Chapter published in:
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 213–256

Grammatical relations in Movima

Alignment beyond semantic roles

| CNRS (SeDyL)
Movima (isolate, Bolivia) has two transitive constructions: direct/ergative and inverse/accusative. The most straightforward argument selector is relativization. Relativization selects the P of the direct and the A of the inverse construction, which, in each case, is the argument whose referent ranks lower on scales of person, animacy, and topicality. In terms of constituency, this is the “external” argument, and it aligns with S. Certain oblique-marked arguments can be relativized as well, so relativization is a test to distinguish oblique arguments from adjuncts. Other constructions that privilege the external argument are demonstrative fronting and argument incorporation – although the latter is restricted to the direct construction and therefore also to the P argument. Two constructions select an argument on the basis of its semantic role: possessor ascension privileges P, and imperatives, which participate in the direct/inverse alternation, privilege A. Other cross-linguistically typical argument selectors do not seem to show a preference for a particular argument or semantic role: reflexives, coordination, embedding, and quantifier floating.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The basic clause and its components
    • 2.1The direct-inverse system
    • 2.2Formal properties of argument encoding
    • 2.3Obliques: Adjuncts or oblique arguments?
    • 2.4Argument encoding in embedded clauses
  • 3.Argument selectors privileging the external argument
    • 3.1Headed relative clauses, detransitivization, and negation
    • 3.2Verbal RPs
    • 3.3Pronoun fronting
    • 3.4Wh-questions
    • 3.5Oblique arguments? Evidence from relativization
      • 3.5.1Relativization of non-core arguments
      • 3.5.2Relativization of applied arguments
    • 3.6Fronted demonstratives
    • 3.7Argument incorporation
  • 4.Argument selection based on semantic role
    • 4.1Possessor ascension
    • 4.2Imperatives
  • 5.“Neutral” constructions
    • 5.1Reflexives
    • 5.2Coordination
    • 5.3Embedding
    • 5.4Floating quantifiers
  • 6.Conclusion
    • Symbols and abbreviations in glosses
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 05 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.07hau
References
Aissen, Judith
1999 Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4): 673–711. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2011 Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Relations, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara
2004 On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 95–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1981 An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3): 626–657. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1972 The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
1997 A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William
1998 Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane, 30 June–3 July.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2005 Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina
2006 A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
2009a Hierarchical alignment in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(4): 513–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b Reference and predication in Movima. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 323–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010a ‘She kisses her late husband’ = ‘she kissed her husband’: nominal tense marking in Movima. In Rara & Rarissima: Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity, Michael Cysouw & Jan Wohlgemuth (eds), 95–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b The intransitive basis of Movima clause structure. In Ergativity in Amazonia[Typological Studies in Language 89] Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds), 285–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011a Referring to states and events: subordination in Movima. In Subordination in South American Languages [Typological Studies in Language 97], Rik van Gijn, Katharina Haude & Pieter Muysken (eds), 141–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b Argument encoding in Movima: The local domain. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4): 559–571. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 The expression of three-participant events in Movima. Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 80–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Animacy and inverse voice in Movima: A corpus study. Anthropological Linguistics 56(3–4): 294–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018a Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Nonverbal predication in Amazonian Languages [Typological Studies in Language 122], Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b A topic-marking cleft? Analyzing clause-initial pronouns in Movima. In Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in Prosody and Syntax[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando
2016 Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2005 Tagalog. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 247–293. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel
2009 Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1976 Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 305–334. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R.
1993 Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976 “The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1988 Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Rober M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando
2006 Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas [Typological Studies in Language 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Haude, Katharina
2018.  In Nonverbal Predication in Amazonian Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 122], ► pp. 217 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.