Volume 1 Issue 1 (2002)
DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.1
Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters
to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display
for requirements to accurately reproduce this page.
Reanalysis of Passive and Negative Prefixes in
Seri[1]
Stephen A. Marlett
SIL International and University of North Dakota
Two productive Seri prefixes, negative and passive,
are in a limited number of cases reanalyzed as part of the verb
stem. This reanalysis has produced homophonous verb forms: one group
is clearly analytical (affix + root) and one group is clearly synthetic.
The evidence that reanalysis has taken place is presented. These
new verb roots enter into new morphological constructions. And since
the original analytical verb forms continue to exist, the result
is the coexistence of homophonous and sometimes virtually synonymous
words (such as the original transitive verb and a new causative
verb that is based on a reanalyzed passive).
1. Introduction
Certain consonants and vowels which appear at
the beginning of verb stems in present-day Seri[2]
are in actuality reanalyzed passive and negative prefixes, prefixes
which are still completely productive in the language. So alongside
a transitive verb such as /–Q/ (where “Q” represents
arbitrary phonological material), there may be an intransitive verb
/–pQ/ which must be distinguished from the passive form of
/–Q/, which is /–p–Q/. And alongside a verb such
as /–R/ (where “R” also represents arbitrary phonological
material), there may be a verb /–mR/ which must be distinguished
from the negative form of /–R/, which is /–m–R/.
This is summarized in (1)-(2).
(1)
|
Transitive /–Q/
|
(new) Intransitive
/–pQ/
|
|
Passive /–p–Q/
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
Positive /–R/
|
(new) Opposite /–mR/
|
|
Negative /–m–R/
|
|
The proposal made here is that reanalysis has
taken place by the loss of a boundary, but without the loss of the
productivity of the original morphemes or their combinations. This
is illustrated with one set of real examples in (3).[3]
(3)
|
NEG
|
+ fast
|
⇒ |
slow
|
Old Lexicon
|
New Lexicon
|
|
{m}
|
{iha}
|
|
{miha}
|
m– ‘Negative’
|
m– ‘Negative’
|
|
|
|
|
|
–iha ‘fast’
|
–iha ‘fast’
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
–miha ‘slow’
|
This kind of reanalysis, a kind of ‘resegmentation’,
is mentioned in Hoenigswald (1960:40ff), and is claimed by Langacker
(1977:64) to be frequent. It fits in with Langacker’s claim
that one kind of optimality towards which languages tend is “constructional
simplicity”; a complex form (affix plus root, i.e. –m–iha)
is being replaced by a simple form (synchronically simple stem,
i.e. –miha). Langacker (1977:58) defines reanalysis
as “a change in the structure of an expression or class of
expressions that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification
of its surface manifestation.”[4]
Such a definition clearly fits this situation.
The matter is less straightforward than one might imagine,
however, since the segments in question are not obviously part of
the stem. For example, if a verb form with a p after the
tense prefix appears in a text, one does not know automatically
whether the p is part of the stem or the passive prefix.[5]
But evidence can be presented to show clearly (in many cases) that
it is indeed one or the other. These tests are presented in section
2 for the passive prefix and in section 3 for the negative prefix.
The result of this reanalysis
of prefix material as stem material is an expansion of the lexicon.
For example, alongside the verb –aatj ‘pound
flat’, and its passive forms (with appropriate vowel shortening
as part of the passive formation), there is now also the verb –patj
‘flattened’, from which has been formed a new causative
form –apátj ‘flatten’ (UF: –aa–patj,
–Cause–flattened), which differs semantically from the
original verb –aatj in that it is less specific; it
neither requires a pounding motion nor a human agent. All three
of these verbs are listed in the dictionary which is currently being
compiled (Moser et al, in preparation), although productive
passive forms are not listed.
(4)
|
Forms listed in dictionary
|
Productive passive forms not listed
in dictionary
|
|
–aatj ‘pound flat’
|
–p–atj ‘pounded
flat’ (passive)
|
|
–patj ‘flattened’
|
|
|
–apátj ‘flatten’[6]
|
|
In section 2 I present a brief overview of regular passive
morphology and then show how the etymological passives are distinguished
from them. In section 3 I present evidence for the reanalysis of
the negative prefix in various verbs. In section 4 I briefly examine
possible motivation for the reanalysis. It is seen that, while it
is relatively straightforward to provide evidence for the fact that
reanalysis has taken place, it is not so easy to understand why
it has taken place.[7]
2.
Etymological Passives
The passive morpheme in Seri has two allomorphs.
One appears before vowel-initial roots; it is segmentally p–
and causes the ablaut of stems which begin with non-low vowels (i,
ii become e; o, oo become a,
and for some verbs long low vowels become short). The other allomorph,
which usually surfaces as ah–, appears before consonants
and before prefix vowels (such as in causatives). Passive stems
are illustrated in (5).
