Case and Markedness in Tlapanec - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 69

About This Presentation

Title:

Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

Description:

Absolutive (high affectedness) s/he is alone' Dative (low ... (Absolutive ( non-actor', high affectedness) ... Dative is absolutive with the feature 'low' ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:53

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 70

Provided by: andrea160

Category:

more less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

1
Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

Andreas Opitz
Leipzig University

2
Outline

the data Tlapanec case assignment
analysis
deriving alignment patterns
deriving morphological markers

Tlapanec shows some unusual behavior regarding
the case assignment to its arguments. (Wichmann,
to app.).
The analysis provided here helps to explain this
unusual behavior of case and case markers by
a competition of typologically motivated
markedness constraints (OT) (Smolensky, 1995
Aissen, 1999)
a sub-analysis of case markers (DM) (Noyer, 1992
Trommer, 1999)

4
Case Assignment in Tlapanec

head-marking
case is assigned only to animate arguments (no
distinctions between trans. vs. intrans., but
A(I) vs. AA (and AAA, not mentioned here))
four distinct classes of case markers ( 4
cases)
feature highly vs. lowly affecting
portmanteau morphemes case person

mono-personal verbs (A)
(A) (intrans.)
Absolutive (high affectedness) s/he is alone
Dative (low affectedness?) s/he is nude)
(A,I) (trans.)
(Absolutive (non-actor, high affectedness) )
Pegative (source weak actor, low
affectedness) x is seeing something
Dativ (non-actor, low affectedness) s/he wants
something
Ergativ (actor, high affectedness) s/he is
burning something
di-personal verbs (AA)
(A,A)
Dative (low affectedness)
Absolutive (high affectedness)
(A,A3sgl)
Absolutive (high affectedness)
(A,A3sgl)
Pegative (low affectedness)

6
Case Assignment in Tlapanec

general rules of case assignment in Tlapanec
case is assigned only to animate arguments
maximally one argument is marked with case
if there is no (anim.) object, the subject is
marked
otherwise the (anim.) object is marked
if the object is animate, 3rd singular and the
verb is lowly affecting, the subject is marked

If an animate and inanimate argument is involved,
the animate must always rank higher on the
hierarchy actorgtundergoergttheme. Thus, an
expression like the hammer killed the man is
impossible. Wichmann (to app.)
7
Wichmann, 2006
8
Case Markers in Tlapanec

unusual behavior of case markers
zero-marked ergative
marked absolutive
pegative

note / and stand for phonologically driven
alternations
9
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

10
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

11
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

12
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

13
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

14
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

15
Hypothesis

There are only two functionally distinct cases,
that split each into two different instances due
to the factor of affectedness
Pegative is - in fact - the same as ergative but
with the feature low (or without the feature
high)
Dative is absolutive with the feature low
The two cases mark external arguments (subject)
on the one hand and internal arguments (object)
on the other.
(From an A/AA-perspective Tlapanec shows active
case alignment.)
The missing marker for the actor of highly
affecting verbs (zero-ergative marking) can be
explained by a competition of markedness
constraints. (Smolensky, 1995 Aissen, 1999)
The morphonological more complex marker of the
absolutive (the normally unmarked case) results
from an additional coding of markedness, namely
animate object and high affecting.

16
2. Impoverishment of the morpho-syntactical
context

All constraints emerge from prominence scales and
harmonic alignment. (Silverstein, 1976 Prince
and Smolensky, 1993 Aissen, 1999, 2003)
scales involved in Tlapanec case marking
gram. relation su gt ob
person local gt 3
affectedness high gt low
animacy animate gt inanimate

17
Harmonic Alignment

These three scales interact all together
simultaneously, thus it becomes necessary to
extend the notion of harmonic alignment.
I suggest a hierarchy of scales
1. gram. relation su gt ob
2. person local gt 3
3. affectedness high gt low
4. animacy an. gt inan.

