Third Person Questionnaire

Thu Nov 13 11:12:15 UTC 1997

12 November 1997

Dear colleague,
I am doing a cross-linguistic survey of the relational syntax and
morphology of 3rd person pronouns and 3rd person verbal affixes, and I
would appreciate your assistance with the following questionnaire.

I got your address from the ALT membership list.

Thanking you in advance,

E. Filimonova
Sprachwissenschaft
Universitaet Konstanz
D-78457 Konstanz
Germany
elena.filimonova at uni-konstanz.de

INTRODUCTION

        The problem of the hierarchical ordering of noun phrases on various
parameters was repeatedly posed in the recent linguistic literature, e.g.
in Silverstein (1976), Heath (1976), Moravcsik (1978), Comrie (1979), and
Wierzbicka (1981). Best known in this respect is perhaps Silverstein's
hierarchy of agentivity.
        This is "a hierarchy of what might be called 'inherent lexical
content' of noun phrases, 1 and 2 persons,  as well as 3 person. This
hierarchy expresses the semantic naturalness for a lexically specified noun
phrase to function as agent of a true transitive verb and inversely the
naturalness of functioning as patient of such. The noun phrases at the top
of the hierarchy manifest  nominative-accusative case marking, while those
at the bottom manifest ergative-absolutive case-marking" (Silverstein 1976:
113). Abbreviating objects of transitive verbs (patient) as O, subjects of
transitive verbs (agent) as A, and subjects of intransitive verbs (subject)
as S, his hierarchy  can be presented as follows:
A
Erg. <------------
S
O -------------> Acc.
non-Sg(1&2)     Sg(1&2) 3       Proper  Human  Animate  Inanim.

        For each NP its most natural semantic role (agent vs. patient of
the transitive verb) is on the morphological level provided with the
unmarked case; in both cases it is nominative. The semantically marked role
(patient for  more personal and more animate NPs and agent for  more
impersonal and inanimate NPs) is provided with the marked case: this is
accusative in the  nominative/accusative case system and ergative in the
nominative/ergative case system.
        So for this scale the following principle must  be valid: if one of
the elements of the hierarchy takes ergative case-marking, then all units
to the right of it must have ergative case-marking as well; and if one of
the units takes accusative case-marking, then all units to its left must
have accusative  case-marking too.
        Interestingly, independently of Silverstein and others I. Kozinsky
also posed the problem of the hierarchical ordering of noun phrases in an
article of 1980, looking at what is universal about personal pronouns
choosing ergative-nominative or nominative-accusative strategies in
case-marking. Both Kozinsky and Silverstein operate with the same elements
:  1st and 2nd person pronouns, 3rd person pronouns, nouns. Both Kozinsky
and Silverstein arrange the elements in the same order.
        I am currently investigating the empirical adequacy of the
generalisations suggested by Kozinsky, listed below, and would be grateful
for information on possible counterexamples that you might be aware of.

        (1) If in a language there is an opposition ergative/nominative in
the declension of independent personal pronouns of 1st and 2nd person (or
at least  one  of them), then there is the same opposition in the
declension of nouns of this language. (Kozinsky 1980: 52)

        (By "personal pronouns" Kozinsky means independent personal
pronouns and not personal subject-object verbal affixes. Personal affixes,
as he argues, are characterised by other regularities.)
        The proviso "at least one of them" is added  in order to include
into this universal a small number of Dardic and Daghestanian languages, in
which this opposition in the system of personal pronouns is found only with
some of pronouns of the 1st and 2nd person. Thus, in Botlikh and Archi only
the 1Sg pronoun has this opposition, in Chamalal only 1Sg and 2Sg, in Tsez
only 1Pl and 2Pl.
        No exceptions to this universal are so far on record.  The reverse
implication is often violated. There are many languages in which the
opposition (ergative/nominative) holds in the declension of nouns, but not
in that of personal pronouns.
        Kozinsky suggests a similar universal for 3rd person personal
and/or demonstrative pronouns:

        (2) If in a language 3rd person personal and/or demonstrative
pronouns person have an opposition ergative/nominative, then the nouns of
this language will have the same opposition. (Kozinsky 1980: 53)

        Although "3rd person morphology in the Indo-European languages
parallels that of the  1st and 2nd in form" (as is also pointed out in
Silverstein 1976: 117), its syntactic behaviour is entirely different".
Kozinsky points out that the case inflection of 3rd person pronouns is
similar to that of nouns in the opposition ergative/nominative, also in the
languages where 1st and 2nd person pronouns  do not have this opposition
(e.g. Tabasaran, Eskimo, Wemba Wemba). But there are languages in which 3rd
person pronouns inflect like the 1st and 2nd person pronouns but do not
distinguish ergative and nominative (e.g. Aleut, Assamese, Yugumbir - a
dialect of Bandjalang). Kozinsky also mentions Tirahi, a Dardic language,
where 1st and 2nd person pronouns have this opposition but 3rd person
pronouns do not.  We could also mention Karitiana, a Tupi language (Everett
1985, Storto 1993), where 1st and 2nd person pronoun forms follow an
ergative pattern and 3rd person forms an accusative pattern. Consequently,
although the reverse of (2) will be valid for the overwhelming majority of
languages, it can only be considered a statistical universal:

        (3) If in a language nouns have the opposition ergative/nominative,
then with a high probability 3rd person personal and/or demonstrative
pronouns  have the same opposition. (Kozinsky 1980: 54)

