Slide 1

TAM/Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011 Anne Tamm anne.tamm@unifi.it Central European University

Slide 2

Slide 3

Source:Larsson 2005, slide 45 The share in the number of speakers

Slide 4

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.

Slide 5

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

Slide 6

Blake (2001): Kalaw Lagaw Ya the comitativehabituality the ablativeyesterday past the locativeimmediate past the dative-allativeincompletivity the ergative and the accusativecompletivity

Slide 7

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)

Slide 8

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)

Slide 9

Adelaar and Muysken (2004): Quechua Accusative infinitive: Rima-y-taxalayu-ru-n. speak- INF - ACC begin- PRF -3 S He began to speak. (Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer [2009: 189])

Slide 10

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

Slide 11

Number of cases at wals.info

Slide 12

An MDS map based on the WALS by Michael Cysouw

Slide 13

Slide 14

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).

Slide 15

CASENOUNVERB: to go 1. Nominativesik 2. Genitivesik-len 3. Accusativesik/sik-ez 4. Ablativesik-les 5. Dativesik-ly 6. Adessivesik-len 7. Instrumental sik-en 8. Abessivesik-tek myny-tek 9. Inessivesik-yn 10. Illativesik-e 11. Elativesik-ys(t) 12. Terminativesik-oz 13. Egressivesik-ysen 14. Prolativesik-eti 15. Approximative sik-lan Udmurt: negation--abessive on verbs Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Slide 16

Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations 1. Nominativesik myn-on (verb+n+case) 2. Genitivesik-len myn-on-len (verb+n+len) 3. Accusativesik/sik-ez myn-on-ez 4. Ablativesik-les myn-on-les 5. Dativesik-ly myn-on-ly 6. Adessivesik-len 7. Instrumental sik-en myn-on-en 8. Abessivesik-tek 9. Inessivesik-yn myn-on-yn 10. Illativesik-e myn-on-e 11. Elativesik-ys(t) 12. Terminativesik-oz myn-on-oz 13. Egressivesik-ysen 14. Prolativesik-eti 15. Approximative sik-lan Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Slide 17

Case on m-nominalizations 1. Nominativesik myn-em (verb+m+case) 2. Genitivesik-len myn-em-len (verb+m+len) 3. Accusativesik/sik-ez myn-em-ez 4. Ablativesik-les myn-em-les 5. Dativesik-ly myn-em-ly 6. Adessivesik-len 7. Instrumental sik-en myn-em-en 8. Abessivesik-tek 9. Inessivesik-yn myn-em-yn 10. Illativesik-e myn-em-e 11. Elativesik-ys(t) myn-em-ys 12. Terminativesik-oz myn-em-oz 13. Egressivesik-ysen 14. Prolativesik-eti 15. Approximative sik-lan Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Slide 18

Finnic aspect--two object cases Mari si pitsa-t. M ate pizza-PARTITIVE Mary was eating the pizza. Mari si pitsa. M ate pizza.TOTAL It was a pizza that Mary ate up.

Slide 19

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 Smi, Pite Smi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of the house). Partitive (Finnic, Smi languages) denotes "of, from, out of something" (the identity condition with the source matter). Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

Slide 20

Some manure, too

Slide 21

Affectedness of the incremental theme and the object case Incremental theme argument totally affected Incremental theme argument partially affected NO PARTITIVE PARTITIVE

Slide 22

The whole pizza is in the oven! But Giorgios action is incomplete. Giorgio pani pitsa-t ahju. G[nom] put-past3spizza-ptv oven.ill Giorgio is putting the pizza in the oven.

Slide 23

Aspect in general Telic - complete Atelic incomplete NO PARTITIVE PARTITIVE

Slide 24

Hungarian aspectual particles and goal cases INTO: Rka be-ment az plet-be. RINTO-go-3s.pstdef building-INTO Rka entered the building. (into-went) ONTO: gnes r-lpett a sajt-ra. A ONTO-step-3s.pstdef cheese-ONTO Agnes stepped on cheese. (on-stepped)

Slide 25

productivepartitiveprtcpl-vat-vat-infinitive productive...-da -t-infinitive Historicalinstructive-da... Gerundive Historical, productive-s, inessive-da-desGerundive Historical, productive-ta, abessive-ma-mataAbessive of the m-infinitive Artificial, productive-ks, translative-ma-maksTranslative of the m-infinitive Dialectal, Finnish-Livonian-lt, ablative-ma(-malt)Ablative of the m-infinitive Dialectal-l(a), adessive-ma-mallaAdessive of the m-infinitive Coast dialectal-le, allative-ma-malleAllative of the m-infinitive Historical, productive-st, elative-ma-mastElative of the m-infinitive Historical, productive-s, inessive-ma-masInessive of the m-infinitive Historical, productive-, illative-ma Illative of the m-infinitive (supine) Diachronic statusCaseNMLZ form FormName

Slide 26

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)

Slide 27

Ma lhe-n Hong Kongi I[nom] go-1sg HK.illative I am going to Hong Kong. Goal: noun

Slide 28

Ma lhe-n uju-ma. I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative I am going swimming, I am going to swim. (# Im gonna swim, I will swim.) Goal: non-finite

Slide 29

Ma olen Hong Kongi-s. I[nom] be-1sg HK-inessive I am in Hong Kong. Location: noun

Slide 30

Ma olen uju-mas. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive I am off swimming. (# I am swimming progressive) Location: non-finite

Slide 31

Ma tule-n Hong Kongi-st. I[nom] come-1s HK-elative I am coming from Hong Kong. Source: noun

Slide 32

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.) Source: non-finite

Slide 33

Ma ole-n programmi-ta. I[nom] be-1s program-abessive I dont 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

Slide 34

Abessive negation: modal constraints/presuppositions #Kivist voodion tege-mata. stone- ELA bed[ NOM ] be.3 S make- M _ ABE The stone bed has not been made. #Marmorkujuon s-mata. marble.statue[ NOM ] be.3 S eat- M _ ABE The marble statue has not eaten.

Slide 35

Slide 36

The shared semantics of the partitives Partitive marking No partitive marking NPIncomplete object Complete object TelicityIncomplete event Complete event Epistemic modality Incomplete evidence Complete evidence

Slide 37

Is this just a snowman or Father Frosts agent of influence? Allegedly, he has asked Father Frost to give 15 degrees below zero! ole-va-t be-personal present participle - partitive

Slide 38

Mari ole-vatKGB 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. Evidentiality

Slide 39

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 non- finite or TAM verbal marking)

Slide 40

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.

Slide 41

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)

Slide 42

CCC, nominalization, TAM+neg Several generalizations can be established that cover CCCs and infinitival adpositions (e.g., the Indo- European 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)).

Slide 43

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.

Slide 44

Cross-categorial case Typical nominal or originally nominal marking appearing on other categories or encoding grammatical information typically associated with predicates.

Slide 45

Completely=ACC, LOC, ERG He-ERG ate (one complete) pizza-ACC/LOC He ERG/LOC/ACC-ate the pizza He completely-ate the pizza

Slide 46

Verb-NMLZ-CASE V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]

Slide 47

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.HERE