[Lingtyp] instant resumption
gil at shh.mpg.de
Sun Sep 19 18:04:19 UTC 2021
Dear Christian et al,
A similar phenomenon involving pronouns rather than demonstratives
occurs in a number of languages of New Guinea, generally along the north
coast.I once started a typological study of the phenomenon but aborted
it after getting bogged down in definitional issues.Anyway, here are
some references for particular languages:
Mauwake (Madang, TNG):
Järvinen, Liisa (1991) “The Pronoun System of Mauwake”, in T. Dutton
ed., /Papers in Papuan Linguistics/ 1, Pacific Linguistics A - 73,
Canberra, 57-95.(see p. 65)
Dumo (Western Skou):
Ross, Malcolm (1980) “Some Elements of Vanimo, A New Guinea Tone
Language”, in M. Boxwell et al eds., /Papers in New Guinea Linguistics/
20, Pacific Linguistics A - 56, Canberra, 77-109.(seepp. 85-6)
Roon (South Halmahera West New Guinea, Austronesian)
own field work
Papuan Malay (Austronesian):
Donohue, Mark and Yusuf Sawaki (2007) "Papuan Malay Pronominals: Forms
and Functions", /Oceanic Linguistics/ 47:253-276.
Gil, David (to appear) "Number in Indonesian", in P. Acquaviva and M.
Daniel eds., /Number in the World's Languages/, De Gruyter, Berlin.
On 19/09/2021 17:58, Christian Lehmann wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> while working on Cabecar grammar, I have been struggling with a
> phenomenon which I do not recall having seen treated in the literature
> and which I have dubbed instant resumption. It is a kind of
> intraclausal anaphora involving an NP as antecedent and a
> demonstrative pronoun as anaphor. A variant of this has been
> well-known as left-dislocation. In Cabecar, however, the construction
> has these properties:
> * It does not necessarily involve left-dislocation. The antecedent
> NP may be anywhere inside the clause, even at its end.
> * The resumptive pronoun (the medial demonstrative, glossed D.MED
> below) may, in principle, come later in the clause. However, in
> 96% of the cases, it follows the antecedent immediately. It does
> this even at the end of the clause. I therefore assume that, at
> the structural level, this is (putting it in grammaticalizational
> terms) no longer anaphora, but apposition.
> * The phenomenon is completely independent of the internal
> constituency of the antecedent; this may be a nominalized clause,
> a determined NP or even a pronoun. And it is independent of the
> syntactic function of the resumptive - or the entire appositional
> NP - in its clause; it may be just any function available to an NP.
> * Instant resumption is always optional, although preferred in many
> Here are two examples; the antecedent is bracketed:
> E1. Rogelio jé m-á̱=ká̱=ju̱ bulía.
> [Rogelio] D.MED go-PROG=ASC=AM tomorrow
> ‘Rogelio(, he) will climb tomorrow.’
> E2. jé rä sä yu-ä kië́ Pedro jé= i̠a̠.
> D.MED COP [1.PL form-NR name Peter] D.MED=DAT
> ‘that is for the professor named Peter.’
> Unless you have seen this kind of construction before, you may think
> that my analysis is mistaken and the demonstrative is simply a
> postnominal determiner. Be assured that it is not. The language has
> prenominal determiners. And as said before, there are 4% of distant
> resumption which would not be possible if the thing were a determiner.
> Certain phenomena I have seen in other languages come to mind:
> * In Dagbani, the relative clause (described by Wilson 1963 and
> 1975) is followed by a particle /la/ which Wilson does not
> categorize but which looks like a demonstrative.
> * In Wappo, the relative clause (described by Li & Thompson 1978) is
> followed by a demonstrative /ce/, which at that time I thought was
> a postnominal determiner.
> * In some Australian language which I do not recall, the case
> suffixes on nouns look like pronouns provided with the same case
> suffixes. Compare with this E2 above.
> Here are my questions to you:
> * Have you seen instant resumption in other languages?
> * Is there an established concept and term for the phenomenon which
> I have overlooked?
> * Is it a grammaticalized form of left-dislocation, as it appears to
> me, or is there some other base for it?
> * How should we conceive its function at the grammaticalized stage?
> To me, it seems that it no longer has any cognitive or
> communicative function, but a mere structural function (if I may
> say so), viz. identifying a nominal expression as such by summing
> it up, and thus demarcating it against the rest of the clause at
> least in configurations as E1.
> I would be grateful for any help.
> Best, Christian
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Tel.: +49/361/2113417
> E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Senior Scientist (Associate)
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp