Polypersonal agreement

Last updated

In linguistics, polypersonal agreement or polypersonalism is the agreement of a verb with more than one of its arguments (usually up to four). Polypersonalism is a morphological feature of a language, and languages that display it are called polypersonal languages.

Contents

In non-polypersonal languages, the verb either shows no agreement at all or agrees with the primary argument (in English, the subject). In a language with polypersonal agreement, the verb has agreement morphemes that may indicate (as applicable) the subject, the direct object, the indirect or secondary object, the beneficiary of the verb action, etc. This polypersonal marking may be compulsory or optional (the latter meaning that some agreement morphemes can be elided if the full argument is expressed).

Polysynthesis often includes polypersonalism, which in turn is a form of head-marking. Polypersonalism has also been correlated with ergativity.

Examples of languages with polypersonal agreement are the Bantu languages, Basque, Georgian, Hadza, Magahi, to a lesser extent Hungarian (see definite conjugation), as well as most polysynthetic languages, like Mohawk, Inuktitut and many other Native American and Australian languages.

Examples

Georgian

In Georgian, the verb consists of a root and several optional affixes. The subject and object markers might appear as suffixes or prefixes, according to the verb class, the person and number, the tense and aspect of the verb, etc.; they also interact with each other phonologically. The polypersonal verbal system of Georgian allows the verb compound to convey the meanings of subject, direct object, indirect object, genitive, locative and causative meanings. As examples of the extremely complicated Georgian verb morphology, these are some simple polypersonal verbs (hyphens indicate morpheme boundaries):

ვხედავv-khed-av 'I see him'
გმალავენg-mal-av-en 'they hide you (sing. or pl.)'
გიმალავენg-i-mal-av-en 'they hide it from you (sing. or pl.)'
გვიკეთებსgv-i-ket-eb-s 'he is doing it for us'
აჩუქებსa-chuk-eb-s 'he will give it to him (as a gift)'
მიულოცავსmi-u-lots-av-s 'he will congratulate him on it' [1]
არბენინებენa-rb-en-in-eb-en 'They are making him run'
გადმოგვახტუნებინებდითgad-mo-gv-a-xtun-eb-in-eb-di-t 'you would make us make him jump (towards us)'

An example of a polypersonal verb that has the genitive meaning incorporated can be:

ხელები გამიცივდაxelebi ga-m-i-tsiv-d-a 'My hands got cold'

Here, ხელები (xelebi) means 'hands'. The second morpheme in the verb (-m-) conveys the meaning 'my'. In Georgian this construction is very common with intransitive verbs; the possessive adjective (my, your, etc.) is omitted before the subject, and the verb takes up the genitive meaning.

Basque

Basque is a language isolate with a polypersonal verbal system comprising two sub-types of verbs, synthetic and analytical. The following three cases are cross-referenced on the verb: the absolutive (the case for the subject of intransitive verbs and the direct objects of transitive verbs), the ergative (the case for the subject of transitive verbs), and the dative (the case for the indirect object of a transitive verb). A dative (along with the absolutive) can also be cross-referenced on an intransitive verb without a direct object in a "dative of interest" type of construction (cf. English "My car broke down on me"), as well as in constructions involving intransitive verbs of perception or feeling. Synthetic verbs take affixes directly onto their stems, while analytical verbs use a non-finite form that carries the lexical meaning of the verb, along with a conjugated auxiliary which is either strictly transitive or intransitive. Some common auxiliaries used to conjugate analytical verbs are izan ‘be’, ukan ‘have’, and egin ‘do’. Unlike Georgian, Basque has only two really synthetic tenses able to take these affixes: present simple and past simple. Here are a few examples:

Synthetic forms:

d-akar-ki-o-gu

d-

3.ABS.PRS-

akar

bring:PRS

-ki

- DAT_FLAG

-o

-3.DAT

-gu

-1PL.ERG

d- akar -ki -o -gu

3.ABS.PRS- bring:PRS - DAT_FLAG -3.DAT -1PL.ERG

‘We bring it to him/her’

z-erama-zki-gu-te-n ‘They took them to us’ from eraman ‘take’

Analytical or semi-synthetic forms:

Ekarriko d-i-o-gu ‘We'll bring it to him/her’
Eraman d-ieza-zki-gu-ke-te ‘They can take them to us’ (‘d…zki’ standing for ‘them’, ‘ieza’ being a form of the auxiliary ‘izan’, ‘gu’ standing for ‘to us’, ‘te’ for ‘they’, and ‘ke’ being a potential marker)
Iristen z-a-izki-zue ‘They get to you (pl)’ from iritsi ‘get, arrive’ [2]

Semitic languages

In Biblical Hebrew, or in poetic forms of Hebrew, a pronominal direct object can be incorporated into a verb's conjugation rather than included as a separate word. For example, ahavtikha, with the suffix -kha indicating a masculine, singular, second-person direct object, is a poetic way to say ahavti otkha ("I loved you"). This also changes the position of the stress; while ahavti puts the stress on hav (/a'hav.ti/), ahavtikha puts it on ti (/a.hav'ti.xa/).

The same is true also of Arabic and Akkadian. A number of modern Arabic dialects incorporate both direct and indirect object pronouns, e.g. Egyptian Arabic /ma-katab-hum-ˈliː-ʃ/ "he didn't write them to me". (In Classical Arabic the equivalent would be three words: /mākataba-humlī/.)

Ganda

In Ganda, direct and indirect pronominal objects may be incorporated into the verb as object infixes. For example:

ex:
nkikuwa

n-

I.SUBJ-

ki-

it.OBJ-

ku-

you.OBJ-

wa

give

n- ki- ku- wa

I.SUBJ- it.OBJ- you.OBJ- give

'I give it to you'

ex:
yakiŋŋambira

y-

he.SUBJ-

a-

PAST-

ki-

it.OBJ-

n-

me.OBJ-

gamb

tell

-ira

-APPL

y- a- ki- n- gamb -ira

he.SUBJ- PAST- it.OBJ- me.OBJ- tell -APPL

'he told it to me'

In the second example, the applicative suffix -ira converts the (usually monotransitive) verb gamba to a ditransitive.

While agreement with a verbal subject is compulsory, agreement with an object is required only when the object is omitted. Many other Bantu languages exhibit this feature.

Hungarian

In Hungarian the suffix -lak or -lek indicates a first person singular subject and a second person (either singular or plural) object. The most prominent example is szeretlek "I love you". The second person singular object may be omitted but the plural requires the pronoun (titeket).

Clitic pronouns

Polypersonalism involves bound morphemes that are part of the verbal morphology and therefore cannot be found separated from the verb. These morphemes are not to be confused with pronominal clitics.

Some have observed that the French pronominal clitics (common to all Romance languages) have evolved into inseparable parts of the verb in the colloquial use, and so, suggested that French could be analyzed as polypersonal. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hurrian language</span> Extinct ancient language of Mesopotamia

Hurrian is an extinct Hurro-Urartian language spoken by the Hurrians (Khurrites), a people who entered northern Mesopotamia around 2300 BC and had mostly vanished by 1000 BC. Hurrian was the language of the Mitanni kingdom in northern Mesopotamia and was likely spoken at least initially in Hurrian settlements in modern-day Syria.

In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the single argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb. Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, and certain Indo-European languages. It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. No language has been recorded in which both the morphological and syntactical ergative are present. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter. Dyirbal is said to be the only representative of syntactic ergativity, yet it displays accusative alignment with certain pronouns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nominative–accusative alignment</span> Concept of sentence structure in linguistics

In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order. It has a wide global distribution and is the most common alignment system among the world's languages. Languages with nominative–accusative alignment are commonly called nominative–accusative languages.

In linguistics, a causative is a valency-increasing operation that indicates that a subject either causes someone or something else to do or be something or causes a change in state of a non-volitional event. Normally, it brings in a new argument, A, into a transitive clause, with the original subject S becoming the object O.

In grammar, a reflexive verb is, loosely, a verb whose direct object is the same as its subject, for example, "I wash myself". More generally, a reflexive verb has the same semantic agent and patient. For example, the English verb to perjure is reflexive, since one can only perjure oneself. In a wider sense, the term refers to any verb form whose grammatical object is a reflexive pronoun, regardless of semantics; such verbs are also more broadly referred to as pronominal verbs, especially in the grammar of the Romance languages. Other kinds of pronominal verbs are reciprocal, passive, subjective, and idiomatic. The presence of the reflexive pronoun changes the meaning of a verb, e.g., Spanish abonar'to pay', abonarse'to subscribe'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tzeltal language</span> Mayan language of Mexico

Tzeltal or Tseltal is a Mayan language spoken in the Mexican state of Chiapas, mostly in the municipalities of Ocosingo, Altamirano, Huixtán, Tenejapa, Yajalón, Chanal, Sitalá, Amatenango del Valle, Socoltenango, Las Rosas, Chilón, San Juan Cancuc, San Cristóbal de las Casas and Oxchuc. Tzeltal is one of many Mayan languages spoken near this eastern region of Chiapas, including Tzotzil, Chʼol, and Tojolabʼal, among others. There is also a small Tzeltal diaspora in other parts of Mexico and the United States, primarily as a result of unfavorable economic conditions in Chiapas.

Georgian grammar has many distinctive and extremely complex features, such as split ergativity and a polypersonal verb agreement system.

An anticausative verb is an intransitive verb that shows an event affecting its subject, while giving no semantic or syntactic indication of the cause of the event. The single argument of the anticausative verb is a patient, that is, what undergoes an action. One can assume that there is a cause or an agent of causation, but the syntactic structure of the anticausative makes it unnatural or impossible to refer to it directly. Examples of anticausative verbs are break, sink, move, etc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nez Perce language</span> Sahaptian language traditionally spoken in the Northwestern USA

Nez Perce, also spelled Nez Percé or called nimipuutímt, is a Sahaptian language related to the several dialects of Sahaptin. Nez Perce comes from the French phrase nez percé, "pierced nose"; however, Nez Perce, who call themselves nimíipuu, meaning "the people", did not pierce their noses. This misnomer may have occurred as a result of confusion on the part of the French, as it was surrounding tribes who did so.

Nivaclé is a Matacoan language spoken in Paraguay and in Argentina by the Nivaclé. It is also known as Chulupí and Ashluslay, and in older sources has been called Ashluslé, Suhin, Sujín, Chunupí, Churupí, Choropí, and other variant spellings of these names. Nivaclé speakers are found in the Chaco, in Paraguay in Presidente Hayes Department, and Boquerón Department, and in Argentina in Salta Province.

Transitivity is a linguistics property that relates to whether a verb, participle, or gerund denotes a transitive object. It is closely related to valency, which considers other arguments in addition to transitive objects.

Adang is a Papuan language of the Timor–Alor–Pantar language family spoken on the island of Alor in Indonesia. The language is agglutinative. The Hamap dialect is sometimes treated as a separate language; on the other hand, Kabola, which is sociolinguistically distinct, is sometimes included. Adang, Hamap, and Kabola are considered a dialect chain. Adang is endangered as fewer speakers raise their children in Adang, instead opting for Indonesian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yukulta language</span> Extinct Australian Aboriginal language

The Yukulta language, also spelt Yugulda, Yokula, Yukala, Jugula, and Jakula, and also known as Ganggalidda, is a Tangkic language spoken in Queensland and Northern Territory, Australia. It was spoken by the Yukulta people, whose traditional lands lie on the southern coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria.

Yaul, also known as Ulwa, is a severely endangered Keram language of Papua New Guinea. It is spoken fluently by fewer than 700 people and semi-fluently by around 1,250 people in four villages of the Angoram District of the East Sepik Province: Manu, Maruat, Dimiri, and Yaul. Currently, no children are being taught Ulwa, which has led to the rapid decline of intergenerational transmission for this language.

Mekéns (Mekem), or Amniapé, is a nearly extinct Tupian language of the state of Rondônia, in the Amazon region of Brazil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Avá-Canoeiro language</span> Tupian language spoken in Brazil

Avá-Canoeiro, known as Avá or Canoe, is a minor Tupi–Guaraní language of the state of Goiás, in Brazil. It can be further divided into two dialects: Tocantins Avá-Canoeiro and Araguaia Avá-Canoeiro. All speakers of the language are monolingual.

Djaru (Tjaru) is a Pama–Nyungan language spoken in the south-eastern Kimberley region of Western Australia. As with most Pama-Nyungan languages, Djaru includes single, dual and plural pronoun numbers. Djaru also includes sign-language elements in its lexicon. Nouns in Djaru do not include gender classes, and apart from inflections, words are formed through roots, compounding or reduplication. Word order in Djaru is relatively free and has the ability to split up noun phrases. The Djaru language has a relatively small number of verbs, as compared to most languages, and thus utilizes a system of 'preverbs' and complex verbs to compensate. Djaru also has an avoidance language. Avoidance languages, sometimes known as 'mother-in-law languages', are special registers within a language that are spoken between certain family members – such registers are common throughout native Australian languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vamale language</span> Austronesian language spoken in New Caledonia

Vamale (Pamale) is a Kanak language of northern New Caledonia. The Hmwaeke dialect, spoken in Tiéta, is fusing with Haveke and nearly extinct. Vamale is nowadays spoken in Tiendanite, We Hava, Téganpaïk and Tiouandé. It was spoken in the Pamale valley and its tributaries Vawe and Usa until the colonial war of 1917, when its speakers were displaced.

Bilingara, also known as the Bilinarra, is an Australian Aboriginal language spoken by the Bilinarra people of the Northern Territory.

References

  1. "The Georgian language: An outline grammatical summary". Archived from the original on 2002-10-15.
  2. Itziar Laka. "A Brief Grammar of Basque".
  3. Bonami, Olivier; Boyé, Gilles (2005). "French Pronominal Clitics and the Design of Paradigm Functional Morphology". On-Line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting: 291–322.