DOCSLIB.ORG

The Morphology and Syntax of Ergativity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Morphology and Syntax of Ergativity THE MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF ERGATIVITY: A TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH by Justin Rill A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Winter 2017 © 2017 Justin Rill All Rights Reserved ProQuest Number:10257594 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10257594 Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 THE MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF ERGATIVITY: A TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH by Justin Rill Approved: Benjamin Bruening, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science Approved: George H. Watson, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Approved: Ann L. Ardis, Ph.D. Senior Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dis- sertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: Gabriella Hermon, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dis- sertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: Benjamin Bruening, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dis- sertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: Peter Cole, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dis- sertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: Jessica Coon, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I’d like to thank everyone that helped me produce this piece of research, start- ing with the Kaqchikel speakers of Guatemala who introduced me to their beautiful language several years ago. ¡Janila maty¨ox chi we! I am also indebted to the following people: Sandy Abu Adas, Alexandra Aikhenvald, Enes Avcu, Colin Brown, Anisa Putri Cahyani, Lyle Campbell, Mike Donovan, Daniel L. Finer, Bob Frank, Donna Gerdts, Spike Gildea, Antoine Guil- laume, Raquel Guirardello, Andrew Charles Hofling, Alan King, Elena Maslova, Marianne Mithun, Doris L. Payne, Maria Polinsky, Ryan Rhodes, Itxaso Rodriguez, David Rubio, Magda S¨otz, Jen Smith, Jay Stallings, Wheeler Thackston, Pilar Valen- zuela, Mai Ha Vu, Neil Walker, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. Thank you for sharing your insights, your data or your language itself with me. Thank you to my committee members (Ben Bruening, Peter Cole and Jessica Coon) for their patience and understanding. I know I was not the easiest student to advise at times. Thanks to Jeff Heinz for being a generally awesome guy and an even better professor. Most of all, thanks to my advisor Gaby Hermon; I would not have succeeded if it weren’t for her support and positivity, but also her frank, direct style of criticism that we all know and love. Thank you to my friends, peers and colleagues in the Department of Lin- guistics and Cognitive Science at the University of Delaware. Graduate school is a difficult journey, and I’m fortunate to have made many lasting friendships along the way. Cheers! iv A big thank you to my family, whose unwavering support and encouragement was available when I needed it most. Finally, thank you to Maria Babsly, the love of my life, for her affection, support and perspective in good times and bad. All errors are my own. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................. xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................ xiii FOREWORD .................................. xiv Chapter 1 INTRODUCING ERGATIVITY (AND OTHER USEFUL DEFINITIONS) .............................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................... 1 1.2 What is ergativity? ........................... 1 1.3 Morphological ergativity (a first look) ................. 2 1.4 Syntactic ergativity ........................... 4 1.5 ‘Other’ types of ergativity ....................... 11 1.6 Morphological ergativity revisited ................... 14 1.6.1 Ergative dependent-marking .................. 14 1.6.2 Ergative head-marking ..................... 14 1.6.3 Ergativity and ‘mixed’-marking ................ 17 1.6.4 Pronouns and clitics ...................... 22 1.7 Marking types in the nominal domain ................. 25 1.8 Syncretism ................................ 28 1.9 Conclusion ................................ 28 2 THE TYPOLOGY OF ERG=GEN AND ERG=POSS ...... 30 2.1 Introduction ............................... 