Volume 13 Issue 2 (2015) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.462 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. Morphosyntactic Properties of Chibchan Verbal
Person Marking[1]
Matthias Pache
Leiden
University
In typological terms, Chibchan
is among the more heterogeneous language families in the Americas. This
language family may therefore be considered as a relevant source of information
on typological diversity and change. Chibchan
languages are spoken in an area that extends from Honduras in the west to
Venezuela in the east (see Map 1). In this language family, Adelaar
(2007) has noted an uneven distribution of morphological complexity in terms of
the number of categories encoded by bound elements. As a rule of thumb, the
morphological complexity of Chibchan languages spoken
in the eastern parts of the distribution area is relatively high. In contrast, several
Chibchan languages spoken in Central America (Panama,
Costa Rica) are somewhat less complex, morphologically speaking, that is, they tend
to make use of more analytic constructions. One core area of typological
diversity within Chibchan is verbal person marking,
with synthetic verbal person marking attested for instance in Muisca and Barí (eastern part of
the distribution area), and more analytic strategies attested for instance in Cabécar and Guaymí
(central-western part of the distribution area) (see (1) and (2)).[2]
Barí
Cabécar
In Barí arguments are
indexed on the predicate (1), while in Cabécar both
subject and object person are indicated by unbound elements (2). Map 1. Approximate distribution of Chibchan Languages (redrawn after Constenla
Umaña 1993: 109)[3] The present paper aims to shed more light on the morphosyntactic properties of Chibchan
verbal person marking, both from a diachronic and a synchronic perspective. Section
1 gives a brief overview of verbal person marking patterns in Chibchan. In section 2, I will give some specific evidence
for diachronic developments in different Chibchan
languages. In section 3, it is argued that from a synchronic point of view, the
morphological complexity of verbal person marking correlates with cognitive
accessibility in some Chibchan languages. 1. Chibchan Patterns of
Verbal Person Marking
Chibchan
languages have different strategies of personal reference marking on verbs,
namely bound and unbound elements. The present section will briefly present and
discuss them. As indicated by van Gijn (this volume),
the interpretation of elements as bound or unbound is not always an easy task. For
the present paper, the interpretations given in the cited grammars were checked
for that on the following criteria: elements that can appear on their own are always
interpreted as unbound. Elements that occur in a fixed order are mostly interpreted
as affixes.[4]
Clitics are a heterogeneous category (cf. e.g. van Gijn & Zúñiga 2014), and sometimes
difficult to tease apart from affixes in Chibchan.[5]
In Chibchan
verbal person marking, we find prefixes ((3) and (5)), suffixes (4), a mix of
both (6), or unbound forms (7). Examples (3) and (4) illustrate intransitive
constructions. Muisca
In Muisca (3), the prefix <i-> indicates 1st person subject.[6]
In Chimila, suffixes are used for verbal person
marking, for instance -gwaka for the 2nd person singular
subject in example (4).[7] Chimila
In transitive constructions, the situation can be
still more heterogeneous than in intransitive constructions. In Guatuso, for instance, a 1st person agent (ra-)
and a 2nd person patient (ma-) are both indicated by prefixes (5). Guatuso
In Damana transitive
constructions such as (6), 1st person singular subject is expressed
by a suffix -ku
and an unbound element ɾa simultaneously,
whereas 2nd person singular object is indicated by ma-. Damana
In Guaymí, both person of
the agent and of the patient are marked by unbound forms, namely mɔ for the 2nd
person and ti
for the 1st person in (7). Guaymí
An overview of verbal person marking patterns in
intransitive and transitive Chibchan constructions is
given in Table 1. Languages are clustered together according to the subgrouping
of Chibchan languages proposed by Constenla
Umaña (2012: 415-7).
