Volume 16 Issue 1 (2018) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.490 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. Comparative
Constructions in Murui (Witotoan,
Northwest Amazonia) Katarzyna I. Wojtylak Language and Culture Research Centre, James Cook University This paper focuses on the
forms and functions of various comparative constructions found in Murui, a
Witotoan language of Northwest Amazonia (Colombia, Peru). It analyses different
types of comparative construction, their forms, and semantics. This includes a
set of special markers that express comparison, as well as those forms that are
used in equative and similative constructions. 1. Introduction
Map 1. Location of the Witoto-speaking
groups in Northwest Amazonia (author’s map) In the literature, the term ‘Witoto’
refers to a single language that belongs to the Witotoan language family
(together with two other languages, Ocaina and Nonuya) (Echeverri, Fagua & Wojtylak forthcoming).[2] In
fact, ‘Witoto’ is a collective umbrella term that encompasses four different
ethnic groups that speak four mutually intelligible dialects: Murui, Mɨka, Mɨnɨka,
and Nɨpode (Wojtylak 2017).
All these groups recognise their
common ancestry but consider themselves to be separate social groups speaking
different languages. In this paper, I refer to Murui as a language in the
political sense although linguistically it is clearly one of the dialects. The
Murui people (similarly to other Witotoan groups) have had intense contact with
the western culture for over 100 years now, especially after the tragic
consequences of the Rubber Boom period in the Amazon (Hardenburg 1912, Echeverri 1997, Pineda Camacho 2000). Fabre (2005)
is a source of references on all the Witotoan languages. The current sociolinguistic situation of the Murui people is characterised by a rapidly progressing language shift towards Spanish. The official records estimate the number of speakers of the Murui language at c. 2000, but, based on the author’s fieldwork, in reality, this number does not exceed 1000. The language is rapidly falling into disuse especially among younger speakers. I start with a
brief typological profile of the Murui language in section 2, focusing on word
classes and their morphological and syntactic properties as relevant for the
status and characteristics of comparative constructions. In section 3, I
consider Murui comparative constructions focusing on their types and structure.
This is followed by a discussion of Murui superlative strategies in section 4
and an analysis of the expression of equality and the similative
-ze in
section 5. The last section offers a brief summary. 2. The Murui language
Murui is nominative-accusative, agglutinating, and predominantly suffixing.
Murui favours verb-final constituent order (AOV, SV). Grammatical functions are
expressed through case markers. Marking of core arguments is subject to
differential case marking, that is related mainly to focus and topicality. Marking
of oblique arguments (locative, ablative, instrumental, benefactive-causal, privative)
is mandatory. There is only one cross-referencing position on the verb, the
subject S/A. Murui has three open
lexical word classes: nouns, verbs, and adjectives. There are ten semi-closed
and closed word classes that include place and manner adverbs, time words,
number words, quantifiers and intensifiers, pronouns, demonstratives,
interrogative content words, connectives, adpositions,
and interjections. A few adjectives (such as e.g. mare ‘good’) form a closed set of words (see Wojtylak 2017).[3] Verbs and nouns are distinctly different in their morphosyntactic features. For instance, nouns occur primarily as heads of NPs that can further function as heads of intransitive predicates (for first and second person), as in (1), or as arguments of verbless clauses (for third person), as in (2):[4]
Intransitive and transitive verbs are fully inflected for verbal morphology (tense, aspect, mood, evidentiality, directionality, as well as pronominal subject marking). (3) shows the transitive verbal root fa- ‘hit’ followed by verbal morphology:
Murui adjectives can function as predicates of
intransitive clauses, as in (4), or can be used as arguments in verbless clauses, as in (5). The semantic difference
between (4) and (5) is related to temporality. In (4), the attribution is ‘temporal’
(non-time-stable reference)—the place is dirty or ugly because someone did not
clean it in the right way. In (5), it is ‘timeless’ (time-stable reference)—the
fruit cannot revert to becoming ‘not dirty, not ugly’. In both cases (4) and
(5), naino ‘that
(place)’ and jeakɨ
‘dirty, ugly (fruit)’ have to be referential, as indicated by the demonstrative bikɨ ‘this (fruit)’.
Murui verbs, adjectives, and nouns are different in their morphosyntactic attributes from other word classes, and in the structural positions available for them. For instance, adjectives cannot take many of the aspectual markers such as the semelfactive -no; verbs cannot co-occur with the inchoative ‘become’ -nai, -tai, and -rui markers; neither verbs nor adjectives can be marked with nominal morphology (unless they take classifiers) (see Wojtylak 2018). The syntactic properties of Murui open word classes are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Murui open word classes and their functional slots Similar to other neighbouring languages
spoken in the vicinity of the Vaupés linguistic area to the north, Murui has a large multiple classifier system with quite
complex derivational functions.[5] Murui classifiers are
suffixes that can be defined as sets of morphemes which are used in various
morphosyntactic contexts forming nouns (Wojtylak 2016).
These contexts include: a) nouns (free and bound roots), b) verbs, c)
adjectives, d) number words, e) pronouns, f) demonstratives, g) interrogative content
words, and h) quantifiers. An example of the functions c) and f) is presented
in (6):
Murui predicates are typically marked for third person with the pronominal
S/A subject marker -e. Optionally, for highly animate referents, the nonsingular
number of S/A arguments can be marked on the predicates by the bound pronominal
subject marker -makɨ.
Similarly, nouns can remain unmarked; plural, kinship plural, and collective
number marking is optional. Although the non-singularity of nouns is usually determined
by context, number marking tends to be expressed when
the nouns are pragmatically salient and/or have human referents (see Smith-Stark 1974). In (7), jito ‘son’ could
refer to any number of sons.
Murui has no copula verb. There is a verb i(te) which translates as ‘exist, be, live’. It behaves as any other intransitive verb in the language, and can be used to express possession. In (9), i(te) marks a type of ownership:
Murui has a classifier -fe meaning ‘side’, as in (10), that can also function as a linker of sorts followed by classifiers, as in (11). Murui number words also take -fe, as in (12):
Murui has no morphological derivations such as augmentative or diminutive. Such concepts are expressed in
the language by means of classifiers, such as -kɨ‘round (smaller)’ vs. -gɨ ‘oval
(bigger)’.
3. Murui Comparative
Constructions
Murui has a number of dedicated comparative constructions that are characterised by the occurrence of special forms of standard markers, as well as by their specific structure. All Murui comparative constructions will commonly include the structural elements outlined in Table 2.[6]
Table 2.
Syntactic status of elements of Murui comparative
constructions As mentioned in section 1, adjectives (followed by classifiers) can be used as an argument of a verbless clause, such as ebikaɨaɨ ‘beautiful (fingers)’ in (13), or as a head of an intransitive clause, such as ebirede ‘(they) are beautiful’ in (14). The semantic difference between (13-14) relates to the temporality of attribution (see also examples (4-5) in §2).
A similar two-fold division can be made for the comparative constructions. Those comparative constructions that involve verbless clauses with adjectives which have grammatical properties similar to nouns (and refer to ‘timeless’ attribution), as in (13), I will call ‘type 1’. Those that involve adjectives functioning as intransitive predicates (and refer to ‘temporal’ attribution), as in (14), I will call ‘type 2’. Constructions of those types are most commonly used for comparison. This is illustrated by the set of examples in (15) and (16) below. In (15), the adjective root jano- ‘small’ followed by a classifier functions as a verbless copula complement (see also section 4 on superlative strategies). (16), with the standard kue ‘I’ and the s-mark baaɨfemo ‘ahead (of)’, is a comparative construction of type 1.
Murui has several means for expressing comparison. All are monoclausal,
where the parameter is stated only
once; the standard and the s-mark of comparison are peripheral
elements. The comparee functions
as either a verbless copula subject (VCS) or a subject of intransitive clause.
Murui comparative constructions can be distinguished by: 1) forms of the s-mark, which can be either: 1) an adverb or an adverbial demonstrative followed by -fe-mo (-clf:side-loc), 2) emodo-mo ‘over’ (over-loc), or 3) an argument followed by the locative -mo, 2) grammatical properties of the parameter of comparison, which can be expressed either as an
argument of a verbless clause (type 1) or a head an
intransitive predicate (type 2). There is a strong tendency for the parameter to be an adjective; in addition, nouns and verbs can function as the parameter as well. The optional p-mark, eo ‘very, a lot’ is an intensifier. The comparative constructions with -femo (§3.1) are common; those with emodomo (§3.3) are used less often, and those that involve the locative -mo (§3.4) are rare in everyday discourse. Murui comparative constructions with -femo are illustrated in Tables 3-5. Each table displays the most common ordering of structural elements for a given comparative construction, as well as their usage in everyday conversations. Forms of the s-mark -femo are shown in Table 6 in §3.2.
Table 3. Comparative constructions with s-mark -femo and their usual structural slots (§3.1)
Table 4. Comparative constructions with the s-mark emodomo and their usual structural slots (§3.3)
Table 5. Comparative constructions with the s-mark -mo and their usual structural slots (§3.4) 3.1 Comparatives with -femo
Comparative construction with the s-mark -femo involve two construction types, those of type 1 and type 2. Those of type 1 involve verbless clause constructions, where the comparee, standard, and parameter of comparison are nouns and refer to ‘timeless attribution’ of a referent, as in (17). Constructions of type 2 involve adjectives that function as heads of intransitive predicates (occasionally, also verbs and nouns), and refer to ‘temporal attribution’, as in (18). The standard and the s-mark always form an NP.
The s-mark of comparison is a noun formed from adverbial demonstratives (e.g. baaɨ ‘ahead, over there’) or adverbs of place, such as foo ‘inside’ (see §3.1-2 on forms of s-mark). s-mark can have various forms whose meanings are related to distance, interiority, and vertical position, as in examples (21-22):
Sometimes, in the constructions type 1, the parameter can be postposed to the standard. In (23), the standard of comparison, the noun aiyo-kae ‘big (canoe)’ and the s-mark baaɨfemo ‘ahead (of)’, are followed by the parameter aiyue ‘big’ in the VCC function. The comparee is the NP aiyue raya ‘big boat’. Such ordering of constituents in the sentence is always pragmatically conditioned and occurs when there is an extra emphasis on the standard.
In comparative constructions type 2, adjectives, nouns, and verbs function as heads of an intransitive predicate. In (24), the parameter of comparison is an intransitive predicate mokorede ‘green’ modified by the p-mark eo ‘very’:
In (25), the parameter mare-ñaiño-dɨ-kue ‘I’m (a) beautiful (female)’ is a nominalised adjective mare ‘good, beautiful’ followed by the animate classifier -ñaiño, and it functions as a head of an intransitive predicate. The standard of comparison is the third person pronoun followed by the s-mark baaɨfemo ‘ahead (of)’:[7]
Similar is (26), where the parameter of comparison, the noun ukube ‘money’, functions as a predicate head followed by the standard and the s-mark:
The following examples illustrate the intransitive verbal root kɨo- ‘see’ and the transitive roko- ‘cook’ in the parameter function. In (28), the comparee is a pronominal S/A subject marker -kue (1sg).
The comparee and the standard of comparison can be further modified by means of dependent clauses, as in (29). The non-singular reading of baiko ‘these (dogs)’ is contextual.
3.2 The standard marker -femo
In comparative constructions with -femo (see §3.1), the s-mark of comparison is a noun formed with either the adverbial demonstrative baaɨ ‘ahead, over there’ or a restricted set of place adverbs. They are always followed by the word class changing -fe and the locative case marker -mo. The forms of s-marks are outlined in Table 6. By far, the most common form of the s-mark -femo is baaɨfemo ‘ahead (of)’ expressing relative superiority ‘more’, and its ‘negative’ equivalent foofemo ‘on the inside (of)’ used for expression of relative inferiority ‘less’. The meanings of the -femo forms relate to distance (‘ahead’), interiority (‘inside’ and ‘outside’), and vertical position (‘low’ and ‘high’).[9] Such semantic division of the s-mark indicates the importance of object’s physical properties in terms of their shape and position in space in Murui. For instance, nouns formed with the classifier -bogɨ for ‘big ball-like objects’ are referred to with the s-mark jinofemo ‘wider (lit. on the outside)’ when compared with -dozi ‘thin stick’ (see Diagram 1 further this section).
Table 6. Forms of the s-mark
-femo in Murui comparative constructions Nowadays, all five forms of the s-mark are almost exclusively used by older speakers of the language. Among younger speakers, baaɨfemo ‘ahead (of)’, and, to an extent, foofemo ‘on the inside (of)’, are robustly productive; other forms are falling out of use. The roots of the s-mark are not unique to comparative constructions, and elsewhere in the language they can be used as demonstratives and adverbs with locational meanings; They are independent forms which cannot be case-marked unless they take the classifier -fe (see Wojtylak 2017 for details). Examples of this are given in (30-35). Nouns formed with -fe can be followed by other (physical property) classifiers, as in (33).
The semantics of the s-mark forms allow a division between two parallel types of comparative constructions: those that express superiority, and those which convey the notions of inferiority, as illustrated in Diagram 1 below.[11] The s-marks expressing superiority make more distinctions than those expressing inferiority. [12] Diagram 1. Semantics of the s-mark -femo in Murui comparative
constructions I. Comparison of Superiority ‒ comparison of superiority in Murui relates to the notions of vertical position (‘higher’ < ‘above’), distance (‘more’ < ‘ahead, over there’), and interiority (or measurement: ‘wider’ < ‘outside’). The most prevalent s-mark referring to superiority involves distance, and is formed with the adverbial demonstrative baaɨ ‘ahead, over there’ followed by -fe and the locative -mo. In the speech of Murui elders, baaɨfemo marks only those types of comparison that refer to distance; among younger speakers, it is also used for expressing interiority and vertical position. Throughout the paper, I give various examples of comparative constructions with baaɨfemo, including comparison of property, as in (21, 25), quality, as in (27), and quantity, as in (28). In traditional Murui, interiority and vertical position are important parameters that define the form of the s-mark. The form aafemo ‘higher (lit. on the top side)’ describes superiority of an object’s property on a vertical plane. Examples are given in (36-37):
Marking of interiority in comparative constructions indicates that an object is seen from either outside (viewed as being ‘superior’, for which jinofemo ‘wider (lit. on the outside)’ is used) or inside (viewed as being ‘inferior’, which is marked with foofemo ‘less, slimmer (lit. on the inside)’). The s-mark jinofemo is used to refer to an object that is physically wider (horizontally, in terms of its size), as illustrated in (38-39):
That the use of s-marks referring to vertical positon and interiority is almost exclusively a feature of
the speech of Murui elders, might possibly indicate that in the past, comparative constructions might
have involved an extensive use of different types of markers of comparison.[13] II. Comparison of Inferiority ‒ comparison of inferiority involves interiority (‘inside’) and vertical position (‘low’). By far, interiority is the most prevalent notion expressing ‘less’. Among younger speakers, the s-mark foofemo (formed with foo ‘inside’) is used to refer to all types of comparison of inferiority, as in (40-42) below:
When referring to objects located in space expressing ‘y less than x’ meanings, Murui elders tend to use the s-mark anafemo for ‘lower’, as exemplified in (43). This is unlike young Murui speakers, who employ foofemo ‘inside (of)’ at all times.
3.3 Comparatives with emodomo
Another type of Murui comparative constructions involves the s-mark emodomo, and is used for comparison of superiority (see Wojtylak forthcoming on the grammaticalization of the body part term ‘back, spine’ into a marker of comparative constructions). Unlike the comparatives involving s-mark -femo (see §3.1-2), comparatives marked with emodomo are not used often. Similarly to comparative constructions involving -femo, comparatives with emodomo are monoclausal, and distinguish between clauses with ‘temporal’ and ‘timeless’ semantics. In such constructions, the comparee and standard are expressed by adjectives, verbs, and nouns that function as heads of intransitive predicates. The s-mark of comparison emodomo is best interpreted as ‘over, on top, above’; it is formed with the noun emodo ‘back’ (cf. (47)) followed by the locative -mo. The p-mark eo ‘very, a lot’ is optional. This is illustrated in (44-45) below:
For more emphasis, the ordering of the comparee and standard can be reversed, and the standard is preposed to the comparee. Such types of comparative constructions are used relatively often in the everyday conversations. They are found mostly when comparing inanimate objects. An example is given in (46):
The s-mark emodomo is not unique to comparative constructions. In (47), emodo followed by the locative -mo, means ‘on (the) back’:
Elsewhere in the grammar, emodomo is also
used for counting, e.g. da-be-kuiro emodo-mo mena (one-clf:leaf-clf:peel over-loc two) for ‘seven
(lit. one leaf peel over two)’ (Wojtylak forthcoming). The
difference between those comparative constructions involving -femo and those marked with emodomo is semantic, as well as
pragmatic. People usually interpret emodomo ‘over’ as having a
transparent meaning (referring to one’s back), and
being ‘somewhat stronger’ than -femo. Others prefer not to use it,
indicating that such constructions are not Murui, but Mɨnɨka in origin (see §1).[14] 3.4
Comparative
with locative -mo
In addition to the comparative constructions with -femo (§3.1) and emodomo (§3.3), Murui also has a marginally occurring monoclausal construction that involves a juxtaposition of two NPs; the first NP is always marked with the locative -mo. Its readings impute opposite properties to two inanimate participants. They are reminiscent of other comparative construction types in the use of the locative -mo. Notably, comparative constructions with the locative -mo are rarely used in everyday discourse.[15] The intensifier eo ‘very’ is optional. An example is given in (48):
4. Superlative strategies
Murui has two independent strategies to indicate superlative meanings. One is contextual, where a simple use of an adjective, a noun, or a verb preceded by the intensifier eo ‘very’ is interpreted as having a superlative reading. The second strategy involves modification of a noun to indicate a set of referents. I. Superlative interpretation ‒ depending on the situation and context, constructions that involve the intensifier eo (cf. (4-5) in §2) can have implicit superlative readings (see Vuillermet, this volume, for a similar strategy in Ese Eja). This is illustrated in (49-50):
Often, such constructions are additionally accompanied by an oblique argument marked with the ablative -mona to specify the author of a statement. This is illustrated in (51-53):
The frequent usage of constructions with the ablative marker expressing the meaning ‘as for’ could possibly be the origin of sentences such as in (54) below. They are common among young speakers of Murui but not among elders. Note that the reading of (54) is not ‘as for those children (those children think that)’; rather, the ablative marker specifies a set of referents:
The use of such constructions in Murui might have been influenced by the Spanish superlative constructions involving de ‘of, from, about’, as in a sentence ella es la mas linda de todas ‘she is most beautiful of all’ or de todos los niños, uno no quiere comer ‘of all the children, he is the only one who doesn’t eat’, as in (54). II. Modification
of a noun to indicate a set of referents ‒ Murui comparative constructions with
the s-mark baaɨfemo can have superlative
readings; in such instances, the standard
is specified as a large set of referents against which the comparee is compared, as in (55-56). They
are used by young speakers and are reminiscent of Spanish superlative
constructions, where the standard
is expressed by a noun referring to as a set of referents, as in el abuelo más viejo de todos ‘the oldest elder of everybody’.
In such constructions in Murui, the comparee
is always marked for number (note that elsewhere Murui
has optional number marking on the NP, see §2). Examples are given in (55-56)
below:
5. Comparison of equality and similative
meanings
In prototypical equative and similative constructions two entities (the comparee and the standard) are ascribed to the parameter to the same or similar extent. Murui equative and similative constructions are discussed in turn. 5.1 Equative constructions
Murui equative constructions are expressed by verbless and (extended) intransitive clauses, where the standard is followed by either the postposition izoi ‘similar’, as in (57), or the verbal root izoi- followed by verbal morphology, as in (58). The intensifier eo ‘very’ is often present.
Verbless clauses and intransitive clauses can co-occur. This is illustrated in (59):
The context can play an important role
in interpretation of izoi(de) ‘be similar’. The verb is
homophonous with the intransitive verb i-t-e (exist-lk-3) ‘exist, be, live’ marked with the
remote habitual -zoi,
as in (60). From the synchronic perspective, izoi- and i- are not related.
Ordering of elements in equative constructions is similar to that of comparative constructions. In Murui, there is a certain flexibility in constituents orders, where the position of the oblique argument can be subject to change (i.e. focus). In (61), the standard is preposed to the parameter:
5.2 Similative -ze with ‘equal size’ meanings
Murui has a category which expresses the notion of ‘Y like/as X in terms of object’s size’. The occurrence of the similative -ze is limited to nouns, demonstratives, the question word nɨ-e (q2-clf:g) ‘which (one)’, and the connective ie. For example, ananeko ‘maloca (traditional communal roundhouse)’ marked with -ze means ‘an object Y being like/as a maloca, having the size of a maloca’.[16] Examples are given in (64-65):
The Murui similative ‘equal size’ marker occurs with all types of nouns, regardless of their animacy. For instance, Katarina-ze refers to an object size in terms of the size of Katarina (whether big, small, etc.). The similative cannot be followed by nominal morphology, such as case or number. It can, however, head intransitive predicates. In (66), a speaker was comparing the size of a tree with the size of a house.
Elsewhere in the grammar, the readings of -ze are clearly similative, and do not involve ‘equal size’ meanings. This is the case with demonstratives, such as in bai-e-ze(that-CLF:G-SIMIL) ‘like that’, aki-e-ze(AUDIT-CLF:G-SIMIL) ‘like that (as heard)’, the question word nɨ-e-ze(Q2-CLF:G-SIMIL) ‘how’, and the connective ie-ze (CONN-SIMIL) ‘like that’. Additionally, two independent manner adverbs ‒ raize ‘well, correctly’, as in (67), and feekuize ‘slowly’ ‒ contain the formative -ze. Examples are given in (67-69):
One exception is the demonstrative dɨe- ‘that’. Dɨe- is unusual in that it is obligatorily marked with -ze relating to ‘equal size’. As such, dɨeze can be interpreted as ‘that much’, and when used, it is always accompanied by a gesture indicating size. In (70), dɨeze refers to the size of the store:
The similative -ze might possibly be related to the postposition izoi ‘similar’ (§5.1). Among Murui speaker, there is a certain interchangeability of the expressions in (71a-b). Both are interpreted as ‘this is the story’, and are customarily used to end narrations.
6. Summary
This paper focused on comparative construction in Murui, a Witotoan language spoken in Northwest Amazonia. All Murui comparative constructions are similar in structure: they involve an overtly expressed standard marker which contains the locative -mo. The meanings of the standard marker refer to distance, interiority, and vertical position, and distinguish between superiority and inferiority. None of the structural elements of Murui comparative constructions have ‘special’ forms; all constituents have additional roles in the grammar. Murui has no dedicated superlative. Superlative readings are contextual, and are achieved by employing adjectives, nouns, and verbs preceded by the intensifier eo ‘very’, and modifying nouns to indicate a set of referents. Expressing equality involves izoi- ‘(be) similar’. The notion of ‘Y like/as X in terms of object’s size’ is expressed with the similative -ze on nouns and on the demonstrative dɨe- ‘that’; elsewhere, the similative -ze has no ‘equal size’ readings. References
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||