30 vi 2.2 What is ERG=GEN? What is ERG=POSS? ............. 31 2.2.1 No syncretism between domains ................ 33 2.3 A fuller description of ERG=GEN and ERG=POSS across the spectrum ................................. 35 2.3.1 More examples of ERG=GEN ................. 35 2.3.2 More examples of ERG=POSS ................ 39 2.3.3 ‘Mixed’-marking languages ................... 47 2.3.4 Pronominal systems ...................... 54 2.3.5 Headedness, ERG=GEN and ERG=POSS .......... 60 2.3.6 Basic word order, ERG=GEN and ERG=POSS ....... 64 2.3.7 Partially syncretic paradigms ................. 67 2.3.8 Borderline cases? ........................ 73 2.3.9 Previous typological work on ERG=GEN ........... 79 2.3.10 Interim conclusion ....................... 81 2.4 The sample of ergative languages ................... 82 2.4.1 Selecting the sample ...................... 82 2.4.1.1 How many languages is enough? .......... 82 2.4.1.2 Avoiding common biases in the sample ....... 84 2.4.2 Coding the sample ....................... 91 2.5 Results .................................. 99 2.5.1 ERG=GEN and ERG=POSS are generally common ..... 99 2.5.2 More common than what, exactly? .............. 101 2.5.3 ERG=GEN and ERG=POSS transcend macroparameters . 105 2.5.3.1 Ergative syncretism and headedness ........ 105 2.5.3.2 Ergative syncretism and marking type ....... 106 vii 2.5.3.3 Ergative syncretism and basic word order ..... 109 2.5.4 ‘Ergative robustness’ ...................... 110 2.5.4.1 Ergative splits .................... 110 2.5.4.2 Optional ergative marking .............. 111 2.5.4.3 ‘Mixed’-marking, again ................ 112 2.5.4.4 ERG-ABS pronouns ................. 113 2.5.5 Discussion: alienable vs inalienable possession ........ 114 2.5.6 Discussion: where are ABS=GEN and ABS=POSS? ..... 118 2.6 Conclusion ................................ 121 3 THE SAMPLE OF ACCUSATIVE LANGUAGES ........ 123 3.1 Introduction ............................... 123 3.2 What are ACC=GEN and ACC=POSS? ............... 123 3.3 What are NOM=GEN and NOM=POSS? .............. 125 3.4 No syncretism between domains .................... 127 3.5 A description of ACC=GEN, ACC=POSS, NOM=GEN and NOM= POSS across the spectrum ....................... 130 3.5.1 Partially syncretic patterns .................. 151 3.5.2 Borderline cases? ........................ 155 viii 3.5.3 Interim conclusion ....................... 159 3.6 The sample of accusative languages .................. 160 3.6.1 Selecting the sample ...................... 160 3.6.1.1 Avoiding common biases in the sample ....... 160 3.6.2 Coding the sample ....................... 166 3.7 Results .................................. 171 3.7.1 Accusative and nominative syncretic patterns are not very common ............................. 171 3.7.2 Typological macroparameters ................. 173 3.8 Conclusion ................................ 175 4 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ERG=GEN, ERG=POSS AND OTHER SYNCRETIC PATTERNS .............. 177 4.1 A model of case and agreement .................... 178 4.1.1 Marantz (1991) and dependent case .............. 178 4.1.2 Bobaljik (2008) and verb agreement .............. 183 4.1.3 Baker (2013) and ‘double’ agreement ............. 192 4.1.4 What and where is morphological case? ............ 201 4.1.5 Interim conclusion ....................... 212 4.2 Theories of syncretism ......................... 213 4.2.1 Baker (2015), ERG=GEN & ERG=POSS .......... 213 4.2.2 Can the current model account for ACC=GEN and ACC=POSS? .......................... 219 4.2.3 Can the current model account for NOM=POSS and ABS=POSS? .......................... 224 4.3 Syncretism as ‘recycling’ ........................ 233 ix 4.4 No syncretism? ............................. 243 4.5 Conclusion ................................ 246 5 A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON EXTRACTION ASYMMETRIES 248 5.1 A brief description of ergative extraction asymmetries ........ 249 5.2 Syntactic analyses ............................ 255 5.2.1 Aldridge (2004, 2008, 2012) .................. 255 5.2.2 Coon et al (2014) ........................ 259 5.2.3 Polinsky to appear (2016, to appear) ............. 266 5.2.4 Deal (2016) ........................... 270 5.2.5 Interim summary ........................ 272 5.3 The disambiguation hypothesis ...................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Progressive and Split Ergativity: the Case of Basque
