Feature GB400: Are all person categories neutralized in some voice, tense, aspect, mood and/or negation?

Patrons: Alena Witzlack-Makarevich

Description ⇫

Summary

This question concerns languages which can index the person of an argument (S, A or P) somewhere in the clause (i.e. either on the verb or by clitics). The question asks whether person categories are not distinguished under certain circumstances. In order for there to be neutralization, there needs to be something to ‘neutralize’ to begin with, i.e. languages without person indexing should be coded 0 for this feature. All person categories should be neutralized for the language to be coded as 1. Do not consider phonologically independent pronouns for this question. Consider only independent clauses. Consider only the moods which allow all person categories of the language to be expressed (that is, ignore imperatives, jussives, etc.)

Procedure

  1. Consider the section in the grammar that deals with verbal morphology, specifically the sections on (pronominal) agreement or argument cross-referencing.
  2. If no argument is indexed on verbs, code 0.
  3. If some arguments are indexed, check if there are any mentions in the sections on TAM, voice or negation of these markers being deleted under the respective circumstances. Ignore clause types which are incompatible with some person categories, e.g. imperatives. Consider only independent clauses.
  4. If the indexes are deleted, code 1 and add a comment on the conditions.
  5. If they are never deleted, code 0.

Examples

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

In the English Simple present, the verb indexes person via the opposition between the suffix -s vs. zero marking. Also there is person indexing in various tenses built analytically with the help of the auxiliary to be. In the Simple Past, however, there is no person indexing whatsoever, e.g. I/he/she/you worked. Thus, we can speak of neutralization of person categories. English is coded as 1.

Irula (ISO 639-3: iru, Glottolog: irul1243)

Irula has systematic tense distinctions in the negative forms of verbs. The negative verb forms do not show any person-gender-number markers (Zvelebil 1973: 27). The non-past negative is formed by suffixing the negative morph -ale to the non-past tense stem. The past negative is formed by the same marker -ale added to the past stem. Irula is coded as 1.

Non-past positive
1SG      var(u)ge   ‘I come’
2SG      var(u)ga   ‘you come’
3SG.M    var(u)ge   ‘he comes’
…
1PL.EXCL var(u)gamu ‘we (excl.) come’
1PL.INCL var(u)giri ‘we (incl.) come’
2PL      var(u)giri ‘you come’
2PL.HUM  var(u)garu ‘they come’
2PL.NHUM var(u)gina ‘they come’

Non-past negative
var(u)gale   ‘I (you, he ...) do not come, I (you, he ...) shall not come’
pa:k(k)ale   ‘I do not see’

Past negative
vandale      ‘I ... have not come’
pa:t(t)ale   ‘I ... did not see’
(Zvelebil 1973: 27)

Further reading

Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: a conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 198–226. Berlin: de Gruyter.

References

Zvelebil, Kamil V. 1973. The Irula language (vol. 2). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.


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 1400
1 present 107
? Not known 386
reload

Map ⇫


Values ⇫

Name Glottocode Family Macroarea Contributor Value Source Comment