Cover not available

In:Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 213–256

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Grammatical relations in Movima

Alignment beyond semantic roles

 | CNRS (SeDyL)
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.07hau
Movima (isolate, Bolivia) has two transitive constructions: direct/ergative and inverse/accusative. The most straightforward argument selector is relativization. Relativization selects the P of the direct and the A of the inverse construction, which, in each case, is the argument whose referent ranks lower on scales of person, animacy, and topicality. In terms of constituency, this is the “external” argument, and it aligns with S. Certain oblique-marked arguments can be relativized as well, so relativization is a test to distinguish oblique arguments from adjuncts. Other constructions that privilege the external argument are demonstrative fronting and argument incorporation – although the latter is restricted to the direct construction and therefore also to the P argument. Two constructions select an argument on the basis of its semantic role: possessor ascension privileges P, and imperatives, which participate in the direct/inverse alternation, privilege A. Other cross-linguistically typical argument selectors do not seem to show a preference for a particular argument or semantic role: reflexives, coordination, embedding, and quantifier floating.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The basic clause and its components
    • 2.1The direct-inverse system
    • 2.2Formal properties of argument encoding
    • 2.3Obliques: Adjuncts or oblique arguments?
    • 2.4Argument encoding in embedded clauses
  • 3.Argument selectors privileging the external argument
    • 3.1Headed relative clauses, detransitivization, and negation
    • 3.2Verbal RPs
    • 3.3Pronoun fronting
    • 3.4Wh-questions
    • 3.5Oblique arguments? Evidence from relativization
      • 3.5.1Relativization of non-core arguments
      • 3.5.2Relativization of applied arguments
    • 3.6Fronted demonstratives
    • 3.7Argument incorporation
  • 4.Argument selection based on semantic role
    • 4.1Possessor ascension
    • 4.2Imperatives
  • 5.“Neutral” constructions
    • 5.1Reflexives
    • 5.2Coordination
    • 5.3Embedding
    • 5.4Floating quantifiers
  • 6.Conclusion
    • Symbols and abbreviations in glosses
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4): 673–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Relations, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 95–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3): 626–657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, William. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane, 30 June–3 July.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009a. Hierarchical alignment in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(4): 513–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009b. Reference and predication in Movima. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 323–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010a. ‘She kisses her late husband’ = ‘she kissed her husband’: nominal tense marking in Movima. In Rara & Rarissima: Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity, Michael Cysouw & Jan Wohlgemuth (eds), 95–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. The intransitive basis of Movima clause structure. In Ergativity in Amazonia[Typological Studies in Language 89] Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds), 285–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011a. Referring to states and events: subordination in Movima. In Subordination in South American Languages [Typological Studies in Language 97], Rik van Gijn, Katharina Haude & Pieter Muysken (eds), 141–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. Argument encoding in Movima: The local domain. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4): 559–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The expression of three-participant events in Movima. Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 80–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Animacy and inverse voice in Movima: A corpus study. Anthropological Linguistics 56(3–4): 294–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018a. Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Nonverbal predication in Amazonian Languages [Typological Studies in Language 122], Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. A topic-marking cleft? Analyzing clause-initial pronouns in Movima. In Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in Prosody and Syntax[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. Tagalog. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 247–293. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 305–334. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. “The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Rober M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas [Typological Studies in Language 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Haude, Katharina
2018. Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages [Typological Studies in Language, 122], ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Haude, Katharina
2021. Clefting and nominal predication: Two focus-marking constructions in Movima. Faits de Langues 52:1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Haude, Katharina
2022. Expressing directional caused accompanied motion in Movima. In Caused Accompanied Motion [Typological Studies in Language, 134], ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Haude, Katharina
2025. Finiteness in Movima. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos 67 ► pp. e025001 ff. DOI logo
Haude, Katharina
2025. An Austronesian-type voice system in an Amazonian isolate?. In Investigating Language Isolates [Typological Studies in Language, 135], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue