Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir · Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir Sergey Say...
Transcript of Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir · Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir Sergey Say...
Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir
Sergey Say (Institute for linguistic studies, RAS)
Workshop on Prominent Internal Possessors September 22–23, 2016
SOAS, University of London
Introductory example and goals
2 2
! Bolat-təŋ kös-ö böt-öp eš-tän tuqta-nə B.-GEN strength-P.3 end-CV work-ABL stop-PST ‘Bulat got exhausted and stopped working.’ Lit.: ‘As Bulat’si strength finished, (hei) stopped working’
Research questions In which ways are the clause-combining strategies in
Bashkir sensitive to the same- vs. different-subject distinction?
Under what conditions can possessors trigger same-subject behaviour?
In what ways is this ability related to other properties of possessors in Bashkir?
Outline of the talk
1. The Bashkir language 2. The –p-converb 3. Other clause-combining strategies (overview) 4. Genitival possessors and constituency 5. Conclusions
Outline of the talk
1. The Bashkir language 1.1. The language 1.2. Data and methods 1.3. Possessive constructions in Bashkir 1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir 2. The converb in –p 3. Other clause-combining strategies (overview) 4. Genitival possessors and constituency 5. Discussion
1.1. The language
5 5
Bashkir < Kipchak < Turkic < “ALtaic” Closely related to and sometimes mixed with Tatar Spoken in the republic of Bashkortostan (< Russia) and
some neighboring regions in the Southern Urals Over one million (≈1 400 000) native speakers Most speakers are bilingual with Russian
6 6 http://joshuaproject.net
Raxmetovo
1.1. The language
1.1. The language
7 7
Typological profile flexible SOV consistently head-final phrases pro-drop, 3rd person pronouns are rare (coincide with
demonstrative pronouns) nominative-accusative (both flagging and indexing) 6 cases differential object marking: “marked” vs. “unmarked”
accusative subject-verb agreement (obligatory for 1st & 2nd person
subjects, optional for 3PL subjects)
1.1. The language
8 8
morphological marking is associated with specific syntactic configurations rather than with lexical specifications of individual words (≈ high part-of-speech flexibility in terms of Hengeveld [1992]) most morphological markers are phrasal in scope morphological markers are consistently phrase-final weak differentiation between nouns and adjectives so-called participles (e.g. PC.PST, -ɣan) can be used as adnominal modifiers (no further marking, as in adjectives) heads of complement clauses (marked as nominal objects) finite predicates (person agreement, similar to finite verbs)
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication. Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series, 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
1.2. Data and methods
9 9
Fieldwork May 2016, St. Petersburg, two educated speakers from Ufa August 2016, the village of Raxmetovo, 10 different speakers
Mainly elicitation Translation from and to Russian Grammaticality judgments
Very limited use of natural texts «Machine fund of the Bashkir language» (sic!), corpus-like
collection of literary texts run by IHLL RAS, Ufa (http://mfbl2.ru)
Toolbox-based transcriptions of oral texts that were gathered in and around Raxmetovo in 2011-2015 (74 texts, 3,5 hours, 2000 sentences)
1.2. Data and methods
10 10
Grammaticality judgments are often mixed or indeterminate Throughout this paper grammaticality symbols reflect
averaged speakers’ judgments; 2-7 speakers per sentence symbol description: the sentence in question is… […] taken from a natural text, reference given in square brackets ! consistently judged grammatical by native speakers, at least one
speaker used this structure when translating from Russian OK was constructed by the investigator, but consistently judged
grammatical by native speakers OK? predominantly judged grammatical by native speakers, some doubts /
exceptions ? received mixed judgments and/or some awkwardness was reported ?? predominantly judged ungrammatical by native speakers, some
doubts / exceptions * consistently judged ungrammatical
1.3. Possessive constructions in Bashkir
11 11
1.3.1. Three types of “izafet” constructions 1.3.2. NP-structure: an overview 1.3.3. Genitival (= “izafet III”) NPs: basic facts 1.3.4. External possessors 1.3.5. Clause-level agreement
1.3.1. Three types of “Izafet” constructions
12 12
Label Example Structure
IC I timer köräk-te iron spade-ACC ‘iron spade (acc.)’
No marking
IC II tarix uqətəwsə-hə-n history teacher-P.3-ACC ‘teacher of history (acc.)’
Head-marking
IC III uqətəwsə-nəŋ ata-hə-n teacher-GEN father-P.3-ACC ‘the teacher’s father (acc.)’
Double marking
“Izafet” (sometimes “ezafe”) constructions in Turkic linguistics: constructions with nouns as modifiers in the NP
13 13
Label Example Function
IC I timer köräk-te iron spade-ACC ‘iron spade (acc.)’
Material, some lexicalized uses
IC II tarix uqətəwsə-hə-n history teacher-P.3-ACC ‘teacher of history (acc.)’
Other non-referential “possessors”: function, purpose, quality, etc.
IC III uqətəwsə-nəŋ ata-hə-n teacher-GEN father-P.3-ACC ‘the teacher’s father (acc.)’
Referential possessors, “anchors”: kinship, body-parts, legal ownership, etc.
1.3.1. Three types of “Izafet” constructions
Functions of “Izafet constructions” in Bashkir
In the focus today!
1.3.2. NP-structure: an overview
14 14
NPs are consistently head-final Morphosyntactic locus (e.g. case-marking) is always in the
rightmost position of the NP (1) ! Bolat [ike stakan eθe käzä höt-ö-n] es-te B. two glass hot goat milk-P.3-ACC drink-PST ‘Bulat drank two glasses of hot goat’s milk.’
Typically it is a noun, but can be otherwise head ellipsis, e.g. [red-DAT] ‘to the red one’ elective constructions, e.g.
(2) ! malaj-ðar-ðəŋ bötö-he-nä boy-PL-GEN all-P.3-DAT ‘to all of the boys’
15 15
Linear structure of the NP is relatively rigid:
GEN IC III
DEM INDEF
NUM Q
ADJ
N IC (II)
N (IC I) HEAD
(3) mineŋ I.GEN
ošo this
ike two
matur beautiful
ul-əm son-P.1SG
‘those two beautiful sons of mine’
(4)
eθe hot
käzä goat
höt-ö milk-P.3
‘hot goat milk’
1.3.2. NP-structure: an overview
Word order corresponds to e.g. Rijkhoff’s [2008] layers of the NP [Location [Quantity [Quality [Head ]]]
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1998. Order in the noun phrase in the languages of Europe. In: Siewierska, A. (ed.). 1998. Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-382.
1.3.3. Genitival (Izafet III) NPs: basic facts
16 16
The genitive is always in the leftmost position within the NP Very rarely in texts possessors are detached (afterthought?) (5) təw-ɣan kön-ö bul-də-mə äle Israfil-dəŋ? be.born-PC.PST day-P.3 be-PST-Q yet Israfil-GEN ≈ ‘His birthday has not yet passed, Israfil’s?’ [texts]
If there is a genitival nominal dependent, the head always bears a possessive suffix (the reverse is not true) There are some disturbances with 1st / 2nd person pronominal
possessors, not very relevant today
1.3.3. Genitival (Izafet III) NPs: basic facts
17 17
The genitival construction is used for a wide variety of possessive meanings legal ownership, part-whole, kinship, elective (e.g. ‘some of them’, ‘the best of the pupils’) etc.
1.3.3. Genitival (Izafet III) NPs: basic facts
18 18
Recursion [[[…]NP-GEN N]NP-GEN N]NP is possible and grammatically unlimited
(6) ! beð-ðeŋ mäktä-teŋ / mäktäb-ebeð-ðeŋ direktor-ə-nəŋ aɣa-hə we-GEN school-GEN school-P.1PL-GEN director-P.3-GEN brother-P.3 ‘our school’s director’s elder brother’ Notice optionality of possessive agreement with the 1st person
pronominal possessor
Stacking of possessors: mixed judgments, especially if there is a person clash
(7) mineŋ Öföneŋ OK?karta-hə-n / OK?karta-m-də hin kür-mä-ne-ŋ-me? I.GEN Ufa-GEN map-P.3-ACC / map-P.1SG-ACC thou see-NEG-PST-2SG-Q ‘Have not you seen my map of Ufa?’
For a detailed discussion of constituency, see Section 4.
1.3.4. External possessors
19 19
Possessive constructions apart from the three “izafet constructions” are used very rarely
The closest Bashkir gets to external possessor constructions: agentive verbs of contact possessor in a lexically subcategorized position body-part in a peripheral adjunct-like position
(8b) ! min [besäj-ðe] [arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back -P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’ These structures meet only a subset of the defining criteria of
external possessive constructions from [König 2001: 971] Cf. “possessor splitting” in [Podlesskaya & Rakhilina 1999]
König E. 2001. Internal and External Possessors. Haspelmath M. et al. (eds.). Language typology and language universals: an international handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin; New York. P. 370–379. Podlesskaya V. I., Rakhilina E. V. 1999. External Possession, Reflexivization and Body Parts in Russian. Payne D. L., Barshi I. (eds.). External possession. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. P. 505–522.
1.3.4. External possessors
20 20
Further complications with “external possessors” Apart from a NP-external possessor in the verb-argument
slot, possessor is also expressed NP-internally by the suffix: (8b) ! min [besäj-ðe ] [ arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back-P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’
1.3.4. External possessors
21 21
Further complications with “external possessors” Apart from a NP-external possessor in the verb-argument
slot, possessor is also expressed NP-internally by the suffix: (8b) ! min [besäj-ðei] [∅-GENi arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back-P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’
1.3.4. External possessors
22 22
Further complications with “external possessors” Structures of this kind typically co-exist with two other options, e.g.
with həjpa- ‘stroke’
possessor body-part interpretation GEN ACC internal possessor ACC ABL external (+ internal) possessor GEN ABL “peripheral possessee construction” [Kholodilova 2009]
Kholodilova, M.A. 2009. Konstrukcii s periferijnym obladaemym v kalmyckom jazyke. Acta Linguistica
Petropolitana, V, 2. 76-93.
1.3.4. External possessors
23 23
The usual internal possessor construction: (8a) ! min [besäj-ðeŋ arqa-he-n] həjpa-nə-m I cat-GEN back-P.3-ACC stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’ External possessor construction (?) (8b) ! min [besäj-ðe] [arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-ACC back -P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’ Peripheral possessee construction (?) (8c) ! min [besäj-ðeŋ arqa-he-nan] həjpa-nə-m I cat-GEN back -P.3-ABL stroke-PST-1SG ‘I stroked the cat’s back’ / ‘I stroked the cat down her back’
Kholodilova, M.A. 2009. Konstrukcii s periferijnym obladaemym v kalmyckom jazyke. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, V, 2. 76-93.
1.3.4. External possessors
24 24
Further complications with “external possessors” Structures of this kind typically co-exist with two other options, e.g.
with həjpa- ‘stroke’
possessor body-part interpretation GEN ACC internal possessor ACC ABL external (+ internal) possessor GEN ABL “peripheral possessee construction” [Kholodilova 2009]
It is thus unclear whether the peripheral position of the possessed nominal is triggered by the “promotion” of the possessor
Kholodilova, M.A. 2009. Konstrukcii s periferijnym obladaemym v kalmyckom jazyke. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, V, 2. 76-93.
1.3.5. Clause-level agreement
25 25
Clause-level agreement can only be triggered by nominative subjects
Possessors are never relevant for clause-level agreement
1.3.5. Clause-level agreement
26 26
Plural markers in possessive NP heads often create ambiguity
(9a) ular-ðəŋ bala-hə they-GEN child-P.3 ‘their child’ / * ‘their children’ (9b) ular-ðəŋ bala-lar-ə they-GEN child-PL-P.3 ‘their child’ / ‘their children’ Plurality of possessors can lead to plural marking of the NP’s
head, but not clause-level agreement (9c) ular-ðəŋ bala-lar-ə ös-önsö klass-ta uqə-j-ðar they-GEN child-PL-P.3 three-ORD class-LOC study-PRS-PL ‘Their children are in the third year’ / # ‘Their child is in the third year’
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
27 27
Embedding is very rare The main clause in a clause-combining chain is typically
sentence-final Conjunctions are used infrequently; the only non-borrowed
conjunction-like elements are grammaticalised non-finite forms of the verb of speech, tip [say.CV] and tigän [say.PC.PST]
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
28 28
non-finite, no conjunction
finite + tip [say.CV]
finite, no conjunction
relative clauses caseless participles
− −
complement clauses
case-marked participles
− −
adverbial clauses
converbs + +
narrative tense-iconic chains
converbs − +
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
29 29 Relevant for further discussion
non-finite, no conjunction
finite + tip [say.CV]
finite, no conjunction
relative clauses caseless participles
− −
complement clauses
case-marked participles
− −
adverbial clauses
converbs + +
narrative tense-iconic chains
converbs − +
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
30 30
Most converbs can be used with or without an overt nominative subject (see 3.3 for an exception)
Most converbs can be used in both same-subject and different-subject configurations
(10) unda higeð-ense klass-qa jet-känse uqə-nə-q that.LOC eight-ORD class-DAT reach-CV.TERM study-PST-1PL ‘We studied there until (we) reached the eighth year’ [110710_aga_ss_Uchjoba.004]
(11) milicija kil-gänse , ular police come-CV.TERM they üð-ðär-e-neŋ ɣäjeb-e-n tanə-nə-lar self-PL-P.3-GEN fault-P.3-ACC know-PST-PL ‘They (=the burglars) acknowledged their fault before the police came’ [130715_bbm_EV_txtBA_KrazhaVMagazine.026]
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
31 31
With both finite and most types of non-finite dependent clauses there is a tendency: non-identical subjects are overtly expressed in each clause identical subjects are expressed only once, typically in the
beginning of the first clause
(12a) ! Zöxrä qajt-qan-da Bulat qəwan-də Zuxra come-PC.PST-LOC Bulat rejoice-PST ‘Bulat was glad when Zuxra returned’ S1 … V1 … S2 … V2: different-subject
(12b) OK Bulat xat-tə uqə-ɣan-da qəwan-də Bulat letter-ACC read-PC.PST-LOC rejoice-PST ‘Bulat was glad when he read the letter’ S1 … V1 … V2: same-subject
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
32 32
However, this tendency is not a strict rule of grammar (“Equi”) Rather, it is a common discourse-oriented reference-tracking
device, which can be violated in both directions: lack of overt subjects in DS-configurations (more rarely) redundant pronouns in SS-configurations
1.4. Clause-combining in Bashkir
33 33
{A soldier from among the enemies was harassing Jamila, and she plotted a revenge. She invited him for a walk along the river}. (13) Aɣiðel-deŋ iŋ tärän jer-e-nä jet-käs, Agidel-GEN most deep earth-P.3-DAT reach-CV.ANT tege haldat-tə =la höjrä-p, üð-e =lä that soldier-ACC =also drag-CV self-P.3 =also iŋ tärän jer-gä tašla-n-a, ül-ä-lär most deep earth-DAT throw-REFL-PRS die-PRS-PL ‘When she? / they? reach the deepest part of (the river of ) Agidel, she drags the soldier and throws herself into this deepest part, (so that) they (both) die’ [150716_aamB_SS_KA_OmutJamili.006-007]
2. The –p-converb
34 34
By definition, this converb cannot be used as the head of an independent clause
The most frequent type of converb Multifunctional Uniformly interlinearized as –CV
2. The –p-converb
35 35
2.1. Types of use 2.2. Quasi-coordination 2.3. Same-subject constraint 2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb 2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
2.1. The –p-converb: types of use
36 36
A. As part of “complex verbs” (a.k.a. “quasi auxiliary constructions”, “clause union”, “serial verb construcions” etc.) A close set of verbs that can be used as finite heads Linear inseparability Express aspectual, modal or spatial meanings A unitary argument structure (14) ikmäg-e-n täðrä-gä ultər-əp quj-ɣan =da, bread-P.3-ACC window-DAT sit-CV put-PC.PST also üð-e səɣ-əp kit-kän self-P.3 go.out-CV go.away-PC.PST ‘(She) placed the leavened dough on the window sill, and then she went away’ [140709_izg_MO_Kolobok.004]
