Ergativity is still alive in the Kaingang language of southern Brazil-Part 3

In this part of the present survey, the aim is to clarify the distribution of case markers in relation to the intransitive sentence. In fact, this series of articles represents an effort to address some relevant questions about the Kaingang case marking system.

Next, we will examine our sample in light of the theory proposed by Givón (2001), which establishes that the system of marking absolutive-ergative cases is “governed by the principle of transitivity”. Surely then, we can assume that the intransitive subject in Kaingang is marked only by zero (NO marking at all) and/or vỹ. That is, the agentive marker to dress up it is reserved for St. In our opinion, Kaingang is not an active language. Indeed, studies have suggested that, in general, active systems are related to a pure/canonical case marking system.

Kaingang: anatomy of a case marking system

Until now we have assumed as a working hypothesis that the postponement vỹ it can be considered as a nominative marker since it opposes “subjects” to “objects” (morphologically marked with zero) in Kaingang. Furthermore, we have seen that the postponement to dress up tend to mark the St. In other words, to dress up it rarely follows an NP that is in the Si function and never follows an NP that is in the O function. Similarly, in Shokleng the postposition you it occurs in transitive sentences, and only occasionally occurs with intransitive verbs (see Henry, 1948: 199).

In this context, it is worth noting that to dress up You can substitute the subject NP in some Kaingang sentences. These, however, are special cases. On the other hand, the postponement you it is the ergative case marker in complex Kaingang sentences (sentences with multiple clauses) (see Wiesemann, 1986). Finally, it could also be added that the same postposition you Express instrument box.

Equally important is to note once again that the object in Kaingang is always unmarked. So that the object can be identified by its position: it always immediately precedes the verb. With the result that the full NP subject never breaks the shell (OV), in short, the subject does not occur between the object and the verb.

The postposition of the subject vỹ as a nominative case marker: a hypothesis

If this approach is correct, it follows that the marker vỹ creates a dissent within an ergative system based on to dress upbecause vỹ it competes with the absolutive marker (zero) typically reserved for the subjects of lexical intransitive verbs and for the transitive verb subjects of split sentences in a classical ergative pattern. As already stated, one solution to this problem is to raise the possibility that Kaingang exhibits an “impure” tripartite system associated with S(O)V word order.

We have seen that there are three competing nominal markers in our sample, namely: to dress up against zero against vỹ. The relationship between case markers and transitivity is summarized in the following scheme:

(a) Vt: to dress up – SUBJECT;
(b) Vt: zero – OBJ/SUBJECT;
c) Vt/Vi: vỹ – SUBJECT/SUBJECT.

That is, the alternation between (a)-(b) indicates that there is an ergative system in Kaingang. On the other hand, the alternation (a)-(c) does not allow classifying the language as of a pure ergative type, since vỹ suggests a nominative system. Finally, the alternation (b)-(c) shows that there is variation in the marking of cases with intransitive verbs, namely: nominative vs. absolutive (unchecked). Naturally, Kaingang never exhibits the doubly marked ergative-accusative alignment as we can see in a tripartite language like Nez Perce (Penutian) (see Bittner and Hale, 1996).

Vỹ and the intransitive sentence

Now that we have outlined the distribution of case markers and their relationship to transitivity, let’s look at more evidence for the use of postposition. vỹ as a name marker. The examples below will show that the marker vỹ occurs predominantly with Si, regardless of the type of intransitive verb. Consequently, Kaingang will be shown not to be an active language. Most likely, the reason is that the language does not use a special postposition (agent) to mark active/volitional subjects.

In an equational sentence, the subject and the object are joined by the verb (copula); in fact, both SNs refer to the same person or thing (ie, both are “equal” or are “the same”). Note that in the Kaingáng equational sentences the following formula is shown: S-Complement-V, as we see in sentences like the following:

1) Krĩnkrĩr vỹ rĩr jẽ. Araguaí NOM-marker awakens SER. the araguaí [a kind of bird] is awake [alive].

2) Nẽnẽ vỹ kẽj kãkã jẽ. Basket with baby NAME marker inside FOR SUPPORT. The baby stands inside the basket.

3) Kãtãn vỹ kãrãn jẽ. Kãtãn NOM-sweaty marker SER. katan [personal name] he’s sweaty

Thus, in the previous structures with the intransitive verb (copula) Yothe three arguments (If) receive the nominative postposition vỹ.

Now notice that neither it also functions as a copula (see Mansur Guérios 1942:128). Consider the following example:

4) Kãtãn vỹ kaga nĩ. Kãtãn NOM-marker sick TO BE. Katan is sick.

Therefore, the only argument (katan) in (4) is followed by the nominative marker.

Besides that, there are Kaingang sentences in which V is the only predicate element, as we can see in examples like the following:

5) Kẽ vỹ jẽ. Basketball NAME-scoreboard TO BE. There is a basketball.

6) Minká fi vỹ nĩ. Minká FEM-marker NOM-marker TO BE. Minka [personal name] is [there].

7) Kẽgrẽnh vỹ jẽ. Irara NAME-marker BEING. there is an anger [a little mammal that eats honey].

As we can see, in sentences of this type the nominative marker vỹ is still present.

On the other hand, in (8) and (9) the marker vỹ could be omitted:

8) pepo tanh vẽ. Green NOM-Zero Frog TO BE. The frog is green.

9) Ka fej kusũg vẽ. Red NOM-Zero flower TO BE. The flower is red.

With respect to (8) and (9), with the order of constitution SV, the complete NP subjects (pepo, ka fej) can occur without the marker vỹif the copula is go.

Let us finally move on to the complete lexical intransitive verbs (Vi). As already noted, there are two classes of intransitive verbs: stop (neuter) (also known as unaccusative) and asset (also known as unergative). It should be noted, however, that there are alternative classifications to this fundamental distinction. In general, ACTIVE predicates (verbs) describe willed or volitional acts and involuntary bodily processes, while STATIVE predicates imply states of existing and happening, and non-volitional acts. Remember that active languages ​​use a special marker (agent) to identify the agentive/volitional subject.

The following are examples of permanent verbs:

10) Rã vỹ ga kar kri rarĩn tĩ. Sun NOM-marker earth all up TO SHINE HAB-asp. The sun shines everywhere.

eleven) Goj vỹ var mũ. River NOM-marker TO FILL PROGR-asp. the river is filling up [now].

As is clear from the examples in (10) and (11), in stative structures the Si is marked by the nominative postposition vỹ.

Now, let’s see how the Kaingang subject mark behaves in relation to active predicates. Consider the following sentences:

12) Krĩnkrĩr vỹ krẽg tĩ. Araguaí NOM-marker PARA TENDIR [eggs] hab-asp. The araguai puts [eggs].

13) Pipỹm vỹ tẽ tĩ. Pavó NOM-marker TO FLY HAB-asp. the turkey [a kind of bird] flies.

14) Monh vỹ rãrĩr mĩ kanhir. Ox NOM-sun marker to PLAY. The ox plays with the sunlight.

Clearly, then, in constructions with active predicates, the subject case mark remains nominative. In other words, no special marker (active/agent) is used to identify active Si in Kaingang.

The conclusion that we can draw from the description attempted here is that Kaingang is not an ergative active language since it shows the same nominative marker (vỹ) in all kinds of intransitive constructions. To further clarify, with intransitive verbs the only participant (the only S/If argument) does not receive the same agent marker as the subject of transitive verbs. In a word, this seems to be behavior in regular ergative patterns.

In summary, Givón’s (2001) claim that the probability of ergative marking is higher when the agent is at the top of the transitivity hierarchy is accurate at least in simple Kaingang clauses with word order S( O)V. Furthermore, the data from this series seem to confirm that the unity of the absolute grouping (Si/O=Zero) is not a necessary characteristic of ergative languages ​​(see also Givón, 2001).

The following article is about Kaingang verb morphology and ergative agreement.

References

Bitner, Maria; Halle, Ken. 1996. The Structural Determination of Case and Settlement. Linguistic Research 27, 1:1-68.

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Henry, Julius. 1948. The Kaingang language. IJAL XIV, no. 3:194-204.

Wiesemann, Ursula. 1986. The pronoun systems of some Je and Macro-Je languages. — [ed.] Pronominal systems. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. p. 359-380.