Polonez Bis 1

Parameters - Mapudungun

Construction type	Construction Parameter	Value	Comments

Voice marking	Proper marker	no
Voice marking	Lookalike marker	no
Voice marking	Synthetic marker	n/a
Voice marking	Analytical marker	n/a
Flagging	S-argument flagging	no	Overt NPs are not inflected for the case. Grammatical function information is expressed only in the pronominal agreement (Baker et al. 2005:144).
Flagging	P-oblique flagging	n/a	@The language has only two patterns: incorporation and obligatorily unexpressed P. Overt NPs are not inflected for the case; grammatical function information is expressed only in the pronominal agreement (Baker et al. 2005:144).
Flagging	P-oblique unflagging	n/a
Flagging	P-oblique flagging variation	n/a
Indexation	S-argument indexed	yes	'Predicates obligatorily take a subject marker' (Smeets 2008: 180).
Indexation	S-argument indexation conditioned	no	'Predicates obligatorily take a subject marker' (Smeets 2008: 180).
P-individuation properties	Incorporated P is generic (non-specific)	yes	TYPE I of incorporation (Mithun 1984): 1) Noun incorporation plays an active role in discourse. INC noun can be interpreted as a generic NP with no particular referent (Baker et al. 2005: 145). 2) Incorporated nominal can be non-referential parts of lexicalized compounds (Baker et al. 2005: 145). 3) More significant is that IN can express definite nominal arguments that are backgrounded old information. The incorporated nouns in Mapudungun thus can maintain their referentiality (Baker et al. 2005: 144-145).
P-individuation properties	Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific)	no
P-individuation properties	Incorporated P can be referential	yes	TYPE 3 of incorporation (Mithun 1984): More significant is that IN can express the definite nominal arguments with backgrounded old information. The incorporated nouns in Mapudungun thus can maintain their referentiality (Baker et al. 2005: 145). (Type 3 - Mithun 1984: 859). Finally, as further evidence of the discourse role of NI in Mapudungun, we observe that incorporated nouns can introduce new discourse referents to which subsequent nominal expressions can refer back (Baker et a. 2005: 146). Baker (1996: §7.4.3) expands on the idea that INs count as referential in some languages by showing that the phenomenon has a nontrivial interaction with the syntax (Baker et al. 2005: 146).
P-individuation properties	Oblique is generic (non-specific)	n/a
P-individuation properties	Oblique is indefinite (non-specific)	n/a
P-individuation properties	Oblique can be referential	n/a
P-individuation properties	Eliminated P is generic (non-specific)	yes	Personal communication with Fernando Zunigna (06.07.23) [KJ] I would like to ask whether Mapudungu allows P omission with unspecified reading. For instance, can unexpressed P trigger the non-referential reading (either generic or indefinite, but not anaphoric)? [FZ] As to your query about P omission in Mapudungun: this is actually **widespread in the language, although there is occasionally somewhat of an issue regarding the distinction between a low-referentiality but present P (so we're dealing with one, bivalent, predicate in all instances) and an S-oriented verb in some instances (so we are dealing with lability / ambitransitivity). I haven't done the systematic text counts yet, but my impression is that both cases occur, typically with different verbs, and that the former is the default / more frequent. Be it as it may, anaphoric reference requires some overt NP- or VP-marking.
P-individuation properties	Eliminated P is indefinite (non-specific)	yes	(Zuninga 2000: 63) Ngürü allkütu-le-rke-y. Fox listen-prog-mir-ind ‘The fox turned out to be listening.’ Personal communication with Fernando Zunigna (06.07.23) [KJ] I would like to ask whether Mapudungu allows P omission with unspecified reading. For instance, can unexpressed P trigger the non-referential reading (generic or indefinite but not anaphoric)? [FZ] As to your query about P omission in Mapudungun: this is actually ***widespread in the language, although there is occasionally somewhat of an issue regarding the distinction between a low-referentiality but present P (so we're dealing with one, bivalent, predicate in all instances) and an S-oriented verb in some instances (so we are dealing with lability / ambitransitivity). I haven't done the systematic text counts yet, but my impression is that both cases occur, typically with different verbs, and that the former is the default / more frequent. Be it as it may, anaphoric reference requires some overt NP- or VP-marking.
P-individuation properties	Eliminated P can be referential	yes	Personal communication with Fernando Zunigna (06.07.23) [KJ] I would like to ask whether Mapudungu allows P omission with unspecified reading. For instance, can unexpressed P trigger the non-referential reading (either generic or indefinite, but not anaphoric)? [FZ] As to your query about P omission in Mapudungun: this is actually **widespread in the language, although there is occasionally somewhat of an issue regarding the distinction between a low-referentiality but present P (so we're dealing with one, bivalent, predicate in all instances) and an S-oriented verb in some instances (so we are dealing with lability / ambitransitivity). I haven't done the systematic text counts yet, but my impression is that both cases occur, typically with different verbs, and that the former is the default / more frequent. Be it as it may, anaphoric reference requires some overt NP- or VP-marking.
Oblique affectedness	Less affected oblique	n/a
P-constraining properties	Animacy constrains oblique demotion	no
P-constraining properties	Person constrains oblique demotion	no
P-constraining properties	Number constrains oblique demotion	no