CC BY
16Basic valence-changing operations coding argument transfer in ket
Zinn M. ([email protected] )
Tomsk State Pedagogical University
The purpose of the paper is to observe the regular direct correspondence between the generalized basic semantic patterns of argument transfer and basic formal verb-internal coding strategies. In the course of the paper our goals are as follows: 1) first of all to single out the basic types of argument transfer for Ket that directly affect the verb-internal coding of valence change, and single out the limited number of formal strategies corresponding to argument transfer types out of the diversity of subject and object markers in Ket; 2) then to give the classification of the valence-changing operations according to the basic types of argument transfer in Ket corresponding to formal verb-internal coding strategies; 3) and in addition to that uncover some peculiar effects of semantic and argument distribution features on Ket verb formation.
The data under analysis are of the following nature: first, the pairs of verbs each including non-derived and derived counterparts, both verbs in each pair have similar morphological structure except for argument markers due to differences in valence, and sometimes special lexicalized actant markers and, second, the verbs that have no mirror non-derived counterparts, but fall within the same model as other derived verbs.
Both the processes of argument transfer and transitivizing and detransitivizing derivation are marked by one morphological process of selection argument markers combination due to the capability of Ket verb-internal argument markers to perform more than one function simultaneously, including the following:
1) argument markers cross-reference the arguments of a clause;
2) argument markers indicate the nature of the arguments: their rank (subject or object) and specific semantic properties, among which we single out as most characteristic for Ket the components [cause] and [instrument]1;
1 In fact one more feature [control] is specified for involuntary causative derivation, the argument which bears this feature is marked by the lexicalized argument marker (it resembles an active subject marker in form, though in contrast to the latter it remains constant throughout the conjugation paradigm). This type of derivation belongs to the so called interpretative valence change, that is the rank of the arguments and consequently the form of the argument marker are in contradiction with the animacy/activity of the arguments (in Ket the subject marker refers to inanimate argument, the object marker - to the animate marker, the type of marking that is blocked by the semantic principles of transitive verb stem formation in Ket, the contradiction is solved by lexicalizing of one of the argument markers and detransitivizing the verb, thus forming involuntary causatives.
3) combination of argument markers indicates the valence of the verb, as in Ket each finite verb is obligatorily marked as either transitive or intransitive;
4) the operations of valence change code semantic argument transfer processes.
§1. Introduction. Argument marking types, transitive and intransitive verbs .
There are five major types of argument coding postulated for Ket first described in full by E. Vajda [Вайда 2000, Vajda 2003]. Here I am giving the generalized overall description. Each separate verb lexeme is considered to belong to one of the so called actant conjugations, each conjugation stands for a configuration of positions for one of the argument coding types. Each position filled with argument/valence markers is assigned to a set of markers for all persons. In Ket argument markers have different form for different person signification throughout the paradigm and the same position configuration for one verb. The argument markers differentiate person, number (together with the person in absolutive series or separate marker in active series) and the class of the noun (in the third person singular) they refer to. See chart 1, sample paradigm in Table 1.
Chart 1. Positions determining actant conjugations and the argument marker series cross -referencing the person, number and class (for 3rd person singular) of the arguments .
position person P8 P6 P6 (ablative series - labialized before ablative k in P5) P6 (coreferential series - redundant subject markers) P4 P3 P1 P-1
1SG di ba~bo bo ba~bo - - di -
2 SG ku ku ku ku - - ku -
3M du a~o~bu o bu a (o) - a -
3F da~dn i~u~bu u bu i - a -
3INAN 0~i~u~bu u bu - b a -
(SG or PL) da~d/i
df' df' - - day n
1 PL di
- - n
2 PL ku ki ki ki ka.-'
3 ANIM.PL ay - n
du a.-'~o.- ~bu o.- bu ay
(or)
2 Acknowledgements. I am very grateful to Prof. Vajda for comments on the draft of this work.
Table 1. Partial paradigm of the verb "roll smth/smb downhill" (present tense) - refers to Active conjugation. Argument configuration: P8 Act.S-ablative5-P4/3/1 Act.O-roll°-(P-1 SubjPL)
forms translation positions glosses
(t)kivta .•' I roll it downhill
(k)kitta. -' you roll me downhill
dakajta. -' she rolls him downhill
(t)kijta in we roll her downhill
,1-8 1 5.3, -0
di -k -b -ta.-
1SG.SJ8-ablative5-3iNAN.o3-roll°
ku8-k5-di1-ta.-'° 2SG.SJ -ablativ^-1SG.o1-roll° da8-k5-a4-(j)-ta y 0 3F.SJ8-ablative5-3M.o4-roll° di8-k5-i4-(j)-ta y °-n- 1PL.SJ8-ablative5-3F.o4-roll°-s.PL-1
(k)kim.- ta i you (pl) roll us downhill ku8-k5-day1-tay°- 2PL.sJ-ablativ^-lPL.o1-roll°-s.PL-1
n
-1
(t)ki a. 'ta they r°lyou (Pl) downhill
in
n
du8-k5-kay1-tay°- 3PL.SJ8-ablative5-2PL.o1-roll°-s.PL-1
n-1
daka. -ata. -' she rolls them downhill da8-k5-a . 4-(a)- -ablative5- -roH°
ta.-"°
Glosses sj - subject marker, o - object marker, m - masculine, f - feminine, inan - inanimate, pl - plural, sg -singular
The four major conjugation types are named after the basic morphological construction employed by a verb. Active conjugation corresponds to the active type, Absolutive conjugation is associated with the absolutive (or ergative) construction, and the other two - inactive coreferential and Absolutive coreferential - can be considered following the accusative type of argument marking. Because the distribution of verbs across these conjugations is lexically conditioned, it is impossible to assign Ket to any particular grammatical type according to argument marking.
Besides the coreferential conjugations not only belong to the other type of construction, each of them employs the same subject marking series as for transitive verbs of their non-coreferential counterparts, though they also include the redundant coreferential marker for subject. These coreferential subject markers are abbreviated in Chart 2 as P1 InactCoref.S and P6 AbsCoref.S.
1
The main four conjugations are given in Chart 2, each of the coreferential conjugations is put on the same line as its corresponding non-coreferential pair.
For convenience purposes in this paper each position series will be given a name according to the basic conjugation type for which it is used primarily. Argument marker series in Position 8 we will call Active Subject, argument marker series in Position 4/3/1 - Active Object, Position 6 series of markers are coding Absolutive Subject or Object, in addition to that for coreferential conjugations the coreferential redundant markers are used. Note that Act.S is obligatorily animate and refers to agent, Act.O is obligatorily inanimate and refers to patient, Abs.S identical marker as Abs.O. We will use the extended notational abbreviations for arguments of the derived models belonging to coreferential conjugations and also for the following derivational categories: 1) P4/3/1 InAct.S and P6 Abs.S for the derived intransitive of the active and Absolutive conjugations - the so called resultatives, and 2) P3 InAct.S for the derived intransitive of the coreferential inactive type -the so called anticausatives. See chart 2.
Chart 2. Actant conjugations: four argument marking types, basic and derived models.
intransitive transitive derived intransitive (resultative) intransitive transitive derived intransitive (anticausative)
conjugation Active Inactive coref
Subject P8 Act.S P8 Act.S P4/3/1 InAct.S P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubiPL) P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubiPL) P3 InAct.S
(+P-1 SubiPL) (+P-1 SubiPL) ^ P4/3/1 ActO ^ P4/3/1 ActO
= agent = agent = patient = patient
Coref Subject P1 InactCoref.S P1 InactCoref.S P1 InactCoref.S
Object P4/3/1 ActO = patient P6 AbsO
conjugation Absolutive Absolutive coref
Subject P6 Abs.S P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubiPL) P6 Abs.S ^ P6 AbsO P8 Act.S P8 Act.S
Coref Subject P6 AbsCoref.S P6 AbsCoref.S
Object P6 AbsO P4/3/1 ActO
The two coreferential conjugations also have transitive verbs, though these verbs are much less frequent as the transitive verbs of Active and Absolutive conjugation. The interesting fact is that the marker of the object within the inactive coreferential type coincides with the object marker series of the Absolutive conjugation P6 Abs.O, and the Absolutive coreferential conjugation employs object marking identical to the object marking of the active conjugation P4/3/1 ActO.
We omit the possessive conjugation as it includes only intransitive verbs and thus does not have the derivatives involving changes in transitivity (see further [Vajda 2004]).
These peculiar features of the conjugation split among four of the major types of argument coding produces the diversity of argument marking strategies, and so far the best way to treat those varieties is to accept that these differences exist in morphology and basically serve to obligatorily differentiate between the transitive and intransitive verbs of each type, but the choice of conjugation types themselves does not depend on grammar or semantics (see discussion of this issue in [Vajda 2003]), conjugation types are split in the verb lexicon (each individual verb is associated with one of the conjugation types) and the choice of a conjugation is determined rigidly for each verb lexeme. This way we can speak of the argument transfer coding in the terms of derivation as the conjugation change triggers appearing a new lexeme as a derivation category would do.
§2. The nature of the arguments in the basic model.
In my research I rely on the fact that transitive construction is the basic model for the Ket verb structure, and there are transitive and intransitive verbs of two types, the first type is non-derived verbs, and the second - derived verbs. The nature of the arguments in the basic non-derived transitive model in Ket falls within the same pattern, it is S plus O, where S stands for the primary argument of higher rank or subject which also bears the obligatory semantic feature named [cause] - that means that the subject in the basic construction is considered as the causer of an action, O stands for the secondary argument of lower rank or object and is affected by the action. This pattern I consider basic in Ket to which correspond the transitive verbs of basic argument marking types: active and Absolutive conjugations. Thus these conjugations are determined basic for derivation involving valence change in Ket. Coreferential conjugations are employed for derived verbs or the verbs corresponding to the semantic model derived form the basic semantic model of transitive nature S [cause] + O.
3
Table 2: Transitive and intransitive verbs of active and Absolutive conjugations .
inf Active conjugation transitives inf Abs conjugation P8 Act.S (+SubjPL-1) + P6Abs.O
P8 Act.S (+SubjPL-1)+P4/3/1 Act.o
do cut Active trans 1 davro I cut it (e.g. hair) ta^aj Abs trans 1
3
Note that within this view on the basic model we consider as non-derived verbs that cannot be consider as derived in respect to any other finite verb, the infinitive is the basic element that bears the lexical meaning and is a separate verb lexeme in Ket. A number of verbs don't have any corresponding infinitive, sometimes though there are 2 or more infinitives with the same meaning used in competing finite verb formation models.
■»8 4,3,0 di -a -b -do 1SG.SJ8-durative4-3iNAN.o3-cut0 shoot, hit data^ttj ksa she shoot at him da8-taOaj7-o6-k5-(s)-a° 3F.SJ8-shoot7-JM.O6-ablative5-event0
ti.-' roll Active trans 2 dakajta. -' she rolls him downhill da8-k5-a4-(j)-ta. 0 3F.SJ8-ablative5-3M.o4-roll° hata hug Abs trans 2 (t)hata.-' .' (g)av^tn they hug them du8-hata.'7-o. •"6-k5-bet°-n-1 3PL.SJ8-hug7-lPi.06-ablative5-activitv°-s.PL-1
ti.-' roll Active trans 3 (t)ti. ■ (g)ivto I plug it ..8 .. -7 . 5,3. 0 di-ti.' -k-b-to 1SG.SJ8-roll(?)7-ablative(?)5-3iNAN.o3-place° tar a j pull Abs trans 3 data. - ajoksa she pulls him da8-ta.-'aj7-o6-k5-(s)-a° 3F.SJ8-pull7-3M.&/-ablative5-event°
intransitives argument P8 Act.S (+SubjPL-1) intransitives argument P6 Abs.S
isqo catch fish Active intrans 2 disqoav^t I catch fish di1-isqo7-a4-v^t° 1SG. SJ8-catch.fish7-durative4-3iNAN.o3-activity0 sa:l spend the night Abs intrans 1 ba issal I spend the night (once) ba6-k5-(s)-sal° 2SG.SJ6-adessive5-spend.night°
§3. Interdependence of valence change and argument transfer processes.
The main feature of argument markers functioning in Ket is that the same morphological processes serve for deriving verbs with changes in valence and at the same time the processes of argument transfer.
Further we will see that the interdependence of valence change of a verb and argument transfer in the output construction is revealed considering the combination of verb-internal markers. I single out four basic strategies of manipulating with the verb-internal argument markers. Further we will see how the strategies and their combinations are used for basic derivational categories serving argument transfer in Ket. Now let us enumerate them in brief here, these strategies are:
1) switching to the Inactive coreferential conjugation from Active conjugation or to the Absolutive Coreferential from the Absolutive conjugation;
2) switching from Active to Absolutive conjugation;
3) deleting the subject or object position of the input structure indicating the deletion of the argument in the semantic structure;
4) lexicalizing the argument marker (used in combination with strategy 2 or 3)
In paragraph 5 we will see the use of these coding strategies for basic derivational categories involving valence change in Ket.
Let us now single out derivational categories of verbs that are produced with a simultaneous change in the valence of the verb, in the semantic nature of arguments cross-referenced in the verb, and in the morphological coding strategy of those changes, and classify them according to the argument transfer types. If we apply the principle of deriving syntactic constructions by means of argument transfer (promoting or demoting a subject or object) to the semantic structure of the verbs we will get several patterns of argument transfer deriving the verbs that differ in valence and nature of arguments from the basic construction.
We will narrow the types of valence change to increasing and decreasing that roughly correspond to transitivizing and detransitivizing derivation. Among the patterns of argument transfer we single out two basic types: 1) adding an argument (an object, a subject or peripheral argument), 2) deleting an obligatory argument (an object or a subject). Adding an argument is coded by using a verb undergone a valence-increasing derivation, deleting an argument is coded by using a verb undergone a valence-decreasing derivation.
There are several categories of derived verbs with changes in transitivity affected by the semantic argument transfer. We will classify categories of derived intransitive and transitive verb in Ket according valence-decreasing or increasing processes that are further subdivided into groups according to 1) the transfer of object (promoting to subject or demoting to zero),
2) transfer of subject (adding a new subject, thus demoting the input subject)
3) and peripheral argument (adding an instrument).
Besides it is important whether the output construction preserves or removes the input subject or object substituted by the output subject or object.
§4. Classification4.
1. Valence decrease. Input object status change Ox ^ S_y, Ox ^ 0
4
Slashes enclose the part of the input construction preserved in the output, even if the functional status of the arguments changed, additional comments are given in round brackets.
(*) marks the cases where semantic valence change does not affect syntactic valence change, but affects morphological coding of changes in argument structure. The left part of the equation shows input construction, the right part - output construction, the succession of the arguments is preserved the same in the right part of the equation as in the left, S -subject, O - object, x - input argument or output argument preserving its status, y - output argument (if there is a change in its status), '0' stands for deletion of the argument or a feature, that was present in the input construction.
1.1. The argument from the input object function transfers to output subject, preserving the input subject Sx + Ox ^ Sx + Sy
1.1.1. Reflexive Sx + Ox ^ Sx + Sy (coreferential)
1. 1.2. Reciprocal Sx + Ox ^ Sx + Sy (plural)
1.1.3. Autocausative Sx + Ox ^ Sx + Sy (quasi-coreferential)
1. 1.4* "Auto-instrumental" Sx (+ Ox) ^ Sx [+Sy Instrument] (+ Ox)
1.2. The argument from input object function transfers to output subject, removing input subjet
Sx + Ox ^ 0y + Sy
1.2.1. Anticausative Sx [cause] + Ox ^ 0y + Sy [cause]
1.2.2. Resultative Sx [cause] + Ox {action} ^ 0y [0] + Sy {state}
1.3. The argument from the input object is removed, preserving the input subject 1.3.1. Deobjective Sx + Ox ^ Sy + 0y
2. Valence-increase.
2.1. The argument added enters the output object position, preserving the input subject: derived transitive verb (rare type in Ket) Sx ^ Sx + Oy
2.2. The argument added enters the output subject position, shifting the input subject to output object position 0 + Sx ^ Sy + Oy
2.2.1. Active causative /Sx {action}/ ^ Sy [cause] + /Oy {action}/
2.2.2. Stative causative 0 + /Sx {state}/ ^ Sy [cause] + /Oy {state}/
2.3. The argument added enters the output object position, input subject and object preserved: 2.3.1. Thematic applicative /Sx + Ox/^ /Sx + Ox/ + Oy
(rare type in Ket)
2.3.2* Instrumental applicative /Sx + Ox/ ^ /Sx + Ox/ + [Oy Instrument]
§5. Derivational categories involving valence change in Ket.
The first basic type of argument transfer we are going to discuss is number 1 in Classification: Input object status change Ox ^ Sy, Ox ^ 0. The main formal verb-internal coding strategy is adding a coreferential subject position and/or deleting the subject or object position of the input structure indicating the deletion of the argument in the semantic structure.
To show the derivational succession of conjugation change we start with the subtype of object transfer to the output subject position. First I'll describe type 1.1. The argument from the input
object function transfers to output subject, preserving the input subject Sx + Ox ^ Sx + S_y to which belong first of all reflexives and reciprocals 1.1.1. Reflexive Sx + Ox ^ Sx + S_y (coreferential), 1.1.2. Reciprocal Sx + Ox ^ Sx + S_y (plural)
This type of argument transfer is reflected in the formal morphological structure as the double marking of the subject (=adding a coreferential subject position). Most action-focus reflexives and all reciprocals belong to the Absolutive Coreferential type.
