r
Definite locational specification. In English, this can be shown by a preposition before an NP, such as at, to, from, in, on, into, above. Or by a spatial adverb (some of which have developed from preposition- plus-word with spatial overtones), such as outside, overboard, downstairs, upwards.We sometimes find that a number of prepositions have special properties. For example, between relates to the position of something in relation to two other things—Palo Alto is between San Francisco and San Jose. And among must be followed by an NP with plural reference, as in He put the cat [among the pigeons].
Both spatial and temporal shifters can be used in what appear to be contradic- tory ways. One may work late, look at the clock, see that it is after midnight, and remark:
Of course, it can’t be tomorrow, it must be today. What the speaker means is ‘it’s the day after the pending sleep, which I haven’t yet embarked on.’
Similarly with spatial adverbs. The place where I am is here. But one day, when wondering whether a coach which was supposed to pick me up had already gone, I phoned the coach company. The clerk said: You’re supposed to wait on the corner of Central Avenue and Myrtle Street. I replied:
(11) I’m there
What I was doing was casting the sentence in terms of the clerk’s orientation. If I had wanted to employ my orientation, I would have felt the need to say something more than I’m here, perhaps I am here, on the corner of Central Avenue and Myrtle Street.
3.9 Marking of core and peripheral arguments
(a) Core arguments: system
If a speaker uses a transitive clause whose predicate is ‘watched’, whose core arguments are ‘the crafty poacher’ and ‘the cunning gamekeeper’, the speaker must have some means for communicating to an addressee which argument is in A and which in O function—is the poacher watching the gamekeeper or is the gamekeeper keeping an eye on the poacher? That is, there should be some marking of A or O or both.
An intransitive clause involves one core argument, in S function. There is always a tendency to economize on grammatical marking. As demonstrated several times above, one grammatical element is often used for several pur- poses. Since S occurs in a different clause type from A and O, there is no need to use different markings (one of which could be zero) for all of S, A, and O. In fact, we find two recurrent patterns. The first involves S and A being marked in the same way (as nominative) and O in a different way (accusative), as shown in Figure3.2.
The second is for S and O to be marked in the same way (called absolutive) and A in a different way (ergative), as in Figure 3.3.
A O
S
accusative nominative
3.9 marking of core and peripheral arguments 123
absolutive ergative
A O
S
Figure 3.3. Absolutive–ergative system
There is a third alternative, where S, A, and O are all treated differently; this is called ‘tripartite marking’. It is rather rare and only occurs for some types of NP head, and in conjunction with (nominative-)accusative or (absolutive-) ergative marking, or both.
Many languages have a combination of accusative and ergative marking. This split can be motivated in one of three ways. First, it may relate to the nature of the head of the argument NP, in terms of the ‘nominal hierarchy’, in Figure3.4. Basically, the further to the left an item is on the hierarchy, the more likely it is to be in A rather than in O function (for example, ‘you’ are more likely to do something to an animal than vice versa). Typically, items to the left have accusative marking for O function, with A and S often being left unmarked (nominative), while items to the right have ergative marking for A function, with S and O being unmarked (absolutive).
Accusative marking, extending in from the left, and ergative marking, from the right, must at least meet in the middle (I know of no language where this does not happen). Or they may overlap, creating a small area with tripartite marking. This can be illustrated for Cashinawa, a Panoan language from Peru. As shown in Table3.2, 1st and 2nd person pronouns have an accusative system of case marking, proper and common nouns have an ergative system, while3rd person pronouns show tripartite marking, with -a for O function (accusative), nasalization for A (ergative), and zero for S function.
more likely to be in A than in O function
1st person 2nd person Demonstratives, Proper Common nouns pronouns pronouns 3rd person pronouns nouns Human Animate Inanimate Accusative marking extends in from left —®····
···¬Ergative marking extends in from right ¬
Table 3.2. Marking of core arguments in Cashinawa A ø hab˜u nasalization
S ø habu ø
O -a haa ø
1st and 2nd 3rd person proper nouns and person pronouns pronoun common nouns
As is quite typical, absolutive is the formally unmarked term, shown by zero, in an ergative system, and similarly for nominative in an accusative system. (There are just a few languages with unmarked accusative; none is known with unmarked ergative.)
In other languages with split marking, the division between accusative and ergative systems may occur at a different place on the hierarchy (and there is often no ‘tripartite system’ zone of overlap).
Further kinds of split can be conditioned by: