Polonez Bis 1

Parameters - Belhare

Construction type	Construction Parameter	Value	Comments

Voice marking	Proper marker	no
Voice marking	Lookalike marker	no
Voice marking	Synthetic marker	n/a
Voice marking	Analytic marker	n/a
Flagging	S-argument flagging	no	Absolutive - Ø ~ -ti: S and all kinds of objects, experiencers, etc. (Bickel 2017: 700). The A argument is treated like an intransitive S argument and is therefore assigned a nominative case (Bickel 2011: 2). Under detransitivization, the A argument is not assigned the same case (ergative) as in the intransitive version, but it is consistently assigned the nominative case (Bickel 2011: 4). The object-downgrading construction is realized through intransitive agreement morphology and absolutive instead of ergative case (Bickel 2017: 706). The absolutive is unmarked (Bickel 2007: 699). The antipassive shows intransitive agreement morphology, a nominative case on the A argument (Bickel 2015: 68).
Flagging	P-oblique flagging	n/a
Flagging	P-oblique unflagging	n/a
Flagging	P-oblique flagging variation	n/a
Indexation	S-argument indexed	yes	The object-downgrading construction is realized through intransitive agreement morphology (@only with S) and absolutive instead of the ergative case (Bickel 2007: 706).
Indexation	S-argument indexation conditioned	yes	There is no index of SBJ if SBJ is 3SG:'The absence of a prefix entails reference to 3SG S/A. 3SG P is expressed by -u, but note that /u/ regularly deletes after /e/ (...) and that it also deletes where its retention would violate the syllable canon' (Bickel 2017: 701).
P-individuation properties	P incorporated: Generic (non-specific)	yes	The semantic difference is that the transitive version implies a specific and quantifiable P referent, while the intransitive (antipassive) version suggests a generic or non-quantifiable P referent (Bickel 2011: 2). Belhare (...) has two kinds of primary object GRs: one for specific arguments, and one for generic arguments. Specific objects project a full-fledged NP; generic objects, only bare Ns (Bickel 2010: 16). ‘They eat (the) good meat.’ (specific referent) vs. ‘They eat meat.’ (=‘They are not vegetarians.’). O argument is generic and is therefore realized as a generic object (Bickel 2010: 17).
P-individuation properties	P incorporated: Indefinite (non-specific)	no
P-individuation properties	P incorporated: Referential	no	In (22a), the O argument is specific and is therefore realized as a specific object relation. As such, it can be expanded into a modified NP. In (22b), by contrast, the O argument is generic and is therefore realized as a generic object; as such, it cannot be expanded into a modified NP. The same distinction between specific and generic objects is also relevant for agreement: only specific objects trigger agreement (Bickel 2010: 16-17). As such, the object cannot contain attributes, demonstratives or any marking that could imply a specifi c determiner value such as possessive or number: the constituent must have a generic kind reading (Bickel 2017: 707).
P-individuation properties	P oblique: Generic (non-specific)	n/a
P-individuation properties	P oblique: Indefinite (non-specific)	n/a
P-individuation properties	P oblique: Referential	n/a
P-individuation properties	P eliminated: Generic (non-specific)	n/a
P-individuation properties	P eliminated: Indefinite (non-specific)	n/a
P-individuation properties	P eliminated: Referential	n/a
P-oblique affectedness	Less affected P-oblique	n/a
P-constraining properties	Animacy constraints on P-oblique demotion	n/a
P-constraining properties	Person constraints on P-oblique demotion	n/a
P-constraining properties	Number constraints on P-oblique demotion	n/a