(5)
|
Active stem
|
Gloss
|
Passive stem
|
|
–oocta
|
‘look at’
|
–p–acta
|
|
–iip
|
‘carry on head’
|
–p–ep
|
|
–izi
|
‘defeat’
|
–p–ezi
|
|
–ap
|
‘sew basket’
|
–p–ap
|
|
–aao
|
‘pass (place)’
|
–p–aao
|
|
–aafc
|
‘pound’
|
–p–afc
|
|
–cazni
|
‘bite’
|
–ah–cazni
|
|
–ahítaj
|
‘cause to burn’[8]
|
–ah–ahítaj
|
Compare now the verbs which appear in (6). These
are verbs for which I claim that the p and ah which
appear in them are historically, but not synchronically, the passive
prefix.[9] I also show,
on the right, the verb stem to which they are etymologically related.
(6)
|
–paailx
‘go (pl.)’[10]
|
cf. –aailx ‘throw
(plural object)’
|
|
–paaisx ‘be clean’
|
cf. –aaisx ‘clean
(something)’
|
|
–patj ‘flattened’
|
cf. –aatj ‘pound
flat’
|
|
–paatjc ‘be open’
|
cf. –aatjc ‘open
(something)’
|
|
–pacta ‘appear, be’
|
cf. –oocta ‘look
at’
|
|
–ahcáil ‘remain,
be lacking’
|
cf. –cail ‘have
extra’
|
|
–ahjíit (sg.),
–ahjcóil (pl. subj.) ‘fall’
|
cf. –jiit (sg.),
–jcoil (pl. obj.) ‘drop’
|
Of course, when one is navigating a conversation or
text, the difference between a passive prefix p– and
a stem-initial p is not obvious. But there are important
pieces of evidence that make clear that something has happened.
These are presented below. Sections 2.1-2.5 present evidence for
the morphological composition of the verbs in question. With one
major exception (see 2.5), which I take as a morphological anomaly
that should not be surprising, they clearly point to the fact that
reanalysis has taken place.
2.1.
Subject Nominalizer Allomorphy
The first evidence is based on the shape of the
subject nominalizer which occurs with these verbs. The subject nominalizer
has three suppletive allomorphs which occur productively with verbs,
as shown in (7).
(7)
|
Subject Nominalizer
|
→
|
i
|
/
|
<Negative>
|
|
|
|
ha
|
/
|
<Passive>
|
|
|
|
c[11]
|
/
|
elsewhere
|
A true passive form takes the allomorph ha–
when it is not negative:
(8)
|
ziix ha–p–áhit
‘food’ (thing SubjNom–Psv–eat, ‘thing
that is eaten’)
|
The forms in (9) with the allomorph c–,
however, coexist with the true passives of the original verbs. They
do not replace them and do not ‘block’ the formation
of regular passives. Compare (9c) and (10), for example.
(9a)
|
c–paailx
|
SubjNom–go(pl.)
|
‘who go’
|
(9b)
|
c–paaisx
|
SubjNom-clean
|
‘what is clean’
|
(9c)
|
c–patj
|
SubjNom-flattened
|
‘what is flattened’
|
(9d)
|
c–paatjc
|
SubjNom-open
|
‘what is open’
|
(9e)
|
c–ahjíit
|
SubjNom-fall
|
‘what falls’
|
(10)
|
ha–p–átj
|
SubjNom–Psv–pound.flat
|
‘what was pounded flat’ (true
passive)[12]
|
Of the etymological passives, the verb –pacta
‘appear’ is exceptional in that it continues to use
the ha– allomorph, just as the regular passive form
does. On other counts, discussed below, this verb –pacta
is clearly a reanalyzed passive.
(11)
|
Exceptional: ha–pácta,
*c–pacta ‘that which appears’
|
2.2. Causative
Forms
A true passive form never has a causative prefix
in front of it in Seri; one cannot say ‘cause to be eaten.’
There are no causatives formed on productive passive stems in this
language, as illustrated in (12).
(12)
|
*–a–p–áhit
(–Aug–Psv–eat, ‘cause to be eaten’)
|
However, the (b) forms such as those in (13-16)
may be causativized, so in this characteristic they are like simple
intransitives and unlike passives. The causative form in some cases
is very similar semantically to the original simple transitive form.
Compare:
(13a)
|
–oocta ‘look
at’
|
(13b)
|
–pacta ‘appear, be’
|
(13c)
|
–a–pácta ‘do’
(–Aug–appear)
|
|
(14a)
|
–aatj ‘pound flat,
flatten (something)’
|
(14b)
|
–patj ‘be flattened’
|
(14c)
|
–a–pátj ‘flatten
(something)’ (–Aug–flattened)
|
|
(15a)
|
–aaisx ‘clean
(something)’
|
(15b)
|
–paaisx ‘be clean’
|
(15c)
|
–a–páaisx ‘clean
(something) really well’ (–Aug–be.clean)
|
|
(16a)
|
–aatjc ‘open (something)’
(archaic)
|
(16b)
|
–patjc ‘be open’
|
(16c)
|
–a–pátjc ‘open
(something)’ (–Aug–be.open)
|
|
(17a)
|
–aasax ‘open and spread
out (something like a sheet)’
|
(17b)
|
(unattested and apparently non-existent:
*–pásax ‘be open and spread out’)
[13]
|
(17c)
|
–a–pásax ‘open
and spread out (something like a sheet)’
|
2.3. Impersonal
Passives
Another way to distinguish true passives from
etymological passives in Seri is based on a language-particular
syntactic restriction: except under certain very clear conditions,
passives with plural subjects are not permitted. Instead of the
sentence we were tattooed (with a first person plural subject),
one must say something like it was tattooed us, with an impersonal
passive and a first person plural direct object prefix.[14]
This is illustrated in (18).
(18a)
|
hizi–y–ah–cázja,
1plDO–Distal–Psv–bite(singular, iterative)
|
|
‘We were bitten (as by snake).’
(More literally, ‘It was bitten us.’)
|
(18b)
|
(* ha–y–ah–cázjoj,
1plSubj–Distal–Psv–bite(plural))
|
The verbs with reanalyzed passives may take plural
subjects, however: mipáctoj (mi–páctoj,
2Poss–ActNom–appear/Pl) ‘your (pl.) appearing,
what you (pl.) are like’; ihahjcóaalam (i–h–ahjcóaalam,
3Poss–ActNom–fall/Pl ‘their falling, that
they fall’). The underlined word in (19) is the etymological
passive related to the verb –aailx ‘throw (objects)’.
The second line of the following examples is given in underlying
form (although it uses the same orthography as the first). The third
line glosses the morphemes, while the fourth line glosses the words
and idioms.
(19)
|
|
Hant íipzx
|
com
|
taacoj
|
toc
|
cotomma
|
UF:
|
hant i––apzx
|
com
|
t–aacoj
|
toc
|
co–t–oom–ma
|
|
land 3Poss–ActNom–tear
|
the
|
Rl–big
|
there
|
3IO–Realis–lie–DS
|
|
gulch
|
the
|
it.was.large
|
there
|
it.was
|
|
|
iqui
|
zaaj
|
ha–m–páailx.
|
UF:
|
i–aqui
|
zaaj
|
ha–mi–paailx
|
|
3Poss–toward
|
cave
|
1plSubj–Proximal–go
|
|
we.arrived.at.the.sea
|
|
‘We arrived to the edge of the
sea by a large gulch.’
|
|
2.4.
Switch Reference
Other evidence that distinguishes true passives
from etymological passives in Seri is based on the switch reference
system (Moser 1978; Marlett 1981; Marlett 1984; Farrell, Marlett
and Perlmutter 1991). The surface subjects of simple intransitive
verbs count for the switch reference system, but the surface subjects
of passive clauses do not; in the case of the latter, it is the
agent that counts. The relevant notion of subject for switch reference
in Seri is something other than surface subject.[15]
In this respect, the etymological passives work just
like simple intransitives in the examples we have seen: the surface
subject is the relevant nominal for the switch reference system.
In the following example, the important transition is between the
second and third clauses. If the third clause had a true passive
verb (rather than an intransitive verb –ahjíit ‘fall’
that now simply looks like a passive), the well-established pattern
in the language would demand a different subject marker (ma)
at the end of the second clause.[16]
(20)
|
|
Ihptcmitáamt
|
ipi
|
‘I was going without shoes,’
|
UF:
|
hp–t–m–i–táamt
|
ipi
|
|
|
1sSubj–Realis–Negative–with–shoes
|
even
|
|
|
I.was.without.shoes
|
even
|
|
|
|
hehe
|
án
|
com
|
ano
|
hptiihtim
|
‘I was out in the desert,’
|
UF:
|
hehe
|
an
|
com
|
ano
|
hp–t–iihtim
|
|
|
plant
|
area
|
the
|
3Poss/in
|
1sSubj–Realis–be/Iterative
|
|
|
desert
|
the
|
in
|
I.was
|
|
|
|
|
cosi
|
ano
|
hptahjíitma
|
‘I fell on a thorn,’
|
UF:
|
cosi
|
ano
|
hp–t–ahjíit–ma
|
|
|
thorn
|
3Poss/on
|
1sSubj–Realis–fall–DS
|
|
|
thorn
|
on
|
I.fell
|
|
|
|
ano
|
he tapxölimma
|
‘it broke off in me,’
|
UF:
|
ano
|
he–t–apxölim–ma
|
|
|
3Poss/in
|
1IO–Realis–break–DS
|
|
|
it.broke.off.in.me
|
|
|
|
|
hita
|
hin yacósejc.
|
‘my mother removed it from me.’
|
UF:
|
hi–ata
|
him–yo–acósejc.
|
|
|
1Poss–mother
|
1sDO–Distal–remove.thorn
|
|
|
my.mother
|
she.removed.it.from.me
|
|
|
2.5.
Action/oblique Nominalizer Allomorphy
The action/oblique nominalizer displays regular
suppletive allomorphy. The allomorph which always occurs before
the ah– passive allomorph (namely h–)
is different than that which occurs before low back vowels of superficially
intransitive verbs (namely y–). Compare the following:
(21a)
|
hihacázni ‘my being
bitten’ (< {hi–h–ah–cazni},
1Poss–ActNom–Psv–bite)
|
(21b)
|
ihyáafzx ‘my sneezing’
(< {hi–y–aafzx}, 1Poss–ActNom–sneeze)
|
(21c)
|
yahái ‘its shimmering’
(< {i–y–ahái}, 3Poss–ActNom–shimmer)
|
If the verbs in question, (6f-g), are true passives,
we expect the allomorph h–, but if they are now verbs
which are vowel-initial intransitives, we expect the allomorph y–.
