1 / 32

Possession in North Saami : Rich Morphology in Competition with an Analytic Construction

Possession in North Saami : Rich Morphology in Competition with an Analytic Construction. Laura A. Janda Lene Antonsen. WALS Feature 57a: Possessive affixes. North Saami. An ongoing language change : NPx is being replaced by Refl.

tasha-chase
Download Presentation

Possession in North Saami : Rich Morphology in Competition with an Analytic Construction

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. Possession in North Saami: Rich Morphology in Competition with an Analytic Construction Laura A. Janda Lene Antonsen

  2. WALS Feature 57a: Possessive affixes North Saami

  3. An ongoinglanguagechange:NPx is beingreplaced by Refl These two examples were found only a few pages apart in KirstiPaltto’s novel Ája NPx(possessive suffix with HIGH morphological complexity): Sonmanailatnjasis.3s.nomgo.ind.pret.3sroom.ill.sg.px.3s ‘He went into his room and lay down on the bed.’ Refl(analytic construction with reflexive genitive pronoun): son... gavccuiloktiiiežaslatnjii... 3s.nomclimb.ind.pret.3supstairs.ill.sgrefl.gen.3s room.ill.sg‘she.. climbed upstairs intoher room...’

  4. Research questions • Is languagechangealwaysmotivated by socialvaluealone, or canthere be inherent fitnessvalues? Cf. Blythe & Croft (2012) “S-curves and themechanismsofpropagation in languagechange” • Is morphologicalcomplexitydisadvantaged in a contextoflanguagecontact? • Whathappens to theresidueof a languagechange? • Whatkindsofthingsarereallyinalienable?

  5. Overview • The S-curve in our data • Inherent syntacticfitness • Inherent semanticfitness • Morphologicalcomplexity in the face of intense contact • A newvocative? • Conclusions

  6. 1. The S-curve in our Data • Literarytexts: 0.53M words, three age groups, twogeographic regions • 2272 examples, full analysis by hand • The New Testament (1998): 136 522 words • 1530examples, full analysis by hand • Newspapers: 10M words from threenewspapers (1997-2011) • 29964examples of words with frequency ≥5, partialautomaticanalysis, a lot ofcleaning by hand • Total: 33633 examples

  7. See examplesillustrating Reference, Possessum Case, and Possessor Case onthehandout Tagging OnlyAnaphoric and Endophoricare used in statisticalanalysis • Construction (PossCon): NPx, Refl • Reference: Anaphoric, Endophoric, Exophoric, Generic • Possessum (the one that is possessed; PM): • Case: Nom, Acc, Gen, Ill, Com, Loc, Ess • Number: Sg, Pl • Semantic class: Kin, Human, Body... • Possessor (the one that possesses; PR): • Case: Nom/Verb, Acc, Gen, Ill, Loc • Person and number: 1Sg, 2Sg, 3Sg, 1Du, 2Du, 3Du, 1Pl, 2Pl, 3Pl • Semantic class: Human, Animal, Nature... • Source, Generation (Old vs. Mid vs. Young), Geography (East vs. West)

  8. Distribution of possessive constructions

  9. The S-curve:longitudinal data from literarytexts, showingonlyanaphoric and endophoricuse

  10. No evidencethathighfrequencyhelps to retainNPxNews data: Pearson'scorrelation = -0.14, p = 0.0001, 95% confidenceinterval: -0.2 -0.07

  11. All words >100 examples and ≥50% useofNPx in News data

  12. CART-analysis “Classification and regressiontrees and Random forests”: • Optimal sortingof data • Resultssimilar to regression, butappropriate for non-parametric data • Bootstrapping and measurementof variable importance

  13. CART-analysis for Literarytexts + NT(Anaphoric + Endophoric data only) PossCon ~ PMCase + PMClass + PRCase + Author

  14. Variable importance for Literarytexts + NT PossCon ~ Generation + PMClass + PRCase + PMCase + Geography

  15. CART analysis for News PossCon ~ PMCase + PMClass + PRPersNum

  16. Measurementof variable importance for News

  17. Whatthisanalysistellsus • We have an ongoinglanguagechangefollowing an S-curve • The most importantfactorsare: • Case ofpossessum and possessor >> syntacticfitness • Semanticclassofpossessum >> semanticfitness

  18. 2. Inherent syntacticfitness • Case ofpossessum • Case ofpossessor • For case-markingofpossessum and possessor, weseethatReflpredominates in non-prototypicaluses • Replaceability • NPx is alwaysreplaceable, Refl is not Refl has greater inherent syntacticfitness

  19. PossessumCase (Literarytexts + NT data) Refl NPx Acc Gen Loc Ill Com Nom Ess

  20. Possessum Case • Prototypical case for possessum is Accusative • ∼40% of all usesofbothNPx and Refl have Accusative • BothNPx and Reflarerobustlyattested for Genitive, Locative, Illative, and Comitative • Nominative and Essiveareleastprototypical for possessum • Here Refl has a strongadvantage • Refl is robust in all uses, and especiallystrong in non-prototypicaluses

  21. PossessorCase (Literarytexts + NT data)

  22. Possessor Case • Prototypical case for possessor is Nominative/subject-agreement on the finite verb (“Nom/Verb”) • 96% of all NPx and 82% of all Refl uses are Nom/Verb • Refl has strongadvantage in non-prototypicaluses, particularlyLocative and Genitive • Refl is robust in all uses, and especiallystrong in non-prototypicaluses

  23. Replaceability • NPxcan always be replaced by either Refl or null marking of possession or a Genitive pronoun • NPx can be replaced by Refl in exx. (1-12) • NPx can also be replaced by Genitive pronoun or Ø, as in: Máhttájeaddjiii leat stuorit go oahpaheaddjis[OriginalwithNPx] “The disciple is not greater than his teacher” Máhttájeaddjiii leat stuorit go suoahpaheaddji[Genitivepronoun] Máhttájeaddjiii leat stuorit go oahpaheaddji[Ø] • But the converse is not true for Refl, which cannot always be replaced: Muhtodienádjagislea iežassuollemasvuohta. (KP2: 107) “But that spring has its secret.” *Muhtodienádjagislea suollemasvuohtas.

  24. Summary for Syntactic Fitness • Refl is well-representedacross full syntacticspectrum • Refl is predominant in peripheraluses • NPx is alwaysreplaceable • Refl is sometimesirreplaceable • RecallalsothatReflpredominates in Generic Reference (a type ofimpersonalconstruction)

  25. 3. Inherent semanticfitness Distribution acrosssemanticclasses for possessum • NPxfocuseson “corepossession” ofKin, Body, and Property • This focusgrowstighter over time • Refl shows more evendistributionacrosssemanticclasses

  26. Distribution ofNPx vs. Reflacross semanticclasses Old NT Mid Young News

  27. 4. Morphologicalcomplexity in the face of intense contact • NPx is much more morphologicallycomplexthanRefl • North Saami is under intense pressurefrom bothGermanic (Norwegian and Swedish) and Finnish • Many North Saami speakers have reclaimedthelanguage as adults • Language contact and 2nd languagelearnerscan lead to morphologicalsimplification(Trudgill 2002, McWhorter 2007, Bentz & Winter 2013) • In thissituation, theremay be an advantage for themorphologicallysimpler form: Refl

  28. Refl is builtentirelyofotherwiseexistingmorphology Refl = Gen/Accreflexivepronoun + substantive • Gen/Accreflexivepronoun has 9 forms: • Sg1 iežan • Sg2 iežat • Sg3 iežas • Du1 iežame • Du2 iežade • Du3 iežaska • Pl1 iežamet • Pl2 iežadet • Pl3 iežaset A substantive has 10 forms: guoibmi “partner” • NomSgguoibmi • GenSg=AccSgguoimmi • IllSgguoibmái • LocSgguoimmis • ComSg=LocPlguimmiin • NomPlguoimmit • GenPl=AccPlguimmiid • IllPlguimmiide • ComPlguimmiiguin • Ess guoibmin

  29. NPxrequiresa largequantityofuniquemorphology -- See Handout • [N. Saami has 3 types ofsubstantivestems: vowelstems, consonantstems, and contractedstems] • NPxexpandstheparadigmof a substantive from 10 forms to 91 • see 81 additional forms for guoibmi “partner” onhandoutwith forms involvingNPx-uniquemorphologyboldfaced • Therearetwo full setsof 9 possessive suffix forms, onesetattaches aftervowels and oneset attaches afterconsonants (compare Gen/AccSgwithIllSg in handout) • NPxconditionsuniquechanges in case endings: Illsg-i/-ii > -s-/-asa-; LocSg-s/-is > -st-/-isttá-/-istti-; IllPl-ide/-iidda> -idas-/-iiddás- • With NPxcertain case endings have additionalmorphophonemic variants dependingonthe type of stem: LocSg, Com Sg=LocPl, AccPl=GenPl, IllPl • NPxconditionsadditionalmorphophonemicalternation in the stem, e.g. i ∼ á • NPxrequiresinsertionofthepossessive suffixinsidetheComitativePlural ending

  30. 5. A newvocative? • Nominative + possessive suffixmay be evolvinginto a newVocative • In preceedingstatisticsweexcludedExophoric Reference • Nearly all examplesofExophoricuseareNPx, and half ofthosearewhatwecall “ExophoricVocative”: Gula, mánážan. (KP2: 6) mánážan child.dim.nom.sg.px.1s “Listen, oh my (little) child.” • Exophoricvocative: • Always: NPx, Nominative, 1Sg reference • Often: Diminutive, Proper Names • Note thatNomPl+possessivesuffix is extremely rare, restrictedonly to 1Sg reference and address forms • NPxwithNom 1Sg may be leavingtheparadigm to become a derived form ofaddress (cf. Danièl’ 2009, Andersen 2012 onrecentevolutionof a newvocative in Russian)

  31. Conclusions • ReplacementNPx > Refl is ongoinglanguagechangeshaped as S-curve • This change is not easilyexplained by frequency or alienable vs. inalienable • Possiblefactors: • Refl is more flexiblesyntactically • Refl is more flexiblesemantically • Refl is morphologicallysimpler • ParadigmofNPx is undermined by evolutionofnewVocative

More Related