    In Johns, A. Massam, D. & Ndayiragije J. (Eds.) Ergativity.Emerging Issues, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 173-196 ITZIAR LAKA† DERIVING SPLIT ERGATIVITY IN THE PROGRESSIVE* The Case of Basque 1. INTRODUCTION: THE PHENOMENON, THE ACCOUNT AND SOME CONSEQUENCES. This paper explores the relationship between Aspect and case in ergative grammars, and the syntactic structure of sentences with a progressive meaning. It suggests an explanation for aspectually driven split-ergativity phenomena, based on an account of progressive sentences in Basque. The contrast between canonical transitive sentences and their progressive equivalents found in Basque is shown in (1), where glosses are deliberately vague for the moment: 1 1) a. emakume-a-k ogi-a jaten du woman-DET-E bread-DET eating has ‘The woman eats (the) bread’ b. emakume-a ogi-a jaten ari da woman-DET bread-DET eating PROG is ‘The woman is eating (the) bread’ As we can see by comparing (1a) and (1b), a change to progressive aspect induces a change in case-assignment, and a change of inflected auxiliary. (1a) is an example of an imperfective transitive sentence, where the external argument emakumea ‘the woman’ carries ergative case (morpheme –k). The internal argument ogia ‘(the) bread’ receives absolutive case, marked zero2. In contrast, (1b) has no ergative-marked argument, despite the fact that there is an event of eating, whose agent is the woman. The progressive marker ari has an effect on the case assigned to the subject: it does not show ergative case; it is assigned absolutive/zero case. The pair in (1) is reminiscent of similar phenomena in other ergative languages, where aspectual variations induce changes in the case assigned to the transitive † University of the Basque Country-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea; [email protected] 173 A.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Niŋ, -Pi-, -E and -Aa Morphemes in Kuloonay
    The prefix ni- in Kuloonaay: grammaticalization pathways in a three-morpheme system By David C. Lowry August 2015 Word Count: 19,719 Presented as part of the requirement of the MA Degree in Field Linguistics, Centre for Linguistics, Translation & Literacy, Redcliffe College. DECLARATION This dissertation is the product of my own work. I declare also that the dissertation is available for photocopying, reference purposes and Inter-Library Loan. David Christopher Lowry 2 ABSTRACT Title: The prefix ni- in Kuloonaay: grammaticalization pathways in a three- morpheme system. Author: David C. Lowry Date: August 2015 The prefix ni- is the most common particle in the verbal system of Jola Kuloonaay, an Atlantic language of Senegal and The Gambia. Its complex distribution has made it difficult to classify, and a variety of labels have been proposed in the literature. Other authors writing on Kuloonaay and on related Jola languages have described this prefix in terms of a single morpheme whose distribution follows an eclectic list of rules for which the synchronic motivation is not obvious. An alternative approach, presented here, is to describe the ni- prefix in terms of three distinct morphemes, each following a simple set of rules within a restricted domain. This study explores the three-morpheme hypothesis from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. At a synchronic level, a small corpus of narrative texts is used to verify that the model proposed corresponds to the behaviour of ni- in natural text. At a diachronic level, data from a selection of other Jola languages is drawn upon in order to gain insight into the grammaticalization pathways by which the three morpheme ni- system may have evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex H. Summary of the Early Grade Reading Materials Survey in Senegal
