In search of stability
Pieter Muysken
Centre for Language Studies
Radboud University Nijmegen
Contact-induced language change
Languages change when their
speakers also speak another
language
However:
A. Some languages change faster
than others
B. Some components of language
change faster than others
Stability
What factors contribute to
the
Stability of languages?
Stability of components of
language?
Why study stability?
Links language change
to cross-linguistic
priming
Allows potential insight
into deep time
relationships
With thanks to the Languages in
Contact group (www.ru.nl/linc).
Suzanne Aalberse
Joshua Birchall
Rik van Gijn
Pablo Irizarri v. Suchtelen
Gerrit Jan Kootstra
Linda van Meel
Loretta O’Connor
Francesca Romana Moro
Ana Vilacy
Margot van den Berg
Bob Borges
Harald Hammarström
Simon van de Kerke
Olga Krasnoukhova
Neele Müller
Kofi Yakpo
Hülya Sahin
Sponsors and partners
Radboud University Nijmegen
European Research Council
Netherlands Organization for Research
(NWO)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences
(KNAW)
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Museu Goeldi Belem
Leiden University
Lund University
STUDIES ON CONTACT: Convergence of disciplines and scenarios?
Level
Space
Time
Source
Discipline
Scenario
Locus
Person Bilingual
individual
0-50 yrs Recordings,
tests,
experiments
Psycholinguistics
Brain
connectivity
Micro
Bilingual
community
20-200 Recordings,
yrs
fieldwork
observations
Sociolinguistics
Specific contact
scenarios
Meso
Geographical 200region
1000
yrs
Historical
linguistics
Global contact
scenarios
Macro Larger areas
of the world
Deep
time
Comparative
data; historical
sources
Typological data Areal
typology
Vague or no
contact
scenarios
Scenario
the organized fashion
in which multilingual speakers,
in certain social settings,
deal with the various
languages
in their repertoire
Maintenance, shift, creation, ... (Thomason &
Kaufmann)
Contradictory earlier results
shallow/person
extensive cross-linguistic priming
micro/community
very limited convergence
meso/language
some, but limited convergence
macro/deep time
extensive areal effects
Sub-project
Level
Time range of contact
Multilingual processing, with
Turkish/Dutch and
Papiamentu/Dutch bilinguals
Individual
Individual biography,
10-30 years
Heritage languages in the
Netherlands, with a large range of
immigrant language communities
Micro
Shallow time,
50-100 years
Surinam, with Amerindian, Creole,
Asian and European languages
Meso
Middle long-term,
up to 500 years
The Amazonian fringe, with small
Amerindian languages on the
western border of the Amazon
Macro
Deep time,
at least 5000 years
Multilingual processing: Papiamentu and Turkish in contact with Dutch
- experience with these communities; existing corpora
- both show strong internal cohesion and relatively high language maintenance
- languages are maximally different
Papiamentu
TMA
pre-verbal particles
Evidentiality
weakly grammaticalized
Arg Realization zero marking; few prepositions
fixed order
Turkish
verbal suffixes
strongly grammaticalized
rich case marking
free order
bos-nan no a mira nos
2-PL
NEG PA see 1PL
biz-i
gor-me-di-niz-mi?
1PL-AC see-PA-NEG-2PL-Q
‘Didn’t you see us?’
‘Didn’t you see us?’
Dative structures in Dutch and Papiamento
Dutch: two possibilities
• Prepositional object (PrepO):
• Double object (DblO):
Papiamento: one possibility
• Double object (DblO):
‘De vrouw geeft de bal aan de man’
‘The woman gives the ball to the man’
‘De vrouw geeft de man de bal’
‘The woman gives the man the ball’
‘E muhé ta duna e homber e bala’
‘The woman gives the man the ball’
Video clip description: Baseline experiment
DUNA
RESPONSE
[In Papiamento, using the depicted verb]
* [The stimuli are movie clips from Rochester University]
Priming experiment
1. PRIME (DblO condition)
“De jongen geeft het meisje de mand”
‘the boy gives the girl the basket’ (DblO)
RESPONSE
Match? (Yes / No)
2. TARGET
DUNA
DUN
A
[In Papiamento, using the depicted verb]
Priming experiment
1. PRIME (PrepO condition)
“De jongen geeft de mand aan het
meisje”
‘the boy gives the basket to the girl ’
(PrepO)
RESPONSE
Match? (Yes / No)
2. TARGET
DUNA
DUN
A
[In Papiamento, using the depicted verb]
Percentage
Results: Baseline experiment on Aruba
DO structure is almost always
used (98.2 %)
Results: Priming experiment on Aruba
Percentage
p = .006
(De jongen geeft de sleutel aan het meisje)
(De jongen geeft het meisje de sleutel)
BASELINE:
DESCRIBE DITRANSITIVE MOVIE CLIPS IN
PAPIAMENTO (WITHOUT PRIMING)
Papiamento speakers on Aruba:
98.2% Double Object used; 1.8% Prepositional Object used.
100
80
Prepositional Object
60
40
Double Object
20
0
Syntactic Choice
BASELINE:
DESCRIBE DITRANSITIVE MOVIE CLIPS IN
PAPIAMENTO (WITHOUT PRIMING)
Baseline Papiamento speakers in the Netherlands:
– 87% Double Object used; 13% Prepositional Object used.
100
80
60
Prepositional Object
40
Double Object
20
0
Syntactic Choice
– Variation between participants about twice as high as Aruba.
 Variation stimulates / lies at the foundation of change
CONCLUSIONS PRODUCTION OF DITRANSITIVES IN PAPIAMENTO
 General tendency to use DO-structure
• But more at Aruba than in NL
• More variation in NL
 Cross-linguistic priming influenced syntactic choices
• Recent exposure to other language changes one’s own language
behavior
• Priming as a potential mechanism of contact-induced language change
 Priming effect in NL influenced by age and length of stay in NL
• Higher cross-language flexibility in younger people
• Length of stay  onset exposure to Dutch  language contact
Next 1: world paradigm, anticipatory eye
movements
e bala na e mucha
muhé
E mucha homber ta duna
e mucha muhé e bala
 When people hear ‘ta duna’  what object will they look at?
Next 2: studies with other variables
Amaña lo mi bay playa
Tomorrow FUT I go beach
Morgen ga ik naar het strand.
Tomorrow go I to the beach.
Ideal results shallow time
Clear understanding of the conditions on, and
effects of, syntactic priming
Grammatical component factors
Similarity factors
Markedness factors
Type of bilingualism factors
Directionality factors
Priming and change
Methods for finding stability
Experiments
Meta-analysis of language contact
processes in real time
Meta-analysis of historical data for
individual language families
Phylogenetic modeling on large
data sets (e.g. WALS)
Heritage language communities
Spontaneous & video elicitation paradigms:
Chilean Spanish
Moroccan Arabic
Chinese languages
Malay
Turkish
Papiamentu
Sranan Creole
Sarnami Hindustani
Ideal results micro settings (heritage
language communities)
Clear understanding of the degree to which and
way in which heritage languages in the
Netherlands change
Different linguistic structures and typological
factors, such degree of word complexity
Time depth community
Age on onset, bilingual competence
Case study: Language diversity in Surinam:
Late colonial period to now (1880 – 2010)
Warao
Arawakan
Cariban
Maroon Creole
Sarnámi
Javanese
Dutch, Guyanese,
Portuguese, Kejia
Sranan Tongo
Functions of multilingualism by domain
TV, Radio
National politics
Local politics
SRANAN
DUTCH
Family: same
generation
Informal: friends
generation
ETHNIC
Formal
politics
Music: lovers
rock
Radio
Music: roots
reggae,
traditional
Family:-1/ -2
generation
Informal: friends
Family:+1/ +2
generation
Family:+ 1
generation
Relationship
Flirting
Informal:
colleagues
Symbolic
politics
Contact with
institutions
Neigbournet analysis
So far 81 features
So far 10 languages
Kikongo
Ewegbe
Gungbe
Fongbe
early Sranan
cont. Sranan
cont. Saramaccan
English
Dutch
Portuguese
Ideal results meso settings
Clear understanding of the ways in
which the various languages of
Suriname have influenced each
other
Respective different roles of Dutch
(superstrate) and Sranan (adstrate)
Different linguistic structures
Typological factors
Bilingual competence factors
Time depth
External stability factors
Strength of transmission between G(i) > (Gj)
Number of L2 learners
Amount of bilingual usage (strong priming)
Register differentiation
Focussing versus diffusion
Language ideology and emblematic
role of differences
Internal stability factors:
lexical borrowability
Syntactic markers > discourse markers (que ‘that’ > pues ‘then’)
Sorphology > lexicon (diminutive > adjective)
Core vocabulary > non-core vocabulary > animal and plant names > technical
vocabulary (hand > computer)
Articles > verbs, adpositions > nouns, adjectives > names
Low numbers > high numbers (two > million)
First, second person pronouns > third, fourth (inclusive) person pronouns
Basic colours > peripheral colours (white > orange)
Phonological organization > phonetic realization (/i/ : /e/ contrast > velar r)
Internal stability factors
Van Hout and Muysken (1995)
Frequency (weak)
-Paradigmatic organization in L(recipient)
-Inflection L(donor)
+Peripherality in L(donor)
N name < adv comp conj excl neg P < A aux cop V
< num Q wh < dem det p+det poss pron pron-cl
Internal stability factors
Frequency
+ Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q. D., and Meade, A. (2007)
Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution
throughout Indo-European history.
- for language contact: donor/recipient
Systemic cohesion (?)
automatized interlocking processing systems
Interface grammar-pragmatics
Lexicon versus syntax?
Traditional perspective: Items versus rules
New with Word grammar, Construction
Grammar, etc. : Languages as inventories of
{items}, where {items} are form/meaning
mappings
Lexicon versus syntax 2
Winford, consensus view: “… certain domains or
components of linguistic structure tend to be
more stable and resistant to change than
others. For instance, phonology and grammar
(and to some extent semantics) are more
stable, while vocabulary is less stable.”
Challenge settlement ~12K BP
South America (Terrence Kaufman 1990)
~ 450 languages
~ 118 genetic units
48 groupings
70 isolates/unclassified
time depths:
CHIBCHAN ~6700 YBP
Paya - Chibcha ~6100 YBP
Other CAmerican ~4300, 3700, 1000 YBP
Central Chibchan ~5100 YBP
Eastern Chibchan ~4200 YBP
chibchan
3.2-3.7 million BP
14000-11000 BP
9000-7000 BP
7000-4500 BP
4500 BP
2000 BP
2500-1300 BP
land bridge
humans, changed vegetation
domesticated crops added
maize, manioc;xmaterials
better pottery
gold-working
chiefdoms established
general impression
small populations
long-term stable settlement
great ecological diversity
genetic research
low genetic diversity
many common haplotypes
l
time depths:
CHOCOAN ~2100 YBP
internal splits 700 YBP at latest
Puzzle for SA: settlement 12 K BP
(A) Why so many language families (110+) , and why
so many isolates? What is the distribution both of
larger families and of isolates?
(B)
Why is there areal spread of specific typological
patterns, some characterizing most of the continent as
a whole, and some individual parts of the continent?
(C)
What can we learn about the relation between the
issues in (A) and (B) from the perspective of language
history and language contact ?
Ideal results for deep time
Broad typological patterns in different
groups of SAILs (South American
Indian Languages)
Possible interpretation in terms of
‘deep’ linguistic families
Possible interpretations in terms of
areal convergence
Possible interpretations in terms of
specific contact scenarios
Specificity versus stability scales
the specificity continuum: {items} in language
can be arranged on a specificity scale, from
specific content words [maison ‘house’] to
binary grammatical features [P NP]
? Vs. the stability continuum: the most specific
{items} change most rapidly, the least specific
items much more stable
Scale of {items}?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Domesticated and ritual plant and animal vocabulary
General vocabulary
Swadesh list of words
hihi lists of frequent words from the Swadesh list
(McMahon et al. 2005)
41 word list in the Wichman and Holman ASJP project
Grammatical morpheme inventories
Notional categories realized as morphemes
Binary features (phonology, morphology, syntax)
Broad typological features
Greenhill et al. (2010)
Within both Austronesian and Indo-European
lexical data fit traditional trees better than
typological data
Dunn on deep time Papuan
748 Dunn et al. 2008
The results of the structural phylogenetic analysis
of the Papuan languages, however, suggests a
possible historical signal.
Donohue
• 2011: 377
In short, linguistic geography, rather than
phylogenetic identity, determines typological
clusters.
21 IE languages, with between 50 and 128
features coded
Consensus re: Dunn et al.?
