Research within the space of typological linguistics, that’s, the examine of the methods through which languages can differ from every different or the variation that language shows, has led to many theoretical advances produced by fashionable linguistics. For example, we will say that the majority current day developments in phonological precept emerged from the outline of African languages. Finally, linguistic thought and languages are inseparably linked.

Within the meantime, there may be nonetheless an inclination for viewing each factor “restore” in language, that’s, to check linguistic phenomena as purely synchronic info. Comparatively, regular languages are dwelling issues, and all residing objects rework. In order that, a language could maybe scale back a certain approach of expressing, for example, the variation involving topics or topic/merchandise, however, as identified by Scargill (1969), it should construct a brand new approach “to swap what it has misplaced.”

In a phrase, in these assortment of articles we’ll study the likelihood that Kaingáng has employed constantly the agentive postposition tóg (see Wiesemann, 1972:104) as an ergative marker in neutral clauses. For probably the most portion, then, our solely situation right here is to exhibit that Kaingáng exhibits on the very least some diploma of ergativity in elementary transitive and intransitive clauses.

In what follows, we’ll check out the Kaingáng subject/merchandise situation-marking typology. The evaluation proposed listed right here relies on details from Southern Kaingáng dialogues and narratives posted by FUNAI. Actually, we’ll use additional info which have been being gathered within the Brazilian situation of Rio Grande do Sul.

Kaingáng nominal ergative marking: the break up method

Permit us get began our story by introducing anew the usual definitions. It’s important that we have now acquired the situations straight. As earlier talked about, the ergative scenario identifies with a specific mark the problem (St) (not all the time the agent) of the transitive verb, whereas the quick object (DO/O) of a transitive verb and the problem of an intransitive verb (Si) are zero-marked by absolutive scenario. In distinction, nominative-accusative languages (or just accusativity) typically mark the article of a transitive verb with the accusative state of affairs, while the intransitive and transitive subjects are sometimes zero-marked by nominative (that’s, regardless of the valency of the verb).

Kaingáng is an OV typological type of language. Canela-Kraho and quite a few different languages of the Ge relations appear to be of this kind . Further particularly, Kaingáng displays the next time period purchase: Object-Verb (O-V), Noun-Postposition (N-Postp), Noun-Adjective (N-Adj), and Genitive-Noun (Gen-N). So, Kaingáng exhibits, like Basque, the (N-Adj) disharmony. Evidently, Kaingáng is a barely inconsistent OV type. Even so, the so-called inconsistent selection (Greenberg’s Kind 24) is, as Derbyshire (1987:314) components out, “probably the most sometimes situated among the many Amazonian languages”. That’s: N-ADJ: GEN-N: N-POSTP.

In distinction to VO languages (e.g. English and Portuguese) which present the completely free morphemes known as prepositions (pre-placement), postpositions are noticed in OV languages like Kaingang and Shokleng. By signifies of postpositions, Kaingáng marks the carry out of the nominal components on its clause. Moreover that, Kaingáng has a established of aspectual particles (for expository benefit, from this situation on, we’ll use the expression postposition for scenario markers and the time interval particle for aspectual markers), that are positioned because the final facet in a clause. There are three vast lessons of half in Kaingáng: stative, imperfective, and perfective (see Wiesemann, 1980 Kindell, 1982). Eventually, these particles are usually not obligatory elements within the Kaingáng clause.

Plainly, the distinctions expressed by the temporal element of the Kaingáng clause intrude with casual marking of the nominal issues, particularly: in progressive and perfective clauses, the transitive topics (St) are marked by ergative (tóg), and the intransitive topics by nominative
(v&#7929) in routine and stative clauses, every the subjects are marked by nominative v&#7929. As a rule, the merchandise in Kaingáng is usually unmarked for state of affairs.

Eventually, we must always actually remember the fact that if Kaingáng has a break up scenario-marking program there are two strategies residing collectively within the language.

Assertion of the Challenge

As at present talked about, Kaingáng language shows a pattern of break up ergativity on nominal case-marking and a “pure” ergative sample on verbal settlement. As well as, Kaingáng ergative scenario-marking doesn’t abide by the “widespread” ergative sample. Likewise, as it may be witnessed from City (1985), Shokleng additionally demonstrates an intricate ergative kind of case-marking.

From a typological place of take a look at, the distinctive actuality proper right here is that the language shows a marked nominative scenario that takes place solely with complete NP subjects (St/Si) in routine and stative clauses which have time period buy SV. Uncover that the basic ergative model marks with absolutive (no overt marking) the topics in non-ergative sentences. For this rationalization, it seems to be smart to suppose that Kaingáng has a extremely restricted “impure” tripartite technique associated fully with phrase buy SV and whole NP subjects. When but once more, Kaingáng is just not a pure ergative sort. As a topic of straightforward reality, tripartite methods, as Comrie (1978:334) implies, could also be seen perhaps diachronically as an intersection of accusative and ergative varieties.

In closing, it’s almost definitely actually value mentioning that there are usually not diachronic details from Kaingáng that’s, particulars of the pre-Twentieth century are inexistent. Completely then, it’s difficult to look at how the current course of can happen in Kaingáng. That is why, for the current, it appears smart to conclude that the postpositions tóg/v&#7929, which mark the entire NP topics with purchase SV, have distinctive attributes.

The place’s the Information?

In get to higher perceive the scope of this dialogue, allow us analyze now some Kaingáng sentences. Take into accounts the examples (1) and (2) beneath:

1) Ok&#7869nk&#7869r v&#7929 t&#7869 t&#297. Parrot NOM-marker TO FLY HAB-asp.The parrot flies.

2) N&#7869n&#7869 tóg pépo v&#7869g m&#361, goj kãki. New child ERG-marker frog Ab muscle tissue TO SEE PERF-asp. h2o inside. The child seen a frog contained in the h2o.

In (1), an intransitive sentence, the Si ok&#7869nk&#7869r [a kind of parrot] is marked (adopted) by the nominative postposition v&#7929. Discover that the particle t&#297 implies recurring half, i.e. expresses a recurring or a repetitive occasion. Subsequent, in (2) the St n&#7869n&#7869 (‘child’) is marked by the agentive marker tóg. The perfective particle m&#361 signifies a state of affairs which has an end. The 2 phrases have complete NP subjects with time period purchase S(O)V.

To sum up, the change amongst the 2 phrases is: (1) recurring half/valency intransitive and (2) perfective issue/valency transitive. So: in Kaingáng the topics purchase a definite on a regular basis marking.

Equally very important, it’s to look at listed right here that in time period purchase (O)VS the subject NP is often a pronoun NP which not at all is adopted by v&#7929. That’s to say, the problem pronoun NP is zero-marked.

However, we by now know that the widespread for typical ergative languages is to stick to the schema: Si=O (absolutive-ZERO)/St (ergative-MARKED). In essence, absolutive is (just about) the unmarked scenario. Judging from this viewpoint, we aren’t conversing about “prolonged ergative” to go over Si. For an individual level, prolonged ergative is the marking of the volitional/agentive topics of the intransitive verbs. But, because the illustrations will illustrate in Part 3, Kaingáng is NOT an energetic-stative language like Basque, for event.

Givón (2001) writes that in principle a nominative-accusative system with a morphologically-marked subject however an unmarked object is a doable type. Truly, Givón interprets a way like that as “derived diachronically from re-investigation of yet another well-acknowledged selection, the ergative-absolutive process”. It’s since of this that we must always interpret Kaingáng particulars in perspective of two components: (a) the process of scenario-marking is a break up (i.e. nominative-accusative and absolutive-ergative reside there collectively) (b) the language is altering. Subsequently, the place is that completely nonetheless proceed being capabilities of a much more constant interval. In a phrase, objects are messy. Even though, we must always actually test with whether or not or not there are different syntactic or pragmatic motivations for this phenomenon.

Now, take into accounts the examples of break up ergativity in (3) and (4) beneath:

3) N&#7869nkanh v&#7929 monh mré rãnhrãj t&#297. N&#7869nkanh NOM-marker ox with TO Carry out HAB-asp. N&#7869nkanh will work with the ox.

4) Rãr&#297r v&#7929 rãgró tóg t&#297. Sunshine NOM-marker TO DRY bean HAB-asp. The daylight dries the bean.

That’s, within the recurring sentences (3) and (4) the entire NP transitive subjects are marked by v&#7929. To clarify even additional, the postposition v&#7929 could nicely come about with the 2 the subjects, regardless of the intransitive vs. transitive distinction. As we will see, in Kaingáng a sentence in recurring or stative issue will typically get a nominative postposition. Ordinarily, the agentive marker (tóg) is reserved to progressive and perfective clauses.

No query, there may be evidently parenthood involving v&#7929/tóg, contemplating that each of these are topic markers. However ordinarily they’ve distinctive features. The subsequent stage then is to show that these postpositions are at very best distant cousins. All points thought-about, we should hold in head that human language is extraordinarily ambiguous.

The next publish promotions with stative/vigorous intransitive verbs and nominal circumstance-marking and with verbal settlement morphology.