For these two verbs, however, the results are not what are expected
under a reanalysis hypothesis. The (passive-related) h–
allomorph of the action/oblique nominalizer prefix occurs with the
two verbs which are putatively a-initial (see 6f-g).
(22)
|
hant c–ahjíit ‘who
falls’
|
c–ahcáil‘what
remains, what is lacking’
|
|
down SubjNom–fall
|
SubjNom–remain
|
|
|
Exceptional:
|
Exceptional:
|
|
hant mi–h–ajíit
‘your falling’
|
mi–h–acáil ‘your
remaining’ (‘that you remain’)
|
|
(< {mi–h–ahjíit},
2Poss–ActNom–remain)
|
(< {mi–h–ahcáil},
2Poss–ActNom–fall)
|
Thus the morphology is somewhat irregular for these
verbs on the assumption that they are not synchronically passive;
the morphology for the action nominalizer with these verbs is just
what is expected of synchronic passives. If one were to assume that
they are synchronically passive, however, they are irregular in
the subject nominalized form, as already seen in section 2.1.
2.6. Conclusion
In the preceding sections I have presented four
arguments that support the claim that a few passive verbs in Seri
have been lexicalized as intransitive verbs without the loss
of the productive passive form. Two arguments are morphologically-based
and two are syntactically-based. Especially in one area of the morphology
(the action/oblique nominalizer, discussed in section 2.5), the
facts do not support the claim of reanalysis. It seems significant,
however, that these are morphological oddities (a total of
three word-forms) and not syntactic oddities.
3.
Etymological Negatives
The negative morpheme in Seri is the prefix m–.
The m which appears in the forms in (23) is derived from
this prefix, as comparison with the verbs stems on the right makes
obvious. Like with the passive prefixes, however, the two are not
immediately distinguishable.
(23a)
|
–miha
‘go slow’
|
cf. –iha
‘go fast’
|
(23b)
|
–miih ‘scarce’
|
cf. –iih ‘be (located)’
|
(23c)
|
hacx –miih ‘die’
|
|
(23d)
|
haai –mipi ‘difficult’
|
cf. haai –ipi
‘easy’[17]
|
(23e)
|
–moquépe ‘sick’
|
cf. –oquépe
‘comfortable’
|
(23f)
|
–maco ‘hidden, hard
to see’
|
cf. –aco ‘visible,
obvious’
|
(23g)
|
haa –maco ‘difficult’
|
|
In the following sections I provide tests for
the morphological composition of these verbs. The evidence is clear
that reanalysis has taken place.
3.1. Subject
Nominalizer
One simple way to distinguish productive negatives
from etymological negatives is with the subject nominalizer discussed
in section 2.1 above. Recall that this prefix has the allomorph
i– in negative forms, and c–/qu–
in non-passive non-negative forms.
(24a)
|
i–m–p–áhit
|
SubjNom–Neg–Psv–eat,
‘what is not eaten’
|
(24b)
|
i–m–áhit
|
SubjNom–Neg–eat, ‘who
does not eat it’
|
(24c)
|
qu–i–hit
|
SubjNom–OM–eat, ‘who
eats it’
|
All of the verbs listed in (23) take the allomorph c–
for the subject nominalizer, as shown in (25).
(25a)
|
c–miha
|
SubjNom–go.slow
‘what goes slow’
|
(25b)
|
hacx c–miih
|
somewhere SubjNom–not.be ‘who
dies’
|
(25c)
|
c–moquépe
|
SubjNom–sick ‘who is sick’
|
(25d)
|
c–miih
|
SubjNom–not.be ‘what is scarce’
|
(25e)
|
haai c–mipi
|
? SubjNom–?[18]
‘what is difficult’
|
(25f)
|
c–maco
|
SubjNom–hidden ‘what is hidden’
|
Because the reanalysis of some m’s
as stem consonants does not affect the productivity of the original
verb stems and negative affix, (26a) coexists in the language with
(25a), (26b) with (25b), etc.
(26a)
|
i–m–íha
|
SubjNom–Neg–fast
|
‘what is not
fast’
|
(26b)
|
hacx i–m–iih
|
somewhere SubjNom–Neg–be
|
‘who isn’t somewhere’
|
(26c)
|
i–m–oquépe
|
SubjNom–Neg–comfortable
|
‘who is not comfortable’
|
(26d)
|
i–m–iih
|
SubjNom–Neg-be
|
‘what isn’t’
|
(26e)
|
haai i–m–ipi
|
? SubjNom–Neg–?
|
‘what isn’t easy’
|
(26f)
|
i–m–aco
|
SubjNom–Neg–visible
|
‘what isn’t visible / obvious’
|
3.2. Causative
Forms
A second piece of evidence for the reanalysis
is based on the formation of causatives. In regular verbs, the negative
(inflectional) cannot occur ‘inside’ of the causative
morpheme (derivational); there is no productive way to make a morphological
causative meaning ‘cause to not X’, as shown in (27).
