28.4642, Review: Aguaruna; Language Documentation; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Overall (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4642. Mon Nov 06 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.4642, Review: Aguaruna; Language Documentation; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Overall (2017)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:21:38
From: Hugo García Macías [jhgarcia at unm.edu]
Subject: A Grammar of Aguaruna (Iiniá Chicham)

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36306417


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-1384.html

AUTHOR: Simon E.  Overall
TITLE: A Grammar of Aguaruna (Iiniá Chicham)
SERIES TITLE: Mouton Grammar Library [MGL]
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Hugo García Macías, Independent Researcher

REVIEWS EDITOR: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

“A grammar of Aguaruna (Iiniá Chicham)”  is a revision of Simon Overall’s
(henceforth ‘O’) doctoral dissertation (2007), which is in turn a description
of the Marañón variety of Aguaruna (also known as Awajún. ISO 639-3: agr), an
Amazonian language of the Jivaroan (or Chicham) family. The grammar is based
on the author’s fieldwork in a small community (420 people) in northern
Amazonia (Peru) between 2004 and 2006.  The exposition follows Mosel’s (2006)
‘ascending’ grammar model in which the presentation develops from the smaller
to the larger units –––i.e. from the phonological system to discourse
organization (O explicitly states this on p. 577). This is of course a model
widely used in writing reference grammars. Following is a summary of the main
topics of the book.

Chapter 1 presents a preliminary sketch of Aguaruna grammar. It also includes
geographic and demographic information on the language. Also, the writing
conventions are specified –a blend of IPA and official Aguaruna orthography,
except for Chapter 3, in which only IPA is used. 

Chapter 2 presents the Aguaruna cultural and historical context. It discusses
its genetic relations, its areal setting and some aspects of the linguistic
tradition of Chicham languages. This chapter also presents succinct
considerations on borrowing and codeswitching (from Spanish and Quechua).
Finally, it details the procedures for obtaining and transcribing the data.
The grammar is mostly based on traditional folktales and other narratives
recorded and transcribed by the author. Elicited examples and incidental
observations of conversational interactions were also used as secondary
sources. 

Chapter 3 describes the Aguaruna phonological system, which is characterized
by fifteen consonants and four vowels. O’s analysis differs from previous
analysis in Aguaruna in some respects. For example, he considers /r/ and /h/
as allophones of the same phoneme instead of independent phonemes. Also, O
modifies the analysis of glides presented in the original dissertation, and
this time he analyzes them as phonemes instead of allomorphs of vowels.
Aguaruna also shows a phonological contrast between oral and nasal vowels.
Vowel elision is also a common phenomenon via three different processes:
apocope, syncope and diphthong reduction. Several morphophonological processes
are also described, such as vowel sandhi, immunity to apocope and vowel
harmony. The accent system is also discussed in length. Interestingly,
Aguaruna shows features from stress and tone systems. Thus, it is possible in
practice to find instances of phonological contrast between high and low tone
as well as in stress placement. However, stress features seem to be dominant
since tone contrast is apparently a surface realization of stress patterns, as
O shows (pp. 108-109). Accent is also useful as a criterion for defining the
phonological word in Aguaruna (each word must have a primary stress). This
chapter also describes partial reduplication and the phonology of compound
nouns. The chapter ends with a concise consideration on the phonology of
loans.

Chapter 4 and 5 present the morphology of nouns, adjectives and pronouns, and
the structure of the noun phrase, respectively. The nominal morphology in
Aguaruna is subdivided in derivative morphology, possession marking, case
marking, and discourse markers. O considers the nominal word as having seven
morphological slots corresponding to the following functions: diminutive,
possession, derivation, case, restrictive, discourse markers and copula. O
also discusses the distinction between noun and adjective in Aguaruna, which
he tries to base on structural criteria. This is problematic since adjectives
share almost all of their morphology with nouns. Some subsets of adjectives
can appear in specific constructions, e.g. gradability and comparison, but
this is not enough to distinguish the adjective in Aguaruna as structurally
distinct from the noun. Several subclasses of nouns are described: inherently
gendered nouns (Aguaruna lacks grammatical gender markers), proper names,
kinship terms, irregular nouns, and locational nouns. O also discusses
compound nouns, and personal and demonstrative pronouns. Aguaruna has seven
personal pronouns, corresponding to 1, 2 and 3 person in singular and plural
(including an additional pronoun for distinguishing specific from non-specific
plural first person). As for demonstrative pronouns, Aguaruna has a three-way
spatial distinction: proximal, medial and distal. Finally, this chapter
explains in detail all the morphemes that appear in the seven morphological
slots mentioned above. As for the structure of the noun phrase (NP), several
operators as demonstrative and anaphoric pronouns are described, as well as
less typical structural constructions such as discontinuous and headless NPs. 

Chapter 6 discusses the Aguaruna verb. For the sake of clarity, O
distinguishes between two levels of verbal morphology. Level I consists of the
prefix position, as well as the suffixes for valency, object, aspect and
negation. On the other hand, Level II includes the more external positions of
tense, person and mood/modality suffixes. This chapter also presents the
paradigms of verb conjugations. Aguaruna has a system of five conjugations
that change the root according to three stems: unmarked, perfective and
imperfective. In addition to their conjugation paradigms, verbs can also be
classified according to the form of the object markers and the applicative
suffixes they take. Other topics included in this chapter are irregular verbs,
derivation from nouns to verbs and auxiliary constructions.

Chapter 7 discusses grammatical relations. This chapter enumerates several
hierarchy effects (see Silverstein 1976, Comrie 1989, among others) manifested
in the grammatical relations in Aguaruna, which show a 1 > 2 > 3 person
ranking (i.e. it follows the expected hierarchical pattern). The chapter also
discusses several transitive configurations such as three-place predicates,
ditransitive verbs and ambitransitivity. Other topics covered in this chapter
are valency changing derivation (causative, applicative, reflexive and
reciprocal), non-verbal predicates and copular clauses.

Chapter 8-10 discuss tense, aspect and person, as well as modality –that is,
these chapters focus on Level II verbal morphology (see above on Chapter 6).
Aspect can be unmarked or have the following markers: perfective,
imperfective, potential or durative. The perfective aspect is marked by a
variety of suffixes (six in total), each one conveying a specific meaning
–namely intensive, transferred, attenuative, pluractional, high affectedness
and low affectedness. In addition to the aspectual suffixes, Aguaruna uses
other elements such as nominalizers to convey tense. O distinguishes a
formally unmarked present tense, four synthetic past tenses (recent past,
intermediate past, distant past and remote past) and future tense (subdivided
into immediate future, definite and indefinite future). O notes that his
informants “characterize the distinction between the tenses in terms of
degrees of remoteness…. However actual use shows that there must be other
factors involved” (p. 341). Also, a specific nominalizer morpheme can convey
narrative past. One interesting aspect of the tense system in Aguaruna is that
it can have evidential overtones since “recent, intermediate and distal past
forms imply firsthand information on the part of the speaker” (pp. 341-342).
Four major modalities are found: indicative, interrogative, imperative and
exclamative. Indicative mood is marked by different morphemes that convey
declarative (neutral assertion), counter-expectation, narrative and
speculative. Mood is usually only marked in main clauses and not in
subordinate clauses. The exclamative mood is an exception since it is
zero-marked, thus rather looking as a subordinate –or rather ‘insubordinate’
(see Evans 2007) – clause (on exclamatives that look like subordinate clauses
see e.g. Kalinina 2011). As for questions, O describes content, polar and tag
questions (including rhetorical and embedded questions). Questions in Aguaruna
do not really follow a grammatically distinct pattern; rather, their
interpretation as questions depends on the lexical items used (for content
questions) or the question marker (for polar questions). Rhetorical questions
are commonly used in daily interaction. A concise description of greeting
formulas related to questions is also included.

