Anne Tammanne.tamm AT unifi.it

University of Florence Research Institute of Linguistics ,Hungarian Academy of

Sciences, Budapest

Semantic roles and cross-categorial case in

UralicInternational Workshop on Semantic

RolesPavia, 19-20 May 2010 - Aula Scarpa

Do verbs instantiate semantic roles?

What is the relationship between semantic roles and grammatical categories such as aspect, evidentiality, or modality?

Questions and puzzles

Semantic role is a relation between a predicate and an argument.

The relationship is encoded by a form with semantic and categorially specified content.

The encoding may be done by case.The category that ”has” case may be a predicate.Many Uralic categories are between nouns and

verbs.These mostly infinitival case forms are arguments

of predicates that are itself predicates.So verbs can instantiate a semantic role, but how?

Reasoning for YES

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’m gonna swim.)

Verb of motion - Goal

Ma olen Pavia-s. I[nom] be-1sg P-inessive‘I am in Pavia.’

Copula - Location

Ma olen uju-mas. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive‘I am off swimming.’(# I am swimming – progressive)

Copula - Location

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.’(# Je viens de nager – I have just swum.)

Verb of motion - Source

Ma ole-n pileti-ta. I[nom] be-1s ticket-abessive‘I don’t have a/the ticket, I am without a/the ticket.’

One example about other relations

Ma ole-n uju-mata. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_abessive‘I have not swum.’

Other relations, abessive, ‘without’

The Uralic languagesThe role of caseCross-categorial caseNon-finites as arguments and as predicates

The transfer of the meaning of semantic roles of non-finites as arguments > TAM categories

The roadmap to the solution

Uralic languages are typically characterized by rich case systems with approximately 10 members, and many have case systems of approximately 15 or 20 cases.

In WALS, 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).

Rich case systems > poor case systems

Languages with 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.

These complexes develop case-related semantics and modal meanings.

Case-marked non-finite verb forms

Attaches to nouns, and in languages with adjective-noun agreement, to adjectives

Attaches to verbsAttaches to verbs with a nominalizing suffix

Attaches to verbs with a nominalizing suffix, forming infinitives and in-between forms

Uralic case is cross-categorial

Verb stems (Udmurt V+abessive)

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

Parts of non-finites (Finnic, the case formants are part of a morpheme of a non-finite verb)

Selkup infinitive marker: V+translative

Cross-categorial case illustrations

1. Nominative s’ik2. Genitive s’ik-len3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn10. Illative s’ik-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Attaches to nouns: an example of the Udmurt case system

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

1. Nominative s’ik2. Genitive s’ik-len3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek myny-tek 9. Inessive s’ik-yn10. Illative s’ik-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolatives’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Udmurt: case on bare stems

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

1. Nominative s’ik myn-on (verb+n+case) 2. Genitive s’ik-len myn-on-len (verb+n+len) 3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-on-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-on-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len 7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-on-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn myn-on-yn10. Illative s’ik-e myn-on-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ myn-on-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolatives’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

1. Nominative s’ik myn-em (verb+m+case)2. Genitive s’ik-len myn-em-len (verb+m+len)3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-em-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-em-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-em-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn myn-em-yn10. Illative s’ik-e myn-em-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) myn-em-ys’12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ myn-em-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Udmurt: case on -m-nominalizations

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

1. Nominative book raamat2. Genitive of a book raamatu3. Partitive (of) a book raamatu-t4. Illative into the book

raamatu-sse5. Inessive in a book raamatu-s6. Elative from (inside) a book

raamatu-st7. Allative onto a book raamatu-le8. Adessive on a book raamatu-l9. Ablative from the book raamatu-lt10. Translative in(to), as a book raamatu-ks11. Terminative until a book raamatu-ni12. Essive as a book raamatu-na13. Abessive without a book

raamatu-ta14. Comitative with a book raamatu-ga

The Estonian case system

productivepartitiveprtcpl-vat-vat-infinitive

productive...-da-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-maIllative of the m-infinitive (supine)

Diachronic statusCase Related form

FormName

Uju-ma, uju-mas, uju-mast instantiate a different category from noun

They are between verbs and nouns, infinitives and nominalizations (action nouns)

They cannot be modified by an adjective, showing case agreement

They cannot be pluralizedBut there are slight changes in the encoding

of the argument NPs

These forms are not nouns

Ta läks koju mütsi-ta ja salli-ta.She went home hat-abe and shawl-abe‘She went home without a hat and a

shawl.’

Ta läks koju mütsi-Ø ja salli-ta.She went home hat-Ø and shawl-abe‘She went home without a hat and a

shawl.’

Suspended affixation with nouns

Ta läks koju jooksmata ja kiirustamata.She went home run-m_abe and hurry-m_abe‘She went home without running and

hurrying.’

*Ta läks koju jooksma-Ø ja kiirustamata.She went home run-m-Ø and hurry-m_abe‘She went home without running and

hurrying.’

Suspended affixation not possible with the m-non-finites

Having the same distribution with certain NPs ‘marked with the same case’ and instantiating the same semantic roles

illative: goal, inessive: location, elative: source

partitive: theme/patientThe semantic role provides the semantic

basis for the shift in the categorial status of the case marker

Nominal properties

‘part-of’ N> event-object isomorphism > aspect marking partitive> epistemic modality > evidentiality

The transfer of incremental theme semantics to TAM categories: partitive

Incremental themesMari sõi pitsat. Mari ate pizza.partitive‘Mary was eating the pizza.’

Mari sõi pitsa. Mari ate pizza.tot‘Mary ate a pizza.’

Affectedness of the incremental theme and the object case

Incremental theme argument totally affected

Incremental theme argument

partially affected

NO PARTITIVE

PARTITIVE

Aspect in generalPerfective --

telic(push x to garage, give x

to Mary)

Imperfective –atelic

(hear, see, believe x, push x to garage, give x to

Mary)

NO PARTITIVE PARTITIVE

The participle becomes an object - auditory evidence is partialMari kuulis teda Mary heard him/her.part

koju tulevat. home come-pers.pres.ptcp.partitive

‘Mary heard him/her come home.’

Visual evidence is not partialMari nägi JüritMary sawJ.part

koju tule-mas. home come-m_inessive‘Mary saw George coming home.’

Evidentiality: indirect hearsay partialMari tule-vat.M.nom come.pers.pres.participle.part

‘Allegedly/reportedly, Mary will come.’

Mari tuleb.M.nom come.3.sg‘Mary will come.’

Evidentiality, epistemic modality and the incrementality of evidence

FULL EVIDENCE

Incomplete EVIDENCE

NO PARTITIVEEVIDENTIAL

PARTITIVEEVIDENTIAL

Conclusion: semantic roles and cross-categorial caseWhen non-finites are case-marked, they can

instantiate semantic roles.This brings about the broadening of the meaning

of the case and the rise of grammatical meanings.The transfer of the meaning of cross-categorial

case from an argument to the predicate or utterance domain retains elements of the meaning of the semantic role.

I presented the parallels in the Source, Location, Goal, and Incremental Theme roles of case marked nouns and non-finites.

I showed how the semantics of the incremental theme role transfers to the categories of aspect, epistemic modality and evidentiality