S emantic roles and cross categorial case in uralic
Download
1 / 35

S emantic roles and cross- categorial case in Uralic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

S emantic roles and cross- categorial case in Uralic. Anne Tamm anne.tamm AT unifi.it University of Florence Research Institute of Linguistics , Hungarian Academy of Sciences , Budapest. International Workshop on Semantic Roles Pavia, 19-20 May 2010 - Aula Scarpa.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

S emantic roles and cross- categorial case in Uralic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Semanticroles and cross-categorialcase in Uralic

Anne Tamm

anne.tamm AT unifi.it

University of Florence

Research Institute of Linguistics ,HungarianAcademyofSciences, Budapest

International WorkshoponSemanticRoles

Pavia, 19-20 May 2010 - Aula Scarpa


Questions and puzzles

  • Doverbsinstantiatesemanticroles?

  • What is therelationshipbetweensemanticroles and grammaticalcategoriessuchasaspect, evidentiality, ormodality?


Reasoningfor YES

  • Semanticrole is a relationbetweenapredicate and an argument.

  • The relationship is encodedby a formwithsemantic and categoriallyspecifiedcontent.

  • The encodingmay be donebycase.

  • The categorythat ”has” casemay be a predicate.

  • ManyUraliccategoriesarebetweennouns and verbs.

  • Thesemostlyinfinitivalcaseformsarearguments of predicatesthatareitselfpredicates.

  • Soverbscaninstantiate a semanticrole, buthow?


Verb of motion - Goal

Ma lähe-n Pavia-sse/Tallinna.

I[nom] go-1sg P-illative T.illative

‘I am going to Pavia/Tallinn.’


Verb of motion - Goal

Ma lähe-n uju-ma.

I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative

‘I am going swimming, I am going to swim.’

(# I’mgonnaswim.)


Copula - Location

Ma olenPavia-s.

I[nom] be-1sg P-inessive

‘I am in Pavia.’


Copula - Location

Ma olenuju-mas.

I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive

‘I am off swimming.’

(# I am swimming – progressive)


Verb of motion - Source

Ma tule-n Pavia-st.

I[nom] come-1s P-elative

‘I am coming from Pavia.’


Verb of motion - Source

Ma tule-n uju-mast.

I[nom] come-1s swim-m_elative

‘I am coming from swimming.’

(# Jeviens de nager – I havejustswum.)


Oneexampleaboutother relations

Ma ole-n pileti-ta.

I[nom] be-1sticket-abessive

‘I don’thave a/theticket, I am without a/the ticket.’


Other relations, abessive, ‘without’

Ma ole-n uju-mata.

I[nom] be-1s swim-m_abessive

‘I have not swum.’


The roadmaptothesolution

  • The Uraliclanguages

  • The role of case

  • Cross-categorialcase

  • Non-finitesasarguments and aspredicates

  • The transfer of themeaningofsemanticroles of non-finitesasarguments > TAM categories


Richcasesystems > poorcasesystems

  • Uraliclanguagesaretypicallycharacterizedbyrichcasesystemswithapproximately 10 members, and manyhavecasesystems of approximately 15 or 20 cases.

  • In WALS, thereare 24 languageswith more than 10 cases.

    • The followinglanguageshave more than 10 casesin WALS: Awa Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, EpenaPedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt.

  • Fiveof thoselistedareUralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).


Case-marked non-finite verb forms

  • Languageswith many non-finite forms tend to have rich case systems.

  • The regularity can only partly be attributed to areal linguistic contacts, since it is observable, for instance, in the geographically distant Caucasian and Australian languages. There is no reason to assume a generalization with the strength of a language universal.

  • Non-finite forms frequently originate from case-marked non-finite verb forms, which are complements originally but develop further into base predicates of larger predicate complexes.

  • Thesecomplexes develop case-related semantics and modal meanings.


Uraliccase is cross-categorial

  • Attachestonouns, and inlanguageswithadjective-nounagreement, toadjectives

  • Attachestoverbs

  • Attachestoverbswith a nominalizingsuffix

  • Attachestoverbswith a nominalizingsuffix, forminginfinitives and in-betweenforms


Cross-categorialcaseillustrations

  • Verbstems (Udmurt V+abessive)

  • Nominalizations (Udmurt cases V+m+case, V+n+case)

  • Parts of non-finites (Finnic, thecaseformantsare part of a morpheme of a non-finiteverb)

  • Selkupinfinitive marker: V+translative


Attachestonouns: an example of the Udmurt casesystem

1. Nominatives’ik

2. Genitives’ik-len

3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez

4. Ablatives’ik-les’

5. Datives’ik-ly

6. Adessives’ik-len

7. Instrumentals’ik-en

8. Abessives’ik-tek

9. Inessives’ik-yn

10. Illatives’ik-e

11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t)

12. Terminatives’ik-oz’

13. Egressives’ik-ys’en

14. Prolatives’ik-eti

15. Approximatives’ik-lan’

Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.


Udmurt: caseonbarestems

1. Nominatives’ik

2. Genitives’ik-len

3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez

4. Ablatives’ik-les’

5. Datives’ik-ly

6. Adessives’ik-len

7. Instrumentals’ik-en

8. Abessives’ik-tekmyny-tek

9. Inessives’ik-yn

10. Illatives’ik-e

11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t)

12. Terminatives’ik-oz’

13. Egressives’ik-ys’en

14. Prolatives’ik-eti

15. Approximatives’ik-lan’

Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.