18
Harmonic Alignment

In a first step, the highest ranking scales are
harmonically aligned.
Alignment of gram. function and person
scales
Su gt Ob
local gt 3
harmonic alignment
Su/local ? Su/3
Ob/3 ? Ob/local
constraint alignment
Su/3 Su/Local
Ob/Local Ob/3

19
Harmonic Alignment

In a second step, the output of the first
harmonic alignment is taken as a base for
harmonic alignment with the next feature of the
hierarchy
Alignment of output1 and affectedness
Scales (input)
Su/Local ? Su/3 Ob/3 ? Ob/Local
High gt low High gt low
Harmonic Alignment
Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low Ob/3/High ?
Ob/3/low
Su/3/low ? Su/3/high Ob/Local/low ?
Ob/Local/high

Harmonic Alignment
Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low Ob/3/High ?
Ob/3/low
Su/3/low ? Su/3/high Ob/Local/low ?
Ob/Local/high
Constraint Alignment
Su/local/low Su/local/high Ob/3/low
Ob/3/high
Su/3/high Su/3/low Ob/local/high
Ob/local low

21
Harmonic Alignment

Repetition of procedure
Alignment of output2 and animacy
Scales (input)
Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low
Su/3/low ? Su/3/high
Ob/3/High ? Ob/3/low
Ob/Local/low ? Ob/Local/high

22
Harmonic Alignment

Alignment of output2 and animacy
Scales (input)
Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low
Su/3/low ? Su/3/high
Ob/3/High ? Ob/3/low
Ob/Local/low ? Ob/Local/high

anim. gt inanim.
23

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

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

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

important for derivation
26

Constraint Alignments
Su/Local/high/an
Su/Local/low/an
Su/3/low/an
Su/3/high/an
Ob/3/High/an
Ob/3/low/an

Constraint Alignments
Su/3/high/an Su/Local/high/an
Su/Local/low/an Su/3/low/an
Ob/3/High/an
Ob/3/low/an

Constraint Alignments
Su/3/high/an Su/Local/high/an ?
Su/high/an
Su/Local/low/an Su/3/low/an ? Su/low/an
Ob/3/High/an
Ob/3/low/an

Constraint Alignments
Su/3/high/an Su/Local/high/an ?
Su/high/
Su/Local/low/an Su/3/low/an ? Su/low/
Ob/3/High/an ? Ob/3/high
Ob/3/low/an ? Ob/3/low
Note that these (here abbreviated) constraints,
although derived via harmonic alignment, are not
ordered. In contrast the real Su/high and
Su/low are Su/low gtgt Su/high !(These
constraint are also part of the constraint
hierarchy, but they are supposed to be ordered
low enough, thus they dont interfere the
derivation.)

30
Resulting crucial constraints

O/3/low
S/high
O/3/high
S/low
Ø dont have a zero marked argument
Uniq (here) dont have ambiguous
combination of features in the output _ ?
effect dont mark two arguments
(inanimat)

decomposition of subject vs. object, and
high vs. low into combinations of binary
features (Jakobson, 1962 Bierwisch, 1965
Wunderlich, 1997)
subject su -ob (external argument)
object -su ob (internal argument)
high high
low -high
central assumption
If one set of features ( one argument) violates
a constraint, the whole set of features
(argument) is deleted. (as it is supposed for
instance by Wunderlich (2004) and in contrast to
Aissen (1999)).

32
Su, Ob, high
33
Su, Ob, low
34
Su, Ob3, high
35
Su, Ob 3, low
36
Su, high
37
Su, low
38
output candidates for all possible inputs
39
The idea behind the analysis

Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
V
V Cl
..Ob..
V Cl
..Su..

