctives and what not”, Studies in AfricanLinguistics, 2.1.
______. (1975) “Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Con-go”, in C. Li (ed. 1975).
______. (1983) “Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction”,in T. Givón (ed. 1983).
______. (ed 1983) Topic Continuity in Discourse: QuantitativeCross-Language Studies, TSL #3, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins
______. (1993) “Nominalized clauses in Ute: The diachronicseesaw of finite structure”, 2do Encuentro Internacional deLinguística en el Noroeste, Universidad de Sonora,Hermosillo, Son.
______. (2001) Syntax: An Introduction (2 vols), Amsterdam:J. Benjamins.
______. (2009) The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity,Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
______. (2011) Ute Reference Grammar, Amsterdam: J.Benjamins.
______. ed. (2013) Ute Texts, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Haiman, J. (1983) “On some origins of switch reference marking”,
in J. Haiman and P. Munro (eds), Switch Reference and Uni-versal Grammar, TSL #2, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Hill, J. (2005) A Grammar of Cupeño, Berkeley and Los Ungeles:University of California Press.
Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1984) “The discourse basis forlexical categories in universal grammar”, Language, 60.
Hyslop, G. (2011) A Grammar of Kurtöp, PhD. Dissertation,University of Oregon, Eugene (ms).
9 2
Lewis, G.L. (1967) Turkish Grammar, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Li, C.N. (ed. 1975) Word Order and Word Order Change, Austin:
University of Texas Press.Matisoff, J. (1972) A Grammar of Lahu, Berkeley: U.C. Press.Mithun, M. (1991) “The role of motivation in the emergence of
grammatical categories: The grammaticalization of subjects”,in E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds 1991).
______. (2011) “Interaction between nominalization andfiniteness”, Conference on Nominalization and Finiteness,CNRS, Paris, Sept. 2011.
Osam, E. K. (1994) Aspects of Akan Grammar, PhD. Dissertation,University of Oregon, Eugene (ms).
Shibatani, M. (2007) “Relativization i n Sasak and Sumbawa,eastern Indonesia, with some comments on Japanese”, Semi-nario de Complejidad Sintáctica, Universidad de Sonora,Hermosillo, (ms.).
Thurman, R. (1978) Interclausal Relations in Chuave, Universityof California, Los Angeles, MA thesis (ms).
Traugott, E. and B. Heine (eds 1991) Approaches to Gramma-ticalization, TSL #19 (2 vols), Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Watters, D. (1998) The Kham Language of West-Central Nepal(Takale Dialect), PhD. Dissertation, Eugene: University ofOregon (ms.).
______. (2008) “Nominalization in Kiranti and Central Himalayanlanguages”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area, 31.2.
Weber, D. (1996) Una Gramatica del Quechua del Huallaga,Seria Linguística Peruana 40, Lima, Perú: Instituto Linguísticode Verano.
Zipf, G. (1935) The Psychobiology of Languages, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
9 3
APPENDIX: Examples of T-A-M marking in Ute nominalized subordinateclauses
Tex #1: Mollie Cloud, “Sinawav and the seven sisters”
clause type T-A-M marking ======== ==========
1. ...yúaa-va-t-am tavi-navichi-ku...flats-at-DIR-3p step-MASS-SUB
‘...when they landed in open country...’ ADV-cl, -ku, zero
2. ...kh-’ura-’uru ‘uwayas p-pi-kyay-ku-’uru...then-be-that 3s/G RED-sleep-ANT-SUB-that
‘... then after he slept...’ ADV-cl, -ku anterior -qa
3. ...tna-khwa-pgay-ku-’ura-’uruhunt-go-REM-SUB-be-that
‘...so as he was going hunting...’ADV-cl, -ku remote -pga
4. ...’uru-’ura nnay ya’ay-kwa-qhay-ku-nthat-be 1s/G die-go-ANT-SUB-1s
‘...when I (will) have died...’ADV-cl, -ku anterior -qa
5. ...wcha-rp’nap ‘uru tka-miya-ku...calf-muscle/O that/O eat-HAB-SUB
‘...when you eat calf muscles...’ ADV-cl, -ku habitual -mi(ya)
6. ...kh-’ura míyh-t-aa-s tavi’wa-ghathen-be far-NOM-O-C step-PAR
‘...then stepping farther...’PAR-cl, -ga zero
9 4
7. ...kh-’ura ‘um súuva-t-m-aa-ni ‘umthen-be 3p/O other-NOM-PL-O-like 3p/O
‘...and he told all those othersnana-chigya-qha-na-av ‘áy-pgaREC-race-ANT-SUB-OWN say-REMthat he was going to race...’