Different- vs. same-subjectness is irrelevant
2.1. The –p-converb: types of use
37 37
B. As part of concessive constructions The converb is followed by the multifunctional clitic –la
(interlinearized as ‘also’) There is no tendency towards same-subjectness (15) ! Bulat kil-ep =ta kür-mä-ne -m Bulat come-CV also see-NEG-PST-1SG ‘Although Bulat came, I did not see him’
2.1. The –p-converb: types of use
38 38
C. Quasi-coordination Clearly biclausal Elusive meaning (many usage types in traditional grammars) temporal sequence manner of action causal coordination-like
(16) ! at-ə soqor-ɣa qola-p töš-öp ajaɣ-ə-n hən-dər-ðə horse-P.3 pit-DAT fall-CV descend-CV foot-P.3-ACC break-CAUS-PST ‘The horse fell into a pit and broke a leg’ / ‘When the horse fell into a pit, it broke a leg’ / ‘The horse broke a leg, because it fell into a pit’
Relative temporal interpretation depends on the actionality of the verbs involved, but tense-iconicity is prevalent
2.1. The –p-converb: types of use
39 39
C. Quasi-coordination Clearly biclausal Elusive meaning (many usage types in traditional grammars) temporal sequence manner of action causal coordination-like
(16) ! at-ə soqor-ɣa qola-p töš-öp ajaɣ-ə-n hən-dər-ðə horse-P.3 pit-DAT fall-CV descend-CV foot-P.3-ACC break-CAUS-PST ‘The horse fell into a pit and broke a leg’ / ‘When the horse fell into a pit, it broke a leg’ / ‘The horse broke a leg, because it fell into a pit’
Relative temporal interpretation depends on the actionality of the verbs involved, but tense-iconicity is prevalent
Relevant for further discussion
2.2. The –p-converb: quasi-coordination
40 40
Conjunct illocutionary force: the clause headed by the –p-converb falls under the scope of the illocutionary operators in the finite clause
(17) OK klass-tan səɣ-əp išek-te jap-hən class-ABL go.out-CV door-ACC close-JUSS ‘Let him go out of the classroom and close the door’ This property has been reported for the cognate converb in
the closely related Mishar Tatar [Pazelskaja, Shluinskij 2004] This is not possible for classical subordinate clauses, cf.: (18) OK klass-tan səq-qan-da išek-te jap-hən class-ABL go.out-PC.PST-LOC door-ACC close-JUSS ‘Let him close the door after he goes out of the classroom’
Pazelskaja, A.G., Shluinskij A.B. 2004. Obstojatel’stvennye predlozhenija. In: E.A. Ljutikova et al. (eds.) Miasharskij dialekt tatarskogo jazyka. Kazan.: Magarif. 38-82.
2.2. The –p-converb: quasi-coordination
41 41
Extraction for e.g. relativization or questioning is possible, i.e. no “island constraints”
(19) OK [qojma aša töš-öp järäxätlän-ep fence through descend-CV wound-CV quj-ɣan] barmaɣ-əm jünäl-mä-j put-PC.PST finger-P.1SG fix-NEG-PRS ‘My finger that got hurt when I was climbing over the fence is not healing up’. (Cf. # ‘My fingeri that [I was climbing over the fence and ti got hurt] is not healing up’) Clear cases of embedding are rare, but attested
=> These two properties are typical of subordination
2.2. The –p-converb: quasi-coordination
42 42
Mixed co- and subordination behaviour Cf. “cosubordination” [Foley & Van Valin 1984] and other
attempts to avoid a strict coordination vs. subordination dichotomy, from the prototypical approach in [Haiman & Thompson 1984] to multivariate analysis in [Bickel 2009]
Foley, W. & R.D.Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, J. & S.A.Thompson. 1984. “Subordination” in universal grammar’. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistic Society. 510–23. Bickel, B. 2009. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: a multivariate analysis. In: Bril, I. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy : Syntax and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51-102.
2.3. The –p-converb: same-subject constraint
43 43
In the vast majority of cases, clauses headed by the –p-converb are attested in same-subject configurations
In these cases, the subject is overtly expressed only once (or not at all)
It is not entirely clear whether the overt copy is expressed in the main or the dependent clause
(20a) unəŋ ata-hə [ügäj äsäj al-əp] ül-gän ti or (20b) [unəŋ ata-hə ügäj äsäj al-əp] ül-gän ti
that.GEN father-P.3 step- mother take-CV die-PC.PST say.PRS ‘Her father married once again and died’ or ‘After marrying once again her father died’ [140708_izg_MO_DevochkaNaLune.003]
2.3. The –p-converb: same-subject constraint
44 44
Same-subject constraint is clearly visible when it coerces a pragmatically implausible interpretation
(21) kemder Bulat-təŋ tanaw-ə-n jemer-ep bolnica-la jat-a someone Bulat-GEN nose-P.3-ACC destroy-CV hospital-LOC lie-PRS ‘Someonei broke Bulat’sj nose so that hei,*j is now in the hospital’ => Unexpressed subject in the second clause can only be interpreted as coreferential with the subject from the first clause
2.3. The –p-converb: same-subject constraint
45 45
Same-subjectness can be achieved by way of applying valency-changing operations, such as causative
(22a) * Bulat jər-ðə təŋla-p ber xäl Bulat song-ACC listen-CV one state.of.affairs iθ-e-nä töš-tö mind-P.3-DAT descend-PST (22b) OK Bulat jər-ðə təŋla-p ber xäl Bulat song-ACC listen-CV one state.of.affairs iθ-e-nä töš-ör-ðö mind-P.3-DAT descend-CAUS-PST ‘Bulat was listening to a song and a story (from the past) came to his mind’ NB: The causative is used even though Bulat has no control over the event!
