ABSTRACT

About one third of the Pama-Nyungan languages of Australia employ pronominal cross-referencing, yet systematic typological patterns of non-subject argument registration remain unexamined. We analyze this variation from two perspectives by surveying 22 Pama-Nyungan languages. Firstly, we survey which kinds of case-marked arguments can be cross-referenced by these pronominal systems. From this perspective, we find that a number of nominal expressions marked with so-called ‘local’ cases (e.g. locative, allative, ablative, etc.) can be cross-referenced when instantiating certain argument relations. Secondly, we find striking cross-linguistic predictability in how such relations, which we descriptively group as ‘locational’, are morphologically integrated into the pronominal paradigms. We show that the variation can be captured by two major parameters: firstly, whether locational cross-referencing utilizes the same form as another non-subject series, or whether locational cross-referencing is serviced by a unique series formally built off another non-subject series. In this latter case there is further variation as to which other non-subject series provides the base for the dedicated locational series. These parameters result in six surface pattern types, and we show that each of the patterns is instantiated in languages of the survey.

摘要

澳大利亚大约三分之一的 Pama-Nyungan 语言采用代词交叉引用，但非主语论证注册的系统类型学模式仍未得到检验。我们通过调查 22 种 Pama-Nyungan 语言，从两个角度分析了这种差异。首先，我们调查哪些类型的格标记论证可以被这些代词系统交叉引用。从这个角度来看，我们发现，在实例化某些论证关系时，可以交叉引用许多标有所谓“局部”格的名义表达式（例如，方格、向格、夺格等）。其次，我们发现这种关系（我们将其描述性地归类为“位置”）如何在形态上整合到代词范式中，具有惊人的跨语言可预测性。我们证明可以通过两个主要参数来捕获变化：首先，位置交叉引用是否使用与另一个非主题系列相同的形式，或者位置交叉引用是否由正式构建于另一个非主题系列的独特系列提供服务。在后一种情况下，关于哪些其他非主题系列为专用位置系列提供基础存在进一步的变化。这些参数产生六种表面图案类型，并且我们表明每种图案都以调查语言实例化。