Baejamin Novak Linguistics 451 Final Exam

Part 1. 2.
Causatives and applicatives are generally expressed by a morphological change on the verb, though some languages also have lexical causatives. Both increase the valence of a verb, allowing arguments to be added to the clause. Where causatives and applicatives differ is in the way that they determine the syntactic role of the new arguments; the distinction between the two is not always clear as some languages code them the identically, syntactically coding the CAUS marker as an applicative. While lexical causatives often occur, as in the English break, kill, and give, lexical applicatives dont occur because they (usually) come from internalized adpositions and there isnt much motivation to re-lexicalize an applicative back to an adposition. Causatives add an Agent to the basic case-frame of the verb; this Agent will be the subject of the Causative Construction. Transitiveizers are often causatives, translated into English as made to or cause to. The Kaxuyana transtivizer -nh, when added to oremta, to sing then translates as make P sing.1

Ling 451/551, W14: Valence adjustment: Adding and Subtracting Arguments

INTR oremta sing

sing

TR oremta -nh sing -CAUS

make P sing

In contrast, applicatives indicate that the Theme is no longer the Primary Object or the Direct Object but the previously oblique argument instead. The most common applicatives categories are Comitative, Locative, Instrumental or Benefactive, though the definitions and delimiting of these categories is up for debate, for example, an additional sub-category may be that of Malefactive, to the harm of. The promotion of the oblique due to the use of the applicative in Lunda, a Bantu language, can be seen below: A a-V O1 [ Obl ] Mumbanda w- atemesha mali kudi mukwawu woman Subj- PST- send money to her.friend The women sent money to her friend A a-V -Appl O1 Mumbanda w- a- temesh -ela mukwauw woman Subj- PST- send -Appl her.friend The woman sent her friend money O2 mali money

Dative Shift in English appears as a Double Object Construction. Subj V DO PP IO Mike bought a bike for John Subj V O1 O2 Mike bought John a bike

This differs from most applicatives because it is not morphologically marked on the verb. To distinguish this construction English uses reordering and deletion of the post-position. Syntactically this construction can code Locative and Benefactive case but dont grammatically code the Comitative and Instrumental. One cannot say: I break the window with a bat as, I break a bat the window; or I ride the horse with them as, I ride them the horse.

3.
Reflexives are constructions for which A and P are the same argument; this occurs when a (normally) transitive verb is detranstivized either analytically or morphologically. If a language only has a transitive lexical form for an action that can have the A be the P as well, then this process is pragmatically necessary to describe that specific action. In English, the analytic reflexive myself indicates that A and P are the same, example below2.

Valence Decrease as Detrasitive Voice, Ling 451/551, W14

A P (4a) I fed the baby

A = P (4b) I fed myself.

Middles are constructions for which A and P are semantically the same argument. A common pattern is for middles to be derived from reflexives and then morphologically attached to verbs as an affix. Morphologically coded reflexives and middles are very similar, though one distinction is that middles code what is pragmatically expected to happen. For languages with middles, they are generally those actions that one would expect to perform on themselves: to bathe, to dress, to eat, etc. Anticausatives are intransitive constructions that have lost their A argument but semantically maintain the event that effected the P. To perform both transitive and intransitive verbs experience a phenomena called causative alternation which allows the same verb, without changing any morphology, to allow for both single and double argument constructions. One example is the English verb broke. TR > INTR A V P S V John broke the door > The door broke Agentless passives are derived from active clauses for which there is no A. They code the P and the verb but neglect to code an A; the agentless passive construction can be used when the speaker is attempting to divert blame: Agentless Passive A V P P V John broke the window > The window was broken Agentless passives are also used when the agent is unknown: Agentless Passive A V P P V Someone broke the window > the window was broken Another common use of agentless passives is when knowledge of the agent is non-crucial to the clause or discourse: Agentless Passive A V P P V A proctor supervised the students > the students were supervised In the case above, the exclusion of a proctor places emphasis on the fact that the students were supervised, it is not so important who supervised the, what is important is that they were supervised at all. Agentive passives, unlike agentless passives, have A and P but (generally) use analytics to decrease the agentivity of the A. In English, the passive construction requires that the P is placed clause initial, even further emphasizing that it is the P that is pragmatically important. Note the movement of the P between the two clauses: Agentive Passive V A

A stranger attacked me > I was attacked by a stranger Linguists may argue over whether or not a to call a grammatical reflexive construction an agentless passive when its behaving like an agentless passive because some may say that the P is being coded on the verb, while others may say that the P merely does not exist. The first statement supports that the construction is a reflexive while the latter supports that the construction is an agentless passive. Defining active clauses that use the indefinite third person plural subject, English they, but behave functionally like agentless passives may cause discomfort for a linguist because it is not clear if the A exists and is omitted or if the verb itself is now intransitive. Pragmatically speaking, the clause could be interpreted as intransitive, which matches the aforementioned anticausative construction.