(27)
|
*–a–m–áhit
‘cause to not eat’
|
But in etymological negatives, the causative prefix
may occur on the verb before the m.
(28a)
|
–a–míhat ‘do
slowly’ (based on the verb –miha ‘slow’)
|
(28b)
|
hacx –a–míihit
‘kill’ (based on the verb hacx –miih
‘die’)
|
3.3. ‘Double’
Negative
A third piece of evidence for the reanalysis looks
at the possibility of negation. In regular verbs, only one instance
of negation per verb is allowed; there is no way to form a double
negative morphologically. Etymological negatives may be negated,
however, so the verbs may have two m’s, as shown in
(29).
(29a)
|
hacx tommíih
‘s/he didn’t die’ (UF: hacx t–m–miih,
somewhere Realis–Neg–not.be)
|
(29b)
|
immácoha ‘it
isn’t hard to see’ (UF: i–m–maco–ha,
SubjNom–Neg–hidden–Decl)
|
(29c)
|
haa xommáco ‘it
isn’t difficult’ (UF: xo–m–maco,
Emphatic–Neg–hidden)
|
(29d)
|
haai xommípi ‘it
isn’t difficult’ (UF: haai xo–m–mípi,
? Emphatic–Neg–?)
|
3.4. Negation
of Proximal mi– and Infinitive
Two more pieces of evidence are based on unexplained
morphological gaps in verb formation. In regular verbs, the (inflectional)
proximal realis prefix mi– (with rule-derived allomorph
im– preconsonantally) and the infinitive prefixes (ica–
for intransitives, iha– for transitives) cannot
co-occur with the negative prefix. As illustrated with the verb
–atax ‘go’ in (30), a verb may be inflected
for Proximal Realis, Distal Realis, Neutral Realis, Emphatic Realis,
Dependent Irrealis, Independent Irrealis, Imperative, Infinitive,
and other things. However, no verb may be inflected for the negative
of the Proximal Realis or the negative of the Infinitive.
(The finite verbs in (30) are third person singular forms.)
(30)
|
‘go’ –atax
|
Affirmative
|
Negative
|
|
Distal Realis yo–
|
yootax
|
yomátax
|
|
Neutral Realis t–
|
tatax
|
tmatax
|
|
Emphatic Realis xo–
|
xootax
|
xomátax
|
|
Dependent Irrealis po–
|
pootax
|
pomátax
|
|
Independent Irrealis si–
|
siitax
|
smatax
|
|
Imperative[19]
c–
|
catax
|
cmatax
|
|
Proximal Realis mi–
|
miitax
|
(no form possible; expected immátax)
|
|
Infinitive
|
icátax
|
(no form possible; expected icamátax)
|
However, the Proximal prefix mi–
does co-oocur with all of the etymological negatives; a few examples
are shown below.
(31a)
|
hacx immíih
|
‘s/he died’
|
(UF: mi–miih, Proximal–die)
|
(31b)
|
immáco
|
‘it is hard to see’
|
(UF: mi–maco, Proximal–hidden)
|
(31c)
|
immíha
|
‘it goes slow’
|
(UF: mi–miha, Proximal–slow)
|
(31d)
|
immoquépe
|
‘s/he is sick’
|
(UF: mi–moquépe, Proximal–sick)
|
The etymological negatives also have infinitival
forms, as shown in (32).
(32a)
|
hacx icamíih
|
‘to die’
|
(UF: hacx ica–miih, somewhere
Infinitive–not.be)
|
(32b)
|
icamoquépe
|
‘to be sick’
|
(UF: ica–moquépe,
Infinitive–sick)
|
3.5. Prefix
Order
The order of morphemes in Seri verbs stipulates
that the ‘unspecified subject’ prefix follows the negative
prefix. However, the negative part of the etymological negative
occurs after the unspecified subject prefix, exactly as expected
if it were now part of the stem. Both of these facts are illustrated
by example (33). Note that the prefix ca– is sandwiched
between m’s. The one on the left is the productive
negative inflection; the one on the right is the reanalyzed negative
which is now part of the verb stem. (The o is epenthetic.)
(33)
|
hacx
|
somcamíihaha
‘One will not die.’
|
|
UF:
|
si–m–ca–miih ha–ha,
Irrealis–Neg–UnspSubj–die Auxiliary–Decl)
|
3.6. k–Epenthesis
A sixth way to distinguish true negatives from
etymological negatives is based on a somewhat bizarre, but fully
productive, phonological rule which inserts a velar stop in the
(admittedly curious) context shown below:
(34)
|
∅→ k / [+segment] [+coronal] ___ [+nasal]
+
|
This is illustrated by the following data, where
the (compressed) derivation is still given in practical orthography:
(35)
|
|
‘s/he didn’t do it’
|
‘you didn’t fly’
|
|
|
OM–Realis–Neg–do
|
2sSubj–Realis–Neg–fly
|
|
Underlying
|
i–t–m–aai
|
m–t–m–cap
|
|
k-Insertion
|
itcmaai
|
mtcmcap
|
|
Other rules
|
itcmaai
|
intcomcap
|
|
Surface
|
itcmáai
|
intcomcáp
|
Crucial to the application of this rule is the
fact that the nasal consonant is not a stem consonant; a morpheme
boundary must follow the nasal consonant if k–epenthesis is
going to apply.[20] Underlying
{i–t–mis} (OM-Realis-resemble)
has the surface form itmís ‘s/he resembled him/her/it’;
k–epenthesis does not apply in such cases.
As shown in (36), the verbs in question do not pattern
with true negatives; k-Epenthesis does not apply. These facts provide
clear evidence that no morpheme boundary follows the m in
these verbs.
(36a)
|
|
ihptmoquépe
‘when I was sick’[21]
|
|
UF:
|
hp–t–moquépe
|
|
|
1sSubj–Realis–sick
|
(36b)
|
|
ihptmíha ‘when I was
going slowly’
|
|
UF:
|
hp–t–miha
|
|
|
1sSubj–Realis–slow
|
3.7. Other
Potential Tests and Conclusion
Two more tests are potentially available. First,
the object nominalizer has a different form before the negative
morpheme than before simple consonants. However, all of the verbs
with reanalyzed negatives that I have found are intransitive verbs
and so this test cannot be put to use at present. Second, negative
morphology cannot occur inside of passive morphology (that is, closer
to the root) in regular verbs. The prediction is that passives of
etymological negative verbs should be possible. Again, since all
of the verbs with reanalyzed negatives are intransitive verbs, this
test cannot be used yet.[22]
Seven arguments have been presented in support of the
hypothesis that five verbs of Seri are best analyzed as etymological
negatives. Six of these are based on morphology, and one is based
on a phonological rule which is sensitive to the presence of a morpheme
boundary in precisely the relevant position. As with the passive
cases already considered, this reanalysis has not affected the productivity
of the negative prefix generally.
4.
Is Reanalysis Gradual or Not? How and Why Does It Happen?
Despite clear morphological and syntactic evidence
that distinguishes passives from p-initial stems, and despite
morphological and phonological evidence that distinguishes negatives
from m-initial stems, a structural change in the analysis
of certain verbal forms is taking place, or has taken place. This
seems to be well established. The process is one of reanalysis,
resulting in new lexical items while at the same time leaving the
productivity of the original morphemes intact. Haspelmath (1992,
1998) distinguishes reanalysis from grammaticalization. He argues
that the latter is a gradual process, and that reanalysis is not
gradual (although in the case of the latter the change may spread
gradually through the speech community and although any speaker
may have two representations, before and after reanalysis). One
fact that might be used to argue that the Seri case is gradual,
pace Haspelmath, is the suppletive allomorphy which now irregularly
reflects the previous analysis in the case of verb forms such as
hapácta (11) and mihajíit (22). However,
this is not truly convincing; if the process were truly gradual,
one should expect to find a more convincing array of irregularity,
including with the syntactic facts (e.g., the switch reference facts
discussed in section 2.4).
It is not clear what is driving the reanalysis. In these
particular cases in Seri, reanalysis is not motivated by any instability
in the morphology, nor by any phonological change, nor by the lack
of productivity of the affixes; there is no leveling of irregularity.
Most passive and negative forms in the language are ambiguous with
respect to reanalysis; the only facts (to my knowledge) which indicate
that reanalysis has taken place are those discussed in the preceding
sections. Consider the verbs –iha ‘fast’
and –miha ‘slow’. While I have shown that
the subject nominalized form for the negative of -iha ‘fast’
is different than the subject nominalized form for the verb –miha
‘slow’, it remains true that most verb forms with the
string miha could belong to either paradigm, as illustrated
in (37).
(37)
|
|
Negative of –iha ‘fast’
|
|
–miha ‘slow’
|
|
yomíha
|
‘it was not
going fast’
|
or
|
‘it was going slow’
|
|
pomíha
|
‘if it is not going fast...’
|
or
|
‘if it is going slow...’
|
|
xomíha
|
‘it wasn’t going fast!’
|
or
|
‘it wasn’t going slow!’
|
|
smihaha
|
‘it will not be going fast’
|
or
|
‘it will be going slow’
|
|
tmiha
|
‘it wasn’t going fast...’
|
or
|
‘it was going slow...’
|
|
imíha
|
‘the fact of its not going fast’
|
or
|
‘the fact of its going slow’
|
This means that in many cases the speaker and
hearer are not forced to make a decision about which verb is involved.
We might consider the kind of verbs that are being created.
In the case of the negatives, a number of new verbs are being created
that are antonyms — semantic opposites, or contrary (as opposed
to contradictory) forms (Horn 1978:131-2, Horn 1989). Thus we have
–miha ‘slow’ from –iha ‘fast’;
haai –mipi ‘difficult’ from
haai –ipi ‘easy’; and –maco
‘hidden, hard to see’ from –aco ‘visible,
obvious’. (Three new verbs are not quite so closely related
semantically to the verbs to which they are related etymologically:
–miih ‘scarce’ and hacx –miih
‘die’, from –iih ‘be (located)’,
and –moquépe ‘sick’, from -oquépe
‘comfortable’.) There are no other lexical expressions
for ‘slow’, ‘hidden, invisible’, ‘sick
(general sense)’ in the language. The expression hacx
–miih ‘die’ is used for people, and perhaps
developed as a euphemism, since it contrasts quite sharply with
a verb –oxi that is now used primarily for animals.
