Sandy Ritchie

SOAS, University of London Workshop on Prominent Internal Possessors

SOAS University of London 22 September 2016

Disjoint and reflexive

prominent internal

possessor constructions

in Chimane

1/43

The issue

Chimane (unclassified, Bolivia) exhibits two prominent internal possessor constructions: one ‘disjoint’ (1b) and one ‘reflexive’ (1c):

(1) a. Maria täj-je-te cas=mọ’

Maria(F) touch-CLF-3SG.M.O knee(M)=her ‘Mariai touched heri/j knee.’ (default 3>3 is ambiguous)

b. Maria täj-je-bi-’ cas=mọ’ Maria(F) touch-CLF-APPL-3SG.F.O knee(M)=her

‘Mariai touched herj/*i knee.’ (poss. agr. with disjoint poss.)

c. Maria täj-je-ya-qui-’ cas=mọ’ Maria(F) touch-CLF-EPEN-REFL.POSS-F.S knee(M)=her

‘Mariai touched heri/*j knee.’ (no object agr. with reflexive poss.)

2/43

Possessor prominence and anaphoric binding

Clearly, one function of these constructions is to indicate whether the subject anaphorically binds the possessor or not.

However, this still leaves open the question of how they should be analysed.

Questions

How does the disjoint possessor control object agreement on the verb if it is internal to the possessive phrase?

Chimane agreement is not ‘trigger-happy’ (like e.g. Maithili) – only GFs can control agreement everywhere else.

Why is there no object agreement in the reflexive-possessive construction?

3/43

Aims

The aim of this talk is to consider some potential analyses of the disjoint and reflexive PIPCs in the light of some data from Chimane.

These analyses have been put forward for similar or related phenomena in other languages.

I aim to show that the best analysis for both constructions is to consider these constructions as special cases of valency changing processes.

The possessor and the phrase headed by the possessed noun bear different GFs in the disjoint and reflexive constructions than the default.

4/43

Outline

Background on Chimane

Evidence for internal status of the possessor

Potential analyses

Proposed analysis

Summary

5/43

Background on Chimane

Chimane (ISO 639-3: cas) is an unclassified language spoken in Amazonian Bolivia.

Grammatical relations are signalled by predicate-argument agreement only. There is no core case marking.

Complex transitive agreement paradigm.

Non-configurational – pro-drop, discontinuous constituents, pragmatically determined word order, no evidence for a VP.

6/43

Possessive phrase

Nearly all nouns have inherent M or F gender. Specifiers and modifiers agree with the gender of the head noun:

(2) a. mọ’ Juan-si’ där-si’ ococo the.F Juan(M)-F big-F frog(F)

‘Juan’s big frog’

b. mu’ Juan-tyi’ där-tyi’ ịtsiquij the.M Juan(M)-M big-M jaguar(M)

‘Juan’s big jaguar’

Possessors exhibit the same gender agreement as adjectives, and co-occur with determiners. suggesting they are modifiers.

7/43

Word order in the possessive phrase

Heads and modifiers cannot precede the determiner:

(3) a. *mu’-si’ mọ’ ococo his-F the.F frog(F)

(‘his frog’)

b. *ococo mọ’ mu’-si’ frog(F) the.F his-F

(‘his frog’)

c. *där-si’ mọ’ ococo big-F the.F frog(F)

(‘the big frog’)

8/43

Structure of the possessive phrase

The ‘determiner-first’ restriction shows that the NP is a constituent, and that the determiner occupies a higher position in the NP.

The other constituents can occur in any order, suggesting that the rest of the phrase has a flat structure.

(4) a. mọ’ ococo Juan-si’ där-si’ the.F frog(F) Juan(M)-F big-F

b. mọ’ ococo därsi’ Juansi’ c. mọ’ Juansi’ ococo därsi’ d. mọ’ därsi’ ococo Juansi’ ….

‘Juan’s big frog’

9/43

Object agreement in Chimane

Object agreement with the single of object of a monotransitive verb and the non-patient-like object (recipient, goal, beneficiary etc) of a ditransitive verb (secundative alignment).

