how basic is the notion of alternative? a diachronic ...this isinvariably permitted at sentential...

Howbasicisthenotionofalternative?

Adiachronictypologyofdisjunction

CaterinaMauri – [email protected]

DisjunctionDays- Berlin,2-3June2016

Examinationofthecross-linguistic codingofdisjunction

Identificationoftherecurrent sourcesofgrammaticalizationthat leadtothedevelopment ofdisjunctive constructions

Aimsandsample


Synchrony

Diachrony

Data hasbeencollected bymeansofdescriptive grammarsandquestionnaires fromaconvenience sampleof130languages.DATA

!

Parameters ofanalysis

1. PRESENCE vs.ABSENCE ofovertmarkers specificallyencodingtherelationofalternative (syndesis vs.asyndesis): isthereadisjunctive connective?


ü Forcross-linguistic variation:

2. SEMANTIC DOMAIN oftheattestedmarkers:maytheconnectivebeusedinallthecontextswherewewouldhaveEnglishor?Morefunctions?Lessfunctions?Whatfunctions(basedongrammars…)?

ü Fordiachronic variation:

LEXICAL SOURCE forthedisjunctive construction – not enough information ingrammars onthecontexts oflanguage change

Background:thedebate ondisjunction

Chierchia et al. 2001:the interpretation of disjunction is governed by the same rules underlying thedistribution of negative polarity items, such as any (i.e. or is interpretedinclusively in downward entailing contexts)→ the principles governing the correct interpretation of a disjunctive relationare innate and are part of the UG.



Chierchia et al. 2001:the interpretation of disjunction is governed by the same rules underlying thedistribution of negative polarity items, such as any (i.e. or is interpretedinclusively in downward entailing contexts)→ the principles governing the correct interpretation of a disjunctive relationare innate and are part of the UG.


Crain (2008:151):“children draw upon a priori knowledge of the meaning of 'or'. Thisconclusion is reinforced by the observation that all languages adopt thesame meaning of 'or' in certain structures.”


Crain (2008: 151):The ability to recognize the inclusive value of or is a “linguistic property that(a) emerges in child language without decisive evidence from experience, and(b) is common to all human languages”, and it is therefore “a likely candidatefor innate specification.”


“[…] why do children adopt the logical meaning of disjunction, inclusive-or,given that the majority of their experience directs them towards a differentmeaning of disjunction, namely an exclusive-or reading? […] children'sknowledge that disjunction is inclusive-or comes from universal grammar.”(Crain 2008: 2-3)


➭ TWO ASSUMPTIONS:✓ Theexclusivevs. inclusive distinctionisrelevant tonaturallanguages✓ Thenotionofinclusive-or isinnateanduniversal.





Whatmaycross-linguisticvariationtellus?




We have someexpectations…

ü All languages have adisjunctive connective

ü Theinclusivevs.exclusive distinction is relevantforspeakersandwill therefore have linguisticreflections intheworld’s languages

Whatmaycross-linguisticvariationtellus?

Aglance attheworld’s languages

Payne(1985:40)“On the whole […] it is rare to find anything unusual in disjunction. Themajority of languages appear to possess at least one unequivocal strategy andthis is invariably permitted at sentential and at phrasal levels.”


Aglance attheworld’s languages

Payne(1985:40)“On the whole […] it is rare to find anything unusual in disjunction. Themajority of languages appear to possess at least one unequivocal strategy andthis is invariably permitted at sentential and at phrasal levels.”


