1 / 13

Tomato bisque

just kidding, it's really more syntax: Tallerman, CH. 6 Relationships within the clause. Tomato bisque. NP relates to VP. 3 ways to show the relationships Constituent (phrase) order (p. 172) ENGL, CHIN Case-Marking LATIN, RUSSIAN AGREEMENT or CROSS-REFERENCE

kuper
Download Presentation

Tomato bisque

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. just kidding, it's really more syntax: Tallerman, CH. 6 Relationships within the clause Tomato bisque

  2. NP relates to VP • 3 ways to show the relationships • Constituent (phrase) order (p. 172) • ENGL, CHIN • Case-Marking • LATIN, RUSSIAN • AGREEMENT or CROSS-REFERENCE • ARABIC or KAMBERA (p. 173)

  3. Unmarked word orders • Potentially, all combinations of S, O, V exist, • SOV and SVO dominate the world ~(85%) • VSO next largest (Arabic, Maori) ~(10%) • VOS rare < 3 % • The two cognitively bizarre orders begin with objects and are found only among a few hundred speakers (Amazon): • OVS and OSV • or as a MARKED order in a language with a different UNMARKED order (p. 174) • German has SVO in Matrix and SOV in subordinate • HEAD-MARKING languages don't usually have overt SUBJ and OBJ, so the word order is • difficult to determine • and mostly irrelevant (p. 175)

  4. 6.3 CASE SYSTEMS • S: for subject, single argument or solo NP of an intransitive clause (valency of 1) • A: for agent (who does the action of the V) • O: for object, (receives action of the V) • NOMINATIVE /ACCUSATIVE system (graphic on p. 178) • Very familiar to us from INDO-EUROP langs. • ERGATIVE/ABSOLUTIVE system. Ergative case is marked on AGENTS. • Absolutive is the contrasting case: • marked on OBJ of transitive verbs • AND: marked on SUBJ of Intransitive verbs • It is this duality that is hard for us to grasp and to recall when needed • See tables on p. 179

  5. Ergativity, by Blakemore(how to make the exotic more logical, if not familiar) • A prototypical transitive image schema can be perceived many ways • Different perspectives lead to different ways of expressing the same image schema • “Georg-ie[ABSO] fell.” • “Georg-ie[ABSO] was pushed.” • “Glori-a[ERG] pushed Georg-ie[ABSO] off the cliff.” • Image schema (don't alter it for the three examples) • Find the subject for each example is it = Agent? Is it always the topic? • Now imagine ENGL is a case-marking language (not hard, if you know about Old English). It would have much more flexible word order. • Now, marking “Georgie” [ABSO] in these examples makes sense.

  6. Accusative Systems (familiar) • Mark Subjects and Objects differently • Agents often assumed to be SUBJ • Transitive and Instransitive VP do not have different case markings (p 179) • Lang.s: SP/ENGL/FR/LAT, JPN, RUS, ARABI • NP may be unmarked, but their modifying DETs and ADJs show case marking (p.180, 16/17) GERMAN

  7. ERGATIVITY, by Tallerman • (S = O) ≠ Agent • Read example (18) p. 180 before continuing • Non-agents (even of their own arriving) don't bear marking. By default, they get ABSO marking, just like patients. (examples 21-23, Basque) • Tallerman has a mnemonic: A-but-SO for absolutive case in an ergative system. (I hate this mnemonic). • Ergative systems not in INDO-EUROP, also not Africa, (incl. Semitic). Found in Australia, Mayan, New Guinea, in approx 25% of world languages. • Make sure you truly understand it (at least by memorizing facts) before moving on to Split Systems. • NOW you can answer questions 4 and 6; at end of Chapter 6.

  8. Split Systems (common in ERG. langs.) • some langs. have both • S = A ≠ O (ACC) and S = O ≠ A (ERG) • in non-overlapping distribution (depends on verb type and its transitivity) • See Dyirbal example (25abc, p.182-183) • Only ACC-patient is marked by morpheme, the S = A is not marked at all. • Full NP are marked with ERG. some PROs with ACC. • This is one of 3 ways lang.s may split • Another way. ASPECT dependent: Verbs may condition ERG-case-marking for completed events marked with PERF aspect and ACC for imperfective or present • A third way: Main and embedded clauses may use different systems • p. 184 6.3.5. Note that most NOM and ERG case marking is assumed by linguists! Unmarked. In C.G. that means it does not exist. • Blakemore: it would be more logical and less cumbersome to abandon the ERG/ACC split terminology and notice that only PATIENTS are marked. 'Nuff said.

  9. More on Relations among phrases (6.5) • SUBJECTS • p.190 of SUBJs' typical properties (every lang. likely to exihibit some subset of them) • If Agent exists, it is likely to be SUBJ • 90% langs. are SVO or SOV, therefore SUBJs tends to appear first in linear order (p. 191) • Imperative verbs have understood SUBJs • this argument invalid for Cognitive Grammar • Reflexive forms agree with SUBJs • In coordinated clauses, elided NPs must refer back to SUBJ not to nearest NP in linear order (we know lots of exceptions to this one) • LANGs that allow promotion (via passive voice, for example) will promote into SUBJ position

  10. SUBJs in EXAMPLE LANGs • p. 192 Icelandic (Iceland) • Unmarkéd (usual) SUBJ are in NOM and show agreement with V • Markéd (Tallerman calls them “quirky” SUBJs) have DAT or ACC case, don't show agreement • but they pass all tests for subjecthood • YOU CAN NOW ANSWER End-of-chapter QUESTION 7 • p. 194 Lezgian (spoken in Russian province of Dagestan & Azerbaijan) • Has ERG, DATA, ABSO cases in all positions. • Tallerman's argument is weak, dependent upon invisible NPs • p. 196 Tagálog (spoken in Phillipines) • TOPIC is always marked; semantic roles also; TOPIC replaces the role marking on its NP • VP then agrees with NP replaced by TOPIC • Although interesting, Tallerman's argument for ACC syntax in Tagalog depends on “understood” NPs (read: invisible)

  11. Language universals? • p. 196 in syntax, the data do not confirm any • even Tallerman admits she can not argue for them without being challenged by unrelated languages (c.f. Croft, 2001)

  12. OBJs in EXAMPLE LANGs • Icelandic (DAT) case for experiencer • VERBS for valency 3 (give, send, show) • DATIVE case often marked for indirects OBJ of these verbs • Generally these 3rd arguments are beneficiary / goal • In ENGL, Ancient Greek and other langs. the label “indirect object” is not justified • bears no special morphology • can be in PP phrase or promoted before direct OBJ (recall 1st ppt) • “Last Christmas, I gave you my heart.” • “Last Christmas, I gave my heart to you.” • p. 200 Walpiri marks only recipient and leaves the ”direct object” bare • p. 201 Tallerman give a C.G. justificiation: theme is non-human and inanimate, whereas recipient is human; ergo more important to listener (human languages are very species-centric). • YOU CAN NOW ANSWER QUESTIONS 2 (Lakhota),3 (Welsh-tricky),5 (Swahili)

  13. “free” word order example LANG. • p. 201-204 Walpiri (very flexible word order is seen also in Latin and Navajo and ASL) • Complex explanation and examples • Most complex system existing: split ERG and NOM/ACC • Words in Consituents (Phrases) may be separated • Worth reading, but not to distraction • YOU CAN NOW ANSWER THE REMAINING End-of Chapter Exercise: # 1

More Related