(5) a. Juan cät-je-te Sergio. Juan(M) hit-CLF-3SG.M.O Sergio(M) ‘Juan hit Sergio.’ (object) b. Mu’ muntyi’ so’m-e-’ mu’ achuj Maria. the .M man(M) give-CLF-3SG.F.O the.M dog(M) Maria(F) ‘The man gave Maria the dog.’ (primary object)

10/43

Object agreement with the possessor

Chimane optionally exhibits object agreement with possessors internal to object NPs which are disjoint from the subject:

(6) a. Juan täj-je-’ un mu’ Sergio-s. Juan(M) hit-CLF-3SG.F.O hand(F) the.M Sergio(M)-F ‘Juan touched Sergio’s hand.’ (possessed noun) b. Juan täj-je-bi-te un mu’ Sergio-s. Juan(M) hit-CLF-APPL-3SG.M.O hand(F) the.M Sergio(M)-F ‘Juan touched Sergio’s hand.’ (possessor internal to object NP) An applicative occurs on the verb when the possessor controls object

agreement instead of the possessed noun.

11/43

Evidence for internal status: Nominal agreement

PIPs in Chimane must exhibit agreement with the possessed noun. (7) Juan täj-je-bi-te un mu’ Sergio*(-s). Juan(M) hit-CLF-APPL-3SG.M.O hand(F) the.M Sergio(M)-F ‘Juan touched Sergio’s hand.’ Compare this with the external possessor construction ‘proper’: (8) Juan täj-je-te mu’ Sergio(*-s) un-che’. Juan(M) touch-CLF-3SG.M.O the.M Sergio(M)-F hand(F)-SUPE ‘Juan touched Sergio on the hand.’

12/43

Evidence for internal status: Word order

There is no strict word order in the phrase except determiner-first.

However, there are some positional restrictions on certain types of possessor expressions which show that PIPs are internal.

PIPs can combine with their own determiner, as in (9) where the possessor Isabel combines with the determiner mọ’ ‘the’:

(9) Maria täj-je-bi-’ Maria(F) touch-CLF-APPL-3SG.F.O [mu’ cas [mọ’ Isabel-tyi’]]. the.M knee(M) the.F Isabel(F)-M ‘Maria touched Isabel’s knee.’

13/43

Positional restriction on PIPs with determiners

PIPs which combine with determiners cannot immediately follow the determiner of the entire possessive phrase, showing that there is some internal structure in the possessive NP and that the possessor is internal.

(10) *Maria täj-je-bi-’ Maria(F) touch-CLF-APPL-3SG.F.O [mu’ [mọ’ Isabel-tyi’] cas]. the.M the.F Isabel(F)-M knee(M) (‘Maria touched Isabel’s knee.’)

14/43

Evidence for internal status: Passivization

(11) a. Maria-ty vojity=mọ’ Maria(F)-M brother(M)=her ja’-ĉat-bu-ti-’ (Juan). PASS-hit-APPL-PASS-F.S Juan(M) ‘Maria’s brother was hit (by Juan).’ b. *Maria vojity Maria(F) brother(M) ja’-ĉat-bu-ti-’ Juan. PASS-hit-APPL-PASS-F.S Juan(M) (Maria’s brother was hit by Juan.’)

15/43

Requirement for additional morphology

Agreement between verb and internal possessor can only occur in the presence of the applicative suffix -bi.

(12) Juan täj-je*(-bi)-te un mu’ Sergio-s. Juan(M) hit-CLF-APPL-3SG.M.O hand(F) the.M Sergio(M)-F (‘Juan touched Sergio’s hand.’)

16/43

No agreement with possessors internal to obliques

(13) Mu’ Juan bä-yi / *bä-yi-n / the.M Juan(M) sit-CLF.M.S sit-CLF-3>1/2SG *bä-ye-bu-n covamba-che=yụ sit-CLF-APPL-3>1/2SG canoe-SUPE=my ‘Juan sat in my canoe.’

17/43

No agreement with possessors internal to subjects

(14) Mu’ vojity=yụ nạij-tyi-n / the.M brother(M)=my see-CLF-3>1/2SG *nạij-tye-ye / *nạij-bi-ye mi. see-CLF-1SG>2SG see-APPL-1SG>2SG you ‘My brother saw you.’

18/43

Summary of features of disjoint PIPC

Possessors which control agreement on the verb do appear to be internal to the possessive phrase.

Only possessors internal to object NPs can control object agreement.

Other non-terms and possessors internal to other arguments cannot control object agreement.

Additional applicative-like verbal morphology is required when agreement between possessor and verb occurs.

19/43

Potential analysis: head-dependent reversal

(Dixon 2000) argues that PIPs in Jarawara (Arawan) take on the function of the head, and this is what enables them to control agreement on the verb.

His evidence that the possessor attains the status of the head comes from the fact that adjectives in possessive phrases agree with the possessor rather than the possessed noun:

(15) ee teme bite our.INCL.F foot(M) small(F)

‘our small feet’ (Dixon 2000: 507)

20/43

Control of agreement on adjectives

Chimane PIPs cannot control agreement on adjectives which modify the possessed noun.

An adjective which agrees with the possessor can only modify the possessor.

(16) a. Yụ nạij-bi-te mọ’ ococo där-si’ miquity-si’. I see-APPL-3SG.M.O the.F frog(F) big-F boy(M)-F

‘I saw the boy’s big frog.’ / *‘I saw the big boy’s frog.’

b. Yụ nạij-bi-te mọ’ ococo miquity-si’ där-tyi’. I see-APPL-3SG.M.O the.F frog(F) boy(M)-F big-M

‘I saw the big boy’s frog.’ / *‘I saw the boy’s big frog.’

21/43

PIPCs in Tseltal (Mayan)

Tseltal (Mayan, Mexico) exhibits a PIPC which is very similar to the Chimane disjoint construction:

(17) a. lah a-we’ k-waj PFV ERG2-eat.ABS3 POSS1-tortilla

b. lah a-we’-bon k-waj PFV ERG2-eat-APPL.ABS1 POSS1-tortilla

‘You ate my tortilla.’ (Shklovsky 2012: 47)

Only possessors internal to object NPs can control agreement, and only in the presence of additional morphology (Shklovsky 2012).

22/43

Potential analysis: head-adjoining construction

The essence of Shklovsky’s account is that the head of the possessive phrase adjoins to the applicative head, and this is what enables agreement between the verb and the internal possessor.

In his own words: “…the head of the internal argument, the D0, head-adjoins to the

applicative, which makes the possessor inside the internal argument an eligible target for absolutive agreement.” (Shklovsky 2012: 58)

23/43

Head-adjoining in Tseltal

Shklovsky schematizes the adjoining of the head of the possessive phrase to the applicative head as follows:

(18)

(Shklovsky 2012: 69)

24/43

Agreement with the internal possessor in Tseltal

Once the head of the possessive phrase has adjoined to the applicative head, absolutive agreement is possible with the possessor internal to the possessive phrase:

(19)

(Shklovsky 2012: 69)

25/43

Proposed analysis of disjoint PIPC

There is one crucial feature of the PIPC in Chimane which suggests an alternative analysis may be more appropriate for this language.

There is some evidence for a clause-level agreement controller which is co-indexed with the possessor in Chimane.

Sometimes, PIPs are accompanied by a doubling clitic pronoun which may be an overt expression of a clause-level realisation of the PIP.

Crucially, this element cannot occur in the default construction in which the possessed noun controls agreement on the verb, suggesting that it fills an argument slot in the PIPC which is not present in the default.

26/43

External realisation of the internal possessor

Optional doubling clitic pronoun when PIP controls object agreement on the verb:

(20) Mi nạij-bi-te ococo Juan-si’ (=mu’). you see.CLF-APPL-3SG.M.O frog(F) Juan(M)i-F =himi ‘You saw Juan’s frog.’ (disjoint PIPC) Doubling pronoun is strange or ungrammatical when possessed noun

controls object agreement: (21) Mi nạij-tye-’ ococo Juan-si’ (?*=mu’). you see-CLF-3SG.F.O frog(F) Juan(M)i-F =himi ‘You saw Juan’s frog.’ (default)

27/43

External realisation is an applied object

There are several kinds of evidence which suggest that this external realisation of the internal possessor is an applied object.

The requirement of the additional verbal suffix -bi in PIPCs.

In ditransitive PIPCs, the beneficiary/recipient etc. corresponds to the internal possessor.

(22) Ji’-cañ-e-bi-baj-te qui ạva’. CAUS-return-CLF-APPL-again-3SG.M.O so baby(F) ‘So she [the girl] gives iti [the monkey] back itsi baby.’

This indicates that the external realisation of the possessor is the primary object, and the possessed noun is the secondary object.