The main formal verb-internal coding strategy for marking reflexives and reciprocals is switching to the coreferential conjugation, intransitive subtype, for indicating the decreasing of valence when the function of the position marking Act.O or Abs.O in the input construction is transferred to marking the redundant subject in the output construction. Each coreferential conjugation employs the same subject marking series as for transitive verbs of their non-coreferential counterparts, though they also include the redundant coreferential marker for subject. See illustrations 1. reflexive, 2. reciprocal.
The argument marking type for reflexives and reciprocals can be outlined as P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubjPL) + P1 Inact.S or P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubjPL) + P6 AbsCoref.S
inf 1. reflexive non-derived counterpart
ta^aj Absolutive coreferential Absolutive transitive 1
shoot, (t)ta^Oijbula he shot/hit himself data^aj ksa she shoots at him
hit du8-taOaj7-bu6-(k5)-il2-a0 da8-taOaj7-o6-k5-(s)-a°
8 7 6 5 2 3M.SJ8-shoot-3RS6-ablative-past.tense- 3F.SJ8-shoot7-JM.O6-ablative5-event0
event0 P8 Act.S8-shoot7- P6 Abs.O6-ablative5-
P8 Act.S8-shoot7-P6 AbsCoref.S6-ablative5- event0
past.tense2-event0
2. reciprocal
hata Absolutive coreferential Absolutive transitive 2
.■'hug (t)hata.- buksiv^tn they hug each other (t)hata. -' .' (g)av^tn they hug them
du8-hata. • '7-bu6-k5-(s)-bet°-n-1 du8-hata. • '7-o. • 6-k5-bet°-n-1
3PL.SJ8-hug7-3RS6-ablative5-activity°-SJ.PL"1 3PL.SJ8-hu27-iPi.O6-ablative5-activity°-
P8 Act.S8-hug7-P6 Abs.O6-ablative5- S.PL-1
activity0- s.pl-1 P8 Act.S8-hug7-P6 Abs.O6-ablative5-activity°-s.PL-1
The two next subtypes can be called quasi-reflexives; they differ from reflexive verbs as they have no parallel transitive verb, though the semantic derivational model resembles that of reflexive verbs: the object is promoted to subject function as it is almost identical with the subject referent (denotes the subject referent's body or a part of body). The following two categories refer to this type: 1.1.3. Autocausative Sx + Ox ^ Sx + Sy (quasi-coreferential) - this type of verbs denote action affecting the body or a part of body of the subject, 1.1.4* "Auto-instrumental" Sx (+ Ox) ^ Sx [+Sy Instrument] (+ Ox) - this type of verbs denote action for which the body of the subject is used as an instrument. The verb-internal coding strategy and the arguments marked for quasireflexives are the same as for reflexive verbs. See illustrations 3. auto-causative, 4. autoinstrumental.
infinitive 3. auto-causative non-derived counterpart
tar aj Abs Coref Abs trans 3
pull data. - ajbuksa she stretches data. - ajoksa she pulls him
da8-ta.-'aj7-bu6-k5-(s)-a° da8-ta.-'aj7-Û6-k5-(s)-a°
3f. SJ8-pull7-3 RS6-ablative5-event° P8 Act.S 8-pull7-P6 AbsCoref.S6- ablative5-event° 3F.SJ8-pull7-.?Ms/-ablative5-event0 P8 Act.S8-pull7-P6 Abs. O6-ablative5- event0
4. auto-instrumental
kutolij whistle Abs Coref dakutolijbuksa she whistles da8-kutolij7-bu6-k5-(s)-a° 3F.SJ8-kutolij7-3RS6-ablative5-event0 P8 Act.S8-kutolij7- P6 AbsCoref.S 6-ablative5-event0 (no transitive)
The same verb-internal coding strategy and the argument structure are employed for the deobjective derivatives of type 1.3.1. Deobjective Sx + Ox ^ Sy + 0y (The argument from the input object is removed, preserving the input subject). This process completely removes the object from the argument structure, consequently this argument cannot be expressed at all on the syntactic level as well.
