Grammatical relations in Movima: Alignment beyond semantic roles

Introduction 1

Movima is a genealogically isolated language of the Southwestern Amazon, spoken by a few hundred adults in North-Central Bolivia, and was first comprehensively described in [START_REF] Haude | A Grammar of Movima[END_REF].

Movima contributes challenging facts to the typological discussion of grammatical relations. As will be shown in this paper, there is clear evidence for grammatical relations in Movima. Formal marking of both the predicate and the arguments indicate the relation between the clausal elements, and there is a coding asymmetry: One argument of a transitive clause shares the formal properties of the single argument of an intransitive clause, and it is syntactically privileged in a number of grammatical constructions. However, this argument does not have the semantic and pragmatic properties that are cross-linguistically common of privileged arguments, such as topicality and agency: It is the argument whose referent is low in discourse topicality, and usually a patient. In this way, Movima comes close to a syntactically ergative language such as Dyirbal (see [START_REF] Dixon | The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland[END_REF], while sharing properties of 1 Several research institutions and programmes have made possible the research on which this article is based: My home institution SeDyL (CNRS-INALCO-IRD); the programme Investissements d'Avenir overseen by the French National Research Agency, ANR-10-LABX-0083 (Labex EFL/GD1); the ANR-funded project Cortypo (ANR-12-BSH2-0011). The data were collected during the Movima documentation project (DOBES, Volkswagen Foundation, Az. II-81914/54349) and the project Referential Hierarchies in Morphosyntax of the EuroBABEL/EuroCores programme (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft HA-5910/1-1). The specific annotation of three-participant events in the Movima corpus, which shed new light on the potential argument status of an oblique-marked RP, was carried out thanks to the DOBES project The expression of three-participant events in a cross-linguistic perspective (Volkswagen Foundation,. The colloquium of Area B of the CRC 1252 Prominence in Language provided insights into the role of the agency in argument encoding. I wish to thank the Movima speakers who provided the data presented here for their willingness to share their knowledge with me. The editors of this volume are thanked for their detailed, helpful, and sometimes challenging remarks on a previous version of this paper. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for all remaining errors and shortcomings.

symmetrical-voice systems such as Tagalog (see Foley 1998, Himmelmann 2005). At the same time, Movima differs from both these languages because its basis is formed by a directinverse system: A transitive verb receives morphological marking -either "direct" or "inverse" -to indicate the semantic roles A vs. P/G/T of its arguments. In contrast to other languages that are known to have such systems (e.g. Algonquian languages), however, Movima core arguments are not expressed by verbal affixes, but by clausal constituents. This paper is organized as follows. The structure of basic clauses is described in Section 2, including an outline of the direct-inverse system that determines the structure of transitive clauses (2.1) and a description of how the "internal" vs. "external" position of nominal constituents distinguishes clausal arguments (2.2). It furthermore introduces oblique-marked constituents (2.3) as well as embedded (i.e. complement and adverbial) clauses (2.4). Section 3 shows that the argument expressed in the external constituent position has exclusive access to constructions involving relativization, as is apparent from the fact that a detransitivizing operation is necessary to relativize the internal argument. The different types of so-called relative constructions include headed relative clauses (3.1), "verbal RPs" (3.2), and clefts (3.3). Relativization is used, among other things, in the formation of wh-questions, whose main predicate is the question word (3.4). Relative constructions are the only constructions that allow the encoding of an event participant as an additional core argument, which is not possible in basic clauses (3.5); this is the case with some verbs whose semantic valency exceeds their syntactic transitivity (3.5.1) and with predicates that are overtly nominalized with an "applicative" morpheme (3.5.2). Other constructions that are restricted to the external argument include clauses with a fronted demonstrative (Section 3.6) and argument incorporation (Section 3.7). Argument incorporation is restricted to the P argument and therefore determined not by syntax alone, but also by semantics; however, an incorporating verb must be marked as direct, since only an external argument can incorporated. The incorporation of a patient expressed as the internal argument of an inverse-marked verbwhich would show that argument incorporation is determined by semantic role alone -is grammatically impossible.

The few constructions that select an argument on the basis of its semantic role are treated in Section 4. They include possessor ascension (4.1), which is restricted to patients, but not necessarily to the external argument, and imperatives (4.2), which show a bias towards the A argument. Section 5 describes some constructions that are typically cited as argument selectors in other languages, but which do not seem to have this property in Movima. These include reflexives, which are intransitive verb forms (5.1), coordination, which is neutral with respect to which argument can be deleted (5.2), embedded clauses, whose arguments are not retrieved from the main clause (5.3), and quantifier floating, which seems to show a bias towards S and P, but is not restricted to these relations (5.4). Conclusions are drawn in Section 6.

The annotated corpus on which the present study is based consists of approximately 130,000 words (30 hours) collected in the field from approximately 50 speakers between 2001 and 2012.2 2 The basic clause and its components

The direct-inverse system

Movima is a language with a direct-inverse system: Bivalent verbs receive morphological marking -either "direct" or "inverse" -indicating the semantic roles A vs. P/G/T of the nominal arguments. There is neither person-indexing morphology on the verb nor case marking distinguishing the two arguments of transitive clauses. Movima argument encoding is best described in terms of constituency: One argument of the transitive clause is encoded by a constituent internal to the predicate phrase and the other one is encoded by a constituent external to the predicate phrase. The predicate phrase occupies the first position in a pragmatically unmarked (i.e. "basic") clause. A first illustration of transitive clauses and the direct/inverse alternation is given in (1), with square brackets indicating the constituent structure. Here, the internal constituent is a cliticized pronoun and the external constituent is a referential phrase (RP), consisting of a determiner and a content word. In (1)a, the direct marker on the verb indicates that the predicate-internal constituent (the bound pronoun =as) represents A and the external constituent P (os noɬkwa); in (1)b, by contrast, the inverse marker on the verb indicates the reversed situation, where the internal constituent (the bound pronoun ='ne) represents P and the external constituent A (is ka:wup). In general, which of the event participants is expressed in which syntactic argument slot of a transitive clause is determined by their referential properties, including person, animacy, and topicality: The higher-ranking participant is encoded in the internal position and the lowerranking participant is encoded in the external position. This means that when speech-act participants are involved, the pronoun whose referent ranks higher on the scale 1>2>3 obligatorily occurs in the internal position; in the third-person domain, it is usually the participant which ranks higher in terms of animacy (human > non-human > inanimate) and which is more topical (i.e. identifiable on the basis of the context) that is expressed in the internal position (see Haude 2014 for a quantitative analysis of the competing factors in the third-person domain). This is schematized in Table 2. 4 At the same time, there is a preference to encode A in the internal position, so that the direct construction can be considered the default pattern.

Table 2. The assignment of argument positions in Movima transitive clauses ("<" and ">" stand for "higher" vs. "lower" in the referential hierarchy)

internal external 1SG/PL 2PL, 3 2SG/PL 3 3 [< animate] 3 [> animate] 3 [< topical] 3 [> topical]
The choice of the terms "direct" and "inverse" is based on the assumption that the starting point from which an action is carried out, as well as the viewpoint from which it is presented, is typically the event participant that ranks higher in terms of person, animacy, and topicality (see [START_REF] Delancey | An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns[END_REF][START_REF] Silverstein | Hierarchy of features and ergativity[END_REF]); therefore, a construction expressing this scenario is called "direct", whereas an action that goes against this pattern is seen as an inversion of this direction, hence the term "inverse".

Since the internal argument of a transitive predicate encodes participants high in the referential hierarchy, it is not surprising that this argument is usually expressed as a pronoun (see [START_REF] Haude | Animacy and inverse voice in Movima: a corpus study[END_REF]. The following examples, which contain short chunks of discourse consisting of an intransitive clause followed by a transitive one, illustrate the topicmaintaining function of the internal argument. In the direct clause (2), the internal argument (=as) is A, and in the inverse clause (3), the internal argument (again, =as) is P; in both cases, the internal argument cross-refers anaphorically to the S of the intransitive clause.

(

Formal properties of argument encoding

The internal and external argument positions are formally distinguished not only by their relative linear proximity to the predicate, but also by their morpho-phonological attachment to the predicate, as well as by their ability to remain unexpressed or to "move".

The coding of the internal argument involves so-called "internal cliticization" (Haude 2006: 97-101), which creates a prosodic word with penultimate stress, but without the usual penultimate vowel lengthening, and which requires the insertion of an epenthetic vowel -a on consonant-final hosts. Both determiners and bound pronouns can be encliticized in this way; example (4) illustrates the internal cliticization of an article (=kus; for pronouns, see ( 1)-( 3) above). Since determiners form a syntactic unit with the subsequent content word, I take their phonological encliticization as evidence of the predicate-internal syntactic status of the entire RP.

( As is illustrated by (4) as well, the encoding properties of the internal argument are identical to those of an adnominal possessor (=us in (4)), which is expressed by the same morphemes as arguments and also internally cliticized. However, nouns can receive an internal enclitic without containing any particular morphological marker (see e.g. alwaj in (4)), whereas a main-clause verbal predicate must contain a direct or inverse marker to receive an internal clitic. Therefore, the ability to take an internal enclitic without being marked as direct or inverse is an important criterion for identifying a noun in Movima.

7

An RP representing the external argument does not show cliticization of the article, as can be observed in all the examples given above. Cliticization only takes place when the external argument is expressed by a bound pronoun. In that case, the pronoun is attached through "external cliticization" (represented by a double hyphen, "--"; see Haude 2006: 101-103).

This type of cliticization involves no stress shift and is characterized by resyllabification with a host-final consonant -in ( 5), the second-person internal enclitic =n -which forms the syllable onset of the encliticized morpheme.

(5) kat-a-ɬe=n--is no-kos ma:ma=is In contrast to the internal argument, the external argument can remain unexpressed. This can happen when its referent can be deduced from the context, as in (7), where the referent (is manka) was mentioned just before.

(7) eɬ-ka-cho-na=is is manka, jom<a>ni=is chew-MLT-CLF.inside-DR=3PL.AB ART.PL mango devour<DR>=3PL.AB 'They chewed the mangos from inside, they devoured (them).'

[EAO Wo'ray 008]

The properties of the internal and the external argument are summed up in Table 3. As will become clear in the remainder of this paper, the internal argument has no particular syntactic privileges, and its argument status is evident only from the fact that (in contrast to obliques, see 2.3) its semantic role (A or P/G/T) is unambiguously indicated by the direct/inverse morphology on the verb. Given that the internal argument typically represents a discourse topic (as seen in ( 2) and ( 3)), this means that in Movima, reference tracking is disjoint from the privileged grammatical relation.

Furthermore, the direct-inverse alternation, as depicted in Thus, while the set of SAP pronouns on the whole does not provide much evidence for the existence of a single argument position shared by transitive and intransitive clauses, the difference in form of the second person plural -one form for the internal and a different form for the external argument of both transitive and intransitive predicates -is a confirmation of the pattern.

Obliques: adjuncts or oblique arguments?

In addition to the core arguments, a clause can contain an unlimited number of obliquemarked constituents (RPs or free pronouns; henceforth termed "obliques"), which usually occur either before or after the clausal core. They are marked by the prefix n(V)-, which attaches to referential elements (free pronouns, demonstratives, articles). The presence of an oblique constituent is never grammatically obligatory, and obliques are not restricted to any clause type. The semantic role of an oblique-marked RP is specified by lexical semantics and context, and not directly by the valency of a verb. Therefore, in basic clauses, there is no distinction between oblique arguments and adjuncts. (It will be shown in 3.5, however, that with a small number of verbs, whose valency exceeds their syntactic transitivity in basic clauses, oblique constituents can be relativized, in which case they are treated like an additional external argument.)

Obliques can encode all kinds of non-agent event participants or circumstances: locations, comitatives, purposes, reasons, patients, possessors, etc. As can be seen in some of the above examples, no formal distinction can be made between those obliques that represent an adjunct and those that might be considered a semantic argument of the verb, such as the goal of a verb of directed motion. Even though the locative function, as in (17), is particularly common with a motion verb like joy-cheɬ 'go', examples ( 18)-( 20) have already shown that not every oblique RP combined with a motion verb denotes a location: The interpretation depends on the meaning of the noun and on the context.

For instance, in ( 21), the oblique-marked RP following the intransitive verb ba:yeɬ 'hunt', which can be considered semantically bivalent, refers to a location, in contrast to (20) above,

where the oblique RP refers to the patient. To further illustrate this point, consider the verb kaykay 'eat', which, like bayeɬ 'hunt', is syntactically intransitive, although it may be considered semantically bivalent. In ( 22), the oblique-marked RP represents the patient. In (25), on the other hand, it follows from the larger (extralinguistic) context that the 'mud' referred to by the oblique-marked RP is the thing eaten, and not that something is eaten in the mud -even though the latter might be a likely interpretation if the clause were taken in isolation. Thus, an oblique nominal constituent in a clause headed by a semantically bivalent, but syntactically intransitive verb, is not an argument. It can denote the patient, but it does not necessarily do so. Another case where an oblique might be expected to represent an argument concerns clauses that have undergone the detransitivizing operation (see 3.1), after which the external argument of a formerly transitive predicate can only be expressed by an oblique RP. In the vast majority of cases, an oblique RP in these constructions indeed represents P (or G or T),

(22) jayna kay~kay--is n-is is~'is-ra DSC MD~eat--3PL
i.e., a semantic argument, as in (26). However, example (27) shows that also a different rolehere, an instrument -can be expressed in this way; as in the examples above, the correct interpretation follows from context and/or world knowledge (this is not about "buying money", but about buying something with money). (On the structure of this sentence type, see To conclude the discussion of the status of obliques in basic main clauses, let us consider predicates that denote events with more than two participants. These also take maximally two syntactic arguments when functioning as main-clause predicates (see 3.5 below for some exceptional cases in relativization), while the third must be encoded as an oblique. Whether it is T or G that is encoded as a syntactic argument rather than an oblique depends on the lexical and/or morphological properties of the verb, and I use Haspelmath's (2005) terms "indirective" and "secundative", respectively, to distinguish between the types (see In (35), by contrast (which describes a scene from a story of a jaguar and a fox, which are both feeding on the same prey animal), the oblique RP might be interpreted as the theme as well; however, it can also be interpreted as referring to the location where the fox starts eating -and in fact, this latter interpretation corresponds to the translation provided by the speaker.

( Thus, also with verbs denoting three-participant events, basic main clauses provide no evidence that the oblique represents an argument rather than an adjunct. In 3.5, however, it will be shown that relativization can treat obliques as arguments.

Argument encoding in embedded clauses

Complement and adverbial (henceforth: embedded) clauses have the syntactic status of arguments and adjuncts, respectively. They have the form of an RP. The fact that the S argument of an embedded intransitive predicate is encoded like a possessor, i.e. like the internal argument of a transitive predicate, means that the alignment split seen in basic main clauses is reversed here: Embedded direct predicates pattern accusatively (i.e. {S, A}), while embedded inverse predicates pattern ergatively (i.e. {S, P/G/T}).

Argument selectors privileging the external argument

There is one family of constructions in Movima that can only be accessed by the external argument, i.e. by {S, P/G/T} in the case of a direct-marked predicate and by {S, A} in the case of an inverse-marked predicate. They can be characterized in terms of relativization, as defined by Bickel (2011: 428): "Relative constructions turn a propositional expression into a referential one, for example, a clause like he read it into the one he read. The referent of the expression is thereby chosen among the arguments and adjuncts of the clause …." The Movima constructions in point will be referred to as headed relative clauses (3.1), verbal RPs (3.2), and syntactic clefts (3.3).7 Wh-questions, which are also restricted to the external argument, involve relativization as well (3.4). Furthermore, as was hinted at in 2.3, the ability to be relativized can be taken as evidence of the argument status of an oblique-marked element (3.5); this is the case with some verbs whose semantic valency exceeds their syntactic transitivity (3.5.1) and with an "applicative" nominalization that enables the relativization of a former non-argument (3.5.2).

Formally, all Movima relative constructions have three traits in common: a) the relativized argument is expressed before the relative clause and is "gapped" inside it; b) to relativize an internal argument, the predicate must undergo a detransitivizing operation; c) relative clauses are negated in a way different from main-clause negation. These properties are described in detail in the following subsection on headed relative clauses (3.1), and are subsquently illustrated for each of the other constructions in their respective subsections.

Headed relative clauses, detransitivization, and negation

Headed relative clauses are introduced by the particle di' and follow the noun they modify.

Only the external argument of the relative clause can function as the head, and it may not be expressed again inside the relative clause. Accordingly, an intransitive relative clause, illustrated in (41), does not contain an overt core argument (square brackets mark the relative clause in the present section; they do not include the relativizing particle, which is considered the subordinating element).

( In the corpus, the detransitivizing operation occurs only with direct-marked verbs, maybe because nearly all relative clauses involve an agent that outranks the patient in the referential hierarchy and because the direct construction, which allows direct relativization of P, is the default [START_REF] Haude | Animacy and inverse voice in Movima: a corpus study[END_REF]. The operation can therefore be described as an antipassive, promoting A to S and demoting P (or G/T) to oblique. This may lead to the assumption that the underlying syntactic rule for this operation is role-based, favoring P as the privileged argument, as in a syntactically ergative system. However, in elicitation Movima speakers also accept the detransitivizing operation with inverse predicates, where the valency-decreasing operation has a passive effect (i.e. S represents the patient), as in ( 45).

( Thus, the predicate of a relative clause has the same form as a main-clause predicate, but the impossibility to take an external argument, the ability to be detransitivized and the different negation process show that it has a different, subordinate syntactic status. The same properties apply to the predicates in the constructions described below; the only formal difference between a headed relative clause and the predicates in the constructions below is that the former is introduced by an explicit marker, di', while the latter are not.

Verbal RPs

The content word of an RP (marked by square brackets in the examples below) may be a verb instead of a noun. The result, termed here "verbal RP", may be described as a "light-headed relative clause" [START_REF] Citko | On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives[END_REF]), whose head is the article alone. 9 The referent of a verbal RP is the event participant that would be encoded as the external argument of the same verb in predicate position. For an intransitive verb, this is S (51); for a transitive direct verb, this is P (52); for a transitive inverse verb, this is A (53 Also the internal argument can occur before the lexical predicate, as in ( 64) below. This is less common, however, and in elicitation, speakers tend to reject this construction.

Furthermore, the construction cannot be analyzed in terms of clefting. It is not found in embedding, so there is no evidence that the free pronoun might be a predicate. There is no gapping involved, since the internal argument is obligatorily repeated by the internal enclitic on the predicate. Detransitivization does not occur with this construction. And last but not least, as shown in ( 65), the lexical predicate in this construction is negated like a main-clause predicate, i.e. with the negative copula ka= and subsequent nominalization (see ( 46)-( 47) above). Thus, an initial free pronoun cross-referencing the internal argument is best described in terms of left dislocation, since it does not have an effect on the structure of the clause.

( Thus, the external argument can be represented by a free personal pronoun before the lexical predicate, in which case it functions as the main predicate of a cleft construction. When a pronoun cross-referencing the internal argument is placed in initial position, in contrast, this does not have any syntactic effect.

Wh-questions

Question words are intransitive predicates, as illustrated by ( 66 Thus, Movima wh-questions select the external argument, irrespective of its semantic role.

Oblique arguments? Evidence from relativization

Relativization of non-core arguments

While in basic clauses, there is no marked difference between adjuncts and oblique arguments (see 2.3), relativization shows that with certain verbs, an event participant encoded as an oblique has the status of an external argument: Here, an event participant that would be expressed as an oblique in the basic clause is represented by a non-oblique free pronoun in clause initial position. This phenomenon can be observed with some verbal lexemes whose semantic valency exceeds their syntactic transitivity. It is found only with a few verbs, notably the intransitive verb ya:lo:we 'drink (sth.)' and the transitive verb kayɬe-'give somebody (sth.)', and is not systematic even there. However, there is no sign that the constructions in the examples below are "errors", since they occurred spontaneously in natural discourse, and some of them repeatedly. Therefore, the cases in point show that there is a possibility, albeit marginal, of obliques to be treated as arguments.

Consider first the verb ya:lo:we 'drink'. This verb is intransitive, and in a basic clause like (71), the agent is expressed as S (--is), and the patient is expressed as oblique (n-is pokso).

The cleft construction in (72) shows that S (here, the agent) can be relativized, in the same way as with all other intransitive verbs.

( Other examples where oblique RPs can be relativized involve verbs with an incorporated argument. As was shown above (2.3, example ( 28)-( 29)); see also Section 3.7 below), these verbs are intransitive, and their patient can only be additionally expressed as an oblique.

However, it seems that at least some of them allow the relativization of the patient. (Note that there are only a few examples of incorporating verbs in relative constructions, so it cannot be said how systematic this is.)

Consider example (75). In unmarked transitive constructions, the verb loja'oj 'do the laundry' is intransitive according to all criteria (see Haude 2006: 283-284); here, this is evident from the expression of the patient as an oblique. Furthermore, the external argument (S, i.e. the agent) can be clefted, as shown in ( 76). [EAO 19,156] Finally, a case where an oblique element behaves as an argument is found with the semantically trivalent verb kayɬe-'give', which is of the secundative type, i.e., with A and G expressed as core arguments and T as oblique (see 2.3). First of all, consider the expected construction, illustrated in (78) with the direct form in a cleft. Here, the initial free pronoun refers to G, which is the external argument of the same predicate in a basic clause (see ( 30)).

A is expressed by the internally cliticized pronoun, and T by an oblique RP.

( The "unexpected" case is only found in the inverse construction, perhaps due to the limited corpus (however, see 3.5.2 below for a possible explanation). In ( 79), the inverse-marked form of the verb kayɬe-'give' occurs in a cleft. As expected, the extracted pronoun refers to A, which is the external argument of the inverse form (see (31) above). In ( 80 Thus, with some verbs whose semantic valency exceeds their syntactic transitivity, i.e.

intransitive bivalent verbs and monotransitive trivalent verbs, there can be ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the relativized element: In the former case, it can be P rather than A that is treated like the external argument (e.g. ( 72) vs. ( 73)), and in the latter case, it can be T rather than G (of the direct) or A (of the inverse) that is treated as the external argument. Therefore, relativization can be taken as a test for the argument status of an oblique-marked element. The evidence is not systematic, however, because the test does not work with all verbs in question (e.g. it works with ya:lo:we 'drink', but not with kaykay 'eat'), and because the oblique argument "competes" with the external argument in the fronted position. The following section, however, shows that there are dedicated mechanisms to open a space for an additional participant to be expressed as a fronted argument.

Relativization of applied arguments

Some verbs can receive an applicative suffix that allows them to occur in a relative construction whose head does not represent a core argument. 12 The suffix specifies the semantic role of the relativized element. In contrast do the constructions described in 3.5.1, therefore, the constructions are morphologically complex, but semantically unambiguous.

The forms derived by one of these suffixes receive an internal enclitic also when they do not contain direct/inverse marking. Therefore, the suffixes can be considered nominalizers. At the same time, transitive predicates in these constructions retain their two core arguments. The constructions are not found with detransitivization.

As a first illustration, consider the locative applicative -(kwi)na (the long form -kwina occurs on bivalent, the short form -na on monovalent bases; see Haude 2006: 340-341, 400).

The nominalized predicate denotes the place where an event occurs or (in the case of verbs of directed motion) the place to which it is directed. With intransitive predicates, S is encoded as the possessor, and the place of occurrence is encoded by the fronted element. Example (81)

shows the applicative form in a cleft construction; in (82), the applicative occurs both in an RP (kos asnan) and in a headed relative clause (di' joynan) (compare (17) above, where the place of going is coded as an oblique in a basic clause.) Example (83) illustrates the locative applicative with a direct transitive verb (marked by prefixed CV-reduplication). Here as well, the initial pronoun refers to the place where the event occurs. However, A and P are encoded in the same way as in the basic transitive clause, i.e. in the internal and the external argument position, respectively. (An inverse interpretation of the locational applicatives is not possible -which is why in Haude 2006: 326, the suffix -na was analyzed as an instantiation of the direct marker, which on monovalent verbal bases establishes a location rather than a patient). The attachment of the suffix -wa (homophonous, but not identical, with the event nominalizer of embedded clauses, see 2.4) to the unmarked base of this verb creates the corresponding inverse form, indicating that the internal argument is G and the external argument A, while (as with -wanra above) the fronted element refers to T.13 Example (86) is the inverse counterpart of (84), and (87) is the inverse counterpart of (85). To sum up, a few affixes derive predicates that can relativize an element that is not originally a core argument. The locative affix and its allomorphs are productive on all verbal bases, while this is not the case with the "instrumental" affixes, which are as yet not very well understood. These latter, however, are quite common with the few bases on which they actually occur, i.e., the word forms in ( 84)-( 87) are by no means exceptional or speakerdependent. Therefore, these data show that in Movima, the unambiguous assignment of semantic roles to syntactic arguments is extremely important also in relative constructions, and that occasional ambiguities that may arise with verbs whose semantic valency exceeds their transitivity (see 3.5.1) can be resolved through dedicated morphology.

(

Fronted demonstratives

Like free personal pronouns in clefts (3.3), demonstratives can also occur before the lexical predicate while the argument inside the clausal core is gapped. This process is also restricted an oblique here, i.e., the suffix -wawa does not have an applicative function: It derives a noun denoting a T possessed by G.

(i) i'ko kayɬe-wawa=y'ɬi n-us alkalde

PRO.3PL

give-NMLZ:RED =1PL In contrast to the relative constructions described above, however, constructions with the demonstrative pronouns do not undergo the detransitivizing operation, which would be expected if a higher-ranking A were encoded by the demonstrative. Firstly, the corpus contains no example of this constellation. Secondly, whenever an element kwey occurs in a clause with a demonstrative, it is not the detransitivizing particle, but the homophonous tense particle that indicates hodiernal past and has no syntactic effect (Haude 2006: 538-540). In (91), for example, it can be seen that the verb retains its internal enclitic despite the presence of the element kwey.

Argument incorporation

Argument incorporation was already discussed at several occasions above (( 28)-( 29), ( 75)-( 77)). It involves the incorporation of P (in the form of a noun root, a classifier-like element or a truncated noun) into a direct-marked verb. The verb retains its direct marker, but becomes syntactically intransitive: The agent is encoded as S of the now intransitive verb, while the patient, if overtly expressed in addition to the incorporated element, receives oblique marking.

The following examples contrast a transitive clause, ( 92

Argument selection based on semantic role

Two grammatical processes select arguments on the basis of semantic role: possessor ascension, which can both only involve a P argument, and imperative formation, which is biased towards A. In both cases, the semantic basis for argument selection goes along the cross-linguistically common lines. Possessor ascension (4.1) involves the incorporation of an affected part-of-whole term, so that it is no longer encoded as P and makes room for the possessor to be encoded as P, while the transitivity of the verb remains unaffected.

Imperatives (4.2), finally, are used to tell somebody to do something, so that the addressee tends to be A (see Dixon 1994: 131).

Possessor ascension

In contrast to argument incorporation (3.7), so-called "modifying incorporation" (Haude 2006: 377-391) does not affect the verb's transitivity: A verb containing a modifying incorporated element can either be intransitive, and it can be transitivized through direct or inverse marking. There are several types of modifying incorporation, but the one that is of interest here involves the incorporation of a body-part term, which can also be expressed as a clausal argument, into the verb. The owner of the body part, expressed as the possessor of the non-incorporated form, "ascends" to argument status, taking the position of the body-part term, so to speak. The incorporated body-part term, and therefore also its possessor, are always the patient in the event. Consequently, the ascended possessor can either be the internal or the external argument, depending on its status in the referential hierarchy with respect to A.

The process is illustrated with a direct-marked verb in the elicited examples in (94). In In (94)c, the incorporating verb is marked as inverse, which means that the internal argument representing the owner of the body part is P. Finally, the incorporating verb can also be intransitive, as shown in ( 94 Possessor ascension thus depends on the semantic role rather than on the syntactic status of the possessed entity.

Imperatives

As may be expected, Movima shows at least some degree of accusative alignment (S=A) in the domain of imperatives. However, the pattern is not quite straightforward, and this may have to do with the fact that imperatives automatically involve the second person (the addressee). As was noted in 2.2, the SAP domain shows a distinction between intransitive and transitive person marking, and alignment of pronominal marking in transitive vs. intransitive argument encoding is only visible in the second-person plural forms. This is also the case with imperatives.

Movima has three imperative suffixes, listed in (96), which select either S or A as their subject. Note that there is a special inverse form (with several allomorphs) for transitive verbs, when P outranks A (i.e., P is the first person). (Reflexives are intransitive, see 5.1, and hence take the intransitive imperative suffix -ki.)

(96) -ki Addressee is S -ti Addressee is A of direct verb (2>3) -dok ~ -doj ~ -t Addressee is A of inverse verb (2>1)
The three imperative forms are illustrated respectively in (97)-( 99).

( Thus, as expected, the addressee of an imperative is never the non-A argument of a transitive verb. At the same time, with the distinct suffixes for transitive and intransitive marking, there seems to be no bias towards accusative alignment.

To sum up, Movima imperative marking distinguishes between transitive and intransitive verbs, but there is a slight bias towards accusative alignment, apparent from the secondperson plural form. The imperative inverse form constitutes a special case: Either the firstperson P or the second-person A can be encoded as plural, and the plural form of the latter (y'bi) is different from that used on direct-makred verbs (kweɬ). This is a deviance from the S=A alignment pattern of the other imperative forms; it shows that even in the imperative domain, the importance of the referential hierarchy in Movima makes a straightforward characterization of its alignment system in traditional, semantic-role based terms difficult.

"Neutral" constructions

Several constructions which in some languages show evidence for grammatical relations do not do so in Movima: Reflexive verbs are intransitive (5.1); there is no grammatical rule for the interpretation of an omitted argument expression in coordination (5.2); the interpretation of the arguments in embedded clauses does not depend on the matrix clause (5.3); and if there is such a thing as quantifier floating in Movima (5.4), it does not seem to be restricted to a particular argument.

Reflexives

Reflexive and reciprocal verbs are marked by the suffix -cheɬ, as illustrated in (104). They are intransitive and do not distinguish grammatical relations.

( It may be assumed that the embedded clause with its overtly encoded argument permits the correct referential interpretation of an unexpressed main-clause argument; this is suggested by (112), where the embedded S is coreferential with the unexpressed main-clause S. However, this is not systematic: As can be seen in ( 113), where the (implied) main-clause argument is not coreferential with the embedded one, the correct interpretation of an unexpressed mainclause argument is a matter of context.

Floating quantifiers

Quantification, including counting, is typically carried out by predicates in Movima.

However, here we will look at two quantifying elements that can occur as modifiers, i. Independently of semantic role, the external argument has a syntactically privileged status in different types of so-called relative constructions (headed relatives, verbal RPs, and clefts).

These are, among other things, needed for wh-question formation, and they are the only constructions that, due to their clause-initial argument position, allow the encoding of an additional non-agent participant as an argument. In principle, either of the two transitive constructions, direct or inverse, can be chosen to encode either A or P/G/T as the external argument in order to provide it with access to relativization. However, the restrictions imposed by the referential hierarchy entail that relativization is not possible for an A that outranks P/G/T. Here, a detransitivizing operation comes into play, which promotes the internal argument to S status. The external argument is the only argument that can be represented by a clause-initial demonstrative. Finally, argument incorporation, while restricted to P, can only take place with direct-marked verbs, so this process is restricted to the external argument of an originally transitive verb.

Other constructions select an argument on the basis of its semantic role, as is expected from their semantic properties. Possessor ascension selects P as well, and imperatives select S or A.

Four processes that are known as argument selectors in other languages -reflexivization, coordination, embedding, and floating quantifiers -are neutral with respect to grammatical relations in Movima.

From a crosslinguistic perspective, this system is unusual: Firstly, in a number of constructions, grammatical relations are not related to semantic roles, but based exclusively on the referential properties of nominal constituents, which determine the morphosyntactic representation of the arguments; secondly, the syntactically privileged external argument represents the referentially less prominent event participant, whereas cross-linguistically, a privileged status is usually associated with a topical, referentially prominent entity (see e. 2. syntactically ergative languages as exemplified by Dyirbal [START_REF] Dixon | The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland[END_REF], where P is syntactically privileged;

  chapmo and hunt--3PL.AB also OBL-ART.N bush 'And they hunted in the forest, too.' [ERM_140806_1 0468]

  ) is eating mud.' ('Mud' is used here humoristically to refer to dark-coloured manioc mass.)[JAO Tuncho 025]

'

  He was (the one who) did the laundry.' [JGD_130907 034] However, a speaker once spontaneously uttered the clause in (77) when noting that someone's laundry had fallen from the clothesline. The correctness of this construction was confirmed later by another Movima speaker. Here, the intransitive verb loja'oj 'wash clothes' occurs inside an RP, whose referent should normally be the participant that is coded as the external argument in the predicative use of the verb, i.e. here, the agent. Instead, however, the referent is the patient, which is an oblique in the basic construction (see (75)). The agent is encoded as an internal argument or possessor. (77) tat-vo:s-eɬ [is loj-a-'oj-a=is juyeni] get_down-CLF.wood-APPL ART.PL wash-DR-CLF.clothes-LV=ART.PL person 'The people's laundry has fallen down.'

'

  but particularly relevant for the topic of the present paper, are the applicative forms of some semantically three-place predicates. The suffix -wanra on direct-marked bases indicates that the internal argument is A and the external argument G, while the referent of the fronted element represents T. This is illustrated in (84) and (85) with the semantically trivalent verbal bases kayapoj 'feed sb. (sth.)' and kayaɬe 'give sb. (sth.)', respectively. (The derived form can therefore be considered a T-oriented nominalization; the suffix -wanra also derives instrument nouns such as jup-wanra=Ø 'my fan' [blow-INSTR=1SG], hence the gloss.) These are her gifts (for) the dancers.' [EGA_BVO_AAO_HRR_180706_1 028-030]

  ones) my daughter had given me long ago' [EAO Aros II 050]

  to the external argument. The following examples illustrate the pattern: (88) shows the encoding of S by a demonstrative in an intransitive clause, (89) the encoding of P by a demonstrative in a transitive direct clause, and (90) shows the encoding of A by a demonstrative in a transitive inverse clause.

  OBL-ART.N Subcentral 'Today they have already passed it over to the Subcentral.'14 [MCC_250806 125] Thus, the placement of a demonstrative pronoun in clause-initial position is further evidence of the privileged syntactic status of the external argument: A fronted demonstrative can refer to S of an intransitive, P of a transitive direct, and A of a transitive inverse verb. However, it does not fall in the domain of relativization, and the exact function of clause-initial demonstrative pronouns -which also convey aspectual information -is a matter of further research.

'

  )a with an intransitive one created by the incorporation of the P argument, (92)b. (Here, for morphophonological reasons, the incorporation triggers the occurrence of the base-internal direct allomorph -a-; see Haude 2006: 325). (92) a. dan-na=sne is chinaɬa chew-DR=3F.AB ART.PL manioc 'She chewed (the) manioc.' [JGD_130907-06 088] b. dan-a:-so--is n-is pokso chew-DR-TRC.chicha--PL.AB OBL-ART.PL chicha 'They chewed (on the) chicha.' [HHR, TX 291] As is cross-linguistically common, argument incorporation is restricted to the P argument of a transitive verb. Therefore, the ability to be incorporated is linked to the semantic role of the argument. At the same time, however, incorporation is restricted to direct-marked verbs, where P is encoded as the external argument: It is not possible to incorporate a P that is encoded as the internal argument of an inverse-marked verb. An example that the animacy hierarchy can be overridden in this way is given in (93). Here, a noun denoting humans is incorporated in a verb describing an event where humans are acted upon by an animal. (Note that there are only few such examples; incorporated nouns usually denote inanimate entities or animals.) Then again it (the jaguar) just caught people.' [HRR_120808-tigregente 286] Thus, argument incorporation is both semantically and syntactically determined: It is restricted to the P of a direct-marked verb, i.e. to a P encoded as the external argument.

(

  94)a, the body-part term first appears as the external argument (a possessed RP) of the transitive verb. In (94)b, the body-part term is incorporated; in contrast to a verb with an incorporated argument, this verb is transitive, too, as can be seen from the zero enclitic encoding the first person singular and the encliticization of the external argument pronoun, which represents the possessor of the incorporated term. The internal argument remains unaffected in these examples: In both cases, it denotes A, since the verb is marked as direct.

(5. 3 Embedding

 3 109) tami:-tik, che kayni baby-VBZ and die '(The cow) gives birth and (its calves) die.' [EAO Abuelo 041] In (110), finally, the external argument (S) of the first, intransitive clause is coreferential with the internal argument of the second, transitive clause. The omitted external argument in the second clause has a different referent, as can be seen from the translation. (110) wele:ɬe--i che ɬok-ka-ɬe-na=i climb--3PL and fall-MLT-CO-DR=3PL 'They climb up and they throw (them, i.e. the fruits) down.' [EAO Mangas 012] As was shown in 2.4, intransitive embedded clauses, in contrast to their main-clause counterparts, always contain an overtly expressed argument (encoded as the possessor of the nominalized predicate). As a consequence, there is no such phenomenon like equi-NP deletion, "raising" or the like (cf. Bickel 2011: 422-425) in Movima. For instance, in (111), the absence of an internal enclitic from the embedded predicate unambiguously indexes the first person singular. (111) bele:ka--sne n-os joyaj-wa=Ø happy--3F.AB OBL-ART.N.PST arrive-NMZ.EVT=1SG 'She was happy when I arrived (lit. at my [past] arriving).' [GCM Bacho 035]

'

  e. in juxtaposition to nominal or verbal constituents: ba:ra 'all, everything/-body' (lexicalized from the root ba:-'complete, finish' and the classificatory element -ra 'CLF.NTR') and pekɬeɬe 'all, everything/-body'. They can be regarded as basically synonymous, with ba:ra being by far more common. The grammatical status and function of these elements is not yet well analyzed; in translations, they are often left unexpressed. They can occur almost anywhere in the clause, which is why the idea of "floating quantifiers" is worth considering. For the present purpose, only those examples were chosen where it is clear that these elements serve as quantifiers and where the translation or the context gives a clue as to which clausal element is quantified. As it turns out, the quantified element is typically, though not exclusively, either S of an intransitive clause or P of a direct transitive clause. In other words, independently of their position in the clause, the quantifiers are interpreted purely on a semantic and contextual basis.In general, ba:ra and pekɬeɬe tend to precede the RP they quantify (in square brackets), as in (114)-(116). Example (114) is an intransitive clause with S quantified. Example (115) is a transitive direct clause where P is quantified. Example (116) is yet another transitive direct clause, but here, the quantified element is T of a secundative verb, expressed as an adjunct. They all (were the ones who) helped us then, too.' [EAO Vida chaco 061] (122) ba:ra iloni-ɬe-na[=i] kos as-na=i jayna all move-CO-DR=3PL ART.N.AB sit-NMZ.LOC=3PL DSC 'They all carry around their houses now (after having been transformed into turtles).' [JGD_130907_tortugas 169] To sum up, the interpretation of the "floating" quantifiers in Movima is basically determined by context and semantics -patient and theme participants being preferred (although not exclusively available) for quantification in transitive clauses. Both arguments and obliques can be quantified, and no argument type of the transitive clause is excluded. Thus, while it is not clear yet what determines the placement of quantifiers, quantifier floating does not seem to be conditioned by grammatical relations. 6 Conclusion Arguments in Movima are distinguished by constituency, i.e. by the position of an argument expression internal or external to the predicate phrase. The single argument (S) of an intransitive main-clause predicate is always encoded as the external constituent. In transitive clauses, the argument positions are filled according to the ranking of the arguments' referents in a hierarchy that includes person, animacy, and topicality. The semantic roles of the arguments are indicated by verbal morphology: Direct marking indicates that the internal argument is A and the external argument P/G/T, and inverse marking indicates that the external argument is A and the internal argument P/G/T. Therefore, when comparing argument encoding in transitive and intransitive main clauses, the shared grammatical relation encompasses the semantic roles {S, P/G/T} in the direct construction and {S, A} in the inverse construction.

  g. Aissen 1999; Keenan 1976; Zúñiga 2006); 15 finally, the privileged argument is {S, P/G/T} of the default transitive construction (the direct), resulting in a cross-linguistically rare ergative pattern. With these properties, Movima combines three morphosyntactic patterns known from other language types: 1. the direct/inverse systems known e.g. from Algonquian or Tibeto-Burman languages, where argument encoding is governed by referential hierarchies, while semantic roles are indicated by verb morphology (see DeLancey 1981; Dixon and Aikhenvald 1997);

Table 1 .

 1 Assignment of semantic roles in Movima

	3

morphological marking on the verb indicates which argument is A and which one is P (or G or T; see 2.3 below). This is schematized in Table

1

.

Table 3 .

 3 Properties of the internal and the external argument of a transitive clause

	internal				external
	Directly follows the predicate		Occurs after the internal argument
	Internal cliticization ( = ):			External cliticization ( --):
	stress shift; epenthetic /a/			no stress shift; resyllabification
	Pronouns and determiners are cliticized	Only pronouns are cliticized
	Obligatorily realized (=Ø '1SG')		Not obligatorily realized
	Referentially "high" (SAP, animate and/or	Referentially "low" (lower-ranking animate,
	topical third person)			inanimate, or nontopical third person)
	A of direct, P/G/T of inverse predicate	P/G/T of direct, A of inverse predicate
	Identical with nominal possessor		Identical with S
	The sole argument of an intransitive predicate, S, is encoded as an external constituent (see
	Haude 2009a, 2010b): When represented by an RP, the article is not cliticized to the predicate
	(8), and the argument is not obligatorily expressed (9). When S is a bound pronoun, the
	pronoun is attached to the predicate through external cliticization (10).
	(8)	jayna a:mon	ɬat isnos	majniwa=us
		DSC	enter	EV	ART.F.PST offspring_of=3M.AB
		'Then his daughter entered.'	[HRR_120808-tigregente 620]
	(9)	a:mon	n-os		ney n-as	du~<du:~>duk=Ø
		enter	OBL-ART.N.PST here OBL-ART.N RED~<INAL~>back=1SG
		'(It) entered here at my back.'	[EAO araña 002]
	(10)	jayna a:mon--us	no-kos	ro:ya
		DSC	enter.MD--3M.AB OBL-ART.N.AB house
		'Then he goes into the house.'	[ERM_140806_2 143]
	The external pronoun can occur with the "obviative" marker k-(see (6) above) as well;
	however, this is only the case when the predicate is a demonstrative adverb, as in (11).

Table 2

 2

	, leads to an alignment

  .AB OBL-ART.PL RED~roast-CLF.meat 'Then they ate roasted meat.' [HRR_120808-tigregente 548] Of the 74 instances of the verb kaykay 'eat' in the corpus (excluding nominalized and other morphologically derived forms), only 25 are accompanied by an oblique RP. Of these obliques, 18 represent the patient, while the remaining seven represent some other event

	(23)	di:ra	dej-na=n kos	da'	joɬ-kwa che da'
		is kay~kay	no-kos	pamba=n di' sekema=n
		2 MD~eat	OBL-ART.N.AB bread=2	REL side_dish=2
	(24)	kidé		da'	kay~kay jayna n-us	alwaj-a='ne
		DEM.F.NSTD DUR.NSTD MD~eat DSC	OBL-ART.M	spouse-LV=3F

participant or circumstance. Hence, the correct interpretation of the oblique-marked RP depends to a large extent on the context. Consider the following examples. In (23), the oblique-marked RP (nokos pamban) does not represent the patient. The preceding sentence tells us that what is eaten is an egg, while the oblique-marked RP following the verb kaykay denotes something that accompanies the egg, as indicated by the relative clause (di' sekeman). at_least cook-DR=2 ART.N.AB DUR.NSTD egg-ABS and DUR.NSTD 'At least you cook an egg and you eat (it) with your bread as side dish.' [ERM_140806_2 155]

Similarly, in (24), the context leaves no doubt that the woman eats together with her husband, but not that she eats her husband, which would be the interpretation if the oblique constituent in a clause with a semantically bivalent intransitive verb automatically encoded the patient of the verb.

'She is now eating with her husband.'

[EAO Neighbours 009]

  Indirective three-participant verbs are not easily found with an overtly encoded G participant (unless G is a location, see (36) below). The example of a direct-marked verb in (32) shows G encoded as the possessor (us nonok) of the T argument; in (33), which contains the inverse form of an indirective verb, G is not overtly encoded at all.

	(32)	jayna chot	doj<a:>ɬe=Ø	os	organo=us	nonok=Ø
		DSC	HAB	steal<DR> =1SG ART.N.PST harmonica=ART.M grandparent=1SG
		'Then I always stole my grandfather's harmonica.'	[EAO Organ 007]
	(33)	di' joy jayna ja' um-me-ɬe-kay-a=n	us	pa:pa=n
	(34)	kay-a:-poj=Ø	n-is	maropa
		eat-DR-CAUS=1SG OBL-ART.PL papaya
		'I fed (him) papaya.'			[EAO_240807_vbr 189]
	(30)	di' jayna kay<a>ɬe=is	kus	alwaj=Ø	ni-kis	wa:ka
		HYP DSC	give<DR>=3PL.AB ART.M.AB spouse=1SG OBL-ART.PL.AB cow
		'if they already give my husband the cattle'	[EAO Patrona 035]
	(31)	kayɬe-kay-a=sne	as	alkaldi:ya	n-os	kay-wanra

Haude 2012a for further details). So, for instance, verbs with the base kayɬe-'give' are secundative, having G in the core, while the semantically similar base kwaj-'pass' is indirective, as it encodes T as a core argument. Example (30) illustrates the direct form of the verb kayɬe-'give' with both non-A arguments overtly expressed, G as the external argument and T as oblique. Example (31) illustrates the inverse form of the same verb. give-INV-LV=3F.AB ART.N municipality OBL-ART.N.PST food-INSTR:CLF.NTR 'The municipality gave her food.' [GCM Marcha 102] HYP DUB DSC just send-CLF.person-CO-INV-LV=2 ART.M father_of=2 'if maybe your father just offered you (as a wife) …' [JAO Jovina 002]

Similarly to semantically bivalent intransitive verbs, like ba:yeɬ 'hunt' and kaykay 'eat', also in the case of semantically trivalent verbs, the oblique-marked constituent does not necessarily represent a semantic argument. This is illustrated by (

34

) and (

35

). Consider first (34), which contains an oblique RP representing the theme of the verb kayapoj 'feed' (the external argument encoding G is unexpressed here.)

  To relativize the participant that is encoded as the internal argument of a basic transitive clause, a detransitivizing operation has to be used -an operation that only occurs in relative constructions, but is absent from main clauses. The detransitivization is brought about by the particle kaw (or kwey, depending on the speaker) placed before the predicate. The predicate,

	(42)	kawra	as	ti:vij di'	[jiwa-ɬe-na=as	powmuj]
		much	ART.N pain	REL	come-CO-DR=ART.3N wind
		'The wind brings a lot of pain (lit. A lot (is) the pain that the wind brings).'
		[JGD_160808-Fundacion 422]
	(43)	kiro'	kis	senyo:ra di' [vel-kay-a=sne]
		DEM.PL.AB ART.PL.AB lady	REL watch-INV-LV=3F.AB
		'There are ladies who look after her.'	[Asilo 004]
	oblique. 8
	(44)	a. joy-a-ɬe=is	buka'	is	o:ro
	41)	oso' go-DR-CO=3PL.AB DUR.MOV ART.PL gold os […] merek ko' di' [ɬok~ɬok]
		DEM.N.PST ART.N.PST 'They brought gold.'		big	tree REL MD~fall [Abuelo 025]
		'There was a […] big tree that had fallen over.'	[EAO_tigreyperro_150808 070]
		b. is	buka'	itila:kwa di' [kaw joy-a:-ɬe n-is	…
	Since only an external argument can be relativized, the head of a transitive relative clause ART.PL DUR.MOV man REL DETR go-DR-CO OBL-ART.PL
	represents P when the predicate is marked as direct (42), and A when the predicate is marked ke:so=is]
	as inverse (43). cheese=3PL.AB
		'the men who were carrying their … cheese'	[HRR_2009_tape1_B 029]

while retaining its transitivity marker (direct or inverse), becomes syntactically intransitive, which means that it cannot take an internal enclitic anymore. The former internal argument is thus S of the now intransitive predicate and hence relativizable, while the former external argument is expressed as an oblique if expressed at all. Example (44)a illustrates a basic direct transitive clause with A as internal and P as external argument; (44)b shows the same directmarked verb in a detransitivized relative clause, where A has become as S and P is encoded as

  ART.PL.AB person REL NEG.SUB go-NMZ OBL-ART.N village

	(48)	kis	juyeni	di' [loy	joy-wa n-as	lo:los]
		'(the) people who do not go to the village'	[AMY_180806 242]
	(49)	kos	juyeni di' [loy	ona-ye-na=i]
		ART.N.AB person REL NEG.SUB know-CLF.person-DR=3PL
		'a person whom they do not know'		[Erlan Rojas 127]
	(50)	das-na=Ø	is	ja' wawankwa di' [loy	tojeɬ-poj-kay-a=y'ɬi]
	45)	us cut-DR=1SG ART.PL just liana itila:kwa [di' kwey lap-kay n-os REL NEG.SUB get_by-CAUS-INV-LV=1PL mimi:di]
		ART.M man 'I cut down the lianas that did not let us get through.' REL DETR bite-INV OBL-ART.N.PST snake [LYO_250808 136f.]
		'the man who was bitten by the/a snake'	[EAO 220807, 20Eli014h]
	(46)	ka=s	joy-wa=is
		COP.NEG=DET go-NMZ=3PL.AB
		'They did not go.'			[Cabildo 006]
	(47)	ka=s	ona-ye-na-wa=i
		COP.NEG=DET know-CLF.person-DR-NMZ=3PL
		'They don't know (him/her/them).'		[Summary 007]
	Relative clauses, in contrast, are negated with the particle loy preceding the predicate.

To sum up, the detransitivizing operation allows the internal argument of a transitive clause to become S of an intransitive clause when this is required for relativization.

Another criterion that distinguishes relative constructions from main clauses is negation marking. Main clause negation is illustrated in (46) with an intransitive clause and in (47) with a transitive clause. Here, the main predicate is the negative copula ka with an encliticized determining element, while the lexical predicate is nominalized, just as in embedding (see 2.4).

Furthermore, the predicate in this construction is only nominalized if intransitive (and not marked as possessed), as in (48), and retains its form if transitive, as illustrated with the direct-marked verb in (49) and with the inverse-marked verb in (50).

  ). It is quite typical for verbal RPs to occur with nonverbal (i.e. demonstrative, nominal, or adjectival) predicates, as in the examples below (see Haude to appear a).

	(56) not trigger possessive marking everywhere). This is illustrated by the complement clause (in sot-ka-ra [os loy ona-ra-na=sne] (62) u'ko loy iwani:-wa
	other-MLT-CLF.NTR ART.N.PST NEG.SUB know-CLF.NTR-DR=3F.AB square brackets) in (60). 11 PRO.3M NEG.SUB TALK-NMZ.EVT
	(51)	kiro' '(There was) something she did not know (lit. Something [was] the [thing] she did not [kis joy-cheɬ] 'He doesn't talk.' [CCT_120907_2 104]
	(60)	DEM.PL.AB know).' bo jayna rey da' ART.PL.AB go-R/R ona-ra-na=is	[Cabildo_020907 236] [os
	(63)	'There are the (ones who) go.' REAS DSC MOD DUR.NSTD know-CLF.NTR-DR=3PL.AB ART.N.PST [ERM_140806_1 0681] a'ko loy ona-ra-na=Ø
		usko-niwa PRO.3N NEG.SUB	bispa] know-CLF.NTR-DR=1SG
	(52) 3.3 Clefts pokso PRO.3M.AB-VBZ:NMZ knowledgeable [kos yey-na=y'ɬi] 'That (is what) I do not know.'	[EVM Gringas III 011]
	chicha The construction discussed here is created by positioning a free pronoun in clause-initial ART.N.AB want-DR=1PL 'They had already found out that he was (the one who was) knowledgeable.'
	'Chicha (is) what we want.' position. From a purely syntactic perspective, the construction may be considered a cleft [JGD_130907-06 178] [PMP_HRR_etal_210908 278]
	because it consists of a nonverbal main predicate -a pronoun -and a subordinate lexical
	(53) predicate -a verb or noun -that has the same properties as the relative clauses described ka:we nokowa [is dewaj-kay=Ø] The lexical predicate has the same properties as in other relative constructions. As in headed
	much:CLF.person FUT above. 10 Example (57) illustrates this with an intransitive verb, (58) with a direct transitive ART.PL see-INV=1SG relative clauses (3.1) and verbal RPs (3.2), the external argument is gapped (although gapping
	verb, and (59) with an inverse transitive verb.
	(57)	jayna isko	joy-cheɬ nosdé
		DSC	PRO.3PL.AB	go-R/R over_there
		[ATL_230806 312ff.]
	(54) (58) (61)	mowi:maj i'ko jayna us yey-na=i [is ney pa:'i, kaw	vel-na] usko	kwey ajkara:-na
		Movima PRO.3PL want-DR=3PL ART.PL DSC ART.M here priest DETR	watch-DR PRO.3M.AB	DETR	arrange-DR
		'Those who looked after (the cattle) were Movima (lit. Movima [were] the [ones 'Those (are what they) want.' [Tolkosya II 004] n-is chora:da ja'a
		who] looked after [it].' OBL-ART.PL street	just	[LTC_020906_4 126]
	(59)	asko 'Then that priest, he put the streets in order.' tikoy-kay-a=sne
	Furthermore, the verb inside the RP is negated with the particle loy (see 3.1), as shown in (55) PRO.3N.AB kill-INV-LV=3F.AB [HRR_120808-tigregente 036]
	with a nominalized intransitive predicate and in (56) with a direct transitive predicate. (There 'That (was what) killed her.'
	is no example of a negated verbal RP with an inverse predicate.) [HRR_120808-tigregente 266] The negation of the lexical predicate in the cleft construction is carried out in the same way as
	in headed relative clauses, i.e. with the particle loy and the corresponding morphological
	(55) Evidence that the pronoun is the main-clause predicate in these constructions comes from ɬa:kwa [kos loy tijkarim-wa] treatment of the predicate -nonpossessed nominalization of intransitive predicates, as in (62),
	worse embedding (see Haude to appear a). As was outlined in 2.4, the predicate of an embedded ART.N.AB NEG.SUB work-NMZ.EVT no modification of transitive predicates (63).
	'The one/Someone who does not work (is) worse.' clause is nominalized. In the case of a cleft, it is the pronoun, not the verb, that undergoes [LTC_020906_1 206]
	nominalization (marked with the suffix -niwa, which nominalizes non-content words and does

'Many (people) will see me

(lit. Many [people]

will [be] the [ones who] see me).'

[ERM_140806_1 0980]

As in headed relative clauses, the detransitivizing construction has to be used in order to turn the internal argument of a transitive verb into the referent of the verbal RP, as illustrated in (54).

'But these rich people, who had money […],they were the ones who went there.' is less strict here than in the other two constructions; a prosodic analysis is still needed to see if this is a case of right dislocation). Furthermore, the construction undergoes detransitivization when the free pronoun refers to the participant that would be encoded as the internal argument of the corresponding basic clause. This can be seen in (

61

), where the agent is a human and the patient (represented by an oblique RP) an inanimate entity, a scenario that does not permit the inverse.

11

The same can be observed in negation (see Haude to appear a).

  a ranch, therefore outranked by the human A). Note that, unlike ɬéɬa 'what', the question word e:ɬe 'who' is never followed by an RP, but only by a predicate. I have no explanation for this, but it means that this construction has the structure of a cleft (see3.3).

	(69)	ɬéɬa	[kos		taraɬ-kay-a=n-kweɬ]	), which is a canonical
	intransitive clause with a nominal RP. what_is ART.N.AB heal-INV-LV=2-2PL
		'What was the (thing that) healed you?'	[ERM_140806_1 0938]
	(66)	ɬéɬa	is	siripipimmo, ope'e
	what_is ART.PL siripipimmo When the referent of A is equal or higher in the referential hierarchy than P/G/T, so that it my_brother
	'What are siripipimmo, brother?' would be encoded as the internal argument of a direct-marked verbal predicate in a basic [EAO Siripipimmo 011]
	transitive main clause (70)a, the detransitivizing operation is used (70)b. (Here, the
	When the questioned entity is the argument of a verbal predicate, it is expressed by a verbal RP (see 3.2). In (67), this is illustrated with an intransitive verb: (67)a contains an affirmative clause, (67)b shows a possible corresponding question, with the verb inside an RP. (67) a. mo:ra:ni os meskwa, mo:ra:ni os charki unexpressed P is (70) a. vel-na=as ja' is pa:ko
		missing watch-DR=3N.AB just ART.PL dog ART.N.PST fat missing	ART.N.PST dried_meat
		'Fat was missing, dried meat was missing.' 'It (the jaguar) just looked at the dogs.'	[ERM_150806 247] [HRR_120808-tigregente 598]
		b. ɬéɬa b. e:ɬe	[kos, kaw	eney, nokwa	mo:rani] n-i:de vel-na
		what_is ART.N.AB FILLER missing who_is DETR FUT watch-DR	OBL-1INCL
		'Who (is the one who) will look after (it)?'	[GBM_Ganado 050]
	(68)	a. dewaj-na=n-kweɬ	kis	wa:ka=y'ɬi
		see-DR=2-2PL		ART.PL.AB	cow=1PL
		'You (pl.) saw our cattle.'	[HRR_120808-tigregente 677]
		b. ɬéɬa	[kos	dewaj-na=n-kweɬ]
		what_is ART.N.AB see-DR=2-2PL
		'What was the (thing) you (pl.) saw?'	[HRR_120808-tigregente 519]

'What are we missing

(lit. What [is]

the, er, missing [thing] of ours)?'

[HRR TX 402]

Example (68)a shows an affirmative direct transitive clause whose external argument is P.

The question focusing on P, with the direct-marked verb inside an RP, is provided in (68)b.

In (69), the questioned element is A. It is a probably inanimate third-person agent acting on an SAP, so the verb is marked as inverse.

  ), by contrast, the extracted element refers to T, which is never encoded as an argument of this verb in a basic clause. (The context identifies the unexpressed A as the second person.)

	(79)	u'ko	kayɬe-kay-a=n
		PRO.3M give-INV-LV=2
		'He is (the one who) gives (it) to you.'	[EAO Rezar 046]
	(80)	isko	kayɬe-kay=Ø
		PRO.3PL.AB	give-INV=1SG
		'They are (the ones that) (you) will give me.'
		(Not: 'They are the ones who give [it] to me.')	[GCM_290806_5 108]

  )d (a verbal RP stemming from a text). The incorporation occurs in the first clause: The predicate contains the incorporated body-part term mosi 'back', and the owner is encoded as S. In the second clause, there is no incorporation: Here, S is the possessed RP referring to the body part.

	(94)	a. tan-na=Ø	as	risa-<kwa~>kwa='ne
			cut-DR=1SG	ART.N BR.hair-<INAL~>ABS=3F
			'I cut her hair.'		[elicited]
		b. tan-a-ri:sa=Ø--'ne
			cut-DR-BR.hair =1SG--3F
			'I gave her a haircut (lit. I hair-cut her).'	[elicited]
		c. tan-risa:-kay=Ø--i'ne
			cut-hair-INV=1SG--3F
			'She gave me a haircut (lit. She hair-cut me).'	[elicited]
		d. kinos	neyru	tan-ri:sa
			ART.F.AB	DET	cut-BR.hair
			'that (woman with) the short hair (lit. that absent female hair-cut [one])'
			[EAO Alojamiento 002]
	In (95), which is made up of two clauses, it can be seen how possessor ascension works with
	monovalent verbs. (95) jayna t	tivij-mosi:-ni,	tivij-ni	as	mosi-<kwa:~>kwa=Ø
		DSC	1INTR pain-back-PRC	pain-PRC ART.N back-<INAL~>ABS=1SG
		'Then I got pain in the back (lit. I back-hurt), my back hurt.'
		[DMA Fracaso 014]

  There is no obligatory argument omission in coordinated constructions. As was stated in 2.2 above, the internal argument (i.e. A of the direct and P of the inverse clause) is obligatorily overtly expressed in any context. This is illustrated in the coordinated construction in (106), where the two internal enclitics (='ne) are coreferential; in the English translation, by contrast, it would seem awkward if the pronoun were repeated.

	(106) rim<a>ɬe='ne	os	sotak-ra	di' wa:ka
	sell<DR>=3F	ART.N.PST one-CLF.NTR	REL cow
	che rimeɬ-na='ne is	motlo:to	di' o:ro
	and buy-DR=3F	ART.PL earring	REL gold
	'She sold one cow and (in exchange) bought earrings of gold.' [EAO Aros 003]
	The external argument can either be overtly expressed or omitted, depending on the context.
	In (107), which consists of two coordinated intransitive clauses, S is overtly expressed in the
	first and omitted in the second clause.
	(107) ji<wa:~>wa--is	che	joy-cheɬ	nokoldé
	come<MD~>--3PL.AB and	go-R/R	over_there
	'They come and (then) go over there.'	[ATL_230806 101]
	In (108), several coreferential external arguments, all representing S of intransitive clauses,
	are unrealized.
	(108) pora aj<te:~>tej che jayna rey en-cheɬ che jayna rey tijka:rim
	104) didi' tikoy-cheɬ briefly rest<MD~> and DSC n-os	kachi:ra MOD stand-R/R and DSC	MOD work
	FRUST kill-R/R '(She) rested a little, and then again (she) got up and worked again.' OBL-ART.N.PST knife
	'(He) wanted to kill (him)self with a knife.' [EAO Ay'ku II 023]	[BA Balvina 199]
	(105) ju:-cheɬ is In (109), in contrast, the two omitted S arguments are not coreferential. Their referents can kweya-m-mo
	scold-R/R ART.PL woman-LN-CLF.bird only be identified from the context. The text is about a cow that does not have much value
	'The hens fight (lit. scold each other).' because its calves always die.	[JGD_130907 152]
	5.2 Coordination

Except where indicated otherwise, all examples in this paper stem from spontaneous discourse; most of the sources can be accessed in The Language Archive (https://corpus1.mpi.nl/ds/asv/?1). The English translations are context-based and/or follow the Spanish translations provided by Movima native speakers.

The inverse construction can usually be translated by an English passive, which illustrates its pragmatic effect rather well. However, throughout this paper, the inverse is translated in the English active voice to reflect the transitivity and non-derived nature of the construction.

In other studies, e.g.Haude 2009, the internal argument is termed "proximate" and the external argument is termed "obviative", based on the referential properties of the argument positions in transitive clauses. However, for the present study a characterization exclusively in terms of structural positions is much more suitable, since the S argument, while syntactically "external", is not sensitive to reference effects.

Clauses with an initial RP, usually representing the external argument, have not been conclusively analyzed yet and will not be discussed in the present study.

In temporal RPs, the different forms of the neuter article indicate nonpast (as), hodiernal past (kos) and hesternal past (os). The same is the case with complement and adverbial clauses (see Haude 2010a).

The term "relativization" is not entirely adequate for the constructions described here, since, for instance, no finiteness is involved. In fact, the constructions simply consist of a content word preceded by a referring expression whose referent is characterized by the content word. For the present purpose, however, the term seems appropriate, since relativization is a typologically well-established argument selector.

The detransitivizing operation can also take place with nouns, showing how similar the syntactic properties of nouns and verbs are in Movima (see 3.2).

In fact, there is not much difference between "verbal RPs" and RPs containing a noun. Also nouns, in any of the constructions described here, can be preceded by the detransitivizing particle, which results in a loss of the potential to be marked as possessed, and the referent of the RP is the possessor; and also a noun inside an RP (or inside any other relative constructions, for that matter) can be negated with the particle loy, although examples are rare.

The function of the construction is not that of a canonical cleft, however, since it has a topicalizing rather than a focus-marking effect (Haude to appear b).

I thank N. Himmelmann (p.c.) for the suggestion to analyze these suffixes as applicatives.

Note that in the case of the verb base kayɬe-'give', the construction with -wa as in (87) is not very common; usually, one finds instead a construction involving a reduplicated suffix -wawa, as in (i) below: as in (87), the internal argument is G, and the derived word can accordingly be translated as "G's gift (from)". However, A is

The verb base kwaj-'pass' encodes T, and not G, as a syntactic argument.

Movima might appear as an example of Zúñiga's "remapping inverse", were this concept not characterized as follows: "direct [...] maps A's to primary arguments ("subjects") and O's to secondary arguments ("objects") and[inverse] maps A's to secondary arguments and O's to primary arguments"(Zúñiga 2006: 67). Obviously, in Movima this relation is reversed.

A trace of S=A alignment can be discerned, however, when plural person marking of imperative verbs is considered. The 2PL marker for the imperative subject of the intransitive verb, -kweɬ, shown in (100), is the same as that for A of the transitive direct imperative verb, (101). (This element also occurs on the plural form of the second-person internal enclitic, =n-kweɬ; see