Actually,thepictureseemsmorecomplicatedthanthat…

Somesignificant quotesa) Kibrik (2004:547-48)onKuskokwimAthabaskan (Athabaskan, Alaska):

“there does not seem to exist any native way to express disjunction.[…] one of theUKA consultants said, after my repeated attempts to get him to translate a sentencesuch as Do you want tea or coffee?: “They did not offer you a choice in the old days””


b) Press(1975:145,167)onChemehuevi (Uto-Aztecan, USA- California):

“I have been unable to obtain any obvious alternative questions in Chemehuevi (oralternative statements for that matter). In order to ask something like "Is he here orthere? " in Chemehuevi, one simply asks two Yes-No questions in succession” [...]“Disjunctive coordination is even more restricted in Chemehuevi. The followingexamples illustrate available ways to get around thee lack of any syntactic ormorphological "or" […]”

Somesignificant quotesc) Kimball (1985:450)onKoasati (Muskogean, USA- Georgia):

“Certain conjunctive ideas, such as 'but,"because,' and ' if ' are handled by means ofthe verbal suffixes in the Consequence slot […]. On the other hand the idea of 'or' ismost generally indicated by putting the verbs between which there is a choicetogether in apposition.”


d) Post(2008:790)onGalo (Tibeto-Burman, India):

“Disjunctive coordination of declarative clauses is not well-coded by Galo grammar,and generally requires a paraphrastic construction involving a linking clause with asense like ‘if that is not the case, then’”.

Somesignificant quotesOhori (2004: 56-59): AND and OR, the two basic logical connectives in formallogic, can sometimes be underdifferentiated in natural languages:

3) UpriverHalkomelem (Salish,Ohori 2004:57,Galloway1993:363)Thedeclarativeconstructionseems toallowaconjunctivereadingina),andtheinterrogativeconstructionadisjunctivereading inb).

a) Lə́ ləməĺstəxwəs tə Bill tə sq’əḿəĺ xwəlέm tə Jim qə Bob.3 throw.3 DEM Bill DEM paddle to DEM Jim and Bob‘Bill threwthepaddletoJimandBob.’

b) Lí lέm k’wə Bill qə Bob?Q go DEM Bill or Bob‘DidBillorBobgo?’


Languages without OR


1 “apposition”,“notwell coded”“nonativewaytoexpressdisjunction”…

…meanslanguageswithoutOR!



1

…Howcananalternativebetweenstates ofaffairs,properties orentities

beconveyedWITHOUT

adisjunctive connective?

“apposition”,“notwell coded”“nonativewaytoexpressdisjunction”…

…meanslanguageswithoutOR!

Plan


11. Languages without OR

2. Languages with different ORs

3. Diachronic sources out of which ORsdevelop

4. Semantic domains relevant to disjunction



134)Wari’,Chapacura-Wanam (EverettandKern1997:162)

a. mo tapa’ta’ hwam ca, mo taCOND realis.future kill1sg:realis.future fish 3sg.M COND realis.futurepa’ta’ carawa cakill1sg:realis.future animal 3sg.M‘Hewillfish orhewillhunt.’(lit. ‘ifhe(says)“Iwillkillfish”,ifhe(says)“Iwillkillanimals”.’)

b.'am ’e’ ca’am mi’ pin caperhaps live 3sg.M perhaps give complete 3sg.M‘Eitherhewill liveorhewilldie.’(lit.‘perhaps hewilllive,perhapshewilldie’)



135)Wari’,Chapacura-Wanam (EverettandKern1997:162)

a. mo tapa’ta’ hwam ca, mo taCOND realis.future kill1sg:realis.future fish 3sg.M COND realis.futurepa’ta’ carawa cakill1sg:realis.future animal 3sg.M‘Hewillfish orhewillhunt.’(lit. ‘ifhe(says)“Iwillkillfish”,ifhe(says)“Iwillkillanimals”.’)

b.'am ’e’ ca’am mi’ pin caperhaps live 3sg.M perhaps give complete 3sg.M‘Eitherhewill liveorhewilldie.’(lit.‘perhaps hewilllive,perhapshewilldie’)

6)Hup (VaupésJapurá,Epps2005:683)

wĭh cím’-íy=cud ʔûhníy, yaʔambǒʔ g’əḉ-´əý=cud ʔûhníyhawk claw-DYNM=INFR maybe dog bite-DYNM=INFR maybe‘Either thehawk clawed (it),orthedogbit(it),apparently.’



17)Aranda (Australian,Pama-Nyungan;Wilkins1989:385-86)

‘Theparticle (a)peke 'maybe,might; if;or'hasawiderangeofrelatedused.Commontoallitsuses isthesense thatthespeaker issayingthatsomeproposition ispossiblythecase.Itthereforecommonlytranslates as'might' or'maybe' […]peke 'maybe'canalsobeusedtosignaldisjunction betweenco-ordinatedelements.’

Kere nyente peke-rle kwele re atwe-ke peke are-ke pekeanimalone maybe-FOC QUOT 3sgAkill-pc maybe,see-pc maybekwele; arrangkwe.QUOT nothing‘Perhapstherewassupposedly oneanimalthathekilled orsaw;no,nothingatall.



18)Galo (Post2008:312)

Disjunctivecoordination[…]isbest-attested inuncertain and/orinterrogative moods.ThetwoNPsjakàa=go ‘black=IND’ ‘blackone’andjapúu=go ‘white=IND’ ‘whiteone’areeachmarkedbyConjectural particlebəree.

aəə́ jakâa gò bərè japúu gó bərè?aəə́ [jakàa=go]NP bəree [japúu=go]NP bəreeHDST.SLEV black=IND CJEC white=IND CJEC‘Overthere,(isit)ablackoneorawhiteone(Ican’tmake itout)?’(MN,22:155)

Theirreality ofdisjunction


11Absence ofa

disjunctivemarkerIMPLIES Presence of

someirrealis marker



11Absence ofa

disjunctivemarkerIMPLIES Presence of

someirrealis marker

ü A proposition is said to be REALIS when it asserts that a SoA is an ‘actualized andcertain fact of reality’ (Elliot 2000: 66-67).

ü A proposition is said to be IRREALIS when ‘it implies that a SoA belongs to therealm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such it constitutes a potential orpossible event but it is not an observable fact of reality’ (Elliot 2000: 66-67).

Irrealis propositions belong to the domains of imagination, possibility, wish,interrogation, necessity, obligation and so on, in which a given SoA is presented as nothaving taken place, or where the speaker is not sure about its occurrence



19)a) Perhaps thehawkclawedit,maybe thedogbitit(apparently).

(irrealis coded,alternative inferred)

b) Thehawkclaweditorthedogbitit(apparently).(alternative coded, irrealis implied)

c) Perhaps thehawkclaweditormaybethedogbitit(apparently).(alternative coded, irrealis coded)

d) Thehawkclawedit,thedogbitit(apparently).(irrealis andalternative notcoded)à possible interpretations:sequence ofactions,simultaneity,opposition,??alternative??

Ø Ifneitheradisjunctive connectivenorsomeirrealis marking occurs(12d),itisdifficulttoinferanalternative reading!



1ü Intheabsenceofanorconnective,theirrealis, potential statusof

alternativesmustbeovertly signalled

à Twoalternatives areconceptualized asequivalent,mutually replaceablepossibilities

àUntil a choice is made or the speaker comes to know which hypothesis isrealized, either alternative could be the non-occurring one and thereforeboth are conceptualized as irrealis.

ü WeareintherealmofEPISTEMICMODALITYà Zimmermann2001,Geurts2005

Languages withOR


1 …what happens inlanguages

WITHmorethan one overt disjunctive

connective ?

Different ORs


10)Marathi,Indo-Iranian,Indo-European (Pandharipande 1997:162–163)

a. madhū āītSyā śuśruṣesāṭhī suṭṭī gheīl kĩwā /*kīMadhu mother:GEN looking.after.for leave take:FUT:3sg ALTNstilā hɔspiṭalmadhe ṭthewīl3sg.ACC hospital:in keep:FUT:3sg‘Madhu will leavetotakecareofhismotherorkeepherinthehospital.’

b.tobādzārāt gelā kī/*kĩwā gharī gelā?3sgmarket.LOC go:PST:3sg.MALTNc home:LOC go:PST:3sg.M‘Didhegotothemarketordidhegohome?’