2.3. The –p-converb: same-subject constraint
46 46
Same-subjectness can be achieved by way of applying valency-changing operations, such as causative or passive
(23a) *qaraŋɣə uram-dan bar-əp arqa-m-a kem-der dark street-ABL go-CV back-P.1SG-DAT who-maybe huq-tə hit-PST Intended: ‘I was walking along a dark street when / so that someone hit me in the back’ (23b) OK qaraŋɣə uram-dan bar-əp kem-dän-der dark street-ABL go-CV who-ABL-maybe arqa-m-a huɣ-əl-də-m back-P.1SG-DAT hit-PASS-PST-1SG ‘I was walking along a dark street when / so that I got hit by someone in the back’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
47 47
2.4.1. The claim Prominent genitival possessors can control the same-subject
relation in constructions with clauses headed by the –p-converb
(24) ati, [∅-GENi qarəw-ə qajt-əp], tiððän baš bir-ðe horse force-P.3 come-CV soon head give-PST Lit.: ‘The horsei, once / because itsi force was gone, yielded (to those who were chasing her)’ [mfbl2.ru]
There is an overt nominative subject in each of the two clauses: a possessive NP and the possessor, correspondingly
For the discussion of whether such possessors are indeed internal, see section 4.
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
48 48
2.4.2. Overt / non-overt realization of the possessor
If a prominent possessor of one clause is expressed by a genitival group, typically there is zero anaphora in the other clause
(25) OK [Bulat-təŋi iθ-e-nä ber xäl töš-öp] Bulat-GEN mind-P.3-DAT one state.of.affairs descend-CV ∅i qəsqər-əp köl-dö cry-CV laugh-PST ‘A story came to Bulat’s mind and (he) started laughing out loud’. Elsewhere, this type of anaphora is typical of SS-
configurations
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
49 49
2.4.2. Overt / non-overt realization of the possessor Thus, biclausal constructions involving prominent
possessors and –p-converbs are different from other clause-linkage devices, where switch-reference (non-identity of subjects) is signaled by pronominal anaphora
(26) Bulat-təŋi käjef-e töš-tö häm *(uli) öj-ðä ultər-a Bulat-GEN mood-P.3 descend-PST and he house-LOC sit-PRS ‘Bulat’s mood got spoiled and he stays at home’. (27) ! min Bulat-təŋi tanaw-ə-n həndər-ɣas, I Bulat-GEN nose-P.3-ACC break-CV.ANT uli ila-j bašla-nə that cry-CV.IPFV begin-PST ‘I broke Bulat’si nose and hei started to cry’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
50 50
2.4.2. Overt / non-overt realization of the possessor If the possessive NP is in the dependent clause, there are
three main possibilities: (28a) [Bulat-təŋi asəw-ə kil-ep] ∅i išek-te šapəldat-əp jap-tə Bulat-GEN anger-P.3 come-CV door-ACC clap-CV close-PST ‘Bulat got angry and clapped the door’ (28b) Bulati [∅i asəw-ə kil-ep] išek-te šapəldat-əp jap-tə (28c) [∅i asəw-ə kil-ep] Bulati išek-te šapəldat-əp jap-tə
All these variants are accepted, but the order (28a) > (28b) > (28c) reflects the order of speakers’ judgments
Probably, linear precedence is more important for anaphora than main vs. dependent or NOM vs. GEN distinction
NB: constructions like (28b) clearly show embedding
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
51 51
2.4.3. PIPs in main and dependent clauses Prominent possessors can be located in the dependent
clause
(29) ! Bulati [∅-GENi baš-ə awərt-əp] kitap Bulat head-P.3 ache-CV book uqə-w-ə-n tuqta-t-tə read-NMLZ-P.3-ACC stop-CAUS-PST ‘Bulat’s head started to ache and he stopped reading the book’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
52 52
2.4.3. PIPs in main and dependent clauses Prominent possessors can be located in the dependent
clause, in the main clause (30) ! [∅-NOMi bäšmäk aša-p] Bulat-təŋi es-e awərt-tə mushroom eat-CV Bulat-GEN inside-P.3 ache-PST ‘Bulat’s stomach ached because he ate some mushrooms’.
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
53 53
2.4.3. PIPs in main and dependent clauses Prominent possessors can be located in the dependent
clause, in the main clause and even in both clauses simultaneously
(31) ! ul-əm təw-əp küŋel-em kütär-el-de son-P.1SG be.born-CV soul-P.1SG lift-PASS-PST ‘When my son was born my spirits got higher’ / ‘My son was born and my spirits got higher’ / ‘My spirits got higher because my son was born’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
54 54
2.4.4. Syntactic role of the possessed nominal In the examples discussed so far there was a co-reference
relation between the (possessor of the) nominative subject of the main clause and (the possessor of the) nominative subject of the dependent clause
In fact, possessed nominals can occupy other positions as well
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
55 55
2.4.4. Syntactic role of the possessed nominal Dative argument
(32)=(25) OK [Bulat-təŋi iθ-e-nä ber xäl töš-öp] Bulat-GEN mind-P.3-DAT one state.of.affairs descend-CV ∅i qəsqər-əp köl-dö cry-CV laugh-PST ‘A story came to Bulat’s mind and (he) started laughing out loud’. Ablative:
(33) OK huɣan tura-p küð-ðär-em-dän jäš aɣ-a onion chop-CV eye-PL-P.1SG-ABL tear flow-PRS Lit. ‘While chopping onions, tears were welling in my eyes’.
