Individuation and depersonalization in Mapudungun. A contribution to referentiality in Amerindian Languages

GOLLUSCIO LUCIA

Cortona

Congreso; Italo-Americana 7; 2017

Universita di Pisa

Individuation and depersonalization in Mapudungun.A contribution to referentiality in Amerindian languagesLucía GolluscioUniversidad de Buenos Aires and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, ArgentinaThis paper explores the domain of referentiality in Mapudungun (isolate, southern Chile and Argentina, South America). A study of referentiality necessarily encompasses two dimensions: the individuation of the referents and their anchorage in discourse (Lehmann 2016). This paper focuses on some strategies of individuation, in particular, the identification, demotion or highlighting, and deletion of referents in this language. It aims both to unify previous accounts of this domain in a grammar of reference and provide new evidence for the hypothesis (Golluscio 2010) that Mapudungun is characterized by a prevalence of semantic-pragmatic features of the referents over thematic roles in determining syntactic functions. The referential values of the A in the inverse and the passive constructions will be compared with each other and with the value of the external possessor in noun incorporation with intransitive verbs.Mapudungun is a mildly polysynthetic head-marking language. Among valence-decreasing categories, it exhibits passive voice and noun incorporation (Augusta 1903; Smeets 2008 [1989]; Harmelink 1992; Salas 2006 [1992]; Golluscio 1997, 2010; Baker et al. 2005; Zúñiga 2006a). It also manifests a system of integrated inverse alignment (Gildea 1994) governed by a saliency hierarchy (1) based on inherent topicality associated with speech-act participant (SAP) ranking and discourse topicality associated with a proximate vs. obviative opposition. In local (SAP interaction) and mixed (SAP?Non-SAP interaction) scenarios, the direct (unmarked) construction is used when the A is higher in the SAP ranking (2). In contrast, the inverse is triggered when the P/R has greater saliency than the A (3). In non-local scenarios, the inverse is used when a referent newly introduced into the discourse acts upon another third person. In this case, the proximate-obviative opposition becomes relevant (4) (Arnold 1996; Salas 1978, 1979, 2006 [1992]; Zúñiga 2006b; Golluscio 2010; Golluscio & Hasler 2017). The Mapudungun passive voice is morphologically marked by the detransitivizer -nge, as shown in (5), and characterized by the blocking of the A (Salas 2006 [1992]; Zúñiga 2000). As in the inverse, the person-number suffix of the verb refers to P in monotransitives and to R in ditransitives (Golluscio 2010). This characteristic of the passive voice is highly functional in impersonal assertions (6, 7). Comparing passive voice and inversion, it turns out that, on the one hand, they are similar regarding the deranked syntactic status born by the A. On the other hand, they differ in the degree of its explicitness and identifiability: while the A is deleted in the passive construction, the inverse construction may make it explicit, and it is identifiable in the context (Salas 2006 [1992)] (8).While noun incorporation is highly productive in Mapudungun, for intransitive verbs, it is restricted to those whose argument is accompanied by an external possessor (along with incorporation into weather predicates, see Smeets 2008 [1989]). This external possessor is then raised as a result of incorporation, so the verb agrees with it (Golluscio 1997, Baker et al. 2005) (9). Again, as in the case of the inverse construction, it is the highest referent in the empathy hierarchy (10) that assumes the function of subject. The external possessor construction in Mapudungun is not limited to cases with incorporated body parts (see Mohawk, cited in Baker et al. 2005); it may occur with other nouns related to the personal sphere of the possessor (11, 12). Thus, it depends on the possessor?s status on the empathy hierarchy, rather than on some feature of the possessed referent. The analysis confirms and expands the hypothesis of the prevalence of semantic and pragmatic features of the arguments when defining argument roles in Mapudungun. In particular, it shows the relevance of inversion strategies, as well as the empathy and saliency hierarchies, as preferred referential aids (Kibrik 2011) in this language. DataNo se copiaron los ejemplos (1-12)del Resumen original. Abbreviations1 = first person; 2 = second person; 3= third person; A = agent; APPL = applicative; ADVZ = adverbializer; COP = copula; DEM = demonstrative; DET = determiner; DIR = directional; D.PROX = demonstrative.proximal; HAB = habitual; IND = indicative; INV = inverse; OBL = oblique; P = patient; PASS = pass; PL = plural; PO = primary object: POSS = possessive; R = recipient; SG = singular.References Augusta, F.J.de. 1903. Gramática araucana, Valdivia: J. Lampert.Gildea, S. 1994. Semantic and pragmatic inverse: ?Inverse alignment? and ?inverse voice? in Carib of Surinam. In Givón, T. (ed.), Voice and Inversion, Typological Studies in Language 28, 187?230. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Golluscio, L. 1997. Notas sobre la incorporación nominal en mapudungun. Actas III Jornadas de Lingüística Aborigen: 155-67. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Lingüística, Univ. Buenos Aires.Golluscio, L. 2006. El Pueblo Mapuche: poéticas de pertenencia y devenir. Buenos Aires: Ed. Biblos. Golluscio, L. 2010. Ditransitives in Mapudungun. In: Malchukov, A., M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (eds.). Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. A Comparative Handbook: 711?756. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Golluscio L. & F. Hasler 2017. Referential hierarchies in argument coding in Mapudungun (South America). Paper presented at the SSILA/LSA meeting, Austin, Texas, Jan. 2017.Grimes, J.E. 1985. Topic Inflexion in Mapudungun Verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics, 51(2): 141-163.Harmelink, B. 1992. La incorporación nominal en el mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 19: 129-138.Harmelink, B. 1996. Manual de Aprendizaje del Idioma Mapuche: aspectos morfológicos y sintácticos, 253-254. Temuco: Ediciones Universidad de La Frontera.Kibrik, A. A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lehmann, C. 2016. Reference. http://rp.christianlehmann.eu/reference_06.pdfPayne, D. 1993. The Tupí-Guaraní inverse. En: Fox, B. & P. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and Function, Typological Studies in Language 27, 313?340. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Salas, A. 1978. Terminaciones y transiciones en el verbo mapuche. Críticas y bases para una nueva interpretación. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 16: 167-179.Salas, A. 1979. Semantic Ramifications of the Category of Person in the Mapuche Verb. Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo. University Microfilms international. Salas, A. 2006 [1992]. El mapuche o araucano. Fonología, gramática y antología de cuentos. Edición a cargo de F. Zúñiga. Santiago de Chile: CEP.Smeets, I. 2008 [1989]. A Grammar of Mapuche. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zúñiga, F. 2006a. Mapudungun. El Habla Mapuche. Santiago de Chile: CEP.Zúñiga, F. 2006b. Deixis and Alignment: Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Typological Studies in Language 70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.