In Ket the object is also removed from the morphological surface structure of the deobjective derivatives, this valence-changing derivational operation is signaled by one of the Coreferential conjugations used as a detransitivizing means. See illustration 5. deobjective.
infinitive 5. deobjective non-derived counterpart
ta^ttj Abs Coref Abs trans 1
shoot, (t)ta^ajbuksa he stings (said of a wasp) data^ttj ksa she shoot at him
hit du8-taOaj7-bu6-k5-(s)-a° da8-taOaj7-o6-k5-(s)-a°
3M.SJ8-shoot7-3RS6-ablative5-event0 3F.SJ8-shoot7-JM.O6-ablative5-event°
Act.S8-shoot7-AbsCoref.S6-ablative5- Act.S8-shoot7-Abs.O6-ablative5-event°
event0
The deletion of the argument is involved as a verb-internal coding strategy in the derivatives of the subtype mentioned first in the classification above as 1.2.The argument from input object function transfers to output subject, removing input subject Sx + Ox ^ 0y + Sy namely 1.2.1. Anticausative Sx [cause] + Ox ^ 0y + Sy [cause]. In the basic constructions feature [cause] is associated with the subject. In the derived detransitivized construction the subject is removed from the argument structure of the verb, but the feature [cause] is preserved, though it transfers to the output subject of the derived verb which corresponds to the object of the non-derived verb in the input construction. The semantic affect of the meaning is that the inactive subject of the anticausative verb is causing itself the action affecting it (the action is happening by itself). Anticausatives constitute a separate subtype of argument marking shown in chart 2 as derived intransitive of the Inactive Coreferential conjugation.
The argument marking type can be outlined as P3 InAct.S P4/3/1 ActO) + P1 InactCoref.S See illustration 6. anti-causative
infinitive 6. anti-causative Inactive coreferential non-derived counterpart Active trans 3
ti.-'roll ti .■ gavat it gets plugged -7,5 4,3 1.0 ti.' -k-a -b-a-to roll(?)7-ablative(?)5-durative4-3INAN.SJ3-3RS1-place0 (t)ti.- (g)ivto I plug it ..8 .. -7 . 5,3. 0 di -ti.' -k-b-to lSG.SJ8-roll(?)7-ablative(?)5-3iNAN.o3-place0
roll(?)7-ablative(?)5-durative4-InAct.S3-
Act.S8-roll(?)7-ablative(?)5-Act.O3-place°
InactCoref.S1-place°
The next subtype deleting the input subject positions is 1.1.2. Resultative Sx [cause] + Ox {action} ^ 0y [0] + Sy {state} Unlike anticausative derivation which removes the input subject, but preserves the semantic feature [cause] resultatives forbid any indication of the causer, thus substituting the semantic feature {action} to {state}. In the derivation model it is reflected as deleting the input subject and promoting the input object to output subject.
In the finite verb form object marker in Position 3 becomes subject marker in Position 3 for Active conjugation resultatives and Position 6 marker for Absolutive conjugation resultatives5, and the active subject in Position 8 is deleted. The lexicalized resultative marker 'a' in position 1 is used instead of a Coreferential marker. This argument combination is illustrated in Chart 2 as derived intransitive for Active and Absolutive conjugation. The argument marking type can be outlined as P4/3/1 InAct.S ^ P4/3/1 ActO or P6 Abs.S ^ P6 AbsO See illustration 7a, 7b resultative.
infinitive 7a. resultative non-derived counterpart
do cut Active derived intrans avaro it is cut a4-b3-a1-do° durative4-3iNAN.SJ3-resultative1-cut0 durative4- P4/3/1 InAct.S3-resultative1-cut0 Active trans 1 davro I cut it (e.g. hair), shave it (beard) j-8 4.3. ° di -a -b -do 1SG.SJ8-durative4-3iNAN.o3-cut0 Act.S-durative4-Act.O-cut0
7b. resultative
Abs derived intrans Abs trans 1
ta^ttj ta^ttjoksaj he is shot/hit data^ttj ksa she shoot at him
shoot, taOaj7-o6-k5-(s)-aj° da8-taOaj7-o6-k5-(s)-a°
hit shoot7-3M.s/-ablative5-state0 shoot7-Abs.S6-ablative5-state° 3F.SJ8-shoot7-3MO6-ablative5-event° Act.S.-shoot7-Abs.O6-ablative5-event0
Next we discuss valence-increasing derivational categories, and the first subtype is stated in the classification as 2.1. The argument added enters the output object position, preserving the input subject: derived transitive verb (rare type in Ket) Sx ^ Sx + Oy This model is used mainly for
5 This demonstrates the convergence of the secondary argument of different conjugations falling into one functional type and, therefore proving that there is no differentiation of these conjugations on the functional (semantic and
syntactic) level.