Different ORs, different aims


2There are languages showing different strategies depending onthe AIM of the speaker in establishing the alternative relation(see Mauri 2008b: 155-161)

Simple alternative:an alternative relation may be established in order to present two states of affairs,properties or entities as equivalent and replaceable possibilities, without the needfor any choice

Choice-aimed alternative:an alternative relation may be established in order to elicit a choice betweenequivalent and replaceable possibilities, typically in interrogative sentences



111)Polish(Agnieszka Latos,p.c.)

a.Zazwyczaj piszę lub czytam aż do późnausually write.PRS.1sgALTNs read.PRS.1sguntiltolate‘Usually IwriteorIreaduntillate.’SIMPLEALTERNATIVE

b. Idziemy jutro doszkoły czy zostajemy w domu?go.PRS.1pltomorrowtoschool ALTNc stay.PRS.1plat home‘Dowegotoschooltomorrowordowestayathome?’CHOICE-AIMEDALTERNATIVE



1Dik (1968:276)➤ similardistinctionintermsofmanner.He argues that the manner in which the alternative is presented determines abasic distinction that languages seem to encode: namely, the alternativerelation can be ‘either A or B’ or ‘either A or B, which one?’.

Haspelmath (2008:25-27)➤ standard and interrogative disjunction for the simple and the choice-aimed alternative, respectively (see discussion on terminology in Mauri2008a).

Different ORs, different sets


1Certain languages show specific connectives depending on theEXHAUSTIVITY of the set3

Ø In non-exhaustive sets, the distinction between conjunction anddisjunction is in many cases neutralized!

Ø Non-exhaustive connectives leadtoanexemplification function

Haspelmath (2007: 24): ‘representative conjunction’.According to him, in these cases “the conjuncts are taken as representativeexamples of a potentially larger class”.

Stassen (2000: 5): ‘enumerative coordinators’. The label ‘non-exhaustive’ iswell established in the literature on East Asian languages (Chino 2001,Zhang 2008).



112)Japanese (Barotto 2016)

a.Exhaustive alternative(ka)

Kōho-wa Ohashi-ka Taniguchi to omotteiru.Candidate-TOP Ohashi-KA Taniguchi QT think:STA“(we)arethinkingaboutOhashi orTaniguchiasacadidate.”

b.Non-exhaustivealternative(ya +nado)- EXEMPLIFICATION

Papurika-o pīman-ya asuparagasu nado ni kaeru to,paprika-ACC bellpepper-YA asparagus NADO DAT change if,samazamana arenji-ga kanō.varied arrangement-NOM possible“ifyoureplacepaprikawiththings likeasparagusorbellpepper,avarietyofarrangements ispossible.” à *-ka



113)Japanese (Chino2001:41)

a.Non-exhaustiveconjunction(ya +nado)- EXEMPLIFICATION

Watashi noheya ni wa,[konpyūtā ya sutereo ga] oite arimasu.IDET roominTOP computer andstereo SBJ place-SUSP be-POL.NPST‘Inmyroomthere isacomputer,astereoAND OTHER SIMILAR THINGS.’à *-to

b.Non-exhaustivealternatives(-tari)- EXEMPLIFICATION

Nichiyōbi wa taitei tomodachi to tenisu [oshi-tari eiga omi ni it-tari]SundayTOP usually friend withtennis OBJ do-tari filmOBJ seetogo-tarishimasudo.POL.NPST‘OnSundaysIusuallyplaytenniswithmyfriendsorgotoseemovies,OR SOMETHINGSIMILAR.’ à *-ka



114)Italian(NUNCCorpus)

c'e' il vantaggio che ti puoi customizzare lathere.is DEF advantagethat CLIT can.2SG customize DEF

macchina come vuoi, inrelazione alle tue esigenzemachine as want.2SG in relation to.DEF your.PL need.PL

(grafica,piuttosto che sviluppo, piuttosto che giochi…)graphicspiuttosto che development piuttosto che games

‘[talkingaboutdesktop]thereistheadvantagethatyoumaycustomizethemachine(pc)asyouprefer,depending onyourneeds(graphics,development,videogamesORSIMILAR THINGS…’)NON-EXHAUSTIVESETOFALTERNATIVES

Synchronic analysis


1

Summing up…

I. There are languages without an overt OR

II. In languages lacking an overt OR, the use of irrealis markers is obligatory, inorder to convey alternative, and this confirms the close connection betweendisjunction and the non-factuality domain

III. We find many languages having more than one OR

IV. The distribution of different ORs is not accounted for by the distinctionbetween inclusive vs. exclusive, but rather by the need for a choice (directand indirect interrogative) and the (non-)exhaustivity of the set.

Diachronic analysis


1

Someoftheconnectives attested arevery recent,orontheir waytogrammaticalization…

Diachronic analysis


1 Where dothey comefrom?


Diachronic analysis


1

Asetofrecurrentsources fordisjunctivemarkers canbeidentified:

(1) dubitative/hypothetical >alternative(2) negatedhypothesis>alternative(3) negation>alternative(4) polarquestion>choice-aimed alternative(5) freechoiceverbs>alternative(6) distalmeaning ‘that/other’ >alternative

Where dothey comefrom?


Dubitative/hypothetical>disjunctive


1

15) Kuuk Thaayorre (Pama-Nyungan,Gaby2006:323-324)Thedubitativeparticle isregularlyusedtoconveyalternative andisonthewaytoacquiringthefunctional properties ofconnectives.

a)yup=okun ngay yan Waar.Paant-aksoon=DUB 1sg.NOM go:NPST place.name-DAT‘maybe later I’ll goouttoWaar-Paant’

b)ngul=okun kunk=okun pul watp=okun pulthen=DUB alive= DUB 3du.NOM dead= DUB 3du.NOM‘(Idon’tknowwhether)theytwoarealiveordead.’

c)nhunt wanthanngun nhiinan, Cairns=okun, Melbourne=okun2sg. NOM where.LOC sit:GO:NPST Cairns= DUB Melbourne= DUB‘whereareyougoingtolive,CairnsorMelbourne?’

Negated hypothesis >disjunction


116)Hakha Lai,Tibeto-Burman (Peterson andVanBik 2004:339)-làw-leè <negation -làw andtheancient conditional suffix -leè.

Atpresent,Hakha Laiuses anewform fortheconditional construction,andthis quitecomplicated wayofexpressing analternativerelation is onthewaytogrammaticalization as adisjunctive connective.

làwthlawpaa falaám ˀa-kal-làw-leè haàkhaà-ˀaˀ ˀa-ˀùmfarmer Falam 3sg.SBJ-go-NEG-COND Hakha-LOC 3sg.SBJ-exist‘Thefarmer goes toFalam orhestays inHakha.’(lit. ‘Thefarmer,if hedoesn’t gotoFalam,hestays inHakha’)

Negated hypothesis >disjunction


117)Cavineña (Tacanan,Guillaume 2004:114)

‘Disjunction inCavineña is normally realised bythewordjadyaamajuatsu ‘or’which comesfromthe lexicalisation ofthesame subjecttemporalclause jadya=ama ju-atsu ‘thus=NEGbe-SS’(lit.beingnotthus).Itmaybeshortened tojadyamajuatsu,jadyamaatsu orevenamaatsu.’

Tuekedya =pa ekanaS tere-ya kwejipa=eke jadyaamajuatsu e-tiki=ekethen =REP 3PL finish-IMPFV strong.wind=PERL or NPF-fire=PERL‘(When theworldwas new,our ancestors)would die(lit.finish)fromthestrongwinds orfromthefire.’