Table 1. Some Chibchan patterns of verbal person marking in intransitive
and transitive constructions[8] The
relationship between the patterns described in Table 1 and the subgrouping of Chibchan languages as proposed by Constenla
Umaña (2012: 415-7) is not always straightforward. An
example of a mismatch between Chibchan subgrouping and
patterns of verbal person marking is illustrated by Chimila
and Kogi. Both languages are grouped within the
Northern Magdalenic languages by Constenla
Umaña (2012: 413-4; 416-7), on the basis of
phonological and morphological evidence and shared isoglosses. However, not
only do Chimila and Kogi have
different etyma underlying for instance markers of the 2nd person
singular subject (see (4) and (11)); the patterns of verbal person marking are also
different: whereas Chimila only uses suffixes (V-s;
V-o-s), Kogi makes use of prefixes (s-V; s-o-V),
suffixes (V-s) or a mix of both (o-V-s), according to the authors of the
respective language descriptions (see Table 1). A similar example is provided
by Barí, Tunebo and Muisca. These three languages are grouped together in Southern
Magdalenic by Constenla Umaña (2012: 413-4; 416-7). Nonetheless, their strategies
of verbal person marking are different, Tunebo using
unbound forms (SV; SOV), Muisca making use of both
unbound forms and prefixes (s-V; O s-V; o-s-V), and Barí
indicating verbal person by suffixes (V-s) and a mix of both prefixes and
suffixes (o-V-s). In part, such heterogeneity seems to be the result of
relatively recent change since it is attested within single subgroups. The
existence of two patterns such as Muisca o-s-V and Barí o-V-s in Southern Magdalenic
strongly suggests the grammaticalization of unbound
forms at a certain moment, in at least one of the two languages. Unbound verbal
person markers are generally less constrained and fixed in order than are bound
verbal person markers (Bickel & Nichols 2005). They may therefore grammaticalize in different positions. Instead, affixed
elements should yield bound verbal person markers in different slots less
easily. Therefore, it seems that in some cases at least, bound verbal person
markers in Chibchan are derived from unbound elements
(cf. also Himmelmann 2014). This interpretation is roughly
in line with Ostler (2000) and Constenla
Umaña (2012: 408) who argue – on different grounds,
however – that Chibchan person marking prefixes are
derived from originally unbound forms.[9] For
the sake of completeness, a brief overview of some Chibchan
forms marking verbal person in intransitive constructions is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Some Chibchan verbal person markers used in intransitive
constructions [References
for language data: Tunebo (Headland 1997); Kogi (Olaya Perdomo
2000); Chimila (Trillos Amaya
1997); Kuna (Holmer 1947); Boruca
(Quesada Pacheco & Rojas Chaves 1999); Cabécar
(Margery Peña 1989); Guatuso (Constenla
Umaña 1998)] 2. Diachronic Developments
The preceding section has briefly illustrated the different
morphosyntactic properties of verbal person marking
in Chibchan; in some cases, relatively recent processes
of grammaticalization can be inferred from bound
person markers affixed in different positions in the languages of one subgroup –
compare, for instance, the case of Barí and Muisca. However, the derivation of unbound forms from bound
forms combining with a pronominal base also seems to have occurred in Chibchan. The present section takes a closer look at these developments.
In the following I will argue that preverbal person markers
are derived from originally unbound forms in Paya,
spoken in northeastern Honduras, as well as in Kogi,
a Chibchan language of the Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta (Colombia). In Paya, the element indicating
object person precedes the verb root and has been interpreted as a prefix by
Holt (1999) (8). Paya
The 2nd person object is expressed, in (8),
by an element pi- (the unbound form
indicating 2nd person singular is pàː (Holt 1999: 40)). In some constructions however, it turns out
that this 2nd person object marker is followed by an element ɾ- (9). Paya
A construction such as (9) with the object person marker
followed by an element ɾ- makes it difficult
to reconstruct Paya pi- as an originally bound person marker for the following reason:
A formally identical element -ɾ, also
labelled an ‘objective’ marker by Holt (1999: 34),
can be attached to nouns (10). Paya
Thus, since an element ɾ- follows pi- in the
verbal complex, an interpretation of pi- as a prefix might appear debatable for
present-day Paya. Alternatively, we would be dealing
here with a clitic element. In any case, it seems
impossible to argue that this person marker derives from a bound prefix. A
similar case is attested in Kogi. In this language,
person of the direct object is indicated by an element which has been
interpreted as a prefix by different authors (11). Kogi
The first person object is indicated, in (11), by an element
la-.[12] In
ditransitive or dative experiencer constructions,
however, this object person marker is followed by an element k- (12). Kogi
The element k-
in (12) must probably be interpreted as a separate affix rather than as part of
an indirect object person marking prefix *nak-. An
element -k is used, in the same
language, as a goal marking case suffix (13). Kogi
Thus, as in Paya, it is not
necessarily easy to interpret the preverbal element marking object person in Kogi as a prefix since it is followed by a an element k- in (12). This would be sufficient to
argue that Kogi subject person marking elements such
as ma-, indicating 2nd person subject in (11), are not prefixes, either. From a diachronic perspective,
no room seems to be left for an origin of these Kogi person markers in bound prefixes.
In Térraba, a Chibchan language from western Panama and eastern Costa
Rica, a different development seems to have taken place: there are unbound
person markers which are built on bound elements that are attached to a
pronominal base. Object person in Térraba is
indicated by one of two different unbound elements (14)-(15), the choice of
which depends on topicality (cf. section 3 on the pragmatic differences between
these constructions). Térraba
Constenla
Umaña (2007: 76-7) interprets bo-ɾ in (15) as a generic pronominal root, bo-, combining with an element -ɾ,
which is also attested as a verbal suffix marking subject person in transitive
constructions. There is a whole paradigm of these derived unbound person
markers which are also used as possessive determiners. The element bo is
etymologically opaque and does not occur in unbound form, that is, on its own,
in Teribe/Térraba. Such a
development, namely, the formation of unbound person markers from bound person
markers combining with generic pronominal roots would be less frequent than the
derivation of bound person markers from unbound person markers,
cross-linguistically speaking (cf. Siewierska 2004:
254). The evidence listed in examples (8)-(13) suggests that
both in Paya and Kogi, the
preverbal elements marking object person (and subject person, in Kogi) can only be reconstructed as unbound elements for the
respective pre-languages, but not as prefixes. If, from a synchronic
perspective, we maintain an interpretation of these elements as bound prefixes,
we would be dealing here with an accomplished development from unbound to bound
verbal person markers. In fact, there are also reasons to argue that the
elements in question are proclitics. We might thus be
witnessing an ongoing process of grammaticalization
here. Instead, as attested in (14) and (15), it seems that in Teribe/Térraba, unbound person
markers are built on dependent person markers and generic pronominal roots.
Thus, from a diachronic point of view, the situation of analytic and synthetic
strategies of verbal person marking appears to be rather dynamic in some Chibchan languages. 3.
Synchronic Alternations Some Chibchan languages
display alternating strategies for verbal person marking: verbal person can be
indicated by either bound or unbound forms in Muisca,
Teribe/Térraba, and Rama. In
order to give an account on the morphosyntactic
properties of Chibchan verbal person marking from a
synchronic perspective, these cases will be discussed in the present section.
As will be argued, the choice of either bound or unbound morphemes seems to be
linked with hierarchies that are based on cognitive issues. In both Teribe/Térraba and Rama, information structure in the specific
discourse situation determines the choice of a bound or unbound element for
verbal person marking (see also Quesada 2000b). In Teribe,
person of the given subject (topic) is indicated by a suffix in transitive
constructions, when the object person is introduced as a new participant
(Quesada 2000a: 108) (16). Teribe
Otherwise, both the person of the subject and the
object are indicated by unbound elements (17). Teribe
For Rama, a Chibchan
language of southeast Nicaragua, Craig (n/d: 104-5) describes a very similar
phenomenon for verbal person marking in intransitive constructions. In this
language, person of an already introduced subject, that is, the topic, is indicated
by a clitic form (19), and not by an independent
pronoun (18) (both examples are part of a narrative where (19) follows (18)). Rama
A similar, albeit more complex case is attested in Muisca, an extinct Chibchan
language formerly spoken in the Boyacá and Cundinamarca high plains of
Colombia. Adelaar and Muysken
(2004: 97) identify two sets of bound person marking elements in this language (Table
3).[14]
Table
3. Person marking in Muisca (cf. González de Pérez
1987: 74-5, 81-2, 87; Adelaar & Muysken 2004: 97) These two sets cannot easily be labeled as ‘subject
set’ and ‘object set’. While Set 1 does not refer to object person, Set 2 and
the unbound forms can refer to subject or object person, depending on the
context.[15]
In the indicative mood, Set 1 is used to mark the subject in intransitive
constructions (20). Muisca
In transitive constructions, Set 1 prefixes can indicate
person of the subject, too, as for instance in (21) and (22).
Muisca
Thus, only subject person is indicated by bound forms
in examples (20) to (22), object person in (21) and (22) is indicated by
unbound forms. In these examples, bound and unbound person markers are distributed according to the syntactic
functions of subject and object, that is, according to a “hierarchy of argument
prominence” (Siewierska 2004: 43) with the subject ranking
higher than the object. The person referred to by the higher ranking syntactic
element (that is, the subject) is indicated by a bound form, whereas an unbound
form indicates the hierarchically lower ranking object person. From a
cross-linguistic perspective, this distribution of bound subject markers and
unbound object markers is the most frequently attested (Siewierska
2004: 43). As a general rule, bound person markers tend to encode
less information than unbound person markers (Siewierska
2004: 46). This would explain why, across different languages, bound person
markers tend to encode person of “highly accessible referents” (Siewierska 2004: 46; 175, cf. also Ariel 1990: 77-8), that
is, rather subject than object person. Subject person should be cognitively
more accessible than object person since it tends to rank higher on other
hierarchies, too, such as animacy or topicality hierarchies
(cf. Givón 1983: 20-3; de Swart et al. 2007). Similar
considerations apparently also hold for the situation in Muisca,
illustrated in examples (20) to (22). Nonetheless, o-s-V patterns with prefixes
marking object person are attested in Muisca as well
(23).[16] Muisca
This alternation between O s-V ((21)-(22)) and o-s-V
patterns (23) in Muisca needs further discussion. It
is clear that a subject/object hierarchy is not the only one which may underlie
patterns of verbal person marking. Languages can have person hierarchies implying,
for instance, that speech act participants (SAP, i.e., 1st and 2nd
person) rank higher than non-SAPs (3rd person) in
terms of saliency or cognitive accessibility (cf. Ariel 1990; Zúñiga 2006: 20-2). This latter phenomenon is exactly what
can be observed in Muisca as well. In terms of a
hierarchy based on an SAP/non-SAP distinction the two participants involved in each
(21) and (22) concur. They only differ with respect to their subject/object
status which therefore appears to determine their affixal
realization in this context. In (23) however, the situation is different since SAP
(ranking high in person hierarchy) interacts with a non-SAP (ranking low in
person hierarchy). In this context, it is important to note the following
observation of Siewierska (2004: 43): Cross-linguistically,
the use of bound elements indicating person of the object (that is, a low
ranking entity in terms of cognitive accessibility hierarchy) entails the use
of bound markers for the subject person. Transferring this rule to a hierarchy
based on an SAP/non-SAP distinction, this would imply the following: in
constructions where person of the non-SAP (ranking low in person hierarchy) is
indicated by a bound element (because it is the subject), a 1st or 2nd
person involved (ranking higher in person hierarchy) should be indicated by a
bound element as well, irrespective of its status as an object. And indeed,
this is exactly what can be observed in Muisca ((23),
repeated here as (24); and (25)-(26)). Muisca
Whether prefixes marking hierarchically low ranking person
literally determine the hierarchically higher ranking person to be indicated by
a bound marker too, or whether a hitherto unknown factor underlies this
conditioned correlation is difficult to assess. But on the descriptive level it
seems that two hierarchies are inherent in Muisca morphosyntax, one reflecting a subject/object distinction,
the other a SAP/non-SAP distinction. Considerations of cognitive accessibility
may ultimately underlie both of them. The two hierarchies identified for Muisca are, in turn, hierarchically organized as well. Subject
person is indicated by a bound element in constructions such as (20) to (26).
Object person is only indicated by a bound element in case it ranks higher than
subject person in the Muisca person hierarchy, which
makes a difference between SAP and non-SAP. In this case, however, the non-SAP is
also indicated by a bound element. Since the hierarchies underlying verbal
person marking in Muisca are hierarchically organized
themselves, they will be labeled ‘nested hierarchies’ here (see Table 4).
Table 4. Nested hierarchies in Muisca The nested hierarchies attested in Muisca
verbal person marking seem to be unique within Chibchan.
The examples from Muisca, Rama and Teribe discussed above suggest that in individual languages,
choice of bound or unbound verbal person markers correlates with cognitive
accessibility: the relevant hierarchy reflects topicality considerations in Teribe/Térraba and Rama, and
syntactic roles and speech act participation in Muisca.
4.
Conclusions The present paper has presented and discussed several
aspects of synthetic and analytic verbal person marking strategies in Chibchan. First, it has been argued that synthetic verbal
person marking in Chibchan languages is not necessarily
the result of deep-time retention (section 1). In fact, the grammaticalization
process of independent person markers into more dependent person markers can be
traced in Kogi and Paya. A
different development, namely the use of bound person markers to derive a new
set of unbound person markers, seems to be attested in Teribe/Térraba (section 2). This is in line with Wichmann’s and Holman’s (2009: 22; 24) observation that
person marking and inflectional synthesis of the verb are “very unstable”
features, at least among the languages treated in the World Atlas of Language
Structure (WALS) (Haspelmath et al. 2005).[17] From
a synchronic perspective, it seems that in individual Chibchan
languages, such as in Rama, Teribe/Térraba and Muisca, synthetic
verbal person marking correlates with cognitive accessibility: bound elements
are used to indicate person of a salient referent. Saliency seems to reflect
topic/focus considerations in Teribe and Rama. In Muisca it instead seems to correlate with two different
dimensions, namely speech-act participation and syntactic role. The interaction
of both dimensions in Muisca yields nested hierarchies
(section 3). In future studies, it would be worthwhile to trace the
role of language contact as affecting the morphosyntactic
properties of verbal person marking of different Chibchan
languages. Based on cross-linguistic evidence, van Gijn
(this volume) states that language contact often leads to a simplification, in
terms of morphological complexity. As a matter of fact, Adelaar
(2002) proposes the possibility of an influence of Chocoan
languages, triggering analytic person marking strategies in Kuna.[18] A multilingual setting
may also account for the analytic person marking strategies in Tunebo (see Table 1) (cf. Cassani
1741, cited in Restrepo 1895: 21). Whether or not the
relatively complex morphosyntactic properties of
verbal person marking in other eastern Chibchan
languages have been triggered by language contact would be a matter of further
investigation. 5. References Adelaar,
Willem F. H. 2002. Solving the
South American puzzle: a reappraisal of basic lexicon comparison in
genealogical linguistics. Paper presented at The Language Blueprint Workshop,
NIAS, Wassenaar, 11-13 January 2002. _____. 2007 Preface. In: Quesada, Juan Diego. The Chibchan Languages, pp. 11-12. Cartago, Costa Rica: Editorial
Tecnológica de Costa Rica. _____, with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken.
2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ariel, Mira. 1990.
Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge. Bickel, Balthasar and
Johanna Nichols. 2005. Inflectional
Synthesis of the Verb. The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.), pp. 94-7. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Cassani, Joseph.
1741. Historia de la provincia de la Compañia de Jesus, del Nuevo Reyno
de Granada en la America, Descripción, y relación exacta de sus gloriosas
missiones en el reyno, llanos, meta, y rio orinoco, almas, y terreno, que han
conquistado sus missioneros para Dios, aumento de la christiandad, y extension
de los dominios de su mag. catholica. Madrid: Manuel Fernandez. Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1993. La familia chibcha. Estado actual de la
clasificación de las lenguas indígenas de Colombia. Ponencias presentadas en el
seminario-taller realizado en el Instituto Caro y Cuervo (Febrero 10, 11, y 12
de 1988), M. L. Rodríguez de Montes (ed), pp. 75–125. Santafé de Bogotá:
Instituto Caro y Cuervo. _____. 1998. Gramática de la lengua guatusa. Heredia, Costa Rica: Euna. _____. 2007. La lengua de Térraba. San José, Costa
Rica: Editorial Universidad de Costa Rica. _____. 2012. Chibchan languages.
The Indigenous Languages of South America. A Comprehensive Guide, Lyle Campbell
and Verónica Grondona
(eds.), pp. 391-439. (The Indigenous Languages of South America, WOL no. 2.) Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Craig, Colette. n/d.
A Grammar of Rama. Université de Lyon. Report to
National Science Foundation, BNS 8511156. Manuscript. de Swart, Peter, Monique Lamers, and Sander Lestrade. 2007.
Animacy, argument structure,
and argument encoding. Lingua 118 (2):131-40. Gijn,
Rik van. This
volume. The stability of complex verbal morphology. Gijn,
Rik van, and Fernando Zúñiga. 2014.
Word and the Americanist perspective.
Morphology 24 (3): 135-160. Givón,
Talmy 1983. Topic
continuity in discourse: An introduction. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative
cross-language study, Talmy Givón
(ed),
pp. 1-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. González de Pérez, María Stella. 1987. Diccionario y
gramática chibcha. Manuscrito anónimo de la Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia.
Santafé de Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Haspelmath,
Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of
word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45 (1): 31-80. _____, Dryer,
Matthew, Gil, David, and Bernard Comrie (eds.)
2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. (Book with interactive
CD-ROM) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Headland, Edna R.
1997. Diccionario Bilingüe uw cuwa (tunebo)–español, español–uw cuwa
(tunebo) con una grámatica uw cuwa (tuneba). Santafé de Bogotá: Asociación
Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function
words: another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90 (4): 927-60. Holmer,
Nils M. 1947. Critical and Comparative Grammar of the Cuna
Language. (Etnologiska Studier, vol. 14.) Gothenburg: Etnografiska Museet. Holt,
Dennis. 1999. Pech (Paya). (Languages of the World/Materials,
366.) Munich: Lincom Europa. Lugo, Bernardo de.
1619. Gramática en la lengua general del Nuevo Reyno, llamada Mosca.
Madrid: Bernardino de Guzmán. Margery Peña, Enrique.
1989. Diccionario cabécar–español, español–cabécar. San José, Costa
Rica: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Olaya Perdomo, Noel.
2000. Descripción preliminary del sistema verbal de la lengua kogui (o
kawgi), Lenguas indígenas de Colombia, Una visión descriptiva, María Stella
González de Pérez and María Luisa Rodríguez de Montes (eds.), pp. 481-7.
Santafé de Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Ortiz Ricaurte, Carolina. 2000. Fonología y morfosintaxis nominal del Kogui. Lenguas
indígenas de Colombia, Una visión descriptiva, María Stella González de Pérez
(ed.), pp. 757-80. Santafé de Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Ostler, Nicholas.
1994. Verb inflexion in Muisca and
the Chibchan languages of Colombia. Paper delivered
at the 48th International Congress of Americanists,
Stockholm /Uppsala, Sweden: 4-9 July 1994. _____. 2000. Development
of transitivity in the Chibchan languages of
Colombia. Historical Linguistics 1995: Selected Papers from the 12th International
Conference of Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, John Charles
Smith and Delia Bentley (eds.)., pp. 279-293.
(Volume 1, General Issues and Non-Germanic Languages.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. Quesada, Juan Diego.
2000a. A Grammar of Teribe. (Lincom
Studies in Native American Linguistics, 26.) Munich: Lincom
Europa. _____. 2000b. Word order, participant encoding, and
the alleged ergativity in Teribe.
International Journal of American Linguistics, 66 (1): 98-124. _____. 2004. The Barí language
of Venezuela: a glimpse at the Chibchan periphery. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 57 (4): 362-376. _____. 2007. The Chibchan Languages. Cartago, Costa
Rica: Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica. Quesada Pacheco, Miguel Ángel. 2008. Gramática de la
lengua guaymí (ngäbe). (Languages of the World/Materials, 272.) Munich: Lincom. _____, and Carmen Rojs Chaves. 1999. Diccionario
Boruca–Español, Español–Boruca. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial de la
Universidad de Costa Rica. Restrepo, Vicente.
1895. Los chibchas antes de la conquista española. Santafé de Bogotá:
Imprenta de la luz. Siewierska, Anna.
2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trillos Amaya, María.
1997. Categorías gramaticales del ette taara – lengua de los chimilas. (Lenguas
aborígenes de Colombia, Descripciones 10.) Santafé de Bogotá: Universidad de
los Andes. _____. 1999.