Chapter 11 describes negation. The topic is subdivided in negation of the
verb, negation of nominal items, and negative lexemes and particles. Negation
is mostly achieved via suffixation. A different suffix is used for marking
negation in declarative and in interrogative clauses. 

Chapter 12 explains adverbial words. As usual in linguistic descriptions, this
category is eclectic, including in this case numerals, quantifiers, manner
adverbs, ideophones, time words, location words, intensifiers, discourse
particles and interjections. 

Chapter 13-17 explain several aspects of subordinate clauses, including
nominalization strategies. Subordination is a very important topic in Aguaruna
since it is a clause-chaining language, that is speakers show a preference for
linking verbs through subordinate clauses marked by switch reference instead
of using syntactically independent clauses. O takes a structural approach to
subordination by considering as subordinate clauses only those marking
obligatorily switch-reference. O uses this formal approach since “in Aguaruna,
any given subordinate clause may show more or fewer of the properties
traditionally associated with subordination… and examination of such
properties does not seem to be a useful criterion for making generalizations”
(p. 471; cf. Cristofaro 2003). As is usually the case for subordinate clauses
crosslinguistically, subordinate verbs use fewer morphological markers than
main verbs. Subordinate verbs are marked only for subordination, person, and
switch reference. In addition, they can be marked with conditional, concessive
or modality enclitics. There are several types of subordinate clauses, which
can be represented by the following hierarchy: finite > same subject
subordinate clause > different subject subordinate clause > non-inflecting
subordinate clause > nominalized. Same subject subordinate verbs can be marked
by terminative, intentional or frustrative suffixes. On the other hand,
subordinate verbs can take non-temporal, simultaneous or sequential suffixes
–if a subordinate verb is unmarked it is interpreted as perfective. As for the
semantics of subordinate clauses, they are subdivided into several
clause-types: temporal, consequence, possible consequence, purpose,
conditional, concessive, relative and speech reports. In addition to proper
subordination, coordinated and bridging structures are also explained.
Aguaruna has two types of coordination: contrastive and disjunctive. The
distinction is established semantically, based on the conjunction used. On the
other hand, bridging constructions combine coordination and subordination. The
most common bridging construction uses a pro-verb following a finite verb.
“The pro-verb refers anaphorically to the preceding clause, and indicates the
temporal/clausal and switch-reference relations between it and the following
clause” (p. 499). As for nominalization, eight nominalizing suffixes are
described. All of them are productive and correspond to the grammatical role
of the referent of the nominalization (e.g. if the referent is an action, a
specific suffix will be used, and the suffix will change if the referent is
the subject of the clause). Nominalizations are also used in the following
non-referential functions: complementation, relativization, auxiliation, and
clause chaining. As for relative clauses, they follow two separate strategies:
use of nominalization and use of relative pronouns. Finally, speech reports
are structurally different from other constructions, and are widely used in
Aguaruna as complements of cognition verbs. Speech reports can accomplish
several functions. They can be used for emphasis and for expressing thoughts
and intentions. They also can be used in complementation, that is “the
embedding of an entire clause as a core argument of a matrix clause” (p. 567).

Chapter 18 discusses discourse organization. Aguaruna’s constituent order is
AOV (Agent, Object, Verb), with the subject appearing at clause-initial
position and the predicate at the final position. O argues that the position
of the constituents is not related to information structure, although
presupposed information often appears first. Thus, the order of the clause can
appear as OVA for pragmatic reasons. Also, new, given or contrastive
information can be marked via structural coding. O concludes that the
positions at the periphery of the clause are also relevant to highlight
constituents –which is usually the case crosslinguistically (Croft 1994).

At the end of the book, three texts are presented with glosses and
translation.

