Cover not available
Article published In:
The Evolution of Argument Coding Patterns in South American Languages
Edited by Antoine Guillaume and Spike Gildea
[Journal of Historical Linguistics 8:1] 2018
► pp. 95–127

From object nominalization to object focus

The innovative A-alignment in the Tuparian languages (Tupian family)

| Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi
| University of São Paulo
This article proposes that the divergent pattern of verb argument marking found in object focus clauses in the Tuparian branch of the Tupian family comes from the reanalysis of an object nominalization in a cleft construction. Based on the distribution of free and bound person markers, the major alignment pattern can be characterized as nominative-absolutive in simple clauses, with free pronouns expressing the nominative, whereas bound person markers express the absolutive. However, object focus clauses show a distinct alignment pattern: the ergative, and not the absolutive, is indexed by the bound markers on the verb. We present arguments for identifying the object nominalization as the source of this grammar in the object focus clause, showing also how this reanalysis resulted in the nominalizer morpheme and the person markers gaining new functions.
Keywords: internal reconstruction, nominalization, focus construction, morphosyntactic alignment, Tuparian languages, Tupian family
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The problem: Two different alignment types in the Tuparian languages
  • 3.Reconstruction of the relevant morphosyntax to Proto-Tupari
    • 3.1Tuparian personal pronouns: Free and bound forms
    • 3.2Main clause alignment
    • 3.3Argument structure of nominalizations
      • 3.3.1Action/circumstantial and subject nominalizations
      • 3.3.2Object nominalization
    • 3.4 tam with nominalizations
  • 4.Reanalysis of the object nominalization to the object focus construction
    • 4.1Object nominalization in a simple predicate nominal clause
    • 4.2Morphosyntactic innovations in the object focus construction
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 20 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.16025.gal
References (37)
References
Alves, Poliana M. 2004. O léxico do Tuparí: proposta de um dicionário bilíngüe. Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita” PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Aragon, Carolina. 2014. A Grammar of Akuntsú, a Tupían Language. University of Hawai‘i,, at Mānoa PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2008. Fonologia e aspectos morfológicos e sintáticos da língua Akuntsú. Universidade de Brasília MA thesis.Google Scholar
Birchall, Joshua. 2015. A Comparison of Verbal Person Marking Across Tupian Languages. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas 10:2.487–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Argument Marking Patterns in South American Languages. Utrecht: LOT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braga, Alzerinda. 2005. Aspects Morphosyntaxiques de la Langue Makurap/Tupi. Université de Toulouse PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Brandon, F. R., Luci Seki. 1984. Moving Interrogatives Without an Initial +wh Node in Tupi. The Syntax of Native American Languages ed. by Eung-Do Cook & Donna B. Gerdts, 72–102. (=Syntax and Semantics, 16.) New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy. 2001. The Morphosyntax of Mekens (TUPI). The University of Chicago PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2006. Relativização na Língua Sakurabiat (Mekens). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas 1:1.49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Nominalization in the Mekens Language. Amerindia 351.237–260.Google Scholar
. 2014. Estrutura argumental e alinhamento gramatical em Mekens. Sintaxe e Semântica do Verbo em Línguas Indígenas no Brasil ed. by Bruna Franchetto, Luciana Storto & Suzi Lima, 167–196. Campinas: Mercado de Letras.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy & Antonia F. Nogueira. 2012. Comparative Study of the Tupari Branch of the Tupi Family: Contributions to Understanding its Historical Development and Internal Classification. Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America V. Austin: Center for Indigenous Languages of Latin America (CILLA).Google Scholar
. 2014. Causativização e alteração de valência em Mekens e Wayoro. Incremento de Valencia en las lenguas amazonicas ed. by Francesc Queixalós, Stella Telles & Ana Carla Bruno, 211–233. Bogotá: Instituto Caro Y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy, Sérgio Meira, Joshua Birchall, Denny Moore, Nilson Gabas Jr., Sebastian Drude, Luciana Storto, Gessiane Picanço & Carmen Reis Rodrigues. 2015. Genealogical Relations and Lexical Distances Within the Tupí Linguistic Family: A Lexicostatistical and Phylogenetic Approach. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas 10:2.229–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gijn, Rik van. 2014. Subordination Strategies in South America: Nominalization. The Native Languages of South America: Origins, Development, Typology ed. by Loretta O’Connor & Pieter Muysken, 274–297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gijn, Rik van, Ana Vilacy Galucio & Antonia F. Nogueira. 2015. Subordination Strategies in Tupian Languages. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciencias Humanas 10:2.297–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1994. The Proto-Cariban and Tupí-Guaraní Object Nominalizing Prefix. Lingüística Tupí-Guaraní/Caribe ed. by Ignacio Prado Pastor, 163–177. (= Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnolingüísticos, 8.) Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Explaining Similarities Between Main Clauses and Nominalized Clauses. Amerindia 321.57–75.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Flávia de Castro Alves. 2010. Nominative-Absolutive: Counter-Universal Split Ergativity in Jê and Cariban. Ergativity in Amazonia ed. by Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós, 159–199. (= Typological Studies in Language, 89.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. To appear. Reconstructing the Source of Nominative-Absolutive Alignment in Two Amazonian Language Families. Reconstructing Syntax: Cognates and Directionality ed. by Eugenio Luján, Jóhanna Barðdal & Spike Gildea. Leiden: Brill Press.
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C. 1990. Cross-referencing Changes in Some Tupi-Guarani languages. Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages ed. by Doris Payne, 117–158. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change ed. by Charles Li, 59–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Denny. 1994. A Few Aspects of Comparative Tupi Syntax. Revista latinoamericana de studios etnolingüísticos 81.151–162.Google Scholar
Moore, Denny, Ana Vilacy Galucio & Nilson Gabas Jr. 2008. O desafio de documentar e preservar as línguas amazônicas. Scientific American (Brasil) 31.36–43.Google Scholar
Nogueira, Antonia Fernanda. 2011. Wayoro mto: fonologia segmental e morfossintaxe verbal. Universidade de São Paulo MA thesis.Google Scholar
. 2017. The Morphosyntax of Nominalization in Wayoro (Tupí): A Preliminary Approach. Diadorim: revista de estudos linguísticos e literários 191.250–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. To appear. Formas verbais finitas e não finitas na língua Wayoro (Tupi). Universidade de São Paulo PhD dissertation.
Nogueira, Antonia Fernanda, Ana V. Galucio, Nicole Soares-Pinto & Adam R. Singerman. To appear. Termos de parentesco na família Tupari (Tupi). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas.
Rodrigues, Aryon. D. 1984. Relações internas na família linguística Tupí-Guaraní. Antropologia 27–281.33–53.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna & Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara Cabral. 2012. Tupían. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide ed. by Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona, 495–574. (= The World of Linguistics, 2.) Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara Cabral & Beatriz Carretta Corrrêa da Silva. 2006. Evidências Lingüísticas para a Reconstrução de um Nominalizador de Objeto *-mi para o Proto-Tupí. Estudos da Língua(gem) 4:2.21–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santos, Jarde. 2010. Documentação da língua Wayoró: para a preservação das línguas indígenas amazônicas. Fundação Universidade de Rondônia MA thesis.Google Scholar
Singerman, Adam. 2016. Nasal Harmony and Phonotactic Well-Formedness in Tupari. International Journal of American Linguistics 82:4.453–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voort, Hein van der. 2007. Proto-Jabutí: Um primeiro passo na reconstrução da língua ancestral dos Arikapú e Djeoromitxí. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas 2:2.133–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Singerman, Adam Roth
2021. On finite embedded clauses in Tuparí: their synchrony, diachrony, and typology. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.