Locative, existential and possessive predication in the Chaco Nivaĉle (Mataguayan) and Pilagá (Guaykuruan)

Abstract

Nivaĉle (Mataguayan) and Pilagá (Guaykuruan) languages, which geographically overlap in the Argentinian Chaco region of South America, present evidence challenging the often repeated claim that locative predications universally underlie possession predications (Lyons 1967; Jackendoff 1983; DeLancey 2000; Freeze 2001; Langacker 2009, among others). In both languages copular elements can link two Determined Phrases (DPs) to predicate location, possession or existence, i.e. the primary predicative element in such constructions is not a lexical verb. However, Nivaĉle and Pilagá each use a single copular form for both non-verbal existential and possessive predication constructions, and a different copular form for non-verbal locative predication constructions. Subtypes of the various constructions, including negative forms, can be related to Heine’s cognitive possession schemas. In Pilagá, all three negative constructions share the same copular elements, but there are arguably still more similarities between the negative possessive and negative existential constructions compared to the negative locative construction. If these shared features across the two languages are due to areal contact, the influence would have had to have happened at the Proto-Mataguayan and Proto-Guaykuruan languages stage.