Cover not available
Part of
Switch Reference 2.0
Edited by Rik van Gijn and Jeremy Hammond
[Typological Studies in Language 114] 2016
► pp. 231–252

The zero-marked switch-reference system of the Papuan language Iatmul

| Sangmyung University

Although in Iatmul switch-reference is not marked by dedicated morphemes, the absence of subject cross-reference markers indicates subject continuity, whereas their presence signals disjoint reference. Switch-reference clauses can show various degrees of syntactic integration into a matrix clause, and specific constellations have undergone grammaticalization or lexicalisation. Tail-head linkage carries the switch reference mechanism over to the next sentence, but is also attested as a coordination device. What distinguishes the Iatmul system from converbs in languages such as Turkish and Korean is the role of reference tracking, since Turkish and Korean converbs primarily express semantic relations between clauses, whereas the primary function of the Iatmul system is participant tracking.

Published online: 25 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.114.07jen
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
2008 The Manambu Language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1932 Social structure of the Iatmul people of the Sepik River. Oceania 2(3): 246-289; 2(4): 401-451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
1998 Review Article: Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 2(3): 381-397.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
2009 Zero and nothing in Jarawara. In Form and Function in Language Research. Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann, Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas & Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds), 125-137. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foley, William A
1986 The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol
2005 The participial construction of Dolakhā Newar. Studies in Language 29(1): 35-87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia
2005 Turkish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
2000 Anaphora. A Cross-linguistic Approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ihm, Ho Bin & Hong, Kyung Po & Chang, Suk In
2001 Korean Grammar for International Learners, new edn. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd
2009a Switch-reference constructions in Iatmul. Forms, functions, and development. Lingua 119: 1316-1339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b Clause linkage in a language without coordination: the adjoined clause in Iatmul. In Form and Function in Language Research. Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann, Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas & Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds), 139-150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009c Origin and development of the Iatmul focus construction. Subordination, desubordination, resubordination. Folia Linguistica 43(2): 345-390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Questions on transitivity: Iatmul and beyond. Studies in Language 35(3): 555-587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 A Grammar of Iatmul. Postdoctoral thesis, University of Regensburg.Google Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd & Shin, Yong-Min
2011 Suffixal clause-linking in Korean on the subordination-coordination continuum. Handout for a talk presented at the Societas Linguistica Europaea 44th annual meeting , Logroño, 11 September.
Longacre, Robert E
2007 Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 372-420. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reesink, Ger
1983 Switch-reference and topicality hierarchies. Studies in Language 7(2): 215-246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John R
1997 Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey. In Papers in Papuan Linguistics [Pacific Linguistics, Series A–87], Andrew Pawley (ed.), 101-241. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min
2009 The semantics of clause linking in Korean. In The Semantics of Clause Linking. A Cross-linguistic Typology, Robert M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 285-317. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sogang
2011 Sekang hankwuke mwunpep tane chamkose 5A (Sogang Korean grammar (and) words reference book 5A). Seoul: Korean Language Education Center, Sogang University.Google Scholar
Staalsen, Philip
1965 Iatmul Grammar Sketch. Ms, SIL, Ukarumpa.Google Scholar
1972 Clause relationships in Iatmul [Pacific Linguistics. Series A – Occasional Papers 31], 45-69. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
no date. Iatmul verbs. Ms, SIL, Ukarumpa.
Stirling, Lesley
1993 Switch-reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Lourens
2005 Towards a typology of tail-head linkage in Papuan languages. Studies in Language 29(2): 363–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon & Brown, Lucien
2011 Korean. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zöller, Hugo
1891 Deutsch-Neuguinea und meine Ersteigung des Finisterre-Gebirges. Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar