TAM/ Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic

1. TAM/NegationbyCross-CategorialCaseinUralic ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011 Anne Tamm anne.tamm@unifi.it Central European University

3. The shareinthenumber of speakers Larsson 2005, slide 45

4. Case (typicallyinvolvesdependentNs) • Blake (2001: 1) defines case as an inflectional “system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads.”

5. Cross-CategorialCase (CCC) • caseas a TAM/negation marker • Narrowerfocusinthistalk: • caseas part of non-finites • thepartitive, theabessive, thespatialcases • Estonian

6. Blake (2001):KalawLagawYa • thecomitative—habituality • theablative—yesterdaypast • thelocative—immediatepast • thedative-allative—incompletivity • theergative and theaccusative—completivity

7. Nordlinger& Sadler (2004):PittaPitta • objectsof non-future tense clauses have an accusative marker –nha • objects of future-tense clauses have the morpheme –kuas the accusative marker (Nordlinger and Sadler 2004:611)

8. Aikhenvald(2008):Manambu Aspectmarkedontheverb: OBJ/LOC Wun [de-ke-m] wukemar-e-m I he-lk-obj/loc forget-lk-obj/loc ‘I completely forgot him.’ (Aikhenvald 2008:587)

9. Adelaar and Muysken(2004): Quechua Accusativeinfinitive: Rima-y-taxalayu-ru-n. speak-inf-acc begin-prf-3s ‘He began to speak.’ (Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer [2009: 189])

10. Recapitulation: nominal marking • on V (barestems) • onnominalarguments and verbs, TAM marking function • onnominalarguments, butinthefunction of TAM marking • onnonfinitesthathavereducednominalproperties

11. Number of casesatwals.info

12. An MDS map based on theWALS by Michael Cysouw

14. Richcasesystems • Uraliclanguagesaretypicallycharacterizedbyrichcasesystemswithapproximately 10 members, and manyhavecasesystems of approximately 15 or 20 cases. • Accordingtotheselection of languagesin WALS onthe map onCasebyIggesen(2008), thereare 24 languageswith more than 10 cases. • The followinglanguageshave more than 10 casesin WALS: Awa Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, EpenaPedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt. • Fiveof thoselistedareUralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).

15. Udmurt: negation--abessiveonverbs CASE NOUN VERB: ‘to go’ 1. Nominative s’ik 2. Genitives’ik-len 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-en 8. Abessives’ik-tekmyny-tek 9. Inessives’ik-yn 10. Illative s’ik-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

16. Udmurt:caseonn-nominalizations 1. Nominative s’ikmyn-on(verb+n+case) 2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-on-len(verb+n+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-on-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-on-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-on-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-on-yn 10. Illative s’ik-emyn-on-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’myn-on-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

17. Caseonm-nominalizations 1. Nominative s’ikmyn-em(verb+m+case) 2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-em-len (verb+m+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-em-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-em-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-em-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-em-yn 10. Illative s’ik-emyn-em-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)myn-em-ys’ 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’myn-em-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

18. Finnicaspect--twoobjectcases Marisõipitsa-t. M ate pizza-PARTITIVE ‘Mary waseatingthe pizza.’ Mari sõipitsa. M ate pizza.TOTAL ‘Itwas a pizza that Mary ateup.’

19. FU Sourcecasesablative, elative, partitive, delative, egressive, exessive • Egressive (Veps, Udmurt) marking thebeginning of a movementortime (e.g., beginningfromthe house) • Exessive (Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, Votic, Estonian, etc ) transitionawayfrom a state (froma house) • Delative (Hungarian) denotesmovementfromthesurface (e.g., from (the top of) the house) • Ablative(Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mansi, Vepsian, Votic, etc)denotesmovementawayfromsomething (e.g., awayfromthe house) • Elative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Lule Sámi, Pite Sámi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of the house). • Partitive (Finnic, Sámilanguages) denotes "of, from, out of something" (theidentityconditionwiththesourcematter). • Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

20. Somemanure, too

21. Affectedness of theincrementalthemeand theobjectcase

22. The whole pizza is intheoven!ButGiorgio’saction is incomplete. Giorgiopanipitsa-tahju. G[nom] put-past3s pizza-ptvoven.ill ‘Giorgiois puttingthe pizza intheoven.’

23. Aspectingeneral

24. Hungarian aspectualparticles and goalcases INTO: Rékabe-mentaz épület-be. R INTO-go-3s.pstdefbuilding-INTO ‘Rékaentered the building.’ (”into-went”) ONTO: Ágnesrá-lépetta sajt-ra. A ONTO-step-3s.pstdefcheese-ONTO ‘Agnesstepped on cheese.’ (”on-stepped”)

25. Name Form NMLZform Case Diachronic status Illative of the m-infinitive (supine) -ma -ma -, illative Historical, productive Inessive of the m-infinitive -mas -ma -s, inessive Historical, productive Elative of the m-infinitive -mast -ma -st, elative Historical, productive Allative of the m-infinitive -malle -ma -le, allative Coast dialectal Adessive of the m-infinitive -malla -ma -l(a), adessive Dialectal Ablative of the m-infinitive (-malt) -ma -lt, ablative Dialectal, Finnish-Livonian Translative of the m-infinitive -maks -ma -ks, translative Artificial, productive Abessive of the m-infinitive -mata -ma -ta, abessive Historical, productive Gerundive -des -da -s, inessive Historical, productive Gerundive ... -da instructive Historical -t-infinitive -da -da ... productive -vat-infinitive -vat prtcpl partitive productive

26. Estonian cross-categorial case • illative and elative are linked to situation bounding (and notyetthepossibility of thefutureorthepast) • inessive – theabsentive and the progressive (Tommola 2000, De Groot 2000, Metslang 1994) • abessive– negation (Hamari 2009) • partitive- aspect, epistemic modality and evidentiality (Tamm 2009, Campbell 1991, Aikhenvald 2004, Erelt, Metslang&Pajusalu 2007)

27. Goal: noun Ma lähe-n Hong Kongi I[nom] go-1sg HK.illative ‘I am going to Hong Kong.’

28. Goal: non-finite Ma lähe-n uju-ma. I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative ‘I am going swimming, I am going to swim.’ (# I’mgonnaswim, I willswim.)

29. Location: noun Ma olen Hong Kongi-s. I[nom] be-1sg HK-inessive ‘I am in Hong Kong.’

30. Location: non-finite Ma olenuju-mas. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive ‘I am off swimming.’ (# I am swimming – progressive)

31. Source: noun Ma tule-n Hong Kongi-st. I[nom] come-1s HK-elative ‘I am coming from Hong Kong.’

32. Source: non-finite Ma tule-n uju-mast. I[nom] come-1s swim-m_elative ‘I am coming from swimming.’ (# Jeviens de nager – I havejustswum.)

33. Abessive: negation Ma ole-n programmi-ta. I[nom] be-1sprogram-abessive ‘I don’thave a/the program, I am without a/the program, I lackthe program.’ Ma ole-n registreeri-mata. I[nom] be-1sregister-m_abessive ‘I havenotdonemyregistration.’

34. Abessivenegation: modalconstraints/presuppositions #Kivistvoodi on tege-mata. stone-ela bed[nom] be.3s make-m_abe ‘The stone bed has not been made.’ #Marmorkuju on söö-mata. marble.statue[nom] be.3s eat-m_abe ‘The marble statue has not eaten.’

36. The sharedsemantics of the partitives

37. Is thisjust a snowmanorFatherFrost’sagent of influence? Allegedly, he has askedFather Frost togive 15 degreesbelowzero! ole-va-t be-personalpresentparticiple - partitive

38. Evidentiality Mari ole-vatKGB agent. Mbe-PART.EVIDkgbagent ‘Allegedly/reportedly,Mary is a KGB agent.’ Marion KGB agent. Mbe.3.sKGB agent ‘Mary is a KGB agent.’

39. FinnicVerb-Nominalizer-Case:Diachroniccompositionprocess • V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] • V [[Verb-[NMLZ]-CASE]] • V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] • Verb-[NMLZ-CASE] V (+ nominalizer + nominal marking  non-finiteor TAM verbal marking)

40. Nominal C vs CCC • Systems with CCC paradigms are complemented by rich nominal case paradigms, but the reverse does not hold. • The correspondences display cross-linguistic regularity although there are variations in the CCC inventories (abessive, translative, inessive). • Cases in the paradigms are not identical: e.g., the Finnish abessive appears as a CCC but is infrequent as nominal case. • Some cases (e.g., essive) are associated with various constraints that prevent them from appearing freely with nominalizations.

41. Nominalizationscale • A language may contain CCCs that appear with items that are located at different parts of the nominalization scale. • The degree of nominalization of the base plays a role in the structure of CCC hierarchies and grammaticalization: the abessive may combine with the verb stem, whilemany other cases combine with various nominalizationsin Udmurt. • Since CCCs tend to be related to specific functional domains, they form hierarchies that diverge from the nominal ones (abessive, locativesarehigherupontheimplicationalscale). • If the degree of nominalization of the base verb is higher in a system containing several possibilities on the nominalization scale, then the cross-categorial and nominal case paradigms tend to be more similar. nom acc/erg gen dat loc abl/instother(Blake 2001: 156)

42. CCC, nominalization, TAM+neg • Several generalizations can be established that cover CCCs and infinitival adpositions (e.g., the Indo-European prepositional infinitives). • In a case system with several goal markers, the more frequent ‘infinitives’ are based on theillative (Finnic) or translative (Selkup)instead of theearlierattestedallative. • The fact that abessive and translative (purposive) combine more readily with stems connects with the predictions of the frequency hierarchy established for Romance infinitives ([purposive>abessive> …] Schulte (2007)).

43. CCC, Uralicexamples • CCCs are rarely markers of prototypical predicate categories but have retained much of their nominalcore semantics. • In addition to their idiosyncratic morphosyntactic constraints, CCCs impose semantic and pragmatic constraints on their environment. Thoseconstraintsmay be strikinglysimilarcross-linguistically. • Spatial cases tend to give rise to tense-aspect marking, comitatives to Aktionsart (intensification, habituality), and abessives to negation.

44. Cross-categorialcase • Typicalnominalororiginallynominal marking • appearingonothercategories • orencodinggrammaticalinformationtypicallyassociatedwithpredicates.

45. Completely=ACC, LOC, ERG He-ERGate (onecomplete) pizza-ACC/LOC He ERG/LOC/ACC-atethe pizza He completely-atethe pizza

46. Verb-NMLZ-CASE V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]

47. The bibliographycan be foundat: Tamm, Anne. 2011.Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic non-finite system: focus on the absentive TAM semantics and pragmatics of the Estonian inessive m-formative non-finites. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 49 (4), 835-944.  Proofs: <http://tammacademic.pbworks.com/w/file/41313194/ANNETAMMLinguisticsSubmissiononDate1May2010.pdf> Click HERE for the link to the article.