SMG

Chamorro (Austronesian, Chamorro)

Mismatch: morphosyntax: transitivity

In Chamorro, there is a mismatch involving the morphological distinction between transitive verbs with a definite object and those with an indefinite object in actor voice constructions. The morphological differences between actor voice forms are shown below, based on Topping (1973). Intransitive verbs fall into two lexically-specified classes, here provisionally called '1' and '2'. Class 1 verbs take -um- infixation with singular subjects, while class 2 verbs take the prefix ma- throughout their paradigm. Transitive verbs distinguish between definite and indefinite object forms; in turn, there are two sets of definite object forms, one for main clauses and one for subordinate clauses.¹

		intransitive		transitive
		class 1	class 2	indefinite object	definite object
main clause	SG SUBJ PL SUBJ	<um> man-	ma- man-ma-	man- man-man-	ERG pronoun- ERG pronoun-
subordinate clause	SG SUBJ PL SUBJ	<um> man-	ma- man-ma-	man- man-man-	<um> <um>

Illustrations of the distinctions are given below:

Intransitive verbs

class 1				class 2
singular subject		plural subject		singular subject		plural subject
G<um>upu	yo´.	Mang-gupu	siha.	Ma-makmata	yo´.	Man-ma-makmata	siha.
flew<ACT>	I.ABS	INDFOBJ-flew	they.ABS	INTR-woke.up	I.ABS	PL-INTR-woke.up	they.ABS
'I flew.'		'They flew.'		'I woke up.'		'They woke up.'

(Topping 1973: 83)

Transitive verbs, indefinite object

singular subject			plural subject
Man-li´e´	yo´	guma´	Man-man-li´e´	siha	guma´
INDFOBJ-saw	I.ABS	house	PL-INDFOBJ-saw	they.ABS	house
'I saw a house.'			'They saw a house.'

(Topping 1973: 233)

Transitive verbs, definite object

main clause			subordinate clause
Hu-li´e´	i	palao´an	Guahu	l<um>i´e´	i	palao´an
1SG.ERG-saw	the	woman	I.EMP	saw<ACT>	the	woman
'I saw the woman.'			'I saw the woman.' ('I am the one who saw the woman.')

(Topping 1973: 243)

The transitive verb kanno´ 'eat' shows a mismatch in its indefinite object form. Instead of being formed by prefixation of man- (SG) or man‑man- (PL), the suppletive root chocho is used instead. This behaves just as an intransitive verb, taking the infix <um> in the singular and man- in the plural (yielding mañocho). This is apparently the only lexeme that behaves this way (Topping 1973: 241).

definite object				indefinite object
Hu-	kanno´	i	mansana	Ch<um>ocho	yo´	mansana
1SG.ERG	ate	the	apple	ate<ACT>	I	apple
'I ate the apple.'				'I ate an apple.'

Donohue and Maclachlan (1999) see this as a historical relic, evidence that <um> infixation formerly applied to main clause actor voice verbs. However, there is an alternative explanation, namely that the suppletive stems chocho and kanno´ were originally two different lexemes, one intransitive and one transitive. Arguing in favour of this explanantion is the fact that the morphological behaviour of chocho is not that of its subordinate clause counterpart, but rather of an intransitive verb, in as much as it has <um> infixation in the singular only, whereas <um> in a subordinate clause actor voice verb is not sensitive to number.

Notes

¹The distinction between main and subordinate clause follows Donohue and Maclachlan (1999). Topping (1973) instead distinguishes between neutral focus (Donohue and Maclachlan's actor voice in main clauses) and actor focus (Donohue and Maclachlan's actor voice in subordinate clauses). Donohue and Maclachlan discuss two subordinate clause contexts:

infinitive complements:

Hu-tanga	l<um>i´e´	Hawaii.
1SG.ERG-desire	see<ACT>	H.
'I desire to see Hawaii.'
(Cited from Topping 1973: 94)

WH-questions

singular subject						plural subject
Ha-	fahan	i	palao´an	i	chotda	Hayi	f<um>ahan	i	chotda
3SG.ERG-	bought	the	woman	the	banana	who	bought<ACT>	the	banana
'The woman bought the banana.'						'Who bought the banana?'
(Cited from Chung 1994)

They argue that verbs in WH-questions can be construed as subordinate if WH-questions are treated as clefts (with a zero copula; thus 'Who is it who bought the banana?'). The third type, as represented bysentences such as Guahu l<um>i´e´ i palao´an 'I saw the woman.', is not analyzed by them. However, given the paraphrase that Topping suggests for such sentences ('I am the one who saw the woman.'), the cleft analysis would presumably obtain for them too.

References

Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-Agreement and ‘referentiality' in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25/1. 1‑44.

Donohue, Mark and Anna Maclachlan. 1999. What Agreement in Chamorro? In: Carolyn Smallwood and Catherine Kitto (eds) Proceedings of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association VI (Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 16.2). Toronto: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Toronto. 121-132.

Topping, Donald M. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: The University Press at Hawaii.