Strategies to avoid postposition stranding

relevant relative pronoun ama ‘what’, alon ‘where’, or alikan ‘who’ must appear in the LSAP position of this relative clause unless other adjustments are made to the clause see below. 228 a. Jan balyta to hala diako. John sit the bench on ‘John sat on the bench.’ b. To hala [ama diako-sia Jan balyty-n]... the bench [what on-WH.OBJ John sit-SUB] ‘The bench on which John is sitting...’ 229 a. Li wadili jolhida koba to sikoa lokhodi. the man smoke.tobacco PAST the house in ‘The man smoked in the house.’ b. To sikoa [ama lokhodi-sia koba li wadili jolhida-n]... The house [what in-WH.OBJ PAST the man smoke-SUB] ‘The house in which the man smoked ...’ It is possible to omit the relative pronoun in the LSAP position of the above relative clauses only if one adds a ka- ‘ATTR’ or ma- ‘PRIV’ prefix 11 to the verb, i.e. the verb formed from the postposition. Significantly, no such requirement holds for relative pronoun omis- sion in the case of non-derived stative clauses. 230 a. To hala [ka-diako-sia Jan balyty-n]... the bench [ATTR-on-WH.OBJ John sit-SUB] ‘The bench on which John is sitting...’ b. To kodo [ka-loko-sia to kasiri]... the gourd [ATTR-in-WH.OBJ the cassava.beer] ‘The gourd the cassava beer is in ...’ c. To kodo [ma-loko-sia to kasiri]... the gourd [PRIV-in-WH.OBJ the cassava.beer] ‘The gourd the cassava beer is not in ...’ Why this ka- or ma- is required in the above clauses when the relative pronoun is omitted and what it is syntactically is a bit of a puzzle. 96 Relative Clauses 11 These prefixes are labeled attributive and privative because they appear to be similar in function to the ka- and ma- which can be used to derive an attributive or privative stative verb from many nouns. In the case of stative verbs derived from nouns, they signal that the subject of the clause is in the affirmative or negative state of having or possessing whatever the prefix ka- or ma- is attached to. See Section 2.4.2.2 on derived stative verbs. For example, Ka-sikoa-ka-i. ATTR-house-INDIC-he ‘He is with house i.e. he is in the state of having a house.’ Ma-sikoa-ka-i. PRIV-house-INDIC-he ‘He is not with house i.e. he is in the state of not having a house. 111111 The most likely possibility is that the ka- and ma- prefixes act like personless, genderless resumptive pronouns. In general, the only prefixes which occur in Arawak are the mor- phologically bound pronouns and the privative and attributive prefixes ka- and ma-, respec- tively. Ka- and ma- always occur in the same position as the morphologically bound pronouns occur and are mutually exclusive with them. Furthermore, both in these stative relative clauses, and when they are used with stative verbs derived from nouns, the head of the relative clause is always coreferential with the pronoun which would occur in the posi- tion of ka- or ma- if these prefixes were not present. Thus, in the preceding examples, ka- and ma- are located exactly where the pronouns representing ‘gourd’ and ‘bench’ would oc- cur if the objects of these clauses were not relativized, and ‘gourd’ and ‘bench’ are the heads for these relative clauses. Even assuming the prefixes in question are resumptive pronouns, the question remains why they should be obligatory in these relative clauses. The facts summarized in Figure 22, again, are these: The object of a stative clause based on a postposition may be relativized by leaving a trace in the position of the object and using a relative pronoun in LSAP example 231a. It is also possible to omit the relative pronoun in LSAP if one adds a ‘resumptive pronoun’ prefix to the verb example 231b. It is unacceptable either to use the relative pronoun with a resumptive pronoun example 231c or to use neither example 231d. 231 a. To hala [ama [› diako-sia li Jan]]... the bench [what [› on-WH.OBJ the John]] ‘The bench on which John is...’ b. To hala [› [ka-diako-sia li Jan]]... the bench [› [ATTR-on-WH.OBJ the John]] ‘The bench on which John is...’ c. To hala [ama [ka-diako-sia li Jan]]... the bench [what [ATTR-on-WH.OBJ the John]] ‘The bench on which John is...’ d. To hala [› [› diako-sia li Jan]]... the bench [› [› on-WH.OBJ the John]] ‘The bench on which John is...’ [ N [ LSAP [ [ NP V ] NP ]]] NP S S VP a bench › ka- b bench WH › c bench WH ka- d bench › › Figure 22. Object Relativization in Stative Clauses It is possible to explain the unacceptability of clauses with both a relative pronoun in LSAP position and a resumptive pronoun in object position example 231c if one assumes that the “Bijection Principle” holds for Arawak. This principle states that “each operator must bind one and only one variable” Chomsky 1982:12. If the resumptive pronoun is 4.4 Constituents Accessible to Relativization 97 present, there is no trace available for the relative pronoun in LSAP to bind, and therefore the clause is unacceptable. Since I know of no data in Arawak which contradict this princi- ple, it is not unreasonable to assume something like it applies. The problem remains, however, why clauses e.g. 231d that have neither a relative pro- noun in LSAP nor a resumptive pronoun in object position are bad. It does seem to be the case that the lack of both the relative pronoun and the resumptive pronoun presents a problem in perception. That is, hearers of such sentences miss the head-modifier interpre- tation and apparently assume the NP head is actually in the object position of the sentence. This is true in spite of the presence of the object-relativizer suffix -sia on the verb. Why this should occur in these clauses is not clear. In event sentences, traces in object and sub- ject position are properly governed by the verb and INFL, respectively, and both subjects and objects can be properly governed without the presence of a relative pronoun. 12 How- ever, a trace in object position in these stative sentences based on postpositions is unac- ceptable unless there is an explicit relative pronoun present. There is yet another strategy employed in Arawak to avoid stranding a postposition. This is to incorporate the postpositional phrase into a pre-head relative clause. 13 232 Sioko-ka [to [Jan balyty-sia diako] hala]. small-INDIC [the [John sit-WH.OBJ on] bench] ‘The John-sat-on bench is small i.e. The bench John sat on is small.’ The exact composition of this pre-head clause is not immediately obvious. Balytyn ‘to sit’ is an intransitive verb and therefore cannot normally receive the object-relativizer suffix -sia . Furthermore, the relativized NP is the word for ‘bench’ and, at least at first glance, one would expect its trace to be in the object position of the postposition diako ‘on’. 233 Expected structure: [the [John [sits [t i. on ]]] bench i ] NP S VP PP The only explanation which seems plausible is that re-analysis of some sort has taken place making hala ‘bench’ the object of balyta ‘sit’. Applying this type of analysis to Arawak would both explain the presence of the object- relativizer suffix on the verb and ensure that the trace of the object is properly governed as defined previously. However, this analysis is not quite as clean as it would be in a prepositional language. Arawak has postpositions rather than prepositions, and therefore the postposition is not adjacent to the verb at the time of re-analysis. This means the postposition cannot simply be incorporated into the verb. 98 Relative Clauses 12 See discussion on the ECP in Arawak 3.2.2.3, and sections on subject- and object-relativization 4.4.1, 4.4.2. 13 Strangely enough, the post-head version of this relative clause is only marginally acceptable: ?to hala [Jan balyty-sia diako] ?the bench [John sit-WH.OBJ on] ?‘the bench John is sitting on’ 232a. [sits [the bench on] VP PP b. [sits [the bench] on] VP NP ? c. [to [Jan [balyty-sia [t i ] diako ]] hala i ] [the [John [sit-WH.OBJ [ t i ] on ]] bench i ] NP S VP NP ? ‘the bench John sat on’ 4.4 Constituents Accessible to Relativization 99

Chapter 5 Aspectual Particles and the Contribution

of Discourse to Arawak Syntax Introduction An adequate description of some aspects of Arawak syntax seems to require reference to levels of the language above that of the sentence. One such case has already been alluded to: full NPs may be used as subjects only when introducing an entity into the discourse for the first time. Thereafter, a morphologically free or bound pronoun must be used, linked to an appositive full noun phrase where disambiguation is required. Although an exhaustive treatment of the contribution of text-level syntax would far exceed the scope of this description of Arawak, in the following sections I will exemplify its contribution by concentrating on the use of tenseaspect suffixes and particles. Throughout the following sections, frequent reference is made to several Arawak narrative texts. Those most frequently cited may be found in their entirety in the appendix, and will be referred to as The Bus Trip Story, The Jaguar Story, The Bomb Story, The Tapir Story, and The Metamorphosis Story. The narrative is one of several