Negation >disjunction


118)Galo (Post2008:312-13,789)

‘máa ‘DSJ’ishomophonouswiththeCopulanegator/Negative interjectionmáa ‘NEG’,andprobablyderivesfromthelatterhistorically’ (2008:312).‘InthemainaNegativepolarityparticle,andbasically homophonouswiththeNegativepolaritypredicatesuffix-máa (§4659H12.2)andtheNegative interjectionmáa ~máʔ‘no’,indisjunctive functionmáamarksapolar(closed) alternation betweentwocoordinated interrogativeclauses (2008:789).Thetwofunctionsaresynchronicallydistinct (2008:312).

rəkên jâarə dɨɨmá (…)rənêk jaarə̀d~ɨ̀.[rə́-kèn-jàa-rə́ dɨɨ]=máa [rə́-nèk-jàa-rə́ dɨɨ]live/exist-good/east-more-IRR WOND=DISJ live/exist-bad-more-IRR WOND‘Will (lifeinthefuture)bebetteror(…)willitbeworse?’

Negation >disjunction


1(19)Nakanai,(Austronesian, EasternMalayo-Polynesian,Oceanic,Johnston1980:239)

‘Thedisjunct coordinatoris(ou)ka 'or'(literally 'no').Itindicates theoptionofanegativeconditional presuposition PossiblyX;NO,thenY.Initsconnectivefunction, itmostoftenappearsshortenedtoka andisdeveloping thefunctional anddistributionalcharacterofaconjunction.’

a)Egite la ilali ouka.they NM food no'They had nofood.'

b)Eme masaga ale nabatu, ka (eme masaga) alenabauan?You.sg like that number.two or you.sg like that number.one‘Doyoulikethesecondorthefirstone?’

c)Egite vei-a ge va-ubibi le amutou, ka ouka?they say-3ps IRR REC-shoot ABL you.pl or no‘Didtheyintendtofightagainstyou,ornot?’

Polar question >disjunction


1(20)Polishthe interrogativemarkerczy wasoriginallytheinstrumental formofCommonSlavic*ch’to ‘what’>Cz.Pol.czy,Bel.ci

a. Czy pan dużo podróżuje?Q you much travel‘Doyoutravelalot?’

b. Idziemy jutro doszkoły czy zostajemy w domu?go.PRS.1pltomorrowtoschool ALTNc stay.PRS.1plat home‘Dowegotoschooltomorrowordowestayathome?’

Polar question >disjunction


121)Golin (Trans-NewGuinea,Chimbu,Evans2005:127,48)

Insingle-clause polarquestions suchas(c),asecondclause isabsent,thoughprobablyimplied.

a.Dibe kare-ne-ra-bin mo bisnis erene-ra- binmo gaanboatsee-eat-IRR-IPL DISJ business (TP) doeat-IRR-1PL DISJchildsule di-ra-n-g-w-aschool(TP) be-IRR-3-AS-3-DIST‘(We)arewastingourtimebuyingcarsormakingbusiness or(sending)ourkidstoschool…’

b. u-ra-n-mo u-k-ra-n?come-IRR-2-PQ come-NEG-IRR-2‘Areyougoingtocomeornot?’

c. i nibil pa-n-mo?2SG sickness be-2-PQ‘Doyouhaveadisease?’

choice-aimed alternative > polar question marker(Heine & Kuteva 2002: 226-227)

Other sources


1ü Freechoice verbsLat.vel ‘want’> ‘simple or’,Fr.soit…soit ‘beit’>‘either …or’

ü Distal ‘that/other’Dan.Nor.Swe.eller ‘or’<Proto-Germanic *alja-,*aljis- ‘other’ (FalkandTorp1910:187);I.E.*au- ‘other, that’>Lat.aut(*auti)‘or’, autem ‘but’>It.Sp.Cat.o,Fr.Port.ou;


Semantic domains ofthediachronic sources


1 Potentiality,irrealis OR

Maybe X,maybe Ydubitative,hypotheticals

X?Y?polar questions



1 Mutualreplaceability

X,noYXno,Ynegation

IfnotX,YX,ifnot,Ynegatedhypothesis

OR


X?Y?polar questions


Potentiality,irrealis




Otherness,separateness

X,noYXno,Ynegation

IfnotX,YX,ifnot,Ynegatedhypothesis

X,otherYdistal/other

OR


X?Y?polar questions


Semantic components ofthenotion ofalternative




Ingredients forALTERNATIVITY?


Conclusions:inside,beside, beyond disjunction


What may cross-linguistic variation tell us?




1. Is alternative itself a basic notion that languages always expressovertly?





NO



1

DisjunctionStrategies employedwhen anORconnective is lacking






NO

2. The exclusive vs. inclusive dichotomy does not account for theattested variation. Are there other semantic distinctions to which theexpression of alternative is sensitive?





NO


YES



1

Strategies employedwhen anORconnective is lacking

Semantic distinctions encodedbyORconnectives

Disjunction

Choice

Exhaustivity






NO


YES

3. Is there aclosed setofrecurrent diachronic sources fordisjunction?





NO


YES

3. Is there aclosed setofrecurrent diachronic sources fordisjunction?YES



1

Strategies employedwhen anORconnective is lacking

Diachronic sourcesforORconnectives

Semantic distinctions encodedbyORconnectives

Mutualreplaceability


Choice

Exhaustivity

DisjunctionPotentiality,irrealis



1

Mutualreplaceability


Choice

Exhaustivity

Disjunction

Functionaldimensionstowhichspeakers aresensitive inverbalizingthenotion ofalternative


Prospects forfutureresearch

Ø Towards aconverging,integrated evidence


üCorpus-based evidenceDothefunctional domains identifiedplayarole inconstrainingtheuseofdisjunction indiscourse?



üCorpus-based evidenceDothefunctional domains identifiedplayarole inconstrainingtheuseofdisjunction indiscourse?

üPsycholinguistic evidenceDothefunctional domains identifiedplayarole intheprocessingandacquisition ofdisjunction?



Thank you!

Abbreviations


A=agent;ABL=ablative;ACC=accusative;ALTNc=choice-aimed

disjunction;ALTNs=simple alternative;AS=assertion;CJEC=conjectural;COND=condictional;DAT=dative;DEM=demonstrative;DISJ=disjunctivemarker;du=dual;DIST=distal;DUB=dubitative;DYNM=dynamic;FOC=focus;

FUT=future;GEN=genitive;HDST=hyperdistal;IND=individuator;INT= interrogative;INFR=inferential

evidential;IRR=irrealis;LOC=locative;M=masculine;NEG=negative;NM=nounmarker;NOM=nominative;NPF=(dummy)nounprefix;NPST=nonpast;pc=pastcompletive;PERL=perlative;

PERMISS=permissive;PL=plural;POL=polite;PRS=present;PST=past;TOP=topic;Q=question;QUOT=quotative;REC=reciprocal;REP=reportative;SBJ=subject;SG=singular;SLEV=sametopographiclevel;WOND=wonder;

References


Asher, RonaldE.andT.C.Kumari (1997).Malayalam.London-NewYork:RoutledgeBarotto,Alessandra. Categorization andexemplification: thecaseofJapanese.PhDThesis, Bergamo.Chierchia,G.,Crain,S.,Guasti,M.T.,Gualmini.A.,&Meroni, L.(2001).Theacquisitionofdisjunction:Evidence foragrammaticalviewofscalarimplicatures.Proceedingsofthe25thBoston University ConferenceonLanguageDevelopment(pp.157-168).Somerville,MA:Cascadilla Press.Crain,Stephen (2008).The interpretationofdisjunction inuniversalgrammar.LanguageandSpeech51/1-2:151-169.Dik,Simon(1997).TheTheory ofFunctional Grammar.PartI:thestructure oftheclause.ed.Kees Hengeveld. Berlin andNewYork:Mouton deGruyter.(2ndrevised version).Elliot,Jennifer R.(2000).Realis andirrealis: formsandconceptsofthegrammaticalisation ofreality.LinguisticTypology 4-1,55–90.Epps,Patience. (2005).AGrammarofHup.PhDThesis.UniversityofVirginia.