Structural features can reveal genealogical
relationships
Areal influences play a role, particularly locally
Example: Central America
Nahua (< Uto-Aztecan)
Maya
Misumalapan
Chocoan
Barbacoan
Aymaran
Paezan
Otomanguean
Mixe-Zoque
Chibchan
Features Constenla (1991) data base
39 Phonological (vowel contrasts)
42 Syntactic (orders, distinctions, categories)
81 in total
Ca. 80 languages
Selected by the author on the basis of expert
knowledge of the languages of the area
Evaluation
Main families recognized
Some misclassifications
Internal structure of families not well identified
Broad areal effect
Scenario dependence?
Historical linguistics: looking at lineages
independently of their histories
Sociolinguistics: looking at specific processes
situated in time
Psycholinguistics: looking at individual behavior
in experimental settings
Methodological issues
The better we understand the scenario, the
more precise our results
Deep time: little understanding of scenarios
Deep time: very low populations, hence less
possibility of contact
Original sample (with the help of Mily
Crevels)
55-60 languages
Genealogical spread (some families represented
with 2-5 members)
Geographical spread (Andean and Amazonian)
Quality of descriptions
NNet results: NP + Arg + TAM-E + Arawakan (75 languages, 612 independent features)
Key notions
1: areal pattern (spread of features not directly
explainable through vertical transmission)
2: horizon (date beyond which relationships are
no longer directly visible)
3: event (specific date based on external
evidence)
4: stability (tendency for a feature to change
through time)
Knowledge sources 1
Historical information + current situation
Detailed information about languages, their
circumstances, spread, scenarios, etc.
Horizon ca. .5k BP
Knowledge sources 2
ASJP findings (Wichmann et al. 2011 + online)
Comprehensive
Shallow time horizon ca. 3-4k BP
• Many (17) shallow families recognized
• Some shallow families (Arawakan, Tupi-Guarani) recognized without
a few outliers
• One deep family (Pano-Tacanan) recognized
• Several deep families (Macro-Gê, Tupian, Huitoto-Boran) not
recognized as groupings.
• Some pairings independently confirmed in recent literature
(Katukinan + Harakmbet and Arikapu/Jabuti + Kaingang/Xokleng
(Macro-Ge))
Knowledge sources 3
Reconstructed families
More limited in scope (not all families
reconstructed)
Further historical reach, horizon max. ca. 8k BP
(Afro-Asiatic even deeper)
Possible ‘homeland’ information
Knowledge sources 4
Distribution patterns structural features
Subject to much interpretation and discussion
Deep time structural horizon 12k BP
Settlement events 1
I ~12k BP
A small (< 10) number of groups moved into the
continent and quickly dispersed. Other groups
may have followed at later dates but at less
speed.
Evidence I:
• Archeological data support settlements across
the continent dated around 11 K BP
• Genetic data suggest a relatively uniform,
possibly quite small, initial population
• Some groups (e.g. Chibchan) obviously came
at a later date.
Stage I features
Characteristic of all or most of the continent
Highly stable
What are the features with strong continental
bias?
Settlement events 2
II 12-8 K BP
These groups settled in different parts of the
continent and then fractured into small bands.
These bands developed separate identities,
strengthened by separate lexical systems, but
kept interacting on a local level, through
exchange of goods and sexual partners.
Evidence Stage II:
• Evidence for low rates of lexical borrowing in
hunter-gatherer societies
• Evidence for areal spread or retention of
specific features
• Small groups cannot sustain themselves
without exchange with other groups
Stage II features
Characteristic of particular regions
May parallel lexical borrowings
Which features have a regional spread, and not
directly linked to a known expansion?
Settlement events 3A
IIIA ~8-4 K BP
As technology developed, and plants were
domesticated and developed into agricultural
crops, different groups started expanding and
invading territories previously occupied by
other groups. Sometimes there was
population displacement, but some cultural
expansions also took place without large
groups of people moving.
Stage IIIA features
Associated with particular early expansions and
the surrounding influenced languages.
Can be reconstructed for a particular language
family
May be accompanied by lexical borrowings from
the expansion language
Evidence
• The appearance of domesticated food cultivars in the
archaeological record. The spread of these cultivars
would also correspond to the same social relationships
that allow for the spread of language, genes and other
technology, such as you those you attribute to Stage II.