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
56 56
2.4.4. Syntactic role of the possessed nominal And even possessor of the possessor of the subject
(34) OK alma-nə tešlä-p teš-em-deŋ ber ölöš-ö töš-tö apple-ACC bite-CV tooth-P.1SG-GEN one part-P.3 descend-PST ‘I bit an apple and a piece of my tooth fell apart’.
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
57 57
2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases PIPs are animate (see examples above) But not always (35) OK olon-o ser-ep aɣas qola-nə trunk-P.3 rotten-CV tree fall-PST ‘When its trunk got rotten, the tree fell down’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
58 58
2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases PIPs are inalienable (see examples above) But not always (36) OK Bulat tið bar-əp mašina-hə hən-də Bulat fast go-CV car-P.3 break(vi)-PST ‘Bulat was driving fast and his car broke down’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
59 59
2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases possessed nominals in constructions with
PIPs are inanimate (see examples above) But not always (37) ! [Bulat-təŋi malaj-ə təw-əp] ∅i qəwan-əp Bulat-GEN boy-P.3 be.born-CV rejoice-CV end-CV.IPFV böt-ä al-ma-j take-NEG-PRS Lit. ‘Bulat’si son has been born and hei can’t stop feeling happy’.
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
60 60
2.4.5. Semantic and pragmatic properties of PIPs In most cases PIPs are definite (see examples above) But not always; in principle, they can be non-specific (hence,
non-topical) (38) ! kem-der bäšmäk aša-p es-e awərt-ha who-maybe mushroom eat-CV inside-P.3 ache-COND tabip-qa šaltəra-t-Ø-əɣəð doctor-DAT ring-CAUS-IMP-2PL ‘If anyone eats mushrooms and their stomach starts to ache, call the doctor’
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
61 61
2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? No one of the individual atomic properties of possessive
constructions seems to be decisive, although there are expected preferences inanimate possessed nominals (especially body-parts and
‘spiritual parts’, such as ‘soul’, ‘mood’) > animate possessed nominals
inalienable > alienable animate possessor > inanimate possessor definite possessor > indefinite / non-specific possessor possessed nominal: subject > other
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
62 62
2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? Generalization. The one property that is shared by all PIPs is
their relative salience: within the context of their clauses PIPs are more salient than other participants, starting with the possessed nominal
In order to control co-reference across clauses possessors should outrank other NPs that are present in the same clause
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
63 63
2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? Examples in which non-dominant atomic properties are
attested are especially illustrative animate possessed nominals, e.g. ‘Bulat’s son was born…’: the
possessed nominal has no control over the situation alienable possession, e.g. ‘Bulat’s car broke down’: Bulat was in
the car inanimate possessors, e.g. ‘the tree’s trunk got rotten’: more
salient inanimate possessed nominals non-specific possessors, e.g. ‘if anyone eats mushrooms and their
stomach starts to ache…’: irrealis, no definite NPs non-subject possessed nominals, e.g. ‘a story came to Bulat’s
mind’, ‘tears emerged from Bulat’s eyes’: physical or mental event involving the possessor
2.4. PIPs and the –p-converb
64 64
2.4.6. What does it take to be a prominent possessor? PIPs can also control clause-internal reflexivization Similar to co-reference across clauses, control of the
reflexives is possible if there is no more salient NP (39) OK üð-e-neŋi öj-ö-ndä Bulat-təŋi käjef-e self-P.3-GEN house-P.3-LOC Bulat-GEN mood-P.3 kütär-el-de lift-PASS-PST ‘Bulat’s mood got elevated once he was at home’
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
65 65
Apart from genitival possessors, there are other types of prominent NPs that can control clause-combining with –p-converbs Subject-like genitives in grammaticalized clauses with
nominalizations Dative subjects in modal constructions of necessity and
possibility Co-extensional NPs Joint co-reference NPs participating in set-subset relations
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
66 66
Subject-like genitives in grammaticalized clauses with nominalizations
(40) OK aša-ɣə-m kil-ep, šäb-eräk atla-j bašla-nə-m eat-ADJ-P.1SG come-CV fast-CMPR step-CV.IPFV begin-PST-1SG Lit. ‘My hunger came and (I) started to walk faster’.
Dative subjects in modal constructions of necessity or possibility (41) ! ∅-NOMi keše-ne bel-mä-j tor-op, person-ACC know-NEG-CV.IPFV stand-CV ∅-DATi nasar höjlä-r-gä jara-ma-j bad speak-POT-DAT fit-NEG-PRS ‘Not knowing a person (properly), (one) shouldn’t say bad (things about that person)’.
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
67 67
Co-extensional NPs (42) ! Morat-təŋ ös ul-əi bul-əp, Murat-GEN three son-P.3 be-CV ös-äw-he =läi üð-e-nä jarðam-sə-lar three-NUM.SUBST-P.3 also self-P.3-DAT help-AG-PL ‘Murat has three sons, and all three of them help him’. Joint co-reference
(43) ! Bulat Mansur-ðə ögötlä-p, bergäläp öj kütär-ðe-lär Bulat Mansur-ACC persuade-CV together house raise-PST-PL ‘Bulat persuaded Mansur and they have together built a house’.