V-COMP -na anterior -qa
8. ...púupa máy-pga-na-’uway say-REM-REL-3s
‘...the way he said (it)...’O-REL-cl, -na remote -pga
9. ...pachichi-’u piwa-ri-vaa-nasister-3s marry-do-IRR-REL
‘...the one his sister was supposed to marry...’O-REL-cl, -na irrealis -vaa
10. ...p-paa-t-am káaya-na-pREL-DIR-NOM-3p stash-REL-NOM
‘...where they used to stash food...’O-REL cl, -na zero
11. ...nnay pachichi-aa-n ‘uni-pgaa-p ‘uru1s/G sister-G-1s do-REM-NOM that/O
‘...the one my sister did that to...’O-REL cl, -p remote -pga
12. ...‘ums-’ura ‘ura-’ay Sinawavi nghwa-p3p-be be-IMM Sinawav/O bear-NOM
‘...it was them that she bore (to) Sinawav...’O-REL cl, -p zero
13. ...tuku-sa’map-ga-t ‘ura-vachi...cougar-blanket-have-NOM be-IRR-BG
‘...it was the one who had the cougar blanket...’S-REL-cl, -t zero
9 5
14. ...”sh-sh-sh” máy-chi-’uru...sh-sh-sh say-NOM-that
‘...the one making the “she-she-sh” sound)S-REL-cl, -chi zero
Text #2: Harry Richards “The last war party”
1. ...má-vaa-na-uv pagha-’ni-mi kani-gyay-ku-nthere-at-LOC-TOP go-INT-HAB house-have-SUB-1s
‘...he used to live there when I had my house (there)...’ADV-cl, -ku zero
2. ...kukwachi ‘uway ‘i-vee-k pagha-’ni-miya-ku...Mexican/G that/G here-at-EM go-INT-HAB-SUB
‘...when that Mexican used to live here...’ADV-cl, -ku habitual -miya
3. ...kh-’ura-’uru wíichk-vaa-kuthen-be-that morrow-IRR-SUB
‘...then when it would become morning...’ADV-cl, -ku irrealis -vaa
4. ...’ú-vway-aqh-’ura-’uru núuchi-u s-sti’i-pgay-ku,there-at-it-be-that Ute-PL RED-feel-REM-SUB
‘...then when the Utes discovered (it)...’ADV-cl, -ku remote -pga
5. ...psariniya-qha-qay-ku-’uru...story.tell-PL-ANT-SUB-that
‘...when they told the story...’ADV-cl, -ku anterior -qa
6. ...ma-vaa kwáa tgaay’wa-chi...there-at INTJ arrive-NOM
‘...and upon arriving there...’ADV-cl, -chi zero
9 6
7. ...ku-kukwi-gya qo-qho’ay-paa-ni-am...RED-shoot-PAR RED-slaughter-IRR-FUT-3p
‘... (thus) shooting we’ll slaughter them...’PAR-cl, -ga zero
8. ...’an-’apagha-qa-na...just-speak-ANT-REM
‘...in case I spoke to them...’O-REL-cl, -na anterior -qa
9. ...p-paa-y nagukwi-kya-na-p...REL-DIR-O fight-PL-REL-NOM
‘...the place where they fought...’O-REL-cl, -na zero
10. ...‘ums-’uru pá-ini máy-chi-m...3p/S-that three-S say-NOM-PL
‘...those three who were planning (the ambush)...’S-REL-cl, -chi zero
Text #3: Harvey Natchez “Talk to the Tri-Ute languageconference”
1. ...’i-vee-naagha-’uru tga’wi-ku...here-at-in-that arrive-SUB
‘...when it arrives here...’ADV-cl, -ku zero
2. ...’uni-paa-chi-ku-’uru...do-IRR-NOM-SUB-that
‘...when they want to do it...’ADV-cl, -ku irrealis -vaa
9 7
3. ...’an-a togo[y]-ni-’ura máy-kya-qhay-vWH/QU-O well-like-be say-PL-ANT-NOM
‘áy-kya-ni-’urusay-ANT-like-that
‘...I was wondering how well they were talking...’V-COMP, -v anterior -qa
4. ...’ichay-’uru máy-kya-na-av...this/O-that say-PL-REL-OWN
‘...this thing that they say...’O-REL-cl, -na zero
5. ...’ichay ‘iya-na ‘umas ‘áy-kya-qha-nathis/O here-LOC 3p/G say-PL-ANT-REL(this is then what they have said)
O-REL, cl. -na anterior -qa
6. ...mrkachi púupa máy-miya-na.Whiteman/G way say-HAB-REL
‘...the way the white man speaks...’ O-REL-cl -na habitual -miya
7. ...púupa-aqh-’uru ‘ura-vaa-na;way-it-that be-IRR-REL
‘...the way it should be...’O-REL-cl, -na irrealis -vaa
8. ...mamas-’uru p-paa-tugwa-am-’uru máy-kya-p..3p/G-that REL-DIR-go-3p-that say-PL-NOM
‘...what they have been talking about...’O-REL-cl -p zero
9. ...’ina-khwa-tna-khwa ‘uni-kya-’ni-chi-m.here-go-climb-go do-PL-INT-NOM-PL
‘...those who live up here...’S-REL-cl, -chi zero
9 8
10. ...’ums education-i-vee-t ‘ura-qa-t-m,3p/S education-O-at-NOM be-PL-NOM-PL
‘...those who are in the Education Dept.S-REL-cl, t, zero