40
3. Insertion of Markers (Distributed
Morphology)

The optimization process introduced in the last
chapter leads to an impoverished
morpho-syntactical context.
In a next step, this context is the base for the
concrete morphonological realization of the case
markers.
This second step of the analysis is carried out
within the framework of Distributed Morphology
(Halle Marantz, 1993).
Concept of Fission by Noyer (1992)

41
inventory of markers
42
inventory of markers without phonologically
driven alternations
43
inventory of markers labeled with binary
features
44
inventory of markers labeled with binary
featuresand output of case assignment (
OT-driven impoverishment)
45
inventory of markers labeled with binary
featuresand output of case assignment and
sub-analyzed markers
46

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/ i / ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high
/-?/ ? object

?Trommer (1999)
ordering is derived by the specificity condition
and a feature hierarchy cl gt ob high
47

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? object

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? ob

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? ob

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? ob

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? ob

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high /
/-?/ ? ob

Vocabulary Items
/u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
/i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
/u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
/a/ ? cl
/Ø/ ? ob /(-1,-2)
/nasal/ ? high
/-?/ ? ob (animate!)

67
Conclusion

The complex forms of case markers in Tlapanec
emerge by the marking of
bearing case (i.e. the vowel /a/ or /u/)
and the additional marking of markedness
mark (animate!) objects by /-?/
mark high affectedness by nasalization
The zero-marked ergative and other general
patterns of case alignment in Tlapanec emerge
from
markedness constraints derived by (multiple)
harmonic alignment of prominence scales.

68
(No Transcript)
69
References

Aissen, Judith (1999). Markedness and Subject
Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 17673-711.
Bierwisch, Manfred (1967) Syntactic Features in
Morphology General Problems of So-Called
Pronominal Inection in German. In To Honour
Roman Jakobson. Mouton, The Hague/Paris, pp.
239-270.
Frampton, John (2002) Syncretism,
Impoverishment, and the Structure of Person
Features. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistics
Society Meeting, vol. 38, eds M. Andronis, E.
Debenport, A. Pycha K. Yoshimura, 207- 222.
Halle, Morris Alec Marantz (1993) Distributed
Morphology and the Pieces of Infection. In K.
Hale S. Keyser, eds., The View from Building
20. MIT Press, pp. 111176.
Jakobson, Roman (1962) Beitrag zur allgemeinen
Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen
Kasus. In Selected Writings. Vol. 2, Mouton, The
Hague and Paris, pp. 23-71.
Noyer, Rolf (1992) Features, Positions, and
Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure.
PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Prince, Alan Paul Smolensky (2004) Optimality
Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative
Grammar. Blackwell. (Original version from 1993).
Smolensky, Paul. (1995) On the Internal
Structure of Con, the Constraint Component of UG.
Ms., Johns Hopkins University.
Silverstein, Michael (1976) Hierarchy of
features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon, ed.,
Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,
Canberra.
Stiebels, Barbara (2002) Typologie des
Argumentlinkings. Ökonomie und Expressivität,
Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Stump, Gregory (2001) Inectional Morphology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Trommer, Jochen (1999) Morphology Consuming
Syntax' Resources. In Procceedings of the ESSLI
Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist
Grammars. University of Nijmegen.
Wichman, Søren (to app.) Case relations in a
head-marking language verb-marked cases in
Tlapanec. In Malchukov, Andrej and Andrew
Spencer (eds.), The Handbook of Case. Oxford
Oxford University Press.
Wiese, Bernd (1994) Die Personal- und
Numerusendungen der deutschen Verbformen. In
K.-M. Köpcke, ed., Funktionale Untersuchungen zur
deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie.
Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 161-191.
Wiese, Bernd (1999) Unterspezifzierte
Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen
Deklination, Linguistik Online4.
(www.linguistikonline.de/ 3 99)
Wunderlich, Dieter (1996) Minimalist Morphology
The Role of Paradigms. In G. Booij J. van
Marle, eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, pp. 93-114.
Wunderlich, Dieter (1997) Cause and the
Structure of Verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 2727-68.
Wunderlich, Dieter (2004) Is There Any Need for
the Concept of Directional Syncretism?. In G.
Müller, L. Gunkel G. Zifonun, eds.,
Explorations in Nominal Inection. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 373-395.