Damana. (Languages of the World/Materials, 207). Munich: Lincom
Europa. Wichmann, Søren and Eric W. Holman. Temporal Stability of Linguistic
Typological Features. (Lincom Studies in Theoretical
Linguistics, 42.) Munich: Lincom. Zúñiga,
Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment. Inverse systems in indigenous
languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [1] The research
leading to this paper has received funding from the European Research Council
under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No. 295918. I am very grateful to Willem Adelaar, Natacha Chevrier, Rik van Gijn, Nicholas Ostler, Matthias
Urban, Søren Wichmann,
Fernando Zúñiga and an anonymous reviewer for their
comments on an earlier version of this paper. I am also grateful to Héctor Achirabú from the
community of Aruutatakae, Venezuela, who contributed
to the present paper with an example from his language, Barí. [2] Transcriptions
are phonemic and use IPA, except for Barí and Muisca examples. Barí transcriptions
are phonetic (fieldwork data). Muisca data are
presented in the original spelling since there are only premodern
sources for this language. Tone is indicated with an acute accent for high tone
and with a grave accent for low tone. In the language examples, verbal person
markers are in bold. The following abbreviations are used: 1 = first person; 2
= second person; 3 = third person; ad
= agent disambiguator; abs = absolutive; aux
= auxiliary; dat = dative; decl = declarative; dem = demonstrative; erg = ergative; fut = future; io
= indirect object; ipfv =
imperfective; irr = irrealis; l = locative; n = non-; obj = object;
pfv = perfective; pl = plural; pnct = punctual; poss =
possessive; prs = present; pst = past; q = question
marker; sbj = subject; sf = stem formative; sg = singular; stat = stative; tns = tense. [3] Numbers in
brackets refer to languages that are no longer spoken. [4] Compare Haspelmath (2011) on these criteria and the difficulties to
draw a clear line between syntax and morphology. [5] However, an unambiguous
case of clitics marking verbal person is observed in
Rama by Craig (n/d) (see Table 1): The person markers in question can be
combined with plural marking enclitics which would make it difficult to
interpret them as prefixes. [6] Muisca <i->, marking 1st person singular subject has two allomorphs
<z(e)-> and Ø, the occurrence of which is phonologically conditioned. [7] Trillos Amaya (1997:
123) gives -uka
as the suffix indicating 2nd person subject in Chimila.
This element cannot be derived from Proto-Chibchan *ba or *bi ‘2nd person’ (cf. Constenla
Umaña 2012: 408). [8] Capitals
indicate unbound person markers, hyphens indicate affixes and equal signs
indicate clitics. The affixal
status of verbal person markers in Kogi and Paya is discussed in section 2. Note also that for Cabécar, Guaymí and Tunebo, an ergative-absolutive alignment has been proposed
by the respective authors of the descriptions I draw upon for these languages.
Nonetheless, only Guatuso is presented here as an
ergative language since it is the only case of an ergative-absolutive alignment
reflected in the verb. In Cabécar, Guaymí and Tunebo, the ergative
marking element may also be interpreted, from a synchronic point of view, as an
agent disambiguator. [9] Ostler (2000) refers to person marking prefixes in Ika, Kogi, Damana
and Muisca. According to Constenla
Umaña (2012: 408), “[i]n
view of the absence of person prefixes in several languages [...], the
best hypothesis [...] is that Proto-Chibchan had an optional alternation between independent
and proclitic forms of the personal pronouns [...], and that the proclitic
forms gave rise to the prefixes”. [10] In Guatuso, plural person (subject or agent) may be indicated
by additional unbound pronouns preceding the verb. (cf. Constenla Umaña
1998: 73) [11] Ortiz Ricaurte (2000: 775) interprets -li as a progressive marker in this context. Olaya
Perdomo (2000: 782-3) interprets -li as indicating future tense. [12] Note the
phonologically determined alternation between na- and la- in (11) and
(12). [13] Craig (n/d: 147) interprets Rama -a as marking “neutral tense” and states that it “is very rarely
used and its meaning is difficult to define”. [14] Alternative
interpretations of person markers in Muisca can be
found in Ostler (1994; 2000). [15] The differences
between Set 1 and Set 2 are discussed in detail by Adelaar
and Muysken (2004). According to these authors,
participles and passive verbs take Set 2 to refer to the subject (or patient,
in passive constructions) (see Adelaar & Muysken 2004: 96-8).
With nouns, Set 1 prefixes mark person of the possessor, whereas in predicative
constructions (non-verbal predicates), person of the subject is indicated by
Set 2 prefixes, according to Adelaar and Muysken (2004: 98). [16] The analysis of
<mi-a-> in (23) as two separate morphemes is based on the interpretation
of Adelaar and Muysken
(2004: 97). González de Pérez (1987: 143) explicitly states that,
together with verbs, a construction such as (23) implies a 3rd
person subject (“el chia y mia no se
juntan más q[ue] con el v[er]bo de tersera persona”). [17] Note that the
stability of inflectional synthesis of the verb and verbal person marking also
depends on the number of categories which are encoded by bound morphology (Wichmann & Holmann 2009). [18] At present, verbal
person is mostly indicated by unbound elements in Chocoan
languages. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [ Home | Current Issue | Browse the Archive | Search the Site | Submission Information | Register for Updates | About | Editorial Board | Site Map | Help ]
Published by the Dartmouth College Library.
| |