• The expansions of specific larger language families can
be documented, with estimated starting dates
• Specific cultural practices, words, and grammatical
features can be documented and traced to dispersal
languages
• Possible expansion of Macro-Jê.
Settlement events 3B
IIIB 4-0.5k BP
Corresponds to what is known as the
'Amazonian Formative', a period with a
marked increase in intensive food production
(evidenced by the appearance of ceramic
traditions, landscape 'domestication' and
anthropogenic soils) and thus sedentism.
Evidence
Sedentism and the resulting population growth
would lead to different social dynamics than two
hunter-gather groups in contact.
All of the other large families migrated on a
large scale only during Stage 3B.
Questions
How and when did the expansion of the major
families proceed?
What was their homeland?
With which smaller and families and isolates did
they interact?
Which features are associated with their
expansion?
Settlement events 4
V. < .5 K BP
The Spanish and Portuguese conquest and colonization of
the continent had a number of effects:
Decimation and fracturing of populations, disappearance
of entire groups
Displacement of populations and languages
Promotion and subsequent further expansion of certain
languages as língua geral or lengua general
Creation of new contact zones through reducciones or
reserves
Caveat
It is important to consider those stages not as solid and
mutually exclusive blocks disposed in a line (with only
one direction), but as bubbles often co-existing in the
same time span: from 8kBP to 0.5kBP (Stages IIIA and
IIIIB), for example, while the agriculture was
profoundly changing the social dynamics in the eastern
Amazon, large parts of the western Amazon may have
been still experiencing a scenario much more alike to
Stage I or II.
This cumulative perspective (Stage I, II and III coexisting
after 8 K BP in different parts of the continent) could
help to account for part of the diversity we encounter
today.
Links between horizons and events
Horizons
Events
?12k BP Structural horizon Early settlement of
continent
Dispersal of groups
?8k BP Reconstructed
Early expansions
lexicon horizon
?4K BP Mass comparison Amazonian formative
horizon
.5k BP Historical horizon
Portuguese and Spanish
invasions
The role of discourse 1
Syntactic elements > discourse markers (que
‘that’ > pues ‘then’)
Discursive and perspective-taking patterns, like
evidentiality
Topicalization and focalization orders
Personal interaction, such as clusivity
distinctions and politeness
The role of discourse 2
Discourse factors in bilingual speech
(a) Balkan-type bilingual contacts
(b) After shift (e.g. substrate pragmatic
bleaching)
(c) Bidirectional in code-switching
MAT – discourse markers
PAT – pragmatic markers
Initial results
Broad areal distribution for many nominal
features (Olga Krasnoukhova)
Strong broad areal patterns (east-west) for
argument marking (Joshua Birchall)
No areal patterns (very scattered distribution)
for TAME marking (Neele Mueller)
Very specific areal patterns for subordination
(Rik van Gijn)
Stability
Noun Phrase Structure
Subordination <
< TAME < Discourse patterns
Argument marking
Language contact 1
Prestige borrowing. A number of high prestige
languages pass on words to neighboring
languages with lower prestige. In addition to
words, in some cases affixes are passed on this
way, and occasionally phonetic properties. The
vocabulary may involve political functions,
(higher) numbers, cultivated food or animal
names, etc.
Language contact 2
Trading partner borrowing. Related to this, and
not easy to distinguish from it, may be
patterns of long distance borrowing of names
for household goods, plants and animals, and
possibly words for rituals. Here there need not
be a hierarchy, and the eff3ects may be less
local.
Language contact 3
Metatypy. In some cases a particular language A
is dominated by another one B. Typically, the
speakers of A are also fluent in B, but not vice
versa, and numerically and economically A is
less strong than B. Over time, metatypy may
occur: A starts adopting more and mor
structural features of B, but not vice versa.
Language contact 4
Substrate. When large numbers of speakers of A
shift to language B, they may import all kinds
of semantic and pragmatic distinctions into
their version of B, without overtly transferring
structural features or many words from A into
B.
Language contact 5
Bilingual convergence. When many speakers of
two adjacent languages A and B are bilingual,
there may be frequent code-switching
between the languages, and in addition, the
languages may start showing structural
convergence. Depending on the patterns of
multilingual usage in the community, this
convergence may be bi-directional or even
multi-directional.