(The verb –oxi has the flavor of ‘croak’
when applied to people.) Is it possible that part of the motivation
for the reanalysis is some kind of perceived ‘gap’ in
the lexicon? The language actually has a number of similar gaps.
The following verbs are a few of those that do not have any lexicalized
antonyms: –iipe ‘good’ (no verb
for ‘bad’), -ahtxíma ‘rich’
(none for ‘poor’), –Camjö and
-inéhj ‘shiny’ (none for ‘dull’),
–azíim[23]
‘pretty’ (none for ‘ugly’), –mozíme
‘drunk’ (none for ‘sober’), –atol
‘wild’ (none for ‘tame’), –acösxaj
‘long’ (none for ‘short’), –yail
‘deep’ (none for ‘shallow’), to name
a few. The opposites of these are expressed by simple negation of
the verb. At this point, all I can do is speculate that this ‘gap
in the lexicon’ may be a small factor.
5. Conclusion
Seri data have been presented which illustrate
one kind of reanalysis —the loss of a morpheme boundary—
in a clear way. Phonological, morphological, and syntactic evidence
demonstrates that in a handful of cases the negative prefix and
the passive prefix have been reinterpreted as part of the verb stem
rather than as prefixes. Such a reanalysis, resulting in the lexicalization
of forms without the loss in any way of the productivity of the
original forms, seems straightforward, although analogous cases
are not presented in the literature, to my knowledge. What we do
not know at this time, however, is what has motivated this reanalysis
and how it is taking place.
6. References
Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive
change. Language 49:765-93. doi:10.2307/412063
Farrell, Patrick, Stephen A. Marlett & David
M. Perlmutter. 1991. Notions of subjecthood and switch reference:
Evidence from Seri. Linguistic Inquiry 22:431-56.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1992. Grammaticization theory
and heads in morphology. Morphology now, ed. by Mark Aronoff, 69-82.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization
need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22/2: 325-51. doi:10.1075/sl.22.2.03has
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language change and
linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott.
1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Some aspects of negation.
Universals of human language, vol. 4 Syntax,
ed. by Joseph P. Greenberg,127-210. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Langacker Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis.
Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by Charles N. Li, 57-139.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri.
Dissertation, University of California at San Diego.
———. 1984. Impersonal passives
in Seri. Studies in Relational Grammar 2 ed. by Carol Rosen
and David M. Perlmutter, 217-39. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
———. 1990. Person and number
inflection in Seri. International Journal of American Linguistics
56:503-41. doi:10.1086/466173
Moser, Mary B. 1978. Switch reference in Seri.
International Journal of American Linguistics 44:113-20. doi:10.1086/465528
Moser, Mary B. et al. In preparation. Seri
dictionary (Seri-Spanish-English).
Stemberger, Joseph P. & Stephen A. Marlett.
1983. Empty consonants in Seri. Linguistic Inquiry 14:617-39.
Author’s contact information:
steve_marlett@sil.org
Stephen Marlett
PO Box 8987
Catalina, AZ 85738-0987
[1] This
article is based on research that has been conducted by the author
during the past 25 years, often in collaboration with Mary Moser,
and supported by the Summer Institute of Linguistics. I am indebted
to several Seri speakers for their judgments on the data, in addition
to original sources: María Luis Astorga de Estrella, Oscar
Perales, and Xavier Moreno. I also appreciate the very helpful input
I received from Cheri Black, Martin Haspelmath, two anonymous reviewers
for this journal, and two anonymous reviewers for Diachronica.
[2] Seri
is actively spoken by about 700 speakers, virtually all of the ethnic
group, in northwestern Mexico. It has been proposed that Seri is
an isolate within the (controversial) Hokan stock, and therefore
is distantly related (perhaps) to the Yuman languages. In broad
typological terms, it is a mildly fusional agglutinative SOV language
without case marking. The verb inflects for the person of the subject,
direct object, and indirect object, as well as tense/aspect, negation,
voice, causative, number, etc., as some of the examples in this
paper illustrate.
[3] The
data are presented in the practical orthography (generally similar
to Spanish) which has been used for more than forty years. The symbols
which need special explanation are: e front low vowel, h
glottal stop, l voiceless lateral fricative, j
voiceless velar fricative, jö voiceless labialized velar
fricative, x voiceless uvular fricative, xö voiceless
labialized uvular fricative, z voiceless alveopalatal fricative.
The capital C which appears in section 4 refers to the empty
consonant position discussed in Stemberger and Marlett (1983). For
more information on Seri phonology and morphology, see Marlett (1981)
and Marlett (1990), as well as other information available at www.sil.org/mexico/seri/familia-seri.htm.
