Feature GB098: Are variations in marking strategies of core participants based on person distinctions?

Patrons: Alena Witzlack-Makarevich

Description ⇫

Summary

Marking strategies of core participants include both marking by indexing and by flagging (i.e. case or adposition marking). Variations in marking strategies include both variations in the alignment patterns and variations in position (e.g. suffixing vs. prefixing) in case of indexes. Mere differences in forms of the indexes triggered by various conjugation classes are not sufficient for a 1. This question includes cases referred to as person-based (alignment) split and hierarchical alignment in the literature.

Procedure

  1. Consider whether there is any variation in the form of the argument indexes on the verb (coded in GB089–GB094) related to the person of arguments (first vs. second vs. third).
  2. If there is some variation, code 1 if this results in different alignment patterns.
  3. Code 1 if the position of indexes differs (prefix/proclitic vs. suffix/clitic), even if the overall alignment pattern remains the same.
  4. The alternation between zero marking indexing for some persons and overt indexing for other persons does not suffice for 1.
  5. Consider flagging. Code 1 if case/adposition marking of S, A, or P arguments (coded in GB408, GB409, and GB410) varies according to the person of the marked argument.
  6. Code 0 if there is no variation in indexing or flagging according to person, even if other referential properties of arguments, such as animacy, number, pronominal vs. nominal status, matter.
  7. Code 0 if person distinctions only trigger different overt allomorphs of flagging or indexing, but the overall alignment pattern and the position of the markers remains the same.

Examples

English (ISO 639-3: eng, Glottolog: stan1293)

The alignment pattern of English flagging is conditioned by person, number and nominal/pronominal distinction. The first person (singular and plural) distinguishes S/A from P, as in (a), whereas the case marking of the second person pronouns shows neutral alignment, as in (b). English is coded 1.

1. First person

a. I[S] smiled.

b. I[S] have read this book.

c. He saw me[P].

2. Second person

a. You[S] smiled.

b. You[A] have read this book.

c. I saw you[P].

Kirmanjki (ISO 639-3: kiu, Glottolog: kirm1248)

Kirmanjki shows variations in case marking of core participants based on a number of factors: animacy, noun vs. pronoun, person distinctions and TAM (GB095) (Selcan 1998). In non-past tenses, S, A and nominal inanimate Ps, as well as some pronominal P arguments (1PL, 2PL) are in the direct case. Animate nominal Ps, as well as 1SG, 2SG, 3SG and 3PL pronominal P are in the oblique case. This pattern of case marking yields neutral alignment for inanimate nouns, as well as for 1PL and 2PL pronouns, and accusative alignment for animate nouns, as well as for 1SG, 2SG and 3SG/PL pronouns. Because person is one of the factors, Kirmanjki is coded as 1.

Further reading

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Section 4.2 Split conditioned by the semantic nature of NPs)

References

Selcan, Zülfü. 1998. Grammatik der Zaza-Sprache: Nord-Dialekt (Dersim-Dialekt). Berlin: Wissenschaft und Technik-Verlag.

Features coding indexing

Features coding alignment of flagging


To display the datapoints for a particular language family on the map and on the classification tree, select the family then click "submit".

You may combine this variable with a different variable by selecting on in the list below and clicking "Submit".

Customize map markers:
0 absent 1679
1 present 378
? Not known 302
reload

Map ⇫


Values ⇫

Name Glottocode Family Macroarea Contributor Value Source Comment