Part 2. Question (1)

Nominal Case Marking ya ERG is marked on A while S and P align (unmarked), this ergative-absolutive alignment is show below. INTR 7. S V tbada bona id -p CoRef. S- place LOC 3SG- go -PST Hei went to hisi place. TR 6. [ P ] V A imungg ene -dope -u -ya 3SG- children see -FUT -1SG -ERG I will see her children.

Verbal Case Marking Both S and P are marked before the verb in intransitive and transitive clauses respectively. This is also an ergative- absolultive alignment. Show below. INTR 7. S V tbada bona id -p CoRef. S- place LOC 3SG- go -PST

Hei went to hisi place.

TR 2. P V A [ OBL ] inggu't -bd -zak -i -ya ige He has repeatedly fooled him with it. 3SG- fool -HAB -PFV -3SG ERG 3SG- T.MKR There seems to be two forms of give that have different alignment patterns. One pattern places places T before the verb (example 19), while the other A (example 20) before the verb. The contrast between the two alignment patterns can be seen below. 19. T V A [ R ]

adr -zak -u -ya 2SG- give -PFV -1SG ERG I had given you to your wife.

eji -p a- nop bai AUX -PST 2SG- wife PP

20. A V R T ud - -p igobik 1SG- go -3SG -PST 3SG- to.give

I went in order to give (it) to him.

Question (2)
TAM markers all appear as suffixes and can be stacked after the verb. It would seem that the unmarked form is the present but we dont have much data available to support this claim. - seems to code PRS but this is an assumption based off of the glosses available. We can see functioning as PRS in example 8 show below. 8. ibada bona kajiri engik u- d -bd - 3SG- place LOC beer to.drink 1SG- go -HAB -PRS I go to his place all the time to drink manioc beer. -p codes PST and is marked on the verb, as in example 7 shown below. 7. tbada bona id -p Hei went to hisi place. CoRef. S- place LOC 3SG- go -PST -zak codes the PFV and is marked on the verb, as in example 5. 5. tmungg ennog -zak -I -ya eji -p Shei had sent heri children. CoRef. S- children send -PFV -3SG -ERG AUX -PST -dope codes the FUT and is marked on the verb, as in example 6. 6. imungg ene -dope -u -ya I will see her children. 3SG- children see -FUT -1SG ERG

-bd codes HAB and is marked on the verb, as in example 17. 17. kajiri ge kaiguji gob -bd -p wayamori ya beer T.MKR Jaguar give HAB -PST Turtle ERG Turtle used to give Jaguar manioc beer.

Question (3)
The marking of S and A on ej align, this nominative-accusative alignment can be seen in examples 21 and 25.

21. S V waramadong bo yeji -p gomam Waramadong LOC 3SG- AUX -PST to.live -bk He was living in Waramadong. -IPFV

25. P V A inggut -bd -bk yeji -zak ngka 3SG- fool -HAB -IPFV 3SG- AUX -PFV again? He has been fooling him again (and again). Akawaio uses a marker on T that aligns the unmarked P and R in ditransitive constructions, this secundative alignment can be seen in example 18. 18. R V A T agob -dope -u -ya anop ge 2SG give -FUT 1SG ERG 2SG- wife T.MKR

I will give you a wife.

Question (4)
The suffix bk codes the IPRV (example 21) and eji codes the PRV. In situations where eji must function as an AUX zak is added to code the PRV. The form ejizak allows for indexing to occur as prefixes on ejizak, an example of this is present in 25. 21. waramadong bo yeji -p gomam Waramadong LOC 3SG- AUX -PST to.live He was living in Waramadong.

-bk -IPFV

25. inggut -bd -bk yeji -zak ngka 3SG- fool -HAB -IPFV 3SG- AUX -PFV again? He has been fooling him again (and again).

Question (5)
Case marking in Akawaio is generally ergative-absolutive while the T.MKR ge in ditransitive constructions appears to have secundative alignment. Clauses in the first set of data are all perfective which is coded by zak on the verb; in the second set of data -bk codes for the imperfective. It is interesting that to state a perfective verb in an imperfective clause that eji is used as an AUX to allow for indexing and for the perfective tense to be marked on it as a suffix (-zak). 25. inggut -bd -bk yeji -zak ngka 3SG- fool -HAB -IPFV 3SG- AUX -PFV again?

He has been fooling him again (and again). The most surprising (and frustrating) part of this data is the presence of two give verbs. There are two alignment patterns and the translations offer very little insight into an explanation. 18. R V A T agob -dope -u -ya anop ge 2SG give -FUT 1SG ERG 2SG- wife T.MKR 19. T V A adr -zak -u -ya 2SG- give -PFV -1SG ERG I had given you to your wife.

I will give you a wife.

[ R ] eji -p a- nop bai AUX -PST 2SG- wife PP

This is surprising because there are no TAM marker distinctions to form a contrast between the two forms of give and that the alignment itself seems to change the semantics of the clause. A proper translation of the two verbs is data to be desired.