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
68 68
NPs participating in set-subset relations (44) ! klass jarəš-tar-ða jeŋ-ep , class competition-PL-LOC win-CV iŋ jaqšə uqəwsə-lar büläk-tär al-də most good rather-NMLZ-AG-PL gift-PL take-PST ‘The class won the competition and the best pupils received prizes’
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
69 69
Strict subject identity is not a necessary condition for the use of –p-converbs in quasi-coordinate configurations
Rather, there is a restriction that the subjects of the two clauses cannot be distinct salient entities
Non-overlapping different-subject configurations are sometimes judged acceptable if the subjects are low on saliency scales
(45) OK qəš üt-ep, jað kil-de winter pass-CV spring come-PST ‘The winter has passed and the the spring came’.
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
70 70
Similar patterns are found in other Turkic languages as well Mishar Tatar
[these constructions are possible under the condition that there is] “a sufficiently close semantic link between the subject of the dependent clause and the subject of the main clause” [Pazelskaja, Shluinskij 2004: 48]; [they are ungrammatical with] “totally non-identical subjects” [ibid.: 59]
Pazelskaja, A.G., Shluinskij A.B. 2004. Obstojatel’stvennye predlozhenija. In: E.A. Ljutikova et al. (eds.) Miasharskij dialekt tatarskogo jazyka. Kazan.: Magarif. 38-82.
2.5. Other prominent non-subjects
71 71
Similar patterns are found in other Turkic languages as well Tuvan:
“If there are two subject NPs and their referents are clearly coreferential or clearly referentially disjoint, then the same-subject marker or the different-subject marker, respectively, is chosen. If the subjects … are sufficiently nonprototypical (indefinite personal zero, nonconcrete meaning, etc.), the switch-reference mechanism “loses its orientation” and is unable to establish the identity or distinctness of insufficiently identified entities. Strictly speaking, these entities are distinct … but their distinctness is not sufficiently clear, so the same-subject marker is possible as well” [Bergel’son, Kibrik 1995: 389]
Bergelson, Mira B., and Andrej A. Kibrik. 1995. ‘The System of Switch-Reference in Tuva: Converbal and Masdar-Case Forms’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, 373–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Other clause-combining strategies
72 72
A large number of formal types of adverbial clauses in Bashkir Formal markers: converbs sensu stricto cased forms of participles participles + postpositions nominalizations + postpositions grammaticalized constructions based on direct speech
3. Other clause-combining strategies
73 73
Most of these strategies can be used in both same- and different-subject constructions Same- vs. different-subjecthood plays a role in the choice of
anaphoric devices and reference-tracking, to be discussed elsewhere
Possible exceptions: Reduplicated converb in –a/-j
only in same-subject constructions (?) somewhat obsolete in the dialect under study
Purpose clauses and complements of manipulative verbs the so-called “infinitive” in –r-ɣa [POT-DAT] under coreference Jussive forms of the verbs followed by the complementizer tip
[say.CV] / postposition ösön ‘for’ otherwise
3. Other clause-combining strategies
74 74
Most of these strategies can be used in both same- and different-subject constructions Same- vs. different-subjecthood plays a role in the choice of
anaphoric devices and reference-tracking, to be discussed elsewhere
Possible exceptions: Reduplicated converb in –a/-j
only in same-subject constructions (?) somewhat obsolete in the dialect under study
Purpose clauses and complements of manipulative verbs the so-called “infinitive” in –r-ɣa [POT-DAT] under coreference Jussive forms of the verbs followed by the complementizer tip
[say.CV] / postposition ösön ‘for’ otherwise
3. Other clause-combining strategies
75 75
What matters is the coreference between the subject of the dependent clause and the subject of the main clause with e.g. verbs of motion (‘Hei went
to town ∅i to sell berries’) the direct object of the main clause with e.g. verbs of caused
motion (‘He sent his soni to the town ∅i to sell berries’)
3. Other clause-combining strategies
76 76
The so-called “infinitive”: obligatory SS (46) ! Bulati qala-ɣa [∅i höt hat-ər-ɣa] bar-ðə Bulat town-DAT milk sell-POT-DAT go-PST ‘Bulat went to the town to sell milk’ (47) [* ul-əi awərə-p kit-mäθ-kä] Zöxrä (uɣai) son-P.3 be.ill-CV go.away-NEG.POT-DAT Zuxra that.DAT darəw bir-ðe medicine give-PST Expected: ‘Zuxra gave her son a medicine in order for him not to be ill’
3. Other clause-combining strategies
77 77
Jussive + ösön ‘for’: obligatory DS (48) ! [bala-lar-əm aša-hən ösön] min aš beš-er-ðe-m child-PL-P.1SG eat-JUSS for I food boil-CAUS-PST-1SG ‘I prepared some food in order for my children to eat’ (49) * Kisäge mini qala-ɣa [∅i höt hat-hən ösön bar-ðə-m yesterday I town-DAT milk sell-JUSS for go-PST-1SG ‘Yesterday, I went to the town in order to sell milk’.
Gorlova, A.A. In prep. Formy imperativa v zavisimyx predikacijax v bashkirskom jazyke.
3. Other clause-combining strategies
78 78
Purpose clauses are oriented exclusively towards the syntactic subject = nominative NP triggering verb agreement
If there is a coreference relation between a subject from one clause and a possessor from another, the DS strategy is chosen
(50a) ! baš-əm awərt-ma-hən ösön min darəw aša-nə-m head-P.1SG ache-NEG-JUSS for I medicine eat-PST-1SG ‘I took a pill in order for my head not to ache’. (50b) ?? baš-əm awərt-maθ-qa min darəw aša-nə-m head-P.1SG ache-NEG.POT-DAT I medicine eat-PST-1SG
3. Other clause-combining strategies
79 79
Various parts of the clause-combining system work on different bases clause-combining strategy condition
purpose clauses strict SS vs. DS quasi-narrative –p-converbs looser coreference, including PIPs other strategies coreference is irrelevant
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
80 80
Are genitival possessors in Bashkir (always) internal? For a detailed account see [Ovsjannikova, Say 2014] To deny their internal status completely would lead to a
typological paradox: a language without internal possessors
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
81 81
Basic idea: genitival possessors are not necessarily identical to each other in terms of their internal / external status
Hence: several types of [GEN + N] uses constituency tests are applied to these uses individually
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
82 82
Types of constructions A. [GEN + N] in the so-called predicative possessive construction (51) Morat-təŋ qəð-ə bar Murat-GEN daughter-P.3 there.is ‘Murat has a daughter’, lit. ‘Murat’s daughter there is’.
