Data Loading...
chumakina alt08 draft - University of California, Berkeley Flipbook PDF
Periphrasis and serialization in Archi: a canonical approach. Category: oral The paper uses the canonical approach to ma
115 Views
61 Downloads
FLIP PDF 56.34KB
Periphrasis and serialization in Archi: a canonical approach. Category: oral The paper uses the canonical approach to map out the typological space for complex predicates in a Daghestanian language Archi. In addition to being famous for its rich inflectional morphology, Archi has many multiword constructions in its verbal system ranging from complex verbs (lexical items consisting of two words) to periphrasis (a form in the paradigm consisting of several words) with serialization somewhere in between. Daghestanian languages is not what first comes to mind when talking about serial verb constructions (SVCs further), yet the constructions in Archi look very much like ones. Leaving aside complex verbs as lexical phenomena, we will check the Archi multiword constructions against the criteria for periphrasis on one hand and for SVCs on the other, to determine their place in a (multidimensional) typological space for complex predicates. Various criteria have been suggested for recognising periphrasis and SVCs, which do not necessarily constitute a unified logical space. The comparable ones are the following: Periphrasis SVCs Periphrastic construction represents one SVCs describe what is conceptualized as cell in a paradigm (Matthews 1981) single event (Aikhenvald 2006) Morphosyntactic property set associated SVCs have shared tense, aspect, modality with a periphrastic construction has its and polarity (Durie 1997) exponents distributed among its parts (Ackerman & Stump 2005) In canonical periphrastic construction one SVC is a sequence of verbs which acts element has properties of a syntactic head together as a single predicate without any (Corbett, Brown, Chumakina 2008) overt marking of coordination, subordination or syntactic dependency of any sort (Aikhenvald 2006) First line of this table provides the base for comparison, next two contrast the constructions. Although periphrastic constructions must also satisfy the criterion of shared TAM and polarity, the crucial difference is that, canonically, each part of the SVC expresses each feature value (repeating them), whereas the canonical periphrastic construction shows distribution rather that repetition of the exponents. Archi expresses grammatical tense periphrastically (examples 1-3, 5) satisfying most of the criteria. The multiword constructions that do not fall under periphrasis, satisfy some of the criteria for SVC. They can be divided into two types: (1) where the second verb is a verb of motion (examples 4-5); (2) where the second verb is a postural verb q'eˤjq'is ‘sit’ (example 6) . Type (1) satisfies the criteria listed above (along with other criteria suggested for SVC: they share core arguments and have the intonational properties of a mono-verbal clause). Type (2) is less good example of SVC as the first part is syntactically subordinate to the main verb (‘sit’). Archi constructions also satisfy the following condition: one of the verbs in the construction must belong to a closed class. This is implied in Durie (1997): “there is strong diachronic tendency to lexicalization and grammaticalization of the meaning of serial complexes”. Although not a canonical example of serialization, Archi provides types of constructions that make the overall picture of the types of multiword constructions clearer.
(1) un you.SG.ABS
qilin
pahar-ši
w-i
cigarette(IV)[ABS.SG]
smoke-CVB2
I.SG-be.PRS
You are smoking. (2) w-ez I.SG-1SG.DAT
maq’sud
w-akːu-li
i‹w›di
maqsud
I.SG-see.PFV-CVB1
‹I.SG›be.PAST
I have seen Maqsud. (3) ʁudu
k'onoč laha-s
that.one.I.SG k’onoč
zari
han
uw-li
edi
boy.SG.OBL-DAT 1.SG.ERG what(IV) IV.SG.do.PFV-CVB1
IV.SG.be.PAST
That k’onoč guy, what had I done to him? (4) χitːa kan-a-k then
there-IN-LAT
i‹w›di-muχur
eχni-li
oqˤa-li
‹I.SG›be.PAST-when
IV.SG.forget-EVID
IV.SG.leave-EVID
When he got there, he forgot it (the word). (5) to-w-mi-s this-I.SG-OBL.SG-DAT
to-t
eχni-li
oqˤa-li
this-IV.SG
IV.SG.forget-CVB1 IV.SG.leave-CVB1
edi-li
IV.SG.be.PAST
tu-w
q’ˤaši
this-I.SG.ABS be.wrong
kuwšu-li I.SG.happen-EVID
He has forgotten (the word), he made a mistake. (6) ju-w this-I.SG
bošor
ɬːonnol
o‹r›ka-li
man(I)[SG.ABS] woman(II)[SG.ABS] ‹II.SG›take.away.PFV-CVB1
This man (finally) got married.
qʼu‹w›di-li ‹I.SG›sit.down.PFV-EVID