monologue genres in Arawak. In the present study, I will adopt the typology of texts developed by Longacre 1976. He pp. 195–210 classifies monologues into four “deep structure genres,” as he calls them, based on the intersection of the features [+– Succession] and [+–Projected]: narrative discourses, procedural discourses, expository discourses, and horta- tory discourses 1 Figure 23. Succession refers to the fact that certain discourses are built around a chronological succession, while others are not. Thus he lists narrative and procedural monologues as having the property [+ Succession], while expository and hortatory have the feature [–Succes- sion]. The feature [+– Projected] also has to do with time—not temporal sequence, however, but whether the discourse is “rooted in real time.” We may then form the proportion: procedural is to narrative as hortatory is to expository. Narrative discourse is rooted in real time; it recounts events sup- posed to have happened somewhere, whether in the real or in an imaginary world... Procedural discourse tells us how something would be done whenever it happens to be done. It is in projected rather than accomplished time. Likewise, while expository discourse simply explains a body of subject matter, hortatory discourse tells us how we are to act in regard to a certain body of subject matter. 100 1 Longacre has since revised and amplified this classification system Longacre 1983:4–14. He now includes “agent orientation” as an additional feature which gives him eight genres. This revised classification does not substantially affect the discussions herein. –PROJECTED +PROJECTED NARRATIVE PROCEDURAL +SUCCESSION 1. 13 person 1. non-specific person 2. agent oriented 2. patient oriented 3. accomplished time 3. projected time 4. chronological linkage 4. chronological linkage EXPOSITORY HORTATORY –SUCCESSION 1. no necessary person reference 1. 2 person 2. subject matter oriented 2. Addressee oriented 3. time not focal 3. Mode, not time 4. logical linkage 4. logical linkage Figure 23. Deep Structure Genres Longacre 1976:200 As mentioned above, the stories cited most often in the following sections are all narra- tives. To avoid having to continually restate the general contexts of the stories, below is a brief synopsis of each. See the appendix for the complete stories. 1. The Bus Trip Story: This story was written by an Arawak about an unsuccessful bus trip he took with his wife and several other villagers. The story is true, and took place less than a week before it was written. This is what the author relates: Someone in the village bought an old bus. A number of friends, including the story’s author, piled into the bus and went on a test ride. After several break- downs, the bus finally quit completely, and the author and his wife had to walk home. 2. The Jaguar Story: This story was written by an Arawak about a time when a jag- uar almost “grabbed” the author’s brother-in-law. The story is true and took place a number of years before it was written. In it, the author tells of going to his field to work. His brother-in-law and the brother-in-law’s grandchildren were working in a nearby field. A jaguar tried to attack the brother-in-law. Neither the brother-in-law nor the author had his gun along, so one of the grandchildren fetched his father the brother-in-law’s son who finally lured and shot the jaguar. 3. The Bomb Story: This story was written by an Arawak about true events a number of years after World War II. During the War, the U.S. military had a base and a practice range in Suriname near the author’s village. The story begins some years after the military left. The author and a friend went on a fishing trip and came across a strange, heavy object with handles. They took it along with them, but it got too heavy to carry. Leaving it behind, they went fishing. On the way home af- ter fishing, they picked up the object and carried it a ways. When it again got too heavy for them, they tossed it aside, and it exploded. No one was hurt, but it did scare them. 4. The Tapir Story: This story is an oral story transcribed from tape by me, and later slightly edited by an Arawak to remove some false starts. The teller of the story was the oldest man of the village Powakka, who tells the village captain highest figure in the village hierarchy about how he shot a tapir. The story is very vividly told and includes various sound effects. The captain frequently interjects comments and questions during the telling of the story. Introduction 101