Re: THEORY: Cross-Referencing the Arguments of Consecutive Verbs, And Similar Things
|From:||Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 4, 2005, 4:42|
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:23:13 +0100, Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:
>Tom Chappell wrote at 2005-06-30 17:49:29 (-0700)
> > [WHAT ABOUT A MAIN AND A SUBORDINATE CLAUSE?]
> > So far the examples I've given have either been co-ordinate clauses
> > or what the Role-and-Reference Grammarians call "co-subordinate"
> > clauses.
> > But there's no reason I know of to doubt that some natlang out
> > there does something similar for marking the common arguments
> > between a main clause and its subordinate clause.
> > Who knows one?
>I think the use of long-range reflexives in e.g. Eskimo-Aleut
>languages might qualify (or at least interest you as a related topic).
>Here's the section from Mithun's _The Languages of Native North
>America_ on the subject - I think I've posted it before, but I can't
>find it in the archives. Fortunately I had a copy saved for other
>reasons, so I didn't have to type it out again:
>| 2.1.2 Long-distance coreference and empathy
>| Reflexive constructions, which mark coreference between the subject
>| and another argument of clauses, appear throughout North America, as
>| elsewhere: Mohawk _wa'k*atát*ken_ 'I saw *myself*'. Some languages
>| also contain devices for specifying coreference over longer stretches
>| of speech, termed variously fourth persons, long-distance reflexives,
>| coreferential third persons, logophoric pronouns, and more. Examples
>| of such structures can be seen in languages of the Eskimo-Aleut
>| In Central Alaskan Yup'ik, as in related languages, all verbs contain
>| pronominal suffixes referring to their core arguments, one for
>| intransitives and two for transitives. Posessed nouns contain
>| suffixes referring to the possessor and the possession.
>| (10) YUP'IK PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES Elizabeth Ali, speaker
>| paqeta*nka* ila*nka*
>| paqete-a-*nka* ila-*nka*
>| visit-INDICATIVE-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL* relative-*1SINGULAR/3PLURAL*
>| '*I* visited *them*' '*my* relative*s*'
>| The pronominal suffixes always appear on verbs, whether or not
>| independent nouns appear in the sentence as well. The verb and noun
>| in (10), for example, could be combined into a sentence. Gender is
>| not distinguished in Yup'ik, so the same pronominal forms are used for
>| males, females and objects. There are two different third person
>| categories however, one basic and one for arguments coreferent with
>| the subject of the matrix clause.
>| (11) YUP'IK COREFERENTIAL THIRD PERSON Elizabeth Ali, speaker
>| Tuai-llu-gguq tauna tutgara'urluq,
>| tuai=llu=gguq tauna tutgar-'urlur
>| so=too=HEARSAY that grandchild-dear
>| 'And so that dear grandchild,
>| apa'urlu*ni* kenekenga*miu*
>| apa-'urlur-*ni* keneke-nga-*miu*
>| grandfather-dear-*3R.SG*/3SG love-CONSEQUENTIAL-*3R.SG*/3SG
>| because she (*herself*) loved her (*own*) grandfather,
>| neqkanek assilrianek,
>| neqkaq-nek assir-lria-nek
>| prepared.food-ABLATIVE.PL good-NM-ABLATIVE.PL
>| she was putting out good foods [on his plate].
>| The subject of the main clause in (11) is the grandchild. She is
>| referred to by a basic third person pronoun in the main verb
>| _paivesk*ii*_ '*she* put them out'. In the embedded clause, 'because
>| *she* loved her grandfather', she is referred to by the coreferential
>| pronoun because the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as
>| that of the main clause. The coreferential pronoun appears in '*her*
>| grandfather' as well, indicating that the possessor of the grandfather
>| is the same individual as the subject of the clause in which it
>| occurs: 'she_i loved her_i grandfather'. (Basic reflexives are
>| expressed in a different way in Yup'ik.
Thanks for recopying.
Just thought I'd mention that I'm doing something like this in Noimi. I
mentioned coreferential marking in a recent post but didn't elaborate.
"Nyarlathotep ... the crawling chaos ... I am the last ... I will tell the
audient void .." -- H.P. Lovecraft