deriving not typical transitives from the quasi-reflexive verbs or speaking more generally from the intransitive verbs belonging to Coreferential conjugations, they form the transitive subtypes of the Coreferential conjugations. The main purpose is to derive a verb denoting action performed by this subject with his own body, and this action affects something or somebody else, that is merging two types (autoinstrumental or action-focused reflexive and transitive verb). See illustration 8. Transitivized verb The argument marking type can be outlined as
P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubjPL) + P1 InactCoref.S + P6 AbsO or P8 Act.S + P6 AbsCoref.S + P4/3/1 ActO
infinitive intrans autoinstrumental verb arguments P8 Act.S + P1 InactCoref.S 8. Derived transitive verb arguments P8 Act.S + P1 InactCoref.S + Abs.O
q^sell daila^tt she sells . 8 .,2 1 0 da -il -a -qa 3F.SJ8-past.tense2-3RS1-sell0 da la^a she sells him . 8 4 .,2 1 0 da -o -il -a -qa 3F.SJ8-3M.o4-past.tense2-3RS1-sell0
The next subtype I give in the classification is 2.2. The argument added enters the output subject position, shifting the input subject to output object position /{action}/+S which corresponds to causative derivation. In syntactic aspect there is virtually no parallel non-derived non-causative construction as causatives derive from the infinitives in Ket. However, ultimately, the finite causatives in Ket are described by the same semantic model as in many languages. Adding a new output subject to a non-causative transfers the input subject to the object position.
There are two types of causative verbs in Ket: The first type is : 2.2.1. Active causative 0 + /Sx {action}/ ^ Sy [cause] + /Oy {action}/, the term implies that somebody makes another person perform an action or get involved in an activity. They obligatorily have infinitives denoting action in Position 7. There is a special causative affix 'q' in Position 5. The causative derivation is expressed in the argument structure identical to the argument structure of the basic transitive model. The argument marking type P8 Act.S (+P-1 SubjPL) + P4/3/1 ActO See illustrations Causative 1, Causative 2.
Causative verb incorporating the infinitive with intransitive potential, which denotes an action
infinitive isqo catch fish Causative 1 disqoqadda he makes me go fishing du8-isqo7-q5-a4-di1-da0 3M.SJ 8-catch.fish7-causative5-durative4-1SG.o1-transitive0
infinitive qot cry, weep Causative 2 (d)qotqadda he makes me cry du8-qot7-q5-a4-di1-da0 3M.SJ 8-cry7-causative5-durative4-1SG.o1-transitive0
The second type is stative causatives, meaning that somebody makes somebody or something get in a certain state: 2.2.2. Stative causative 0 + /Sx {state}/ ^ Sy [cause] + /Oy {state}/. These are causatives derived from adjectives denoting state or infinitives that incorporate adjectives denoting state. The finite causative verb structure incorporates the adjective (incorporate Position 7). There is a special causative affix 'q' in Position 5 that marks all types of causatives. The argument marking type can be outlined as P8 Act.S (+P-1 Subi PL) + P4/3/1 ActO See illustration Causative 3, Causative 4.
Causative verb derived from infinitive denoting causing state infinitive
us'qat make warm
Causative 3 dusqavra I warm it up ..8 7 5 4 . 3 .0 di -us -q -a -b -da Isg.sj 8-warm7-causative5-durative4-3iNAN.o1-transitive0
Causative 4 kusqadda you warm me up ku8-us7-q5-a4-di1-da0 2sg.sj 8-warm7-causative5-durative4-1SG.o1-transitive0
Stative causatives also fall within the basic transitive model, in addition they can undergo valence-decreasing operations, and turn into reflexives (for animate subject) or resultatives (for inanimate subject). The causative affix 'q' in Position 5 is also preserved in the detransitivized verbs derived from stative causatives. See illustraion 9a resultative, 9b reflexive. The argument marking type is the same as for reflexives or resultatives
infinitive us'qat make warm
resultative (cf Causative 1) usqavarij it is warmed up 7 5 4. 3 1 ..0 us -q -a -b -a -rij warm7-causative5-durative4-3iNAN.SJ 3-resultative1-intransitive0 warm7-causative5-durative4-P4/3/1 InAct.S3-resultative1-intransitive0
reflexive (cf Causative 2) dusqaddij I warm myself up di8-us7-q5-a4-di1-dij0 1SG.SJ 8-warm7-causative5-durative4-1SG.RS1-transitive0 P8 Act.S 8-warm7-causative5-durative4-P1 InactCoref.S1-transitive0
The last type we will discuss is 2.3. The argument added enters the output object position, input subject and object preserved: in Ket it derives applicatives. We will omit discussing thematic
applicatives within this presentation; it is a rare and non-productive as well as controversial type in Ket. We'll turn directly to Instrumental applicative verbs, subtype 2.3.2* Instrumental /Sx + Ox/ ^ /Sx + Ox/ + [Oy Instrument]. Applicatives in Ket add the peripheral argument [instrument] in their semantic structure, which does not affect morphological valence change. An interesting fact is that applicative in Ket are derived from transitive verbs (unlike other languages deriving applicatives from intransitives) as in Ket a peripheral argument is added to the clause, preserving both the obligatory arguments: subject and object.
