Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

1
Case and Markedness in Tlapanec

• Andreas Opitz
• Leipzig University

2
Outline

• the data Tlapanec case assignment
• analysis
• deriving alignment patterns
• deriving morphological markers

3

• Tlapanec shows some unusual behavior regarding
  the case assignment to its arguments. (Wichmann,
  to app.).
• The analysis provided here helps to explain this
  unusual behavior of case and case markers by
• a competition of typologically motivated
  markedness constraints (OT) (Smolensky, 1995
  Aissen, 1999)
• a sub-analysis of case markers (DM) (Noyer, 1992
  Trommer, 1999)

4
Case Assignment in Tlapanec

• head-marking
• case is assigned only to animate arguments (no
  distinctions between trans. vs. intrans., but
  A(I) vs. AA (and AAA, not mentioned here))
• four distinct classes of case markers ( 4
  cases)
• feature highly vs. lowly affecting
• portmanteau morphemes case person

5

• mono-personal verbs (A)
• (A) (intrans.)
• Absolutive (high affectedness) s/he is alone
• Dative (low affectedness?) s/he is nude)
• (A,I) (trans.)
• (Absolutive (non-actor, high affectedness) )
• Pegative (source weak actor, low
  affectedness) x is seeing something
• Dativ (non-actor, low affectedness) s/he wants
  something
• Ergativ (actor, high affectedness) s/he is
  burning something
• di-personal verbs (AA)
• (A,A)
• Dative (low affectedness)
• Absolutive (high affectedness)
• (A,A3sgl)
• Absolutive (high affectedness)
• (A,A3sgl)
• Pegative (low affectedness)

6
Case Assignment in Tlapanec

• general rules of case assignment in Tlapanec
• case is assigned only to animate arguments
• maximally one argument is marked with case
• if there is no (anim.) object, the subject is
  marked
• otherwise the (anim.) object is marked
• if the object is animate, 3rd singular and the
  verb is lowly affecting, the subject is marked

If an animate and inanimate argument is involved,
the animate must always rank higher on the
hierarchy actorgtundergoergttheme. Thus, an
expression like the hammer killed the man is
impossible. Wichmann (to app.)
7
Wichmann, 2006
8
Case Markers in Tlapanec

• unusual behavior of case markers
• zero-marked ergative
• marked absolutive
• pegative

note / and stand for phonologically driven
alternations
9
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

10
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

11
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

12
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

13
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

14
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

15
Hypothesis

• There are only two functionally distinct cases,
  that split each into two different instances due
  to the factor of affectedness
• Pegative is - in fact - the same as ergative but
  with the feature low (or without the feature
  high)
• Dative is absolutive with the feature low
• The two cases mark external arguments (subject)
  on the one hand and internal arguments (object)
  on the other.
• (From an A/AA-perspective Tlapanec shows active
  case alignment.)
• The missing marker for the actor of highly
  affecting verbs (zero-ergative marking) can be
  explained by a competition of markedness
  constraints. (Smolensky, 1995 Aissen, 1999)
• The morphonological more complex marker of the
  absolutive (the normally unmarked case) results
  from an additional coding of markedness, namely
  animate object and high affecting.

16
2. Impoverishment of the morpho-syntactical
context

• All constraints emerge from prominence scales and
  harmonic alignment. (Silverstein, 1976 Prince
  and Smolensky, 1993 Aissen, 1999, 2003)
• scales involved in Tlapanec case marking
• gram. relation su gt ob
• person local gt 3
• affectedness high gt low
• animacy animate gt inanimate

17
Harmonic Alignment

• These three scales interact all together
  simultaneously, thus it becomes necessary to
  extend the notion of harmonic alignment.
• I suggest a hierarchy of scales
• 1. gram. relation su gt ob
• 2. person local gt 3
• 3. affectedness high gt low
• 4. animacy an. gt inan.

18
Harmonic Alignment

• In a first step, the highest ranking scales are
  harmonically aligned.
• Alignment of gram. function and person
• scales
• Su gt Ob
• local gt 3
• harmonic alignment
• Su/local ? Su/3
• Ob/3 ? Ob/local
• constraint alignment
• Su/3 Su/Local
• Ob/Local Ob/3

19
Harmonic Alignment

• In a second step, the output of the first
  harmonic alignment is taken as a base for
  harmonic alignment with the next feature of the
  hierarchy
• Alignment of output1 and affectedness
• Scales (input)
• Su/Local ? Su/3 Ob/3 ? Ob/Local
• High gt low High gt low
• Harmonic Alignment
• Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low Ob/3/High ?
  Ob/3/low
• Su/3/low ? Su/3/high Ob/Local/low ?
  Ob/Local/high

20

• Harmonic Alignment
• Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low Ob/3/High ?
  Ob/3/low
• Su/3/low ? Su/3/high Ob/Local/low ?
  Ob/Local/high
• Constraint Alignment
• Su/local/low Su/local/high Ob/3/low
  Ob/3/high
• Su/3/high Su/3/low Ob/local/high
  Ob/local low

21
Harmonic Alignment

• Repetition of procedure
• Alignment of output2 and animacy
• Scales (input)
• Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low
• Su/3/low ? Su/3/high
• Ob/3/High ? Ob/3/low
• Ob/Local/low ? Ob/Local/high

22
Harmonic Alignment

• Alignment of output2 and animacy
• Scales (input)
• Su/Local/high ? Su/Local/low
• Su/3/low ? Su/3/high
• Ob/3/High ? Ob/3/low
• Ob/Local/low ? Ob/Local/high

anim. gt inanim.
23

• Harmonic Alignments
• Su/Local/high/an ? Su/Local/high/in
• Su/Local/low/in ? Su/Local/low/an
• Su/3/low/an ? Su/3/low/in
• Su/3/high/in ? Su/3/high/an
• Ob/3/High/an ? Ob/3/High/in
• Ob/3/low/in ? Ob/3/low/an
• Ob/Local/low/an ? Ob/Local/low/in
• Ob/Local/high/in ? Ob/Local/high/an

24

• Constraint Alignments
• Su/Local/high/in Su/Local/high/an
• Su/Local/low/an Su/Local/low/in
• Su/3/low/in Su/3/low/an
• Su/3/high/an Su/3/high/in
• Ob/3/High/in Ob/3/High/an
• Ob/3/low/an Ob/3/low/in
• Ob/Local/low/in Ob/Local/low/an
• Ob/Local/high/an Ob/Local/high/in

25

• Constraint Alignments
• Su/Local/high/in Su/Local/high/an
• Su/Local/low/an Su/Local/low/in
• Su/3/low/in Su/3/low/an
• Su/3/high/an Su/3/high/in
• Ob/3/High/in Ob/3/High/an
• Ob/3/low/an Ob/3/low/in
• Ob/Local/low/in Ob/Local/low/an
• Ob/Local/high/an Ob/Local/high/in

important for derivation
26

• Constraint Alignments
• Su/Local/high/an
• Su/Local/low/an
• Su/3/low/an
• Su/3/high/an
• Ob/3/High/an
• Ob/3/low/an

27

• Constraint Alignments
• Su/3/high/an Su/Local/high/an
• Su/Local/low/an Su/3/low/an
• Ob/3/High/an
• Ob/3/low/an

28

• Constraint Alignments
• Su/3/high/an Su/Local/high/an ?
  Su/high/an
• Su/Local/low/an Su/3/low/an ? Su/low/an
• Ob/3/High/an
• Ob/3/low/an

29

• Constraint Alignments
• Su/3/high/an Su/Local/high/an ?
  Su/high/
• Su/Local/low/an Su/3/low/an ? Su/low/
• Ob/3/High/an ? Ob/3/high
• Ob/3/low/an ? Ob/3/low
• Note that these (here abbreviated) constraints,
  although derived via harmonic alignment, are not
  ordered. In contrast the real Su/high and
  Su/low are Su/low gtgt Su/high !(These
  constraint are also part of the constraint
  hierarchy, but they are supposed to be ordered
  low enough, thus they dont interfere the
  derivation.)

30
Resulting crucial constraints

• O/3/low
• S/high
• O/3/high
• S/low
• Ø dont have a zero marked argument
• Uniq (here) dont have ambiguous
  combination of features in the output _ ?
  effect dont mark two arguments
• (inanimat)

31

• decomposition of subject vs. object, and
  high vs. low into combinations of binary
  features (Jakobson, 1962 Bierwisch, 1965
  Wunderlich, 1997)
• subject su -ob (external argument)
• object -su ob (internal argument)
• high high
• low -high
• central assumption
• If one set of features ( one argument) violates
  a constraint, the whole set of features
  (argument) is deleted. (as it is supposed for
  instance by Wunderlich (2004) and in contrast to
  Aissen (1999)).

32
Su, Ob, high
33
Su, Ob, low
34
Su, Ob3, high
35
Su, Ob 3, low
36
Su, high
37
Su, low
38
output candidates for all possible inputs
39
The idea behind the analysis

• Syntax gt Impov (OT) gt morphol. Realization (DM)
• V
• V Cl
• ..Ob..
• V Cl
• ..Su..

40
3. Insertion of Markers (Distributed
Morphology)

• The optimization process introduced in the last
  chapter leads to an impoverished
  morpho-syntactical context.
• In a next step, this context is the base for the
  concrete morphonological realization of the case
  markers.
• This second step of the analysis is carried out
  within the framework of Distributed Morphology
  (Halle Marantz, 1993).
• Concept of Fission by Noyer (1992)

41
inventory of markers
42
inventory of markers without phonologically
driven alternations
43
inventory of markers labeled with binary
features
44
inventory of markers labeled with binary
featuresand output of case assignment (
OT-driven impoverishment)
45
inventory of markers labeled with binary
featuresand output of case assignment and
sub-analyzed markers
46

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• / i / ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high
• /-?/ ? object

?Trommer (1999)
ordering is derived by the specificity condition
and a feature hierarchy cl gt ob high
47

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

48

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high
• /-?/ ? object

49

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

50

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

51

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

52

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

53

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

54

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

55

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high (/) -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high (/) -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

56

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

57

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

58

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

59

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

60

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -subj, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -subj high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? object

61

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? ob

62

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? ob

63

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? ob

64

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? ob

65

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? object / (-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high /
• /-?/ ? ob

66

• Vocabulary Items
• /u/ ? cl, -su, -high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su, high -1,-2, pl
• /i/ ? cl, -su high -1,-2, -pl
• /u/ ? cl, -2, -pl
• /a/ ? cl
• /Ø/ ? ob /(-1,-2)
• /nasal/ ? high
• /-?/ ? ob (animate!)

67
Conclusion

• The complex forms of case markers in Tlapanec
  emerge by the marking of
• bearing case (i.e. the vowel /a/ or /u/)
• and the additional marking of markedness
• mark (animate!) objects by /-?/
• mark high affectedness by nasalization
• The zero-marked ergative and other general
  patterns of case alignment in Tlapanec emerge
  from
• markedness constraints derived by (multiple)
  harmonic alignment of prominence scales.

68
(No Transcript)
69
References

• Aissen, Judith (1999). Markedness and Subject
  Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and
  Linguistic Theory 17673-711.
• Bierwisch, Manfred (1967) Syntactic Features in
  Morphology General Problems of So-Called
  Pronominal Inection in German. In To Honour
  Roman Jakobson. Mouton, The Hague/Paris, pp.
  239-270.
• Frampton, John (2002) Syncretism,
  Impoverishment, and the Structure of Person
  Features. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistics
  Society Meeting, vol. 38, eds M. Andronis, E.
  Debenport, A. Pycha K. Yoshimura, 207- 222.
• Halle, Morris Alec Marantz (1993) Distributed
  Morphology and the Pieces of Infection. In K.
  Hale S. Keyser, eds., The View from Building
  20. MIT Press, pp. 111176.
• Jakobson, Roman (1962) Beitrag zur allgemeinen
  Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen
  Kasus. In Selected Writings. Vol. 2, Mouton, The
  Hague and Paris, pp. 23-71.
• Noyer, Rolf (1992) Features, Positions, and
  Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure.
  PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
• Prince, Alan Paul Smolensky (2004) Optimality
  Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative
  Grammar. Blackwell. (Original version from 1993).
• Smolensky, Paul. (1995) On the Internal
  Structure of Con, the Constraint Component of UG.
  Ms., Johns Hopkins University.
• Silverstein, Michael (1976) Hierarchy of
  features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon, ed.,
  Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages.
  Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,
  Canberra.
• Stiebels, Barbara (2002) Typologie des
  Argumentlinkings. Ökonomie und Expressivität,
  Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
• Stump, Gregory (2001) Inectional Morphology.
  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Trommer, Jochen (1999) Morphology Consuming
  Syntax' Resources. In Procceedings of the ESSLI
  Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist
  Grammars. University of Nijmegen.
• Wichman, Søren (to app.) Case relations in a
  head-marking language verb-marked cases in
  Tlapanec. In Malchukov, Andrej and Andrew
  Spencer (eds.), The Handbook of Case. Oxford
  Oxford University Press.
• Wiese, Bernd (1994) Die Personal- und
  Numerusendungen der deutschen Verbformen. In
  K.-M. Köpcke, ed., Funktionale Untersuchungen zur
  deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie.
  Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 161-191.
• Wiese, Bernd (1999) Unterspezifzierte
  Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen
  Deklination, Linguistik Online4.
  (www.linguistikonline.de/ 3 99)
• Wunderlich, Dieter (1996) Minimalist Morphology
  The Role of Paradigms. In G. Booij J. van
  Marle, eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Kluwer,
  Dordrecht, pp. 93-114.
• Wunderlich, Dieter (1997) Cause and the
  Structure of Verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 2727-68.
• Wunderlich, Dieter (2004) Is There Any Need for
  the Concept of Directional Syncretism?. In G.
  Müller, L. Gunkel G. Zifonun, eds.,
  Explorations in Nominal Inection. Mouton de
  Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 373-395.