Sampling case and tense formatives 

There can be considerable variation in the morphological typology of different formatives in the same languages (cf. Plank 1999), especially with regard to fusion (this chapter) and exponence (Chapter 21 ). The Fijian example in the main text of this chapter illustrates in the same language an isolating tense marker and a concatenative transitivity suffix. In Brahui (North Dravidian; Pakistan; Andronov 1980), case and number are cumulated (i.e. expressed in a single formative) in the nominative, but in the accusative and other cases, number and case are each marked by specialized morphemes (where -t(ē) marks the plural; Table 1).

Table 1. Selected Brahui declension forms (xal ‘stone’)

 

This makes it impossible to typologize whole languages for fusion and exponence. In response to this, we sampled individual formatives, one case (or case-like) formative and one tense-aspect-mood (or tense-like) formative. The procedure was as follows (following Bickel and Nichols 2002):

1. If there is any difference in the morphological type across case formatives, pick the grammatical cases. Within grammatical cases, pick accusative or ergative or agentive (or whatever is chiefly used on A or P arguments). If there is none of these, pick nominative or absolutive (if these are at all marked overtly). If neither the A nor the P argument of transitive clauses is identified as such by overt marking, or if case-marking is restricted to pronouns, assume the language has no “case”. 

2. If there is any difference in the morphological type across tense-aspect-mood formatives, pick tense. Within tenses, pick past (or whatever is chiefly used for simple past time reference); if there is none, pick future; if there is none, pick present. If there is no tense, pick the closest aspect equivalent of past tense as a proxy. If there is no aspect, pick that mood, status, or evidentiality formative that is mostly used for past tense narration. If there is no grammatical marker for any of these notions, assume the language has no “tense-aspect-mood”. 

3. For both case and tense-aspect-mood: if the marking is zero, pick the overtly marked opposite value of the category (e.g. the plural of nominatives, if the singular is zero-marked; or the future tense, if the nonfuture is zero-marked). 

4. For both case and tense-aspect-mood: if categories differ in their degree of grammaticalization, pick the most nearly grammaticalized one. Pick synthetic tense formatives over periphrastic ones. 

 

Sampling of tense-aspect-mood as defined here was generally straightforward. The most common proxy for past tense was perfective or completive aspect (14 languages). In some language, the proxy was realis status (3 languages). In all other languages, tense-aspect-mood morphology was either morphologically homogeneous, or we could identify some dedicated form used for past tense reference.

The sampling procedure for case as defined here mostly revealed ergatives and accusatives. As a result, a language like Brahui (see Table 1 above) will be coded as having a monoexponential case formative even though the nominative apparently cumulates case and number.

For Austronesian languages, we chose the nominative or “topic” form. This form, exemplified here for Tagalog, codes that argument role which the verb is oriented to.

( 1) Tagalog (Kroeger 1993: 13)

 

The A vs. P vs. D(ative) orientation on the verb specifies the role of the nominative NP (marked by the proclitic ang= and given in italics in the translation).

A similar situation is found in Algonquian languages. Here, the NP marked by what is called the “proximative” (zero-marked in opposition to the “obviative”) codes that role which the verb is oriented to. Verb orientation is called “direct” vs. “inverse” marking by Algonquianists. The following example is from Plains Cree: 

( 2) Plains Cree (Wolfart 1973: 25)

 

The inverse vs. direct orientation specifies the role of the proximative as either A (in 2a) or P (in 2b). 

Both Austronesian nominatives and Algonquian proximatives identify argument roles in interaction with verb morphology. Although these types of markers are not traditionally analyzed as case, they involve the same basic mechanism as case in languages traditionally assumed to have case: the semantic role expressed by a Latin or Russian nominative depends in part on whether the verb is active or passive (verb orientation).

When there are no markers identifying the roles of A and O arguments, we coded the language as having no case. Thus, in languages such as French, the only (non-spatial) argument role marker is a dative preposition ( à ) used for recipient and goal arguments of ditransitives (‘give’, ‘send’, ‘tell’, etc.). Languages like these were counted as having no case. But if datives or dative-like markers are also used to identify monotransitive objects, they were counted. Marking of monotransitive objects was also counted as case when it is used only on a sub-class of objects. An example of this is Turkish, where the accusative is used only with definite objects:

(3 ) Turkish (Lewis 1967: 35f)

 

Another example is Mandarin, where the formative b ǎ identifies contextually salient, but not also other, objects:

(4 ) Mandarin (Li and Thompson 1981: 486)

 

Our notion of case does not differentiate between full-fledged syntactic words (prepositions) and morphological affixes. Hence, the Spanish preposition a counts as case. It marks a subset of monotransitive objects.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by U.S. National Science Foundation Grant No. 96-16448 (Nichols, P.I.), Swiss National Science Foundation Grants No. 08210-053455 and 610-062717 (Bickel, P.I.), and the Institute for Slavic, Eurasian, and East European Studies, UC Berkeley. We thank Aimee Lahaussois Bartosik, Dave Peterson, and Suzanne Wilhite for help with data collection.