        Problematic for this "quasi"-universal is Mbabaram, an Australian
language (Dixon 1991), where 1st, 2nd, 3rd person pronouns and human nouns
follow the accusative pattern of case-marking, whereas the other nouns
follow  the ergative one. In another Australian language, Djabugaj (Patz
1991), 1st and 2nd person pronouns are accusative, nouns are ergative, and
3rd person pronouns as well as demonstratives follow a contrastive pattern,
i.e. they have three different forms for S, A, and P. In Kala Lagau Langgus
("Western Island Language"), also Australian (Bani & Klokeid 1976: 271),
non-singular pronouns and personal names follow the accusative pattern of
case-marking, nouns follow the ergative pattern, and singular pronouns of
1st, 2nd and 3rd persons are contrastively marked.  In Wargamay, yet
another Australian language (Dixon 1981), non-singular 1st and 2nd person
pronouns are accusative, 3rd person singular pronoun as well as nouns are
ergative, whereas  singular 1st and 2nd person pronouns, 3rd person dual
and plural pronouns and interrogatives have contrastive case-marking.

        The aim of my questionnaire below is to unearth more
counterexamples to such universals.

References

Bani, Ephraim & Terry J. Klokeid (1976). Ergative Switching in Kala Lagau
Langgus. In P. Sutton (ed.) Languages of Cape York. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 269-283.

Comrie, Bernard (1979). The animacy hierarchy in Chuckchee. Papers from the
conference on non-Slavic languages of the USSR. Chicago Linguistic Society.
322-30.

Dixon, R. M. W. (1981). Wargamay. In R. M. W. Dixon & B. Blake (eds.)
Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 2. Amsterdam. 1-146.

Dixon, R. M. W. (1991). Mbabaram. In R. M. W. Dixon & B. Blake (eds.)
Handbook  of Australian languages. Vol. 4. Amsterdam. 349-402.

Everett, Daniel (1985) A note on ergativity, S' and S'' in Karitiana.
Working   Papers of SIL University of North Dakota. 69-81.

Heath, Jeffrey (1976). Substantival hierarchies: addendum to Silverstein.
In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian Languages. New
Jersey. 172-190.

Kozinsky, Issak (1980). Nekotorye universal'nye osobennosti sistem
sklonenija   licnyx mestoimenij. [Some universal peculiarities in the
systems of personal pronouns declension.] In Teorija i tipologija
mestoimenij [Theory and typology of pronouns]. Moskva: Nauka. 50-63.

Moravcsik, Edith (1978).  On the distribution of ergative and accusative
patterns. Lingua 45, 233-279.

Patz, E. (1991). Djabugay. In R. M. W. Dixon & B. Blake (eds.) Handbook of
Australian languages. Vol. 4. Amsterdam. 245-346.

Silverstein, Michael (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M.
W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian Languages. New Jersey.
112-171.

Storto, Luciana R. (1993) Basic word order in Karitiana (Arikem family,
Tupi Stock). In M. Langdon (ed.) Report and Survey of Californian and other
Indian languages. 138-144.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1981). Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal
of Linguistics 1, 43-80.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Language:

Are you a native speaker?

Your name:

How to contact you:

Please gloss the translations, naming all constituent-morphemes.

        1. Do the 3d person pronouns in your language distinguish between
high-ranking and low-ranking classes of referents, i.e. are there separate
forms for: animate/human/definite/proximate and
inanimate/non-human/indefinite/obviative referents or similar distinctions?

        if yes - go to question 2; if no - go to question 5.

        2. How does the case-marking of high- and low-ranking 3rd person
pronouns pattern in the singular?  That is, do high- and low-ranking 3rd
person pronouns distinguish transitive agent and patient (cf. English:
he-him, she-her) or do they only have a single form (cf. English: it-it)?
How is the intransitive subject case-marked?

Please translate:

        I beat him (high-ranking).

        I beat it (low-ranking).

        He (high-ranking) beats me.

        It (low-ranking) beats me.

        He (high ranking) falls down.

        It (low-ranking) falls down.

        3. Do 3rd person pronouns make the same difference between high-
and low-ranking referents in the plural and also other numbers (if there
are any)?  Or is there only a single general 3rd person form in the plural
etc.?

        How does the case-marking of transitive agent and patient and
intransitive subject look like in non-singular numbers?

Please translate:

        I beat them (high-ranking).

        I beat them (low-ranking).

        They (high-ranking) beat me.

        They (low-ranking) beat me.

        They (high-ranking) fall down.

        They (low-ranking) fall down.

The next question concerns personal affixes on verbs:
        4. Your language distinguishes high- and low-ranking referents of
3rd person pronouns. Does it make the same difference in the personal
affixes of the verb?   If so, please give examples (for singular and for
other numbers).

        4a. Please translate:

I beat him (high-ranking).

I beat it (low-ranking).

You beat him (high-ranking).

You beat it (low-ranking).

He (high-ranking) beats me .

It (low-ranking) beats me.

He (high-ranking) beats you.

It (low-ranking) beats you.

I fall  down.

You fall down.

I beat you.

You beat me.

        5. The 3rd person pronouns in your language do not distinguish
between types of referents. How are they case-marked? Do they follow the
model of 1st and 2nd person pronouns or the model of nouns?

Please translate:

        He beats me.

        I beat him.

        They beat me.

        I beat them.

        He beats you.

        You beat him.

        They beat you.

        You beat them.

        He falls down.

        They fall down.

        I fall down.

        You fall down.

        I beat a boy.

        A boy beats me.

        A boy falls down.

        He beats my brother.

        My brother beats him.

        My brother falls down.