EVALUATION

One important aspect for evaluating this book is to compare it with the
dissertation in which it originates. Since the book is a revised version of
the dissertation, most of the information in the former can be found in the
later. However, the book has improved the organization of the information
presented, and several points have been made clearer by adding more
explanations and examples. Moreover, some topics developed in the the book are
not found in the dissertation. In this respect, the most important additions
might be the chapter on grammatical relations and the discussions on modality
and information structure. 

In general, the grammar is exhaustive and typologically well-informed, which
makes it a very valuable resource for typological studies. Of course, the book
is designed for linguists and not for the general public (as is the case for
all titles in the Mouton Grammar Library) but it does not require the reader
to be familiar with the literature in Aguaruna or Chicham languages. Also,
evidently O aims for a ‘basic linguistic theory’ approach (Dixon 2010), that
is a descriptive approach that reduces the use of theoretical models to the
minimum in order to give a clear and more approachable depiction of the
language. In this respect, it is very useful that O clarifies any issues and
challenges he has faced, explaining the reasons for his methodological and
analytical choices when this is pertinent.

However, one of the most valuable aspects of this work is that it is the first
comprehensive reference grammar of Aguaruna. A language that is very relevant
on several accounts such as its history as well as its current population
–approximately 13,650 monolingual speakers and more than 25,000 bilingual
speakers according to the figures given in p. 1 (see also Lewis et al. 2013).
Moreover, this work opens several lines of investigation for the study of
Aguaruna for the first time since, as O points out in repeated occasions,
several of the topics addressed in the grammar need more research.

A critical observation that can be made is regarding the use of formal against
semantic criteria to define linguistic phenomena. Whereas the original
dissertation seemed to aim for a balance between formal and semantic criteria,
in the book the formal criteria seem preeminent. This is clear for example in
the distinction between adjectives and nouns (see above). The dissertation
simply defined word classes functionally (Overall 2007: 118; Croft 1991), but
in the book O tried to followed a structural criterion that showed itself
problematic (see pp. 130 & ff.) 
 
Also, the decision of basing the linguistic corpora mostly on narratives
leaving aside conversational data is a limitation that O acknowledges (e.g. p.
342), although he does not explain the reasons for such an approach.

The critical observations above, however, do not in any way diminish the value
of this outstanding work, which will be undoubtedly an authoritative reference
for Aguaruna in years to come, and a very valuable resource for typologists
and field linguists.

REFERENCES

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and
morphology Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press.

Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the
cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Croft, William. 1994. Speech act classification, language typology and
cognition. Foundations of Speech Act Theory, ed. by S.L. Tsohatzidis, 460-77.
London: Routledge.

Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford
University Press.

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. Finiteness: theoretical
and empirical foundations, ed. by I. Nikolaeva, 366-431. Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press.

Kalinina, Elena. 2011. Exclamative clauses in the languages of the North
Caucasus and the problem of finiteness. Tense, aspect, modality and finiteness
in East Caucasian languages, ed. by G. Authier & T. Maisak, 163-99. Bochum:
Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig. 2013. ‘Aguaruna’ in
Ethnologue: Languages of the World. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/agr
(consulted in July 2017).

Mosel, Ulrike. 2006. Grammaticography: the art and craft of writing grammars.
Catching language: the standing challenge of grammar writing, ed. by F.K.
Ameka, A.C. Dench & N. Evans, 137-69. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Overall, Simon E. 2007. A Grammar of Aguaruna. Australia: La Trobe University
Doctoral Dissertation.

Silverstein, Michael (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical
categories in Australian languages, ed. by R. M. W. Dixon. Canberra.
Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies, 112-71.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Hugo García Macías obtained a doctoral degree in Linguistics at the University
of New Mexico in 2016 with the dissertation 'From the Unexpected to the
Unbelievable: Thetics, Miratives and Exclamatives in Conceptual Space'. He is
not currently affiliated with any institution. His main interests are
typology, pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. His line of research is
focused on the relationship between information structure and speech acts from
an interdisciplinary perspective.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4642	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/