The following abbreviations are used:
ActNom — Action Nominalizer;
Aug — Augment (primarily used for forming causatives);
Decl — Declarative;
DS — Different Subject (switch reference marker);
Neg — Negative;
OM — Object Marker (when verb has third person subject and
third person direct object);
Psv — Passive;
SubjNom — Subject Nominalizer;
UF — Underlying Form;
UnspSubj — Unspecified Subject;
1IO — first person indirect object (ambiguous for number
on most verbs);
1Poss — first person Possessor;
2Poss — second person Possessor;
3Poss — third person Possessor;
1sDO — first person singular Direct Object;
1plDO — first person plural Direct Object;
1sSubj — first person singular Subject;
2sSubj — second person singular Subject;
1plSubj — first person plural Subject.
[4] An
important distinction between ‘reanalysis’ and ‘grammaticalization’
is made by Haspelmath (1992, 1998); his view of the latter also
fits this case in Seri: “Grammaticalization is the gradual
drift in all parts of the grammar toward tighter structures, toward
less freedom in the use of linguistic expression at all levels...constructions
become subject to stronger constraints and come to show greater
cohesion” (1998: 318).
[5] A
Seri hearer of these forms also does not automatically know the
answer. As one reviewer has pointed out, the hearer is making abductive
inferences (Andersen 1973) which can easily lead to reanalysis of
the phonetic facts.
[6] Such
a causative verb would have a passive form: –ahpátj
‘pounded flat’, a regularly derived form, from underlying
–ah–aa–pátj (–Passive–Causative–flattened).
[7] I
have not found any evidence that speakers disagree on any of the
facts in this paper, although it is unreasonable to expect homogeneity
on such matters. The verbs in question were recorded by Edward and
Mary Moser sometime in the 1950’s or 1960’s, and have
been checked and re-checked during field work with different speakers
up until the present.
[8] This
causative verb is derived from the verb –itaj ‘burn
(intr.). It uses the allomorph –ah of the causative
prefix, which is the allomorph typically used for roots which begin
with non-low vowels.
[9] An
anonymous reviewer has suggested an alternative analysis: a new
morpheme has evolved from the passive prefix and this morpheme creates
stative verbs, or the passive prefix has generalized into a more
general intransitivizer. This analysis has problems, as the one
I propose also does, with the disparity between the facts of sections
2.1 and 2.5. Other sections of my presentation are consistent with
this alternative. However, there is no good evidence that any kind
of productive extension of the passive morpheme has evolved. The
relevant verbs, which are few and are all included in this paper,
appear to be sporadic idiosyncratic developments. Therefore it seems
preferable to me to view this as the reanalysis of the prefixal
material into the verb stem.
[10]
This verb is used only in certain expressions.
[11]
This prefix is orthographically qu- before front vowels,
as in Spanish.
[12]
This passive verb is homophonous with the passive of the causative
verb capátj ‘flatten’: hapátj
‘what was flattened’.
[13]
The verb –pasax is not listed as an intransitive verb
in the dictionary (Moser et al., in preparation), and the
omission is apparently not accidental, from what I have been
able to determine.
[14]
It is argued in Marlett (1981, chapter 12) and Marlett (1984) that
this prefix here actually cross-references a chômeur (in Relational
Grammar terms).
[15]
In raising constructions, it is the raised subject that counts.
See especially Farrell, Marlett and Perlmutter (1991) for discussion.
[16]
Simplifying things for the present purposes, we may say that ‘different
subject’ is marked at the end of a finite subordinate clause
if the following clause has a different ‘logical’ subject
(even if that logical subject is the unexpressed agent of a passive
verb). The ‘logical’ subject of the second clause is
‘I’; the ‘logical’ subject of the third
clause if it were a passive would be some Unspecified person;
this situation would require a different subject marker on the end
of the second clause.
[17]
The syntax of these expressions (‘easy’ and ‘difficult’)
is apparently not parallel. The two expressions may have become
more divergent than one might have expected.
[18]
The parts glossed with a question mark do not have meanings independent
of the idioms in which they appear.
[19]
The imperative morpheme has this shape before short low root-initial
vowels and whenever a verb is negative.
[20]
All cases of k-Epenthesis are with the negative morpheme.
[21]
The word ihptcmoquépe (< {hp–t–m–oquépe}
(1sSubj–Realis–Neg–comfortable), with k-Epenthesis
having applied, is ‘when I was not comfortable’.
[22]
All of the verbs formed by reanalysis in Seri are intransitive.
With reanalysis of the passive, this is simple: passives are intransitive.
With the reanalysis of the negative, this fact is more interesting.
It would be more difficult to envision the lexicalization of a transitive
‘not eat it’ than intransitive ‘not eat’
(‘fast (abstain from eating)’), ‘not slow’
(‘fast, quick’) or ‘not visible, not clear’
(‘invisible, obscure’), even though the base predicates
are morphologically verbs in Seri in all these cases. Nevertheless,
this may be an accidental fact since one might expect to find a
lexicalized verb meaning ‘forget’ in the future based
on the negative of the verb ‘remember’.
[23]
This verb is derived from the root for ‘enjoy’, -zim.
|