4 The typology of questions
4.2 Question marking
4.2.3 Interaction of functional domains
The termfunctional domain here covers broad universal categories such as negation, focus, or question marking, which themselves have many subcategories. Hölzl (2016b:
24) distinguished between four different types of interaction between such functional domains shown in (29).
(29) a. grammaticalization (1) b. combination (2) c. fusion (3)
d. interaction (split types) (4)
For practical purposes, the combination of disjunction with question marking was al-ready covered above in §4.2.1.
(1) Grammaticalization in this context is understood as a cover term for theshift in meaningof a linguistic element from one functional domain to another. Many details, of course, are language- and construction-specific, but here only a cursory overview similar to theWorld Lexicon of Grammaticalization(Heine & Kuteva 2002) can be given (cf. Hölzl 2015e). Consider the following polar question from a language in Nepal (30).
(30) Bantawa (Kiranti, Trans-Himalayan) am-khe
2sg.gen-lice ham-si swap-sup
tɨ-khar-a-ʔo?
2as-go-pst-q
‘Did you go to swap lice?’ (i.e. ‘Did you go to have sex?’) (Doornenbal 2009: 205) The marker-ʔohas been glossed as a question marker, but it is really a nominalizer, which is presumably the reason why the example has an additional semantic component ‘is it the fact that’. A similar development has also been described for Tucanoan languages in South America, which
exhibit a historical and semantic relationship between nominalizations and ques-tions. We have also tried to demonstrate that formally the latter originate from
72
4.2 Question marking the former through a process of upgrading a nominalized predication to the status of an independent utterance from an inferential or mirative construction. Seman-tically, the interrogative meaning must have become conventionalized via stages expressing doubt or surprise. (van der Auwera & Idiatov 2008: 46)
Whether exactly the same developmental path was followed in Bantawa or other lan-guages with this phenomenon is not known to me.
Two other well-known examples are the development of disjunctions and negators to polar question markers. However, both of these developments usually start within the context of an elliptic alternative question. In some languages such as Edo (31), the second alternative is fully elliptic and the disjunction can take over the function of a polar question because no second alternative is specified (cf. Dixon 2012: 399-400).
(31) Edo (Niger-Congo)
‘Did Osaro build a house or did he marry a woman?’
b. Òsàrọ́
‘Did Osaro build a house?’ (Ọmọruyi 1988: 22, 23)
Similarly, negators can develop into polar question markers in negative alternative questions when the second alternative only consists of the negator. Examples of this sort can be found in Mandarin (§5.9.2.1), for instance. A related development seems to start from negative alternative questions as well, but in this case the first alternative appears to have been deleted. In Kham (Trans-Himalayan), for example, the prefix ma-can express both negation and polar questions (Watters 2002: 96-101). Negators such as Germannich(t)‘not’ can also develop into question tags.
Yet another frequent development is from interrogatives to polar question markers and question tags. This development is very rare in NEA but many examples can be found in Indo-European languages (§5.5.2, Hackstein 2013: 100). Example (10) from Ben-gali above, for example, contains the polar question markerki, which is most likely de-rived from the interrogativeki ‘what’ (Thompson 2012: 200-203), see also (17). In the language Palula the interrogativega‘what’ developed into a question tag (32).
(32) Palula (Dardic, Indo-European)
‘He left, didn’t he?’ (Liljegren 2016: 404)
This development can also be found in other languages of South Asia. For instance, the Dravidian language Kurux employs the interrogativeender‘what‘ as a question marker in sentence-initial position (Kobayashi & Tirkey 2017: 241-242). Another example men-tioned above stems from Bardi. §6.1.3 summarizes the most important grammaticaliza-tion paths found during this study (see also Bencini 2003).
73
4 The typology of questions
(2) Question marking is frequentlycombinedwith interrogatives in content questions and disjunctions in alternative questions. Interrogatives (~ indefinites) are almost univer-sal, but there are many languages without disjunctions, for example in northern NEA.
Another special case concerns focus markers that are frequently present in focus and sometimes other question types (Figure 4.2). In English, for example, focus questions are expressed by usual polar question marking and additional intonational focus or a cleft construction (33).
(33) English
a. Did you go there?
b. Is it you who went there?
In both cases focus and question marking are merely combined with each other. For practical purposes disjunctions and focus marking will be treated together with question marking in this study, but one should keep in mind that they really belong to different functional domains that merely overlap with each other.
AQ
PQ
FQ CQ
disjunctions, focus
focus interrogatives, focus
Figure 4.2: Typical interaction of question marking with other functional do-mains
Previous studies of question marking have presumably focused on polar questions, because these exhibit the least interference with other functional domains.
(3) In instances offusion, on the other hand, a question marker also has additional functions such as focus marking. When a question marker also functions as a focus marker, it usually attaches to the verb in polar questions and to the focal element in focus questions. Such an example can be found in the South American language Quechua as spoken in Cusco (34).
(34) Cusco Quechua (Quechuan) a. wasi-y-maŋ
house-1-dat
hamu-ŋki=chu?
come-2=q.foc
‘Do you come to my house?’
74
4.2 Question marking b. wasi-y-maŋ=chu
house-1-dat=q.foc
hamu-ŋki?
come-2
‘Do you come tomyhouse?’ (Ebina 2011: 29) See §6.1.3 for a list of examples from NEA.
(4) The most complex question marking systems aresplit systems. In such languages the choice between different question markers depends on other domains such as person, number, tense, aspect, mood, evidentiality, clause type etc. §6.1.3 lists all instances found in NEA. A relatively simple example can be found in the language Qiang (35), which has a split based on person.
(35) Qiang (Qiangic, Trans-Himalayan) a. ʔũ
2sg ʐme pn
ŋuə-n-a?
cop-2sg-q
‘Are you a Qiang?’
b. the:
3sg ʐme pn
ŋuə-Ø-ŋua?
cop-(3sg)-q
‘Is (s)he a Qiang?’ (LaPolla & Huang Chenglong 2003: 180)
Only second person singular forms take the marker-ainstead of-ŋua. Many examples of split types exhibit instances of fusion, but this is not necessarily so, as this example illustrates. An example for a split in combination with fusion stems from the Amazonian language Kulina (36), which combines question marking with gender.
(36) Kulina (Arawan) a. osonaa=ko?
pn=q.m
‘Is he a Kashinawa?’
b. osonaa=ki?
pn=q.f
‘Is she a Kashinawa?’ (Dienst 2014: 193)
The markers appear in both polar and focus questions. Omotic languages (Afroasiatic) exhibit some of the most complex split systems (see Amha 2007; 2012; Hellenthal 2010:
401ff.; Köhler 2013; 2016; Treis 2014; Hölzl 2016b: 26 and references therein). Again, see
§6.1.3 for those split types encountered in NEA.