Jolijn Sonnaert KU Leuven CRISSP jolijn sonnaertkuleuven be
Jolijn Sonnaert KU Leuven - CRISSP jolijn. sonnaert@kuleuven. be Plural is not “+3 rd person” 1
The Literature on Person SG 1 st I 2 nd you 3 rd he, she, it PL we you they 2
The Literature on Person SG Cysouw 2009 1 st I 1 2 nd you 2 3 rd he, she, it 3 PL Cysouw 2009 we you they 1+3 2+3 3
HANDOUT (9) The Literature on Person SG Cysouw 2009 1 st I 1 2 nd you 2 3 rd he, she, it 3 Harbour PL 2016 Cysouw 2009 Harbour 2016 i u o 1+3 2+3 3+3 io uo oo we you they 4
The Literature on Person SG Cysouw 2009 1 st I 1 2 nd you 2 3 rd he, she, it 3 Harbour PL 2016 Cysouw 2009 Harbour 2016 i u o 1+3 2+3 3+3 io uo oo we you they Common analysis: PLURAL = + 3 rd PERSON 5
Claim PLURAL ≠ 3 rd PERSON • PL = a associates • 3 rd = o other 1 2 3 SG I you he, she, it i u o PL we you they DIFFERENT morphologically and semantically ia ua oa 6
Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Framework and Background The Problem & Claim Morphological Differences Semantical Differences Conclusion Questions 7
Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Framework and Background The Problem & Claim Morphological Differences Semantic Differences Conclusion Questions 8
HANDOUT (1) & (2) 1. Framework and Background The Kite Framework Jacoby, Sesmat, Blanché 1952 9
HANDOUT (2) & (3) 1. Framework and Background The Kite Framework Lexicalisation in certain closed lexical fields is restricted by a concept formation constraint (Jaspers 2012, Seuren & Jaspers 2014): • Logical hexagon: two corners are never lexicalised • Result: kite structure 10
1. Framework and Background HANDOUT (4) Person deixis: corresponding limitations on concept formation 1 st & 3 rd 1 st person 3 rd person inclusive 2 nd & 3 rd 2 nd person 11
HANDOUT (5) 1. Framework and Background Person deixis: corresponding limitations on concept formation 1 st person 3 rd person inclusive 2 nd person 12
HANDOUT (10) & (6) 1. Framework and Background Tümpisa Shoshone Dayley 1989 SG PL ta-mmü nü-mmü mü-mmü iu i u nü ü o 13 (Demonstratives)
HANDOUT (7) 1. Framework and Background English sg iu pl we i I we u you o 14 he, she, it they
Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Framework and Background The Problem & Claim Morphological Differences Semantical Differences Conclusion Questions 15
2. Problem and Claim HANDOUT (9) The Literature on Person • Common analyses: PLURAL = + 3 rd PERSON inclusive speaker hearer non-part SG PL Cysouw Harbour Cysouw 2009 2016 2009 Harbour 2016 1 2 3 iuo io uo oo i u o 1+2(+3) 1+3 2+3 3+3 16
2. Problem and Claim 2. The Problem • If we assume PL = 3 rd • Result: Lexicalisation of = 1 pl – io – uo = 2 pl 17
2. Problem and Claim • If we assume PL = 3 rd • Result: Lexicalisation of – io – uo 18
2. Problem and Claim HANDOUT (8) Claim PLURAL ≠ 3 rd PERSON DIFFERENT • morphologically • semantically 19
Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Framework and Background The Problem & Claim Morphological Differences Semantic Differences Conclusion Questions 20
3. Morphological Differences 3. Morphology Possible Person Paradigms: • Suppletive paradigm • Regular person stem + number affix • Suppletive person stem + number affix 21
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (11) • Suppletive paradigm (Guaraní): Gregores & Suárez 1967 SG iu i u o šé né PL yané oré peé (demonstr)
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (12) • Suppletive paradigm (Guaraní) • Regular person stem + number affix (Quechua): Adelaar 1977 SG iu i u nuxa xam PL nuxañči(k) nuxa: -guna xam-guna o pay-guna
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (13) • Suppletive paradigm (Guaraní) • Regular person stem + number affix (Quechua) • Suppletive person stem + number affix: (Kayardild): Evans 1995 SG iu i u nga-da nyingka PL nga-ku-l-da nga-l-da ki-l-da o niya bi-l-da
3. Morphological Differences • Suppletive paradigm (Guaraní) • Regular person stem + number affix (Quechua) • Suppletive person stem + number affix (Kayardild) Compositional paradigms
3. Morphological Differences Expectation: Expectation for compositional paradigms: Languages that share one morpheme for 3 rd & plural number affix sg iu i u β γ pl α-δ β-δ γ-δ o δ δ Tümpisa Shoshone iu ta-mmü i nü nü-mmü u ü mü-mmü o (Demonstratives) 26
3. Morphological Differences Claim: • Sample (39 lgs) • Typological literature, a. o: (330 lgs) Unattested – Forchheimer 1953 iu – Harley & Ritter 2003 i – Daniel 2005 u – Baerman et al. 2005 o – Bobaljik 2008 – Cysouw 2009 – Harbour 2016 – Ackema & Neeleman 2016 sg β γ pl α-δ β-δ γ-δ δ δ 27
3. Morphological Differences Composite Forms in Forchheimer 1953: The Category of Person in Language ‘Composite Forms’: +3 • Pama-Nyungan: – Kalaw Lagaw Ya – Arrernte • Penutian – Coastal Oregon Penutian • Coos • Siuslaw – Chinook • Ancient Middle-East, Mesopotamia – Hurrian – Sumerian 28
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (14) Siuslaw • Pronominal suffixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u -n -nx DU -ns -a(u)xûn -ts o ø -aux PL -nl -nxan -tcî -nx 29
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (14) Siuslaw • Pronominal suffixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u -n -nx DU -ns -a(u)xûn -ts o ø a ux PL -nl -nxan -tcî -nx 30
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (14) Siuslaw • Pronominal suffixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u -n -nx DU -ns -a(u)xûn -ts o ø a ux PL -nl -nxan -tcî -nx “[T]he inclusive forms are clearly composed of the third personal suffixes of the respective numbers and the n of the first person plus auxiliary vowel” (Forchheimer 1953 p. 109) 31
3. Morphological Differences HANDOUT (14) Siuslaw • Reanalysis: SG iu i u -n -nx DU -ns -a(u)x-ûn -ts o ø -aux-ø -aux= DU PL -nl -nx-an -tcî -nx-ø -n = 1 -ø = 3 -nx= PL 32
HANDOUT (15) Chinook 3. Morphological Differences • Pronominal prefixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u o nmtc- DU txntmt(c)t- PL lxntcmct- 33
HANDOUT (15 & 16) Chinook 3. Morphological Differences • Pronominal prefixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u o nmtc- DU txntmt(c)t- PL lxntcmct- • Independent pronouns (Harley & Ritter 2002) SG iu i u DU tx-aika nt-aika mt-aika PL lx-aika ntc-aika mc-aika o áxka táska ct-áxka 34
HANDOUT (15 & 16) Chinook 3. Morphological Differences • Pronominal prefixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u o nmtc- DU txntmt(c)t- PL lxntcmct- • Independent pronouns (Harley & Ritter 2002) SG iu i u DU tx-aika nt-aika mt-aika PL lx-aika ntc-aika mc-aika o áxka táska ct-áxka 35
HANDOUT (15 & 16) Chinook 3. Morphological Differences • Pronominal prefixes in Forchheimer 1953 SG iu i u o nmtc- DU txntmt(c)t- PL lxntcmct- • Independent pronouns (Harley & Ritter 2002) SG iu i u DU tx-aika nt-aika mt-aika PL lx-aika ntc-aika mc-aika o áxka táska ct-áxka 36
3. Morphological Differences Summary There are no convincing examples of languages that use the same morpheme for • PL sg pl iu α-δ • 3 rd i u β γ β-δ γ-δ o δ δ PL ≠ 3 rd 37
Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Framework and Background The Problem & Claim Morphological Differences Semantic Differences Conclusion Questions 38
4. Semantic Differences Semantic differences Reference: (Ackema & Neeleman to appear, pp. 70 -73) “An o … cannot be included in the reference of a … plural pronoun without first being turned into an associate in some way. ” 39
4. Semantic Differences Survey No associate relation: Peter and Ad are watching a movie starring George Clooney. Peter asks Ad: “Do you know if George Clooney likes to drink coffee? ” To which Ad answers: • “Yes, we both like to drink Nespresso. ” 2. 44/5 • “Yes, he likes to drink Nespresso, just like 4. 18/5 I do. ” 40
4. Semantic Differences Associate relation Peter and Ad are watching a movie starring George Clooney. Ad tells Peter how he and George Clooney go for a walk together every Sunday, they have been friends for years. Peter asks Ad: “Do you know if George Clooney likes to drink coffee? ” To which Ad 2. 44/5 answers: • “Yes, we both like to drink Nespresso. ” 3. 83/5 • “Yes, he likes to drink Nespresso, just like I 4. 41/5 do. ” 41
4. Semantic Differences Summary • A plural pronoun – Does NOT include reference to a third person – Includes reference to associates 42
Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Framework and Background The Problem & Claim Morphological Differences Semantic Differences Conclusion Questions 43
5. Conclusion • Morphology: Different morphemes for 3 rd person and plural • Semantics: Reference 3 rd person: o ≠ Plural: a 44
5. Conclusion The Concept Formation Constraint correctly predicts iu to be the only lexicalisable combination of person atoms. 45
46
- Slides: 46