28/43

Comparison with default construction and EPC

In the default construction, the verb is monotransitive and the possessive phrase functions as the sole object.

In the EPC, the verb is also monotransitive, but here the possessor functions as the sole object and the possessed noun is demoted to an oblique status (so-called ‘possessor raising’).

In the PIPC, the verb is ditransitive, the clause-level representation of the internal possessor functions as the primary object and the possessive phrase is demoted to secondary object status.

These three constructions can be represented as follows:

29/43

Default construction

(23) Juan täj-je-’ un mu’ Sergio-s. Juan(M) hit-CLF-3SG.F.O hand(F) the.M Sergio(M)-F ‘Juan touched Sergio’s hand.’

30/43

External possession construction

(24) Juan täj-je-te mu’ Sergio(*-s) un-che’. Juan(M) touch-CLF-3SG.M.O the.M Sergio(M)-F hand(F)-SUPE ‘Juan touched Sergio on the hand.’

31/43

Disjoint PIPC

(25) Juan täj-je-bi-te un mu’ Sergio-s(=mu’) Juan(M) hit-CLF-APPL-3SG.M.O hand(F) the.M Sergio(M)-F=him ‘Juan touched Sergio’s hand.’

32/43

Reflexive PIPC

Just as with the disjoint construction, in the reflexive PIPC there is also a difference in the agreement pattern from the default:

(1’) a. Maria täj-je-te cas=mọ’ Maria(F) touch-CLF-3SG.M.O knee(M)=her

‘Mariai touched heri/j knee.’

b. Maria täj-je-ya-qui-’ cas=mọ’ Maria(F) touch-CLF-EPEN-REFL.POSS-F.S knee(M)=her

‘Mariai touched heri/*j knee.’ Here instead of object agreement with the possessor, the verb only

exhibits subject agreement, despite being semantically transitive.

33/43

Possessors are internal in the reflexive PIPC

(Without repeating) some of the same tests that we used to show that the possessor is internal in the disjoint PIPC also apply to the possessor in the reflexive PIPC.

Some of the tests (like passivization) don’t work because of the semantics of the reflexive construction.

34/43

Reflexive constructions in Kannada

Other languages like Kannada also exhibit this kind of ‘reflexive-possessive’ construction, but significantly it is not marked in a different way from ‘true’ reflexives:

(26) a. avan-u tann-annu hoDe-du-koND-a he-NOM self-ACC hit-PP-REFL.PST-3SG.M

‘He hit himself.’

b. hari-yu tann-a angiy-annu hari-du-koND-a hari-NOM self-GEN shirt-ACC tear-PP-REFL.PST-3SG.M

‘Harii tore hisi shirt.’ (Lidz 1996: 18-20)

35/43

Reflexives and reflexive-possessives in Chimane

Unlike Kannada, true reflexives and reflexive-possessives in Chimane are marked differently, suggesting they do not constitute the same process:

(27) a. Maria ĉat-ji-ti-’ (ĉụi’). Maria(F) hit-CLF-REFL-F.S self

‘Maria hit herself.’

b. Maria ĉat-je-ya-qui-’ (ĉụi’-tyi’) vojity(=mọ’) Maria(F) hit-CLF-EPEN-REFL.POSS-F.S self-M brother(M)=her

‘Mariai hit heri brother.’

36/43

Potential analysis: external causer

In his analysis of Kannada, Lidz shows that the use of the reflexive-possessive construction indicates that the event has an external causer:

(28) a. raaju tann-a angiy-annu hari-d-a raaju-NOM self-GEN shirt-ACC tear-PST-3SG.M

‘Raajui tore hisi shirt.’ (no external causer)

b. raaju tann-a angiy-annu hari-du-koND-a raaju-NOM self-GEN shirt-ACC tear-PST.PTCP-REFL.PST-3SG.M

‘Raajui got hisi shirt torn.’ (external causer of event)

(Lidz 1996: 25-26)

37/43

No external causer in Chimane reflexive PIPC

There is no evidence that an external causer of the event is implied by the reflexive PIPC in Chimane.

In fact, the reflexive-possessive can combine with a causative, and the causer in such constructions is clearly the subject-possessor referent and not an external causer:

(29) Ji’-tsạ-ya-qui-’ ca vämtyi’. CAUS-be.awake-CLF-REFL.POSS-F.S HRSY husband(M)

‘Shei woke up heri husband.’

