Abstract :
[en] This paper investigates to what extent the notion of alienability can account for the distinct behaviour of sets of nouns in the underdescribed language Harakmbut, more specifically the Arakmbut (Amarakaeri) dialect, spoken in Peru. Harakmbut is still considered as an unclassified (Amazonian) language (cf. Wise 1999: 307; WALS), although Adelaar (2000) has argued for a genetic link with the Brazilian Katukina family, which may be further linked to Macro-Jê. It is based on first-hand data recorded both in the field and – due to the Covid-19 pandemic – at a distance.
The starting point of this paper is the morphological distinction between independent and bound nouns. Unlike independent nouns, bound nouns require a noun prefix to obtain independent nominal status (wa- or e-), cf. (1a) and refer to inalienably possessed entities, such as body parts, plant parts, and landscape parts, as well as kinship terms and basic shapes or qualities of entities. These classes are sometimes called obligatorily vs. non-obligatorily possessed nouns, or inalienable vs. alienable nouns, and they are ubiquitous in Amazonian languages (Krasnoukhova 2012: ch. 8). It will be shown that in Harakmbut, bound nouns behave differently from independent nouns in the areas of noun incorporation, N-N compounds and adnominal modification. In the latter domain, for example, bound nouns may phonologically fuse with a preceding modifier, such as an interrogative (1b), possessive (1c) or demonstrative modifier, unlike independent nouns.
(1) (a) wa-ndik
NPF-name
‘name’
(b) kate-ndik ĩʔ-ẽ-Ø?
what-name 2SG-be-DUB
‘What is your name?’
(c) ndoʔ-edn-ndik
1SG-GEN-name
‘my name’
However, this construal involving fusion is not available to bound kinship terms; ‘my sister’ in (2) is expressed differently from ‘my name’ (1c), but identically to ‘my pot’ in (3) (apart from the noun prefix), i.e. with the possessor and possessee forming distinct words. Note that both (1c) and (2) involve inalienable possession, whereas (3) involves alienable possession (that is, pots can easily shift possessors, while names and sisters cannot) (cf. Nichols 1988).
(2) ndoʔ-edn wa-mambuy
1SG-GEN NPF-same.sex.sibling
‘my sister (of female ego)’
(3) ndoʔ-edn kõsõ
1SG-GEN pot
‘my pot’
In addition, in adnominal possession constructions with body-part nouns, alienability cannot fully account for the observed variation either. That is, while ‘severed’ body parts are – predictably – construed identically to constructions with independent possessee nouns like (3), ‘in-situ’ body parts are found in both constructions, cf. (4). In fact, ‘my name’ in (1c) can also be construed like (2) and (4a).
(4) (a) Rosa-edn wa-ku-wih
Rosa-GEN NPF-head-hair
‘Rosa’s hair, cut off’ OR ‘Rosa’s hair, still on her head’
(b) Rosa-edn-ku-wih
Rosa-GEN-head-hair
‘Rosa’s hair, still on her head’
In conclusion, this paper will look at bound nouns beyond the appearance of a noun prefix, and lay bare the distinct morphosyntactic behaviour of (sets of) bound nouns in various grammatical environments – at times they pattern just like independent nouns do. As the noun prefixes wa- and e- are also used in verb-based nominalization, these forms will also be included in the study.
References
Adelaar, Willem (2000), Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina, in L. Miranda Esquerre (ed.), (2000), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica, Lima: U. Ricardo Palma, vol. 2, 219-236.
Krasnoukhova, Olga (2012), The Noun Phrase in the languages of South America. Utrecht: LOT.
Nichols, Johanna (1988), On alienable and inalienable possession. In William Shipley (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: from the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, 557-609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wise, Mary (1999), Small language families and isolates in Peru, in W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 307-340.