Applicative verbs include in their surface morphological structure a lexicalized applicative marker 'V in Position 3. The formal strategy of changing from active to the Absolutive conjugation enables marking the obligatory object in the P6 slot instead of P4/3/1 to keep the P3 spot for applicative marker that is formally identical to inanimate active object Act.O marker. The argument structure remains the same as transitive model for Absolutive conjugation See illustration 9. Applicative verb The argument marking type can be outlined as
Absolutive model P8 Act.S (+SubjPL-1) + P6 Abs.O
infinitive trans verb (Active transitive) applicative verb Absolutive transitive
qil put (smb/smth) onto or into daqibdil she puts on something (it) da8-q5-(i)-b3-dil0 8 5 3 0 3F.SJ-inside-3iNAN.o3-put.onto° daa^ivdil she dresses him in something . 8 6 5 . 3 ...0 da -a -q -b -dil 3F.SJ8-3M.o6-inside5-applicative3-put.onto0
See the summary of derivational relations of argument marking types serving these categories of verbs in Chart 2.
Conclusion.
In this paper we focused our attention on the evidence in favor of the assumption that basic types of argument transfer for Ket have a direct affect on verb-internal morphological coding of valence change. In Ket we found only one way of deriving transitive from intransitive finite verbs, and this way is unproductive. Causative and applicative verbs enter separate derivational groups, and in addition applicative verbs are derived from transitive verbs adding a peripheral argument, and causatives derived from adjectives and infinitives denoting state, not an action, fall within the basic transitive model and therefore they can undergo valence-decreasing operations, and turn into resultatives or reflexives. There are a number of derivational categories based on deriving intransitive verbs from transitive - including anticausative, resultative, reflexive, reciprocal, autocausative, "auto-instrumental", deobjective. These detransitivized verbs were grouped according to argument transfer types determining the Coreferential conjugation as the basic verb-internal coding strategy. Besides, we have seen that two pairs of conjugations active + Coreferential
inactive and Absolutive + Absolutive Coreferential reveal the interdependence determined by the derivation involving argument transfer as they serve as the basic verb-internal coding strategy. The interdependence of conjugation type derivation on the categories of derived transitives and intransitives is reflected in Chart 3 that shows the tree of valence-increase and valence-decrease derivation types. Reference.
Dixon, R. M. W.; Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (1997) A typology of argument-determined constructions // J. Bybee; J. Haiman; S.A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givon. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 71-113.
Haspelmath, Martin. (2002). Understanding morphology. Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group, London, 2002, co-published OUP Inc., New York.
Plungian, Vladimir A. (2000) Obsxcxaja morfologija: Vvedenije v problematiku. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
Vajda, Edward. (2003) Ket verb structure in typological perspective. - Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56.1/2. - Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003. - Pp. 55-92 Vajda, Edward. and Marina Zinn. (2004) Morphological dictionary of the Ket verb (Southern dialect). Edited by E.G. Kotorova. Tomsk, 2004. Glosses and abbreviations
SJ subject marker
O object marker Act.O object marker basic for Active conjugation
M masculine InactCoref.S coreferential subject marker of Inactive Coreferential conjugation
INAN inanimate Abs.S subject marker basic for Absolutive conjugation
P position Abs.O object marker basic for Absolutive conjugation
PL plural AbsCoref.S coreferential subject marker of Absolutive Coreferential conjugation
SG singular D durative marker6
F feminine RS redundant coreferential subject marker
Inactivecoreferential reflexives Active derived i ntransitive resultatives
Chart 3. The interdependence of conjugation type
on the categories of derived transitives and
detransi-tivizing
Active transitive causative model derived on the analogy with active transitive model
V
d in [V¡
y
Inactive coreferential
intransitives
e is often.
Inactive coref Absolutive coref derived transititves
detransi-tivizing
transi-
tivizing
Inactive coreferential
intransitives
Absolutive coreferential
intransitives quasi-reflexives: auticausatives, autoinstrumental verbs
Active transitive ^ Absolutive derived transitive - applicative
Active
derived intransitive
Absolutive
derived intransitive
resultatives
