Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1
1
Grammatical Functions and
Alignment (contd.)
1. Grammatical Functions – Revision
S: Subject of an intransitive construction
A: Subject of a transitive construction
P: Object of a transitive construction
We are examining how these three grammatical functions are grouped in
the world’s languages. In particular, we examined both case (morphology
on the NP) and verb agreement (morphology within the verb).
If any of S, A, and P are differentiated at all, the most common system is for
A and S to pattern together, and differently to P. This type of pattern is
called Nominative/Accusative. By convention, the S/A grammatical
functions take nominative case and the P function takes accusative case:
He sleeps
pro.3.sg.m.nom sleep.3.sg.pres
He saw him.
pro.3.sg.m.nom see.pst pro.3.sg.m.acc
Another type of patterning patterns S and P against A. This type of
patterning is called ergative/absolutive. This type of patterning is less
common than nominative/accusative.
There are other possibilities:
Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1
2
A vs. S vs. P: all different – called tripartite (rare)
A,P vs. S: extremely rare
A=S=P: all unmarked (or marked the same way) – neutral
Another system we saw is where the S is sometimes marked like an A, and
sometimes marked like a P depending on the type of action described. For
example: Eastern Pomo (SW USA):
wi ceexelka
1sgSP slip/slide
‘I’m slipping’ (accidentally)
haa ceexelka
1sgSA slip/slide
‘I’m sliding’
These types of systems are called Split-S systems or active/stative systems.
Typically, the S is divided into actor/undergoer roles. If the S is an actor
(‘doing’ barking, jumping etc.), then it gets marked like an A, if it is an
undergoer (undergoing growing, sneezing etc.) then it gets marked like a P.
After that we examined these different patterns of marking, we considered
their typological generalities. For example, ergative languages typically
have a split whereby some features of the languages (pronouns for
example) are marked using nom/acc patterning, and others (common
nouns) are marked using erg/abs.
Split Ergativity Example: Dyirbal
a. Ngaja balan jugumbil baninyu.
1sg the woman came
S S Vi
‘I, the woman, came.’
Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1
3
b. Ngayguna balan jugumbil balgan.
1sg the woman hit
P P Vt
‘[Someone] hit me, the woman.’
c. Ngaja banggun jugumbiru bayi yara balgan.
1sg the woman the man hit
A A P Vt
‘I, the woman, hit the man.’
Note: For the pronouns, Ngaja – “I” is used for S and A while Ngayguna – “me” is
used for P. This is an accusative system of marking:
Ngaja.1sg.nom, Ngayguna.1sg.acc
In contrast, for the nouns, jugumbiru – “woman” is used for A, but jugumbil is used
for S and P. This is an ergative system of marking:
jugumbil (ABS), jugumbiru (ERG).
Typologically, there is a pattern for where the split occurs. Silverstein came
up with the following hierarchy:
1&2 prons > 3 prons > prop. names & kin terms > human CNs > animate CNs > inanimate CNs
NOMINATIVE-ACCUSATIVE -> <- ERGATIVE-ABSOLUTIVE This hierarchy ranks different NP's according to the type of nominal they represent (pronoun, proper name etc) and animacy. Silverstein found that erg. languages tend to have a split somewhere on this hierarchy, using a nominative/accusative pattern of case/verbal marking on the left side of the hierarchy, and an ergative/absolutive pattern of case/verbal marking on the right side. Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 4 Aside: Navajo (see Lexical Functional Syntax, 2001, Bresnan, pg 161-171) As mentioned earlier, this animacy hierarchy occurs in all sorts of languages with different sorts of functions. Navajo for example makes use of the following hierarchy: humans > animals > insects > natural forces > plants, inanimate objects > abstract notions
Entities which are equally placed on the hierarchy can do things to each
other:
at’ééd ashkii yiyiiłtsá ashkii at’ééd yiyiiłtsá
girl boy 3o-3sgs-saw boy girl 3o-3sgs-saw
“The girl saw the boy” “The boy saw the girl”
However, entities which are lower down on the hierarchy cannot do things
to entities higher up on the hierarchy using the same construction.
Consider:
‘ashkii tsé yiztał *dzaanééz ‘ashkii yiztał
boy stone 3o-3sgs-kicked mule boy 3o-3sgs-kicked
“The boy kicked the stone” *“The mule kicked the boy”
For situations where something lower on the animacy hierarchy does
something to something higher, an alternative construction must be used:
‘ashkii dzaanééz biztał
boy mule 3o-3sgs-kicked
“The boy, the mule kicked him”
Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1
5
Case Marking Cont…
We saw the following generalisations:
Case Core Grammatical
Functions
Form of Marking
Nominative S,A usually Ø or relatively less marked
Accusative P always some positive form of
marking e.g. suffix
Absolutive S,P usually Ø or relatively less marked
Ergative A always some positive form of
marking e.g. suffix
Split Ergative Languages
In many languages, the split between nominative and ergative patterns is
not neat. We see nom/acc at one end of the animacy hierarchy , erg/abs at
the other and then an area in between where either nothing is marked for
case, or S, A and P are all marked differently.
For example, in Dyirbal, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are marked with a
nominative/accusative case marking pattern, common nouns and below
are marked with an ergative/absolutive case marking pattern, but proper
nouns, kin terms and 3rd person pronouns (where present) have tripartite
case marking.
Different Approaches to Understanding these Splits.
One approach to understanding these split ergative languages is to treat
them as having two (or possibly three) separate case marking systems.
These possibilities can be represented diagrammatically. For example:
Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1
6
(1)
1&2 prons > 3 prons > prop. names & kin terms > human CNs > animate CNs > inanimate CNs
———————————————–>|<------------------------------------------ nom/acc erg/abs (2) 1&2 prons > 3 prons > prop. names & kin terms > human CNs > animate CNs > inanimate CNs
—————–>| |<----------------------------------- nom/acc no marking erg/abs (3) 1&2 prons > 3 prons > prop. names & kin terms > human CNs > animate CNs > inanimate CNs
—————————————–>|
|<------------------------------------------------------------ nom/acc tripartite marking erg/abs An alternative analysis was put forward by Cliff Goddard in the early 80's. Under his analysis, there is a distinction between a case system and case form. Consider the Polish data below: Masculine Feminine Neuter Animate Inanimate Nominative syn kot dom bab-a lat-o Accusative syn-a kot-a dom bab-e lat-o son cat house woman summer Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 7 Goddard identified three core grammatical functions for Polish associated with the following case names: S: nominative case A: ergative case P: accusative case Feminine nouns and masculine animate nouns in Polish have distinct forms for S/A versus P. As such it can be analysed as having a nominative/accusative pattern of case marking. However, in the masculine inanimate and neuter nouns, there is no distinction between the nominative and accusative forms of the nouns – that is to say it has a neutral case marking system here. There are two approaches: (i) we could analyze Polish as being a nom/acc language for feminine and animate masculine nouns, and a neutral case marking language for neuter and masculine inanimate nouns; or (ii) we could follow Goddard's approach which is to say the pattern of case marking is nom/acc, but that for neuter and masculine inanimate nouns, this case marking is homophonous or syncretic. We will remain agnostic as to which theory to follow. In your tutes, you will be required to determine what sets of case/verb agreement are present, and then determine what patterns of case marking are used. Ergativity and Syntax So far, we have examined these patterns of case and verb agreement purely from a morphological point of view – but can this split have an effect on the syntax? First then, what syntactic process can we use as a test to determine whether a language syntactically treats S and A differently from P. Let’s Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 8 examine coordination in English: The woman tickled the man The woman laughed A Vt P S Vi Note that when these sentences are coordinated, the subject of the second clause can be left out: The woman tickled the man and (...) laughed A Vt P (S) Vi Semantically, it is reasonable for either participant to be laughing, but in fact this sentence can only be interpreted as being the woman who laughs. That is, the missing S has been linked to the A. The converse where a missing A can be linked to an S is also possible: The woman laughed and (...) tickled the man S Vi (A) Vt P However, neither S nor A can ever be linked to a P in this way: The woman patted the cat and (...) meowed S cannot link to P The cat meowed and the woman stroked (...) P cannot link A or S English has nominative/accusative syntax, where S and A are being treated in a way different to P. What about a language like Dyirbal which has ergative/absolutive morphology for common nouns: Dyirbal (1) a. Balan jugumbil banggul yaranggu balgan. ABS woman.ABS ERG man.ERG hit P A Vt ‘The man hit the woman.’ Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 9 b. Bayi yara baninyu. ABS man.ABS came_here S Vi ‘The man came here.’ c. Balan jugumbil baninyu ABS woman.ABS came_here S Vi ‘The woman came here.’ d. Balan jugumbil banggul yaranggu balgan, [...] baninyu. ABS woman.ABS ERG man.ERG hit came_here P A Vt [S] Vi ‘The man hit the woman, and [the woman] came here’ [S=P] (2) a. Ngaja nginuna balgan. 1sg.NOM 2sg.ACC hit A P Vt ‘I hit you.’ b. Ngaja baninyu. 1sg.NOM came_here S Vi ‘I came here.’ c. Nginda baninyu. 2sg.NOM came_here S Vi ‘You came here.’ Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 10 d. Ngaja nginuna balgan, baninyu. 1sg.NOM 2sg.ACC hit [...] came_here A P Vt [S] Vi ‘I hit you, and you/*I came here’ [S=P] (3) a. Ngaja miyandanyu 1sg.NOM laughed S Vi ‘I laughed.’ b. Ngaja jugumbil bundun 1sg.NOM woman.ABS slap A P Vt ‘I slapped the woman.’ c. Ngaja miyandanyu [...] jugumbil bundun 1sg.NOM laughed [A] woman.ABS slap ‘I laughed and [someone (not me)] hit the woman’ [A cannot link to S] Note that imperatives still pattern using nom/acc: (4) a. (Nginda) bani. 2sgNOM come_here_IMP ‘Come here!’ S can be optionally omitted b. (Nginda) bayi yara balga 2sgNOM manABS hit (A) P Vt ‘Hit the man!’ A can be optionally omitted So, in Dyirbal, despite having split ergative morphology, syntactically with respect to gapping, it acts (mainly) as an ergative language. Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 11 How do we identify the grammatical functions in a language? ● Use the notions S,A,P to begin your analysis. All languages have two basic kinds of constructions: intransitive, definitionally with one NP argument [=S], and transitive, definitionally with two NP arguments [=A,P]. Start by seeing how these arguments are marked. ● You may find that all S’s, A’s and P’s are consistently marked, in which case all you have to do is figure out what kind of marking pattern they have (see below). ● Alternatively, they may not be consistently marked, in which case you need to work a bit harder to sort out the patterns (e.g. there may be a split ergative system). ● Above all, be true to the data! Don’t try and fit a language into a pattern just for the sake of neatness: if all else fails, simply describe what you observe (the forms, their distribution, and their functions). Yidiny (1) a. Waguuja manggaany man laughed S Vi “The man laughed. ” b. Bunyaang waguuja bunjaany woman man slapped A P Vt “The woman slapped the man. ” c. Waguuja manggaany bunyaang [...] bunjaany man laughed woman slapped “The man laughed and the woman slapped [him]. ” d. Bunyaang waguuja bunjaany [...] manggaany woman man slap laughed “The woman slapped the man, and [he] laughed.” [unambiguous] (2) a. Ngayu manggaany I laughed. b. Ngayu bunya bunjaany I woman slapped “I slapped the woman. ” Syntax – Week 8, Lecture 1 12 c. Ngayu manggaany [...] bunya bunjaany I laughed woman slapped “I laughed and [I] slapped the woman” d. Ngayu bunya bunjaany [...] manggaany I woman slapped laughed I slapped the woman, and [I/the woman] laughed. [ambiguous] What would you predict in Yidiny for: “The woman slapped me and [...] laughed”