Before we begin... I am Morelia Vzquez Martnez Dimensions of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Before we begin... ◮ I am Morelia Vázquez Martínez Dimensions of definiteness in Ch’ol: A ◮ I am from Campanario, Chiapas, Mexico dialectal comparison ◮ My first language was Ch’ol ◮ I speak the Tila dialect of Ch’ol (mutually intelligible with other Ch’ol dialects) Morelia Vázquez Martínez * & Carol-Rose Little † ◮ I learned Spanish when I was 12 * ITSM & † Cornell University ◮ Today, I am going give this presentation to you in my language Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas January 3, 2020 1 2 Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Introduction ◮ According to Coon (2010) there are two ways that Ch’ol ◮ We are interested in whether there is a di ff erence in marking (Mayan) marks definiteness definiteness in Ch’ol across di ff erent dimensions (e.g., anaphoric vs unique definites) (1) Tyi i-k’ux-u-yoñ jiñi ts’i’. ◮ Also whether there are di ff erences across dialects pfv a3 -bite- vt-b1 dog det ◮ For instance, Vázquez Álvarez (2011) notes that the Tila dialect ‘The dog bit me.’ With a determiner of Ch’ol has an extra determiner, li (2) Tyi k-pejk-ä juñ . a1 -read- vt book pfv ‘I read a/the book.’ Bare nouns may also be definite 3 4

Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Our plan today Background: Ch’ol ◮ Background ◮ 222,000 speakers of Ch’ol ◮ Ch’ol and dialects (also known as Chol or ◮ Definiteness: uniqueness and anaphoricity lakty’añ ) ◮ Previous work on definiteness in Ch’ol ◮ Methodology ◮ Results ◮ 3 mutually intelligible ◮ Conclusions and broader impacts dialects: Tila, Tumbalá, Sabanilla ◮ Our data comes from the Tila and Tumbalá dialects Figure 1: Map of Chiapas and languages spoken in Chiapas 5 6 Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Background: Dimensions of definiteness Background: Dimensions of definiteness ◮ Recent work has shown that definiteness can be split up into ◮ Languages use di ff erent strategies to express definiteness di ff erent dimensions and some languages mark these ◮ Spanish uses a definite article in (3a) whereas in Shan, bare dimensions morphologically (Arkoh & Matthewson, 2013; nouns can be interpreted as definite or indefinite (3b) Jenks, 2018; Schwarz, 2009, 2013) ◮ We briefly review unique definiteness and anaphoric definiteness (3) a. El b. háw perro me mordió. hˇ an lik . the dog me bit 1 see book ‘The dog bit me.’ ‘I see a/the book.’ Spanish Shan: Moroney (2018) 7 8

Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Background: Uniqueness Background: Anaphoricity ◮ Unique definites are entities which are unique to a situation ◮ In other cases, Fering uses the weak form of the definite article (the Pope, the bed (in a room with one bed)) ( di ) to refer to anaphorically to a referent (as in (5)) ◮ Ebert (1971) shows that Fering (a Germanic language) uses a (5) Oki hee an hingst keeft. *A / Di hingst weak from of the definite article ( a ) to mark unique definite Oki has a horse bought. * det weak / horse entities like ‘sun’ or ‘king’ in (4) det strong haaltet. (4) A köning kamm to bischük. limp the weak king came to visit ‘Oki bought a horse. The horse limps.’ (Ebert (1971) from ‘The king came for a visit.’ Fering (Ebert (1971) from Schwarz (2013: 538)) Schwarz (2013: 541)) 9 10 Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Background: Definiteness in Ch’ol Background: Definiteness in Ch’ol ◮ Here, we investigate whether there are di ff erences in the way ◮ According to Coon (2010) there are two ways that Ch’ol Ch’ol marks: (Mayan) marks definiteness ◮ Anaphoric and unique definites ◮ Indefinites (6) Tyi i-k’ux-u-yoñ jiñi ts’i’. ◮ We also investigate whether there are di ff erences along these pfv a3 -bite- vt-b1 dog det ‘The dog bit me.’ With a determiner dimensions across dialects (7) Tyi k-pejk-ä juñ . a1 -read- vt book pfv ‘I read a/the book.’ Bare nouns may also be definite 11 12

Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Methodology: Tila data Methodology: Tumbalá data ◮ Speakers: 4 women (24–65), 4 ◮ Speakers: 2 women and one men (27–80) man (40–70) (2016–2019) ◮ Our data comes from San ◮ Our data comes from El Miguel (Salto de Agua) and La Campanario (2019) Ilusión (Tumbalá) ◮ 6 recordings ◮ 8 recordings ◮ Baj (145 lines), Kajpe’ (63 ◮ Xiba (95 lines), Bats’ (57 lines), Lukum (226 lines), lines), Kumale (54 lines), Radio (133), Lembal (195), Ñoxi’aläl (80 lines), Bajlum Imojtyolty’añob lakña’ob (20 lines), San Miguel (24 (178 lines) lines), Lakchuchu’ (83 lines) ◮ ‘ Bajche’ mi ik’atyiñob iyijñam wajali’ Gutiérrez (n.d.) (61 lines) de Tumbalá 13 14 Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Methodology: Identifying definiteness Methodology: Unique referents ◮ Our methodology is similar to that of Šimík and Burianová (To ◮ Nouns referring to a unique entity in the global context were Appear) who conducted a corpus study with Czech on bare coded as unique nouns interpreted as definite ◮ Similarly nouns referring to a unique entity in the immediate ◮ We recorded each noun as definite or indefinite, indicating situation were also coded as unique as in (8) context in a note as well (8) There is a salient bird nearby the speakers and this is the ◮ We only included nouns that were arguments of verbs or in first mention of the bird subject position of a predicate Aj-kotorro ya’ tyi wejl-i ju’be. nc -parrot there pfv fly- iv dir: down ‘The parrot flew down.’ Imojtyolty’añob lakña’ob (Tila) 15 16

Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Methodology: Anaphoric referents Methodology: Data not included ◮ We coded nouns as anaphoric if they were previous introduced ◮ Possessed nouns in the context, as in (9) ◮ Nonverbal arguments (like objects of prepositions and possessors) (9) Context: Speaker just said ‘there was a snake.’ ◮ Proper names ya’ me=ku k’uk’ux jolo li lukum=i. ◮ Generic referents there coiled.up snake= encl mir=aff edm det ◮ Referents to kinds or classes ‘The snake was just there, all coiled up!’ Lukum (Tila) ◮ Nouns in object position of a light verb ◮ Cases where it was too di ffi cult to determine 17 18 Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Methodology: What we coded for Results: Total data Table 1: Tumbalá total data Table 2: Tila total data Indefinite 13 9% of total Indefinite 26 46% of total Definite 128 91% of total Definite 30 54% of total Total 141 Total 56 Figure 2: Screenshot of data used in study for Tila dialect 19 20

Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Indefinite: Tumbalá and Tila Summary: Indefinites ◮ In both the Tila and Tumbalá dialects, we did not find ◮ Tumbalá ◮ Of the total 13 indefinite examples, 100% occurred without a indefinites occurring with determiners (one exception with the determiner Tila dialect) ◮ None were ergative subjects – only objects of transitive verbs, ◮ Furthermore, no ergative subjects were recorded as being subjects of intransitive verbs or in the theme position of the indefinite existential predicate añ ◮ Both dialects exhibit a similar pattern with respect to marking ◮ Tila indefiniteness ◮ We found 26 examples of indefinite referents ◮ All except one were bare nouns ◮ They were all objects of transitive verbs or in the theme position of an existential predicate 21 22 Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Introduction Background Methodology Results Conclusions and Impacts References Definites in Tumbalá and Tila Unique definites Table 3: Definite nouns Tumbalá Table 4: Definite nouns Tila Table 5: Tumbala unique Table 6: Tila unique definites definites Anaphoric 114 Anaphoric 11 Bare 14 Unique 14 Unique 19 Bare nouns 5 Total 14 Total 128 Total 30 With a determiner 12 li 2 jiñi 14 Total 19 23 24