TAM/Negation
by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic
ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011
Anne Tamm
anne.tamm@unifi.it
Central European University
The share in the number of speakers
Estonian
Finnish
Mordva
Mari
Komi
Udmurt
Hungarian
other FU
Sami
Larsson
Source:
2005, slide 45
Case (typically involves dependent Ns)
• Blake (2001: 1) defines case as an inflectional
“system of marking dependent nouns for the
type of relationship they bear to their heads.”
Cross-Categorial Case (CCC)
• case as a TAM/negation marker
• Narrower focus in this talk:
– case as part of non-finites
– the partitive, the abessive, the spatial cases
– Estonian
Blake (2001): Kalaw Lagaw Ya
•
•
•
•
•
the comitative—habituality
the ablative—yesterday past
the locative—immediate past
the dative-allative—incompletivity
the ergative and the accusative—completivity
Nordlinger & Sadler (2004):Pitta Pitta
• objects of non-future tense clauses have an
accusative marker –nha
• objects of future-tense clauses have the
morpheme –ku as the accusative marker
(Nordlinger and Sadler 2004:611)
Aikhenvald (2008): Manambu
Aspect marked on the verb: OBJ/LOC
Wun [de-ke-m] wukemar-e-m
I he-LK-OBJ/LOC forget-LK-OBJ/LOC
‘I completely forgot him.’
(Aikhenvald 2008:587)
Adelaar and Muysken (2004): Quechua
Accusative infinitive:
Rima-y-ta
xalayu-ru-n.
speak-INF-ACC begin-PRF-3S
‘He began to speak.’
(Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer
[2009: 189])
Recapitulation: nominal marking
• on V (bare stems)
• on nominal arguments and verbs, TAM
marking function
• on nominal arguments, but in the function of
TAM marking
• on nonfinites that have reduced nominal
properties
Number of cases at wals.info
An MDS map based on the WALS by Michael Cysouw
Rich case systems
• Uralic languages are typically characterized by rich case
systems with approximately 10 members, and many have
case systems of approximately 15 or 20 cases.
• According to the selection of languages in WALS on the
map on Case by Iggesen (2008), there are 24 languages
with more than 10 cases.
– The following languages have more than 10 cases in WALS: Awa
Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, Epena Pedee, Estonian, Evenki,
Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush,
Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez
Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt.
• Five of those listed are Uralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian,
Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).
Udmurt: negation--abessive on verbs
CASE
1. Nominative
2. Genitive
3. Accusative
4. Ablative
5. Dative
6. Adessive
7. Instrumental
8. Abessive
9. Inessive
10. Illative
11. Elative
12. Terminative
13. Egressive
14. Prolative
15. Approximative
NOUN
s’ik
s’ik-len
s’ik/s’ik-ez
s’ik-les’
s’ik-ly
s’ik-len
s’ik-en
s’ik-tek
s’ik-yn
s’ik-e
s’ik-ys’(t)
s’ik-oz’
s’ik-ys’en
s’ik-eti
s’ik-lan’
VERB: ‘to go’
myny-tek
Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.
Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations
1. Nominative
2. Genitive
3. Accusative
4. Ablative
5. Dative
6. Adessive
7. Instrumental
8. Abessive
9. Inessive
10. Illative
11. Elative
12. Terminative
13. Egressive
14. Prolative
15. Approximative
s’ik
s’ik-len
s’ik/s’ik-ez
s’ik-les’
s’ik-ly
s’ik-len
s’ik-en
s’ik-tek
s’ik-yn
s’ik-e
s’ik-ys’(t)
s’ik-oz’
s’ik-ys’en
s’ik-eti
s’ik-lan’
myn-on (verb+n+case)
myn-on-len (verb+n+len)
myn-on-ez
myn-on-les’
myn-on-ly
myn-on-en
myn-on-yn
myn-on-e
myn-on-oz’
Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.
Case on m-nominalizations
1. Nominative
2. Genitive
3. Accusative
4. Ablative
5. Dative
6. Adessive
7. Instrumental
8. Abessive
9. Inessive
10. Illative
11. Elative
12. Terminative
13. Egressive
14. Prolative
15. Approximative
s’ik
s’ik-len
s’ik/s’ik-ez
s’ik-les’
s’ik-ly
s’ik-len
s’ik-en
s’ik-tek
s’ik-yn
s’ik-e
s’ik-ys’(t)
s’ik-oz’
s’ik-ys’en
s’ik-eti
s’ik-lan’
myn-em (verb+m+case)
myn-em-len (verb+m+len)
myn-em-ez
myn-em-les’
myn-em-ly
myn-em-en
myn-em-yn
myn-em-e
myn-em-ys’
myn-em-oz’
Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.
Finnic aspect--two object cases
Mari sõi pitsa-t.
M
ate pizza-PARTITIVE
‘Mary was eating the pizza.’
Mari sõi pitsa.
M
ate pizza.TOTAL
‘It was a pizza that Mary ate up.’
FU Source cases ablative, elative,
partitive, delative, egressive, exessive
• Egressive (Veps, Udmurt) marking the beginning of a
movement or time (e.g., beginning from the house)
• Exessive (Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, Votic, Estonian, etc )
transition away from a state (from a house)
• Delative (Hungarian) denotes movement from the surface
(e.g., from (the top of) the house)
• Ablative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mansi,
Vepsian, Votic, etc) denotes movement away from
something (e.g., away from the house)
• Elative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Lule Sámi, Pite
Sámi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of
the house).
• Partitive (Finnic, Sámi languages) denotes "of, from, out of
something" (the identity condition with the source matter).
• Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource
Some manure, too
Affectedness of the incremental
theme and the object case
Incremental
Incremental
theme argument theme argument
totally affected
partially
affected
NO
PARTITIVE
PARTITIVE
The whole pizza is in the oven!
But Giorgio’s action is incomplete.
Giorgio
pani
pitsa-t
ahju.
G[nom] put-past3s pizza-ptv oven.ill
‘Giorgio is putting the pizza in the oven.’
Aspect in general
Telic
- complete
Atelic –
incomplete
NO
PARTITIVE
PARTITIVE
Hungarian
aspectual particles and goal cases
INTO:
Réka be-ment
az épület-be.
R
INTO-go-3s.pst def building-INTO
‘Réka entered the building.’ (”into-went”)
ONTO:
Ágnes rá-lépett
a sajt-ra.
A
ONTO-step-3s.pst def cheese-ONTO
‘Agnes stepped on cheese.’ (”on-stepped”)
Name
Form
NMLZ
form
Case
Diachronic status
Illative of the m-infinitive (supine)
-ma
-ma
-, illative
Historical, productive
Inessive of the m-infinitive
-mas
-ma
-s, inessive
Historical, productive
Elative of the m-infinitive
-mast
-ma
-st, elative
Historical, productive
Allative of the m-infinitive
-malle
-ma
-le, allative
Coast dialectal
Adessive of the m-infinitive
-malla
-ma
-l(a), adessive
Dialectal
Ablative of the m-infinitive
(-malt) -ma
-lt, ablative
Dialectal, Finnish-Livonian
Translative of the m-infinitive
-maks
-ma
-ks, translative
Artificial, productive
Abessive of the m-infinitive
-mata
-ma
-ta, abessive
Historical, productive
Gerundive
-des
-da
-s, inessive
Historical, productive
Gerundive
...
-da
instructive
Historical
-t-infinitive
-da
-da
...
productive
-vat-infinitive
-vat
prtcpl
partitive
productive
Estonian cross-categorial case
– illative and elative are linked to situation
bounding (and not yet the possibility of the future
or the past)
– inessive – the absentive and the progressive
(Tommola 2000, De Groot 2000, Metslang 1994)
– abessive – negation (Hamari 2009)
– partitive - aspect, epistemic modality and
evidentiality (Tamm 2009, Campbell 1991,
Aikhenvald 2004, Erelt, Metslang&Pajusalu 2007)
Goal: noun
Ma
lähe-n Hong Kongi
I[nom] go-1sg HK.illative
‘I am going to Hong Kong.’
Goal: non-finite
Ma
lähe-n uju-ma.
I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative
‘I am going swimming, I am going to swim.’
(# I’m gonna swim, I will swim.)
Location: noun
Ma
olen Hong Kongi-s.
I[nom] be-1sg HK-inessive
‘I am in Hong Kong.’
Location: non-finite
Ma
olen uju-mas.
I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive
‘I am off swimming.’
(# I am swimming – progressive)
Source: noun
Ma
tule-n Hong Kongi-st.
I[nom] come-1s HK-elative
‘I am coming from Hong Kong.’
Source: non-finite
Ma
tule-n
uju-mast.
I[nom] come-1s swim-m_elative
‘I am coming from swimming.’
(# Je viens de nager – I have just swum.)
Abessive: negation
Ma
ole-n programmi-ta.
I[nom] be-1s program-abessive
‘I don’t have a/the program, I am without
a/the program, I lack the program.’
Ma
ole-n registreeri-mata.
I[nom] be-1s register-m_abessive
‘I have not done my registration.’
Abessive negation:
modal constraints/presuppositions
#Kivist
voodi
on
tege-mata.
stone-ELA bed[NOM] be.3S
make-M_ABE
‘The stone bed has not been made.’
#Marmorkuju
on söö-mata.
marble.statue[NOM] be.3S eat-M_ABE
‘The marble statue has not eaten.’
The shared semantics of the partitives
NP
Telicity
Epistemic
modality
Partitive
marking
No partitive
marking
Incomplete
object
Incomplete
event
Complete
object
Complete
event
Incomplete
evidence
Complete
evidence
Is this just a snowman or Father
Frost’s agent of influence?
Allegedly,
he has
asked
Father
Frost to
give
15
degrees
below
zero!
ole-va-t
be-personal present participle - partitive
Evidentiality
Mari
ole-vat
KGB agent.
M
be-PART.EVID kgb agent
‘Allegedly/reportedly, Mary is a KGB agent.’
Mari
on
KGB agent.
M
be.3.s
KGB agent
‘Mary is a KGB agent.’
Finnic Verb-Nominalizer-Case:
Diachronic composition process
•
•
•
•
V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE]
V [[Verb-[NMLZ]-CASE]]
V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]]
Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]
V (+ nominalizer + nominal marking  nonfinite or TAM verbal marking)
Nominal C vs CCC
• Systems with CCC paradigms are complemented by
rich nominal case paradigms, but the reverse does
not hold.
• The correspondences display cross-linguistic
regularity although there are variations in the CCC
inventories (abessive, translative, inessive).
• Cases in the paradigms are not identical: e.g., the
Finnish abessive appears as a CCC but is infrequent
as nominal case.
• Some cases (e.g., essive) are associated with various
constraints that prevent them from appearing freely
with nominalizations.
Nominalization scale
• A language may contain CCCs that appear with items that are
located at different parts of the nominalization scale.
• The degree of nominalization of the base plays a role in the
structure of CCC hierarchies and grammaticalization: the
abessive may combine with the verb stem, while many other
cases combine with various nominalizations in Udmurt.
• Since CCCs tend to be related to specific functional domains,
they form hierarchies that diverge from the nominal ones
(abessive, locatives are higher up on the implicational scale).
• If the degree of nominalization of the base verb is higher in a
system containing several possibilities on the nominalization
scale, then the cross-categorial and nominal case paradigms
tend to be more similar.
nom acc/erg gen dat loc abl/inst other (Blake 2001: 156)
CCC, nominalization, TAM+neg
• Several generalizations can be established that cover
CCCs and infinitival adpositions (e.g., the IndoEuropean prepositional infinitives).
• In a case system with several goal markers, the more
frequent ‘infinitives’ are based on the illative (Finnic)
or translative (Selkup) instead of the earlier attested
allative.
• The fact that abessive and translative (purposive)
combine more readily with stems connects with the
predictions of the frequency hierarchy established
for Romance infinitives ([purposive>abessive> …]
Schulte (2007)).
CCC, Uralic examples
• CCCs are rarely markers of prototypical predicate
categories but have retained much of their nominal
core semantics.
• In addition to their idiosyncratic morphosyntactic
constraints, CCCs impose semantic and pragmatic
constraints on their environment. Those constraints
may be strikingly similar cross-linguistically.
• Spatial cases tend to give rise to tense-aspect marking,
comitatives to Aktionsart (intensification, habituality),
and abessives to negation.
Cross-categorial case
• Typical nominal or originally nominal marking
• appearing on other categories
• or encoding grammatical information typically
associated with predicates.
Completely=ACC, LOC, ERG
He-ERG ate (one complete) pizza-ACC/LOC
He ERG/LOC/ACC-ate the pizza
He completely-ate the pizza
Verb-NMLZ-CASE
V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE]
V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]]
Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]
The bibliography can be found at:
Tamm, Anne. 2011.Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic non-finite system:
focus on the absentive TAM semantics and pragmatics of the Estonian inessive
m-formative non-finites. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language
Sciences, 49 (4), 835-944.
Proofs: <http://tammacademic.pbworks.com/w/file/41313194/ANNETAMMLing
uisticsSubmissiononDate1May2010.pdf>
Click HERE for the link to the article.