References


Evans,Nicholasetal.(2005).MaterialsonGolin:grammar,textsanddictionary.Department ofLinguisticsandAppliedLinguistics.TheUniversityofMelbourne.Everett,DanandBarbaraKern (1997).Warì.Descriptive Grammars. London:Routledge.Gaby,Rose. (2006).AGrammarofKuuk Thaayorre.PhDThesis,Univeristy ofMelbourne.Geurts, Bart. (2004).Entertainingalternatives: Disjunctionsasmodals:Ms.UniversityofNijmegen.http://www.kun.nl/phil/tfl/bart/.Grice,H.P.,1975,Logicandconversation. InSyntaxandsemantics 3:Speechacts,P.Cole(Ed).AcademicPress,NewYork,pp.41-58.Guilaume,Antoine. (2004).AGrammarofCavineña,anAmazonianLanguageofNorthernBolivia.PhDThesis.RCLT, LaTrobeUniversity.Haspelmath,Martin(2008).Coordination. InTimothyShopen,(ed.),Languagetypology andlinguistic description,pp.1-51.Cambridge:CUP,2ndedition.

References


Heine,B.&Kuteva,T.(2002).WorldLexiconofGrammaticalization.Cambridge:CUP.Horn,L.(1996).Presupposition andimplicature. InS.Lappin (Ed.),Handbookofcontemporarysemantictheory,pp.299-319.Oxford:Backwell.Johnston,RaymondLeslie. (1980)Nakanai ofNewBritain:ThegrammarofanOceaniclanguage. PacificLinguistics:SeriesB-70.Kibrik,AndrejA.(2004).Coordination inUpperKuskokwimAthabaskan. InMartinHaspelmath, (ed.),Coordinatingconstrunctions,pp.537–554.Amsterdam;Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.Kinball,GeoffreyDavid.1985.AdescriptivegrammarofKoasati.TulaneUniversity.Mauri,Caterina (2008a).Theirreality ofalternatives: towardsatypologyofdisjunction.StudiesinLanguage 32/1:22- 55.Mauri,Caterina (2008b)Coordination RelationsintheLanguages ofEuropeandBeyond.Berlin,NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.

References


Ohori,Toshio (2004).Coordination inMentalese. InMartinHaspelmath, (ed.),Coordinating constructions,pp.41–66.Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. (1997).Marathi.London,NewYork:Routledge.Payne,John.(1985).Complexphrasesandcomplexsentences. InTimothyShopen (ed),ComplexConstructions, vol.IIofLanguageTypologyandsyntacticdescription,pp.3-41.Cambridge:CUP.Peterson,DavidA.andKennethVanBik.(2004).Coordination inHakha Lai(Tibeto-Burman). InMartinHaspelmath,(ed.),Coordinating construnctions,pp.333–354.Amsterdam;Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.Post,Mark.(2008).AGrammarofGalo.PhDThesis.RCLT, LaTrobeUniversity.Press,Margaret Lauritsen. (1975).AGrammarofChemehuevi. Phd Thesis.UniversityofClaifornia, LA.Saeed, JohnIbrahim(1993)Somalireference grammar (Secondrevisededition).Kensington:Dunwoody Press.

References


Siemund,Interrogative constructions. In:M.Haspelmath andE.Koenigetal.,Editors,LanguageTypologyandLanguageUniversals—An InternationalHandbook vol.2,WalterdeGruyter,Berlin (2001),pp.1010–1028.Sohn,Ho-Min (1994).Korean.London,NewYork:Routledge.Wilkins,DavidP.(1989).Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda):StudiesintheStructureandSemanticsofGrammar. PhDThesis. AustralianNationalUniversity.Zimmermann,ThomasE.(2001).Freechoicedisjunctionandepistemicpossibility.NaturalLanguageSemantics8,255–290.

how basic is the notion of alternative? a diachronic ...this isinvariably permitted at sentential...

Documents