Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference

Sousa, Hilário de

doi:10.1075/tsl.114.02des

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the former, Stirling (1993) and McKenzie (2007; discuss cases in which SR tracks the identity of eventualities or what McKenzie calls "topic situations" rather than subjects (see also Weisser 2012, Keine 2013 andSection 4), and a few languages allow non-subject arguments to be SR pivots as well. Many languages can use both ss-and ds-marking in contexts that go beyond the simplest cases of coreference and disjoint reference of the two arguments (Foley & Van Valin 1984;Brendemoen & Csató 1987;Wilkins 1988;Stirling 1993;Bergelson & Kibrik 1995;Keine 2013;Comrie 1983;Nichols 1983; de Sousa 2016). Stirling (1993) mainly discusses two types of what she calls "unexpected" ss-marking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Possessors in switch-reference

Bárány

Nikolaeva

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some languages with switch-reference use same-subject markers in structures where the internal possessor of one subject corefers with another subject, but the subjects do not corefer with each other. We analyse such patterns as a type of non-canonical switch-reference (Stirling 1993; de Sousa 2016) and show that languages differ in what types of possessive relations license same-subject marking. Languages that allow alienable possessive relations in switch-reference also allow inalienable relations to license same-subject marking, but not vice versa. In addition, alienable, but not inalienable possessive relations, must be morphosyntactically expressed when licensing same-subject marking. Adopting a modified version of Stirling's (1993) approach, we derive these implicational relations from anaphoric conditions licensing non-canonical switch-reference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Possessors in switch-reference

Bárány

Nikolaeva

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Possessive and non-identity relations in Turkic switch-reference

Bárány

Nikolaeva

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an overview of non-canonical patterns of switch-reference involving the converb in (V)p in selected Turkic languages. This converb is usually described as a same-subject converb, but we show that it can conform to McKenzie’s (2012) extended definition of “same-subject” as expressing the identity of topic situations, rather than subject referents. In addition to tracking cross-clausal subject identity, (V)p can be used when the possessor of the subject of one clause corefers with the subject of another clause and when the events expressed by the two clauses are in a close temporal and/or causal relationship. Based on Stirling (1993) and Bárány & Nikolaeva (2019), we argue that the role of possessors in Turkic switch-reference is captured by lexically specified conditions licensing the use of (V)p when two subjects are in a possessive relation. Finally, we suggest that both types of non-canonical switch-reference can be seen as ensuring discourse continuity.

show abstract

Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Possessors in switch-reference

Possessors in switch-reference

Possessive and non-identity relations in Turkic switch-reference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About