Language contact 6
Koineization. When speakers adopt a second
language without strong native speaker input,
they may simplify and restructure their second
language.
Stability 1
Computed on the basis of the WALS database
Wichmann
Dediu
Stability 2
Family linked
Arawakan
Tupian
Cariban
Chibchan
…
Stability 3
Results from
Surinam
Heritage languages
cross-linguistic priming
The distribution of grammatical
properties of the South American
Indigenous Languages
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Joshua Birchall
Rik van Gijn
Olga Krasnoukhova
Neele Müller
Loretta O’Connor
Simon van de Kerke
Ana Vilacy Galucio
Swintha Danielsen
Pieter Muysken
Harald Hammarström
Argument Realization
Subordination
Noun Phrase
TAME
The Chibcha Sphere
The Andes
The Tupian Languages
The Arawakan languages
Language contact
Areal patterns
Original questions
Fishing expedition
[1] Which properties characterize the SAILs?
[2] Can we establish deep time relations?
[3] Can we discern patterns of areal distribution and
contact?
[4] Can we distinguish between different components of
grammar with respect to [1]-[3] (in particular TAME
versus argument realization)?
[5] Can we take into account specific contact scenarios?
[6] Use of phylogenetic techniques
Scenario dependence?
Historical linguistics: looking at lineages
independently of their histories
Sociolinguistics: looking at specific processes
situated in time
Psycholinguistics: looking at individual behavior
in experimental settings
Methodological issues
The better we understand the scenario, the
more precise our results
Deep time: little understanding of scenarios
Deep time: very low populations, hence little
contact
Large historical picture
12K BP initial settlement and dispersal
3K BP expansions
Macro-Gêan
Arawakan
Tupian
Cariban
Chibchan
Quechuan
2K BP dense settlement
5C BP Iberian invasions
decline, restructuring, lingua francas
Spread features
Structural SA features general
Spurious lexical items
Large scale flora, fauna, crop, ritual items
→ Specific areal spread of structural features
and sound patterns
Comparative method does not yield
satisfactory results when:
Time depth is too large
Expansion is slow and leads to homogeneous
contact zones/continua
Other processes lead to rapid lexical replacement
and grammar regeneration
Subsequent contact processes disturb linear
relations
Sharpening our perspective?
Mily Crevels/Hein van der Voort: The GuaporéMamoré
Sergio Meira: The Tupi-Carib relationship
Ana Vilacy Galucio (Belem): The Tupian languages
Swintha Danielsen (Leipzig): The Arawak languages
Simon van de Kerke (Leiden): The Andes
Love Eriksen (Lund): GIS mapping of archeology,
culture, history of Amazon
Summary NP
1. Features which are characteristic of the Andes in comparison with other areas:
No gender distinctions in personal pronouns
No gender distinctions within the NP
No classifiers
No class of inalienable nouns
No nominal tense
Adjectives are nouny
Modifier – head word order for all types of modifiers
2. Features which cannot be assigned to any particular area:
Inclusive/exclusive distinction in personal pronouns
Number distinction in personal pronouns
Occurrence of number marking in the NP
Obligatoriness/optionality of number marking in the NP
Locus of possession marking in the NP
Word order in the NP, with general preference towards the modifier-head order with demonstratives, possessors, and numerals. And head-modifier for adjectives
(irrespective of the word class)
3. Features which are more characteristics of Guapore-Mamore, Northwest Amazon, Central
Amazon, Chaco:
Presence of inalienable nouns (present almost exceptionally in these 4 areas)
Presence of classifiers
Adjectives are often encoded by stative verbs (exception: Chaco)
Nominal tense
4. Some of the languages included in the Pie de Monte areas (Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Bolivian)
have the following 2 features, whereas others do not:
Classifiers
Inalienable nouns
Argument Realization (coded by
Joshua Birchall)
Areas covered:




Constituent order
Verbal marking of arguments
Core and oblique case marking
Valency changing operations
Verb Marking: Split Intransitivity
Coded parameters: S alignment (base), semantics, derivational morphology
Guaraní (TUPI; Mithun 1999)


Semantic conditioning
Sa=A (accusative base)
a-pu á
‘I got up’
še-rercalhdi.
'It will carry me off.'
Inactive stems [-event, +/- control]
še-rasí
‘I am sick’
Tiriyó (CARIB; Meira 1999)
 Morphological conditioning
 Sunderived=O, Sderived=A (ergative base)
manko_pëh_ta
j-arina-ne
‘I grew up not beside my mother’
j-arimika-ne
‘She raised me’
Detransitivized stems:
t-ëti-ri-ja-e
‘I am working (making)’
Core Case Marking
Coded parameters: S/A/O marking, affixation to free pronouns, inanimate marking
Hup
(NADAHUP; Epps 2008)
 0-marking
 Pronoun affixing
 No inanimate marking
Tih=tæh ín-ǎn=mah
3SG=child.mother-OBJ=REP
3SG
‘He beat his wife, it’s said.’ (p.167)
tih
hit-DECL
Híd-ǎn
g’eç-tuk-yó =mah
3PL-OBJ bite-want-SEQ=REP
‘Having tried to bite them, it’s said…’ (p.167)
Yikán
mǒy
hid
bi -píd-íh
over.there house 3PL
make-DIST-DECL
‘There they built a house... (p.177)
mæh-æh
Valency Change: Causatives
Coded parameters: strategy, transitive base, causee treatment, indirect, sociative
Emerillon (TUPI; Rose 2003)
Direct causative bo- : intransitive base
zawal
o-apɨg-o
dog
3.I-sit-CONT
‘The dog sits’
seg
o-bo-apɨg
IDEO
3.I-CAUS-sit
‘He set it down’ (p.358)
(In)direct causative –okal : transitive base, causee expressed as object of preposition -pe
wɨñ-a-kom
o-ka al-okal
t-apɨdj
ole-pe
DEM-a-PL
3.I-break-CAUS
NSP-house
1PL.EXCL.II-for
‘He had us break the house’ (p.362)
Sociative causative (e)lo-: intransitive base
de-lo-zaug
2SG.II-CAUS-swim
‘He made you swim (with him)’
Tense, Aspect, Mood/Modality, Evidentiality
(TAME) (coded by Neele Müller)
Questionnaire:
4 sections
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tense
5 questions
Aspect
8 questions
Mood/ Modality 14 questions
Evidentiality
8 questions
Total: 35 questions
Applicable to: main non-negative, non-interrogative
clauses (exceptions include imperative, purposive,
irrealis)
TAME
Questions are applicable to:
morphological/ grammatical marking
– i.e. affixes, clitics, particles, repetition
– No: adverbs, periphrasis, time lexemes, stem
substitution, verbs, ...
and independent (main) non-negative, noninterrogative clauses (exceptions include imperative,
purposive, irrealis)
TAME
Tense: absolute tenses (present, past, future) and
remoteness
Lexical Aspect, but not Aktionsart, e.g. continuous
marking but not durative
Mood/Modality: realis/ irrealis, imperative, intention,
frustrative etc.
Evidentiality: firsthand information, reportative, inference
etc.
TAME
Sample questions:
1.1 Is present tense marked morphologically?
2.1 Is realis mood marked morphologically?
3.1 Is perfective marked morphologically?
4.1 Is firsthand information marked
morphologically?
TAME challenges
Interrelations between categories
Vagueness
– e.g. a perfective marker may inherently encode
past
Fusion
– Fusion of categories, e.g. Tense and Evidentiality
coded in the same paradigm
Subordination strategies (coded by
Rik van Gijn)
Constructions
Learned [i.e. non-predictable] pairings of form [including
absract phrasal patterns] with semantic or discourse
function (Goldberg 2006: 5)
Independent variables
semantically defined
relation types (following
Cristofaro 2003)
form-meaning pairs
Dependent variables
formal aspects of
constructions encoding
these relation types
Aspects covered in the questionnaire:
Word order within the NP
Agreement within the NP
Nominal number
Noun categorization devices
Attributive possession
Spatial deixis, with a focus on semantic features
in adnominal demonstratives
Temporal distinctions in the NPs.
Example of a question on nominal
number:
Question: Do nouns have a morphologically marked singular vs. plural distinction?
Answer options:
a=[no plural marking],
b=[marked by a prefix],
c=[marked by a suffix],
…..
i=[morphological plural with no method primary]
Sub-question:
What is the occurrence of nominal plural?
Answer options:
a=[obligatory only on human nouns],
b=[obligatory only on animates],
c=[optional on all nouns],
d=[obligatory on all nouns]