*‘Shei got heri husband woken up (by someone).’

38/43

Proposed analysis of reflexive PIPC

In the same spirit as the analysis of the disjoint PIPC, the most plausible analysis of the reflexive construction is that the argument structure of the predicate is different from the default.

In the disjoint construction, the clause-level representation of the internal possessor was promoted to primary object status, and the possessive phrase was demoted to secondary object.

Here there is no object agreement, so it is very likely that there is no primary object.

However, the possessive phrase seems to function in the same way as it does in the disjoint construction (it is still ‘object-like’).

It is therefore analysed here as being demoted to secondary object status here as well.

39/43

Reflexive PIPC

(30) Maria ĉat-je-ya-qui-’ ĉụi’-tyi’ vojity=mọ’. Maria(F)i hit-CLF-EPEN-REFL.POSS-F.S selfi-M brother(M)=heri

‘Mariai hit heri brother.’

40/43

Summary

Prominent possessors require much closer consideration as the syntactic mechanisms by which they participate in clausal syntax are not clear.

The occurrence of a doubling pronoun which matches the features of the internal possessor in the disjoint PIPC suggests an analysis which requires the postulation of a (potentially phonologically null) coindexed representation of the internal possessor in the clause.

This is similar to ‘mediated locality’-type analyses of long-distance agreement in other languages (cf. Polinsky 2003).

The lack of object agreement in the reflexive PIPC indicates that the phrase headed by the possessed nominal is demoted to secondary object status.

41/43

Further research

Specifically on the analysis of Chimane:

It is not clear what is the anaphoric binding domain of the negative constraint which specifies that the agreeing possessor is disjoint in reference from the subject in the disjoint construction. Further data is required to test this.

PIPCs featuring applicatives also occur in other languages, including Chol (Vázquez Álvarez 2011), Mi’gmaq (Hamilton to appear) and possibly also Oluta Popoluca (Zavala 1999).

However, evidence is scarce and it is not clear whether these are really PIPCs or EPCs (or something else).

Very few examples of reflexive PIPCs, but one possible case attested in the literature is found in Siouan (Mithun 2001).

42/43

Thanks

The UK Arts and Humanties Research Council grants for PhD research (grant no. AH/J500410/1) and the ‘Prominent Possessors’ project (grant no. AH/M010708/1, Principal Investigator Irina Nikolaeva).

Chimane consultants in Bolivia: Benjamin Caity, Cupertino Caity, Santa Caity, Berthi Cayuba, Leonilda Plata, Dino Nate and Manuel Roca.

Comments, help, suggestions: Irina Nikolaeva, Oliver Bond, Greville Corbett, Lutz Marten, Teresa Poeta, Charlotte Hemmings, the HeadLex 2016 and LAGB 2016 abstract reviewers.

43/43

References Dixon, Robert M. W. 2000. “Categories of the Noun Phrase in Jarawara.” Journal of Linguistics 36 (3):

487–510.

Hamilton, Michael D. to appear. “Ditransitives and Possessor Raising in Mi’gmaq.” In Papers of the Algonquian Conference 46.

Lidz, Jeffrey L. 1996. “Dimensions of Reflexivity.” Doctoral thesis, University of Delaware.

Mithun, Marianne. 2001. “The Difference a Category Makes in the Expression of Possession and Inalienability.” In Dimensions of Possession, edited by Irène Baron, Michael Herslund, and Finn Sørensen, 285–310. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Polinsky, Maria. 2003. “Non-Canonical Agreement Is Canonical.” Transactions of the Philological Society 101 (2): 279–312.

Shklovsky, Kirill. 2012. “Tseltal Clause Structure.” Doctoral thesis, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús. 2011. “A Grammar of Chol, a Mayan Language.” Doctoral thesis, Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.

Zavala, Roberto. 1999. “External Possessor in Oluta Popoluca (Mixean): Applicatives and Incorporation of Relational Terms.” In External Possession, edited by Doris L. Payne and Immanuel Barshi, 339–72. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

44/43

Passive disjoint PIPC in Chimane

(31) Maria-ty vojity=mọ’ ja’-ĉat-bu-ti-’ (Juan). Maria(F)-M brother(M)=her PASS-hit-APPL-PASS-F.S Juan(M) ‘Maria’s brother was hit (by Juan).’