    Annex H. Summary of the Early Grade Reading Materials Survey in Senegal Geography and Demographics 196,722 square Size: kilometers (km2) Population: 14 million (2015) Capital: Dakar Urban: 44% (2015) Administrative 14 regions Divisions: Religion: 95% Muslim 4% Christian 1% Traditional Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2015). Note: Population and percentages are rounded. Literacy Projected 2013 Primary School 2015 Age Population (aged 2.2 million Literacy a a 7–12 years): Rates: Overall Male Female Adult (aged 2013 Primary School 56% 68% 44% 84%, up from 65% in 1999 >15 years) GER:a Youth (aged 2013 Pre-primary School 70% 76% 64% 15%,up from 3% in 1999 15–24 years) GER:a Language: French Mean: 18.4 correct words per minute When: 2009 Oral Reading Fluency: Standard deviation: 20.6 Sample EGRA Where: 11 regions 18% zero scores Resultsb 11% reading with ≥60% Reading comprehension Who: 687 P3 students Comprehension: 52% zero scores Note: EGRA = Early Grade Reading Assessment; GER = Gross Enrollment Rate; P3 = Primary Grade 3. Percentages are rounded. a Source: UNESCO (2015). b Source: Pouezevara et al. (2010). Language Number of Living Languages:a 210 Major Languagesb Estimated Populationc Government Recognized Statusd 202 DERP in Africa—Reading Materials Survey Final Report 47,000 (L1) (2015) French “Official” language 3.9 million (L2) (2013) “National” language Wolof 5.2 million (L1) (2015) de facto largest LWC Pulaar 3.5 million (L1) (2015) “National” language Serer-Sine 1.4 million (L1) (2015) “National” language Maninkakan (i.e., Malinké) 1.3 million (L1) (2015) “National” language Soninke 281,000 (L1) (2015) “National” language Jola-Fonyi (i.e., Diola) 340,000 (L1) “National” language Balant, Bayot, Guñuun, Hassanya, Jalunga, Kanjaad, Laalaa, Mandinka, Manjaaku, “National” languages Mankaañ, Mënik, Ndut, Noon, __ Oniyan, Paloor, and Saafi- Saafi Note: L1 = first language; L2 = second language; LWC = language of wider communication.
    [Show full text]
  • SPLIT-ERGATIVITY in HITTITE Petra Goedegebuure (University of Chicago)
    Published in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. Volume 102, Issue 2, Pages 270–303, ISSN (Online) 1613-1150, ISSN (Print) 0084-5299, DOI: 10.1515/za- 2012-0015, January 2013 1 SPLIT-ERGATIVITY IN HITTITE Petra Goedegebuure (University of Chicago) “it is possible that all languages show ergativity on some level” (McGregor 2009, 482) 1. Introduction2 As a highly heterogeneous phenomenon ergativity remains a conundrum for linguistic theory. The ergative case has been treated as a structural case, an inherent/lexical case, or rather as a mix (Butt 2006). Split-ergativity is thought to arise as an epiphenomenon, as ‘collateral damage’ of diachronic change after reinterpretation of passive constructions with instrumentals (Dixon 1994) or through reanalysis of transitive null-subject clauses with inanimate instrumentals (Garrett 1990b). Alternatively, case assignment and therefore also split-ergativity ultimately depends on synchronic structural properties of the clause (Merchant 2006). It has been claimed that only 25% of the world’s languages shows ergativity (Van de Visser 2006), or that “all languages show ergativity on some level” (McGregor 2009, 482). Irrespective of the correct ratio, split-ergativity seems to be the norm among languages that show ergativity. When the ergative split is based on semantic features of noun phrases, it is generally assumed that animacy plays a major role. Silverstein (1976) has shown that pronouns and nouns can be hierarchically arranged based on semantic features such as person, number, or grammatical gender. The strength of this hierarchy is that if agent marking is attested for the first time at a certain point in the hierarchy, all nominals lower in the hierarchy will carry agent marking as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Ergativity in Modern and Middle Indo-Aryan: a Critical Digest
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography Ergativity in Modern and Middle Indo-Aryan: A Critical Digest SAA R T J E VE rb E K E KLAAS WILLEMS Ghent University/ Ghent University FWO-Research Foundation Flanders 1. Introduction Ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages has been a much-discussed issue for a several decades. Not only has ergativity been particularly well described with regard to Hindi (cf. Kachru and Pandharipande 1979; Comrie 1984; Saksena 1985; Hook 1985; Mohanan 1994; Montaut 2001, 2006; Butt 2006), but much has also been written about the origin of the ergative pattern in Indo-Aryan from a historical point of view (cf. Hock 1986; Bubenik 1989; Butt 2001; Stronski 2009; Verbeke and De Cuypere 2009, among others). The Late Middle Indic stage of Apabhraṃśa in particular has turned out to be crucial in the alleged development of the accusative to ergative