Udmurt:caseonn-nominalizations

1. Nominatives’ikmyn-on(verb+n+case)

2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-on-len(verb+n+len)

3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez

4. Ablatives’ik-les’ myn-on-les’

5. Datives’ik-ly myn-on-ly

6. Adessives’ik-len

7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-on-en

8. Abessives’ik-tek

9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-on-yn

10. Illatives’ik-emyn-on-e

11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t)

12. Terminatives’ik-oz’myn-on-oz’

13. Egressives’ik-ys’en

14. Prolatives’ik-eti

15. Approximatives’ik-lan’

Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.


Udmurt: caseon-m-nominalizations

1. Nominatives’ikmyn-em(verb+m+case)

2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-em-len (verb+m+len)

3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez

4. Ablatives’ik-les’ myn-em-les’

5. Datives’ik-ly myn-em-ly

6. Adessives’ik-len

7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-em-en

8. Abessives’ik-tek

9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-em-yn

10. Illatives’ik-emyn-em-e

11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t)myn-em-ys’

12. Terminatives’ik-oz’myn-em-oz’

13. Egressives’ik-ys’en

14. Prolatives’ik-eti

15. Approximatives’ik-lan’

Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.


The Estonian case system

  • Nominative book raamat

  • Genitive of a book raamatu

  • Partitive (of) a book raamatu-t

  • Illative into the book raamatu-sse

  • Inessive in a book raamatu-s

  • Elative from (inside) a bookraamatu-st

  • Allative onto a bookraamatu-le

  • Adessive on a bookraamatu-l

  • Ablative from the bookraamatu-lt

  • Translative in(to), as a bookraamatu-ks

  • Terminative until a bookraamatu-ni

  • Essive as a bookraamatu-na

  • Abessive without a bookraamatu-ta

  • Comitative with a bookraamatu-ga


Name

Form

Related 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


Theseformsarenotnouns

  • Uju-ma, uju-mas, uju-mastinstantiate a differentcategoryfromnoun

  • Theyarebetweenverbs and nouns, infinitivesandnominalizations (actionnouns)

  • Theycannot be modifiedby an adjective, showingcaseagreement

  • Theycannot be pluralized

  • Butthereareslightchangesintheencoding of theargumentNPs


Suspendedaffixationwithnouns

Taläkskojumütsi-ta ja salli-ta.

Shewenthomehat-abe and shawl-abe

‘Shewenthomewithout a hat and a shawl.’

Taläkskojumütsi-Ø ja salli-ta.

Shewenthomehat-Ø and shawl-abe

‘Shewenthomewithout a hat and a shawl.’


Suspendedaffixationnotpossiblewiththem-non-finites

Taläkskojujooksmata ja kiirustamata.

Shewenthomerun-m_abe and hurry-m_abe

‘Shewenthomewithoutrunning and hurrying.’

*Taläkskojujooksma-Ø ja kiirustamata.

Shewenthomerun-m-Ø and hurry-m_abe

‘Shewenthomewithoutrunning and hurrying.’


Nominalproperties

  • HavingthesamedistributionwithcertainNPs ‘markedwiththesamecase’ and instantiatingthesamesemanticroles

  • illative: goal, inessive: location, elative: source

  • partitive: theme/patient

  • The semanticroleprovidesthesemanticbasisforthe shift inthecategorial status of thecase marker


The transfer of incrementalthemesemanticsto TAM categories: partitive

  • ‘part-of’ N

  • > event-objectisomorphism

  • > aspect marking partitive

  • > epistemicmodality

  • > evidentiality


Incrementalthemes

Mari sõipitsat.

Mari ate pizza.partitive

‘Mary waseatingthe pizza.’

Marisõipitsa.

Mari ate pizza.tot

‘Mary ate a pizza.’


Affectedness of theincrementalthemeand theobjectcase


Aspectingeneral


The participlebecomes an object - auditoryevidence is partial

Mari kuulisteda

Maryheardhim/her.part

koju tulevat.

homecome-pers.pres.ptcp.partitive

‘Mary heard him/her come home.’


Visual evidence is notpartial

Mari nägi Jürit

MarysawJ.part

kojutule-mas.

homecome-m_inessive

‘Mary saw Georgecominghome.’


Evidentiality: indirecthearsaypartial

Mari tule-vat.

M.nom come.pers.pres.participle.part

‘Allegedly/reportedly,Mary will come.’

Marituleb.

M.nom come.3.sg

‘Mary will come.’


Evidentiality, epistemicmodalityand theincrementality of evidence


Conclusion: semanticroles and cross-categorialcase

  • Whennon-finitesarecase-marked, theycaninstantiatesemanticroles.

  • Thisbringsaboutthebroadening of themeaningofthecase and therise of grammaticalmeanings.

  • The transfer of themeaningofcross-categorialcasefrom an argumenttothepredicateorutterancedomainretainselements of themeaningofthesemanticrole.

  • I presentedtheparallelsintheSource, Location, Goal, and IncrementalThemeroles of casemarkednouns and non-finites.

  • I showedhowthesemantics of theincrementalthemeroletransferstothecategoriesofaspect, epistemicmodality and evidentiality


ad
  • Login