B. Constructions with the verbs awərt ‘ache’, təw ‘be.born’, qal ‘remain’: argument-like possessors (e.g. ‘Bulat’s head aches’)
C. Constructions with body-parts in the subject position of change-of-state verbs (e.g. ‘Bulat’s eyes reddened’)
D. [GEN+N] in the subject position of agentive verbs
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
83 83
Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Separability Type A (52) OK Morat-təŋ küptän haqal-ə bar Murat-GEN long.ago beard-P.3 there.is ‘Murat has been wearing a beard for a long time’. Type D
(53) ?? Morat-təŋ bögön həjər-ə kärtä-he-n jemer-gän Murat-GEN today cow-P.3 fence-P.3-ACC destroy-PC.PST ‘Today Murat’s cow broke his fence’.
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
84 84
Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Pronominalization of the possessed nominal: personal pronouns Type A (54) ? Morat-təŋ kötöw-e bar, ä Bulat-təŋ unəhə =la juq Murat-GEN herd-P.3 there.is and Bulat-GEN that.P.3 also NEG.COP ‘Murat has a herd (of cows), but Bulat doesn’t have one’.
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
85 85
Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Pronominalization of the possessed nominal: negative and
interrogative pronouns Type C (55) OK Morat-təŋ ber nämä-he =lä qəðar-ma-ɣan Murat-GEN one thing-P.3 also redden-NEG-PC.PST {Although bees have stung Murat all over}, ‘no part of Murat’s turned red’.
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
86 86
Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Pronominal expression of the possessor: presence of a free
pronoun (along with a possessive suffix) Type A (56) ? (mineŋ) haqal-əm bar I.GEN beard-P.1SG there.is ‘I wear a beard’.
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
87 87
Constituency tests: typological and language-specific Ellipsis of the possessed nominal (headless possessors):
obligatory use of the POSS.SUBST marker (-nəqə) on the possessor
Type D (57) ! Morat-təŋ qəð-ə kil-de, ä Bulat-təqə kil-mä-ne Murat-GEN girl-P.3 come-PST and Bulat-POSS.SUBST come-NEG-PST ‘Murat’s daughter has come, and Bulat’s (daughter) hasn’t’. Cf. pronouns like mine of
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
88 88
Results: from more clause-level (+) to more phrase-level (–)
A B C D Pronominalization: interrogative and negative pronouns
+ + + ?
Separability + + + ? Relativization n/a + ? – The use of the pronominal possessor + ? – – Pronominalization: personal pronouns
? – – –
Ellipsis of head (POSS.SUBST) – – – –
A: ‘Bulat has a car’; B: ‘Bulat’s leg aches’; C: ‘Bulat’s eyes reddened’; D: ‘Bulat’s brother came’
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
89 89
Results: from more clause-level (+) to more phrase-level (–)
A B C D Pronominalization: interrogative and negative pronouns
+ + + ?
Separability + + + ? Relativization n/a + ? – The use of the pronominal possessor + ? – – Pronominalization: personal pronouns
? – – –
Ellipsis of head (POSS.SUBST) – – – –
A: ‘Bulat has a car’; B: ‘Bulat’s leg aches’; C: ‘Bulat’s eyes reddened’; D: ‘Bulat’s brother came’
These constructions can often be used as PIPs in clause-combining (section 2)
4. Genitival possessors and constituency
90 90
Bashkir GEN+N constructions do not show consistent behaviour with respect to constituency tests
Types of uses that were distinguished on a priori grounds do not behave identically
A huge methodological problem with tests: tests are applied to individual sentences, but inferences are being made for sets of potential sentences
5. Conclusions
91 91
Constructions with the -p-converb in Bashkir Mixed co- and subordination properties. Cosubordination? Speakers’ judgments are better if there is some sort of a
natural causal relation between the two events Do not tolerate saliently distinct subject referents and
typically are used in same-subject clause-combining
5. Conclusions
92 92
Bashkir genitives are salient in many respects Exclusive relation to the head Always referential, typically definite Always trigger possessive marking on the possessed
nominal Always found on the left periphery of the NP Predicative possessive constructions uses the Genitive
strategy (in terms of Heine, Stassen etc.) No conclusive evidence for a non-genitive external
possessive construction
5. Conclusions
93 93
Prominent possessors in Bashkir Genitive possessors can be sufficiently prominent to control
same-subject relations in clauses with the –p-converb Individual atomic properties (animacy, inalienability,
topicality…) are neither necessary nor sufficient The crucial factor is relative salience: the possessor must be
construed as the most salient NP in its clause
5. Conclusions
94 94
Bashkir genitival possessors: internal or external? Can a language possess internal and external possessors
that are marked identically? Constituency tests show a gradation from agentive
possessed nouns (phrase-level properties of possessors) to predicative possessive constructions (clause-level properties of possessors)
Methodological problem with constituency tests
Thank you!
95 95