alignment (cf. Bubenik 1998). However, in the study of this transition, various problems have arisen. For instance, the early explanation that the ergative construction stems from an Old Indo-Aryan passive construction has lost favor (cf. Hook 1991; Peterson 1998; Stronski 2009), and the more fundamental issue of whether it is possible at all to study alignment in Late Middle Indic has been called into question based on the literary and artificial nature of the language (cf. Tieken 2000). In this paper, we will provide evidence that no Indo-Aryan language is an ergative language. It will be argued that ergativity, as a classifying property of languages (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Ergativity in Marubo (Panoan) Tences
    ASPECTS OF ERGATIVITY IN MARUBO 5 I Aspects of ergativity in Marubo (Panoan) tences. These facts will lead to the conclusion that Marubo can not be classified either as syntactically ergative or as syntactically accusative, the Raquel Guimaraes Romankevicius Costa ergativity being manifested only at the morphological level. ln what follows we provide a sketch of Dixon's theory and then we go on Museu Nacional/UFRJ with the analysis of Marubo. 1. Introduction 2. Dixon's account of ergativity: S, A and 0 The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of various aspects of as universal syntactic-semantic primitives ergativity m Marubo, a Panoan language spoken by groups that live at Vale do Javan, a region that is located at the extreme west of the Brazilian state of The term ergativity is traditionally used to refer to a case-marking sys­ Amazonas.' T~e. analysis is based on a typological approach, in particular the tem- the ergative-absolutive system- which is characterized by the obedi­ model ofergativ1ty proposed by Dixon ( 1994). ence to the transitivity of a sentence. Every language distinguishes intransi­ W.ith this model in mind, we observe simple sentences, focusing our tive, with a predicate and a singular core argument, from transitive sentences, attention o~ .the cases of split ergativity that arise in the language, especially with a predicate and two or more core arguments. According to Dixon (1994: those cond.ltioned by the semantic nature of the verb and by the tense, aspect 6), every language functions in terms of three universal syntactic-semantic and modality sy.stem.
    [Show full text]
  • 08-Siewierska 339..370
    C:/3d/J/Trps/Trps 101-2/08-siewierska.3d ± 7/7/3 ± 15:58 ± disk/sr Transactions of the Philological Society Volume 101:2 (2003) 339±370 PERSON AGREEMENT AND THE DETERMINATION OF ALIGNMENT By Anna Siewierska Lancaster University Abstract The paper explores two issues arisingfrom the extension of the notion of alignment from the domain of monotransitive to ditransitive clauses. The ®rst is, To what extent should other than purely formal patterns of identi®cation be taken into account in determiningthe ditransitive counterparts of the respective monotransitive alignments, i.e., accusative, erga- tive, active, etc.? The second issue is, How should con¯icts between the formal criteria used in the determination of the alignment of person agreement be resolved? It is argued that only under a purely formal interpretation of alignment is it possible to discern ditransitive counterparts of all the major monotransitive alignments, and that once the notion of neutral alignment is distinguished from absence of agreement, form/order con¯icts involvingagreement markers can be consistently resolved in favour of phonological form. 1. Introduction The term `alignment' when used in regard to grammatical functions denotes how core grammatical functions are organised relative to each other. Traditionally the major patterns of alignment have been de®ned exclusively in relation to the arguments of intransitive and monotransitive verbs, i.e., in relation to the S (sole argument of intransitive verb), A (agentive argument of transitive verb) and P (patient-like argument of transitive verb), as characterised by Dixon (1972) and Comrie (1978). They are the familiar, neutral, accusative, # The Philological Society 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • How Georgian Is (Not) Like Basque: a Comparative Case Study of Split-S
    Baker, Georgian vs. Basque, 4/5/2017 1 How Georgian is (not) like Basque: a comparative case study of split-S languages James Baker, University of Cambridge CamCoS, 4th May 2017 1 Introduction 1.1 Split-S languages Split-S:1 morphosyntactic alignment where dierent intransitive predicates occur with dierent case/agreement/(word order): (1) Central Pomo (Pomoan, California): a. Pa· qhadé·č’. I.agt ght ‘I ght.’ b. ”to· ló·ya. I.pat fell ‘I fell.’ (Mithun 1991: 518–9) In dierent split-S languages, the split amongst intransitive predicates is sensitive to dierent (predominantly semantic) factors (Mithun 1991, Donohue and Wichmann 2008, Baker in preparation, a.o.), for example: 1Also known as ‘split intransitive’, ‘semantically aligned’, ‘active(-stative)’, ‘agentive-patientive’ etc. etc. I here take ‘uid-S’ as a subset of split-S (cf. Dixon 1994)—see Baker in preparation for discussion. Baker, Georgian vs. Basque, 4/5/2017 2 • [±volition]: Eastern Pomo, Tabassaran, ~Tsova-Tush ... (‘uid-S’ languages); • [±initiation]: Lakhota?, Acehnese?; • [±state]: Galela, Loma, Guaraní? (‘active-stative’ languages2); • more than one factor, e.g. – Central Pomo: [±volition], [±state], [±aected] ...; – Tibetan: [±volition], [±focus]? – ... Here: focus on two relatively similar split-S languages, Basque and Georgian. 1.2 The Split Intransitivity Hierarchy Starting point for analysis is Sorace’s (2000 et seq.) Split Intransitivity Hierarchy (aka Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy) (SIH):3 Change of location come, arrive, leave, fall ... Change of state become, decay, die, be born, grow ... State stay, last, survive, persist, be, sit, be useful ... Uncontrolled process tremble, catch on, skid, cough, rumble, rain ... Controlled process (motional) swim, run, walk ..
    [Show full text]
  • Alignment Typology in Diachronic Perspective
    Alignment Typology in Diachronic Perspective Eystein Dahl, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway This workshop sets out to explore the diachronic dimension of alignment typology. Alignment typology is understood in a broad sense, as to include both the basic alignment pattern expressing core arguments of intransitive and transitive predicates and various types of valency- affecting constructions, e.g. causatives, passives, anticausatives/middles, antipassives, impersonals/transimpersonals and A- or P-lability. These two types of phenomena have different diachronic properties. While the basic alignment pattern or, in the case of split alignment, patterns of a given language generally tends to be diachronically stable, the inventory of valency-affecting constructions appear to be somewhat more prone to undergo change. Given that there appears to be a clear diachronic relation between certain types of valency-affecting constructions and certain types of alignment constructions, e.g. passives and ergatives (cf. e.g. Gildea 1997, Dahl 2016), it clearly makes sense to explore basic alignment and valency-affecting constructions together, as they may be regarded as two dimensions of the same area of grammar. Alignment typology has been a central focus of linguistic research at least since the publication of Dixon (1972). A number of studies have been concerned with the emergence of ergative alignment (cf. e.g. Garrett 1990, Gildea 1997, Butt 2001, Dahl 2016) or semantic alignment (cf. e.g. Aldai 2008, Holton 2008). The development of other alignment types, e.g. accusative, neutral or tripartite alignment, have received less attention and, consequently, their synchronic and, especially, their diachronic properties are less well understood.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphosyntactic Alignment, Pattern Replication, and the Classical Armenian Periphrastic Perfect
    1 Morphosyntactic Alignment, Pattern Replication, * 2 and the Classical Armenian Periphrastic Perfect 3 ROBIN MEYER 4 University of Oxford 5 1. Introduction 6 The Classical Armenian periphrastic perfect and its unusual construction have 7 posed difficulties for historical linguists since their first detailed discussion in the 8 1903 edition of Meillet’s Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien 9 classique (see the revised edition, Meillet 1936). While the communis opinio still 10 favors an explanation proffered by Benveniste (1952), which likens the Armenian 11 pattern to the Old Persian taya manā kr̥ tam construction, this model cannot ac- 12 count for several problems in the Armenian data; a new model, informed by the 13 shortcomings of its predecessors and taking into account typological and compar- 14 ative data, is therefore necessary. 15 In this paper it will be argued that the most consistent analysis of the Arme- 16 nian perfect construction must interpret it as a synchronically tripartite alignment 17 pattern, resulting from extensive language contact with the Middle Iranian lan- 18 guages; typological irregularities and synchronically deviant patterns are manifes- 19 tations of alignment change under pressure from the non-perfect tenses. 20 After a brief exposition of the Armenian data and the issues associated with it 21 (§2), previous attempts at an explanation of the phenomenon will be summarized 22 and their weaknesses discussed (§3). The Armenian situation will then be com- 23 pared to that in Middle Iranian, especially Parthian, and their differences and 24 commonalities will be set out (§4). FinallY, a new model will detail why a tripar- 25 tite analysis of the periphrastic perfect is synchronically and typologically appro- 26 priate (§5), how far Iranian influence is the likely origin of this pattern, and what 27 other expressions of such influence can be found in Classical Armenian (§6).
    [Show full text]
  • John Benjamins Publishing Company
    John Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution from Studies in Language 41:3 © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author's/s' institute. It is not permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/content/customers/rights For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Multiple ergatives From allomorphy to differential agent marking Peter Arkadiev Institute of Slavic Studies RAS/RSUH, Moscow This paper presents a cross-linguistic survey of case systems with several non-phonologically distributed markers of ergative case, based on a convenience sample of more than 70 languages from all over the world. It is shown that in most languages the distribution of different ergative markers splits along the lines predicted by the referential hierarchy (local pronouns > non-local pronouns > proper names > kinship terms > humans > nonhumans > inanimates), thus com- plementing the much better known ergativity splits. Other types of conditioning of “multiple ergatives” include gender, such nominal morphosyntactic features as number and (in)definiteness, as well as clausal morphosyntactic features like tense/aspect, polarity and person of co-arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to the Typology of Split Intransitivity0
    J.S. Baker, Typology of split intransitivity, 24/2/2014 1 Contributions to the typology of split intransitivity0 J.S. Baker ([email protected]) SyntaxLab, DTAL, University of Cambridge 24th February 2015 1 Introduction (1) Split intransitivity: phenomena where dierent classes of intransitive verbs in a language show dierent syntactic behaviours. • unaccusativity; split-S. (2) Unaccusativity: phenomenon/a where the arguments of some intransitive verbs have some properties in common with transitive objects, while others behave more consistently like transitive subjects: see section 3. (3) Split-S: morphosyntactic alignment where case/agreement/(word order) diers between in- transitive verb classes. • Basque (Aldai 2009, pp. 785–6): (a) Peru-k dantzatu du Peter-erg danced has ‘Peter has danced’ (b) Peru-Ø erori da Peter-abs fallen is ‘Peter has fallen’ 0Thanks to Michelle Sheehan and Ian Roberts for constructive comments on this work. J.S. Baker, Typology of split intransitivity, 24/2/2014 2 (4) • Harris (1981, 1982), Rice (1991), Legendre and Rood (1992): split-S split reduces to un- accusativity. • But this may be too simplistic: – J. Baker (2013) nds the verb classes picked out by split-S patterns in many lan- guages do not correlate particularly closely with those suggested by auxiliary se- lection facts in European languages. – M. Baker (1996, pp. 213–4): split-S classes in Mohawk do not line up with classes picked out by other unaccusativity diagnostics. 2 Typology of split-S languages (5) Split-S, active(-inactive), stative-active, agentive(-patientive), split intransitive, semantic align- ment ... (6) Database of (currently) 98 languages with split-/uid-S patterns; however, availability of data limited so for each individual property considered number of languages is smaller.
    [Show full text]