DOCSLIB.ORG

Agreement and Its Failures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agreement and Its Failures Agreement and its failures Omer Preminger £§u-£¶fhZ± o§Z± August ä, óþÕì – o ± o««uZ±u – to Saa Yaa Contents Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations xi Õ Introduction Õ ó Modeling the obligatoriness of φ-agreement ¢ ó.Õ A working denition of “agreement” .......................... ä ó.ó ree models for the obligatoriness of agreement .................. ß ó.ó.Õ e derivational time-bombs model ..................... ß ó.ó.ó e violable constraints model ......................... Õþ ó.ó.ì e obligatory operations model ........................ ÕÕ ó.ì Failed agreement, and why we should be interested in it ............... Õ¦ ì Agreement in the Kichean Agent-Focus construction: e facts Õß ì.Õ Some basic facts about Kichean and Agent-Focus .................. Õ ì.ó Agreement in Kichean Agent-Focus .......................... óó ì.ì eAFpersonrestriction ................................ ó ì.ì.Õ e phenomenon ................................. ó ì.ì.ó Against a purely morphological analysis of agreement in AF ....... óÉ ì.¦ e morpho-phonology of Kichean agreement markers ............... ìþ ¦ A derivational account of absolutive agreement in Kichean ì¢ ¦.Õ Background: e PCC, and Béjar & Rezac’s (óþþì) account of it .......... ì ¦.ó Relativized probing .................................... ¦É ¦.ó.Õ What’s good for [wh] is good for [plural] and [participant], too . ¢þ ¦.ó.ó Feature relativization in a feature-geometric approach ........... ¢¦ ¦.ó.ì Valuation in a feature-geometric approach .................. ¢É ¦.ó.¦ Summary ..................................... äó vi ¦.ì On the featural coarseness of clitic doubling ...................... äì ¦.¦ Applying Béjar & Rezac’s (óþþì) account to Kichean ................ äÉ ¦.¦.Õ e basic clause structure and derivation ................... äÉ ¦.¦.ó Licensing asymmetries in Kichean AF, and the AF person restriction .. ßÉ ¦.¢ Some alternative analyses, and their drawbacks .................... ¢ ¦.¢.Õ Multiple Agree .................................. ¢ ¦.¢.ó Feature percolation ............................... Éþ ¦.¢.ì A positional account ............................... Éó ¦.ä Absolutive agreement in regular transitives and intransitives ............ ɦ ¦.ä.Õ Intransitives .................................... ɦ ¦.ä.ó Transitives ..................................... Éä ¦.A Appendix: evidence from Tzotzil for the separability person and number in Mayan ............................................ Õþþ ¢ Derivational time-bombs: inadequate for deriving the obligatoriness of φ-agreement Õþ¢ ¢.Õ Failed number agreement in Kichean Agent-Focus .................. Õþä ¢.ó Failed person agreement in Kichean Agent-Focus .................. ÕÕä ¢.ì If not derivational time-bombs, then what? On obligatory operations and violable constraints ......................................... ÕÕÉ ¢.A Appendix: How did we get here? A historical interlude ............... Õóß ä Two more case studies in failed agreement ÕìÕ ä.Õ e conjoint/disjoint alternation and nominal augment morphology in Zulu . Õìó ä.Õ.Õ e conjoint/disjoint alternation ........................ Õìì ä.Õ.ó Nominal augment morphology ........................ Õì¢ ä.Õ.ì Halpert’s (óþÕó) analysis ............................ Õìß ä.Õ.¦ Tolerated failed agreement in the Zulu verb phrase ............. Õ¦þ ä.ó Basque unergatives .................................... Õ¦ì ä.ó.Õ e case for the implicit object conjecture .................. Õ¦¦ ä.ó.ó Tolerated failed agreement in Basque unergatives .............. Õ¢þ ä.ó.ì Summary ..................................... Õ¢¦ vii ß On ‘salience’ hierarchies and scales Õ¢ß ß.Õ Against ‘salience’ hierarchies/scales in the account of Kichean AF ........ Õ¢É ß.ó An argument from Zulu against ‘salience’ in Kichean AF .............. Õäó ß.ì Summary .......................................... Õäì Datives, defective intervention, and case-discrimination Õäß .Õ e inability of datives to value features on a φ-probe ................ ÕäÉ .ó e Dative Paradox: datives as ‘defective’ interveners ................ ÕßÕ .ì Existing treatments of the dative paradox ....................... Õߦ .ì.Õ e Activity Condition ............................. Õߦ .ì.ó Functional Shells ................................. Õß .ì.ì Case-discrimination ............................... Õä .ì.ì.Õ Bobaljik’s (óþþ) proposal ..................... Õß .ì.ì.ó Prospects for solving the dative paradox ............. ÕÉ¢ .¦ Intervention as failed agreement ............................ óþì .¢ Against a violable constraints alternative ........................ óóþ .ä Summary .......................................... óó¦ É Where’s φ? In syntax. óóß É.Õ e argument for morphological case and phi-agreement as post-syntactic operations .......................................... óìþ É.ó e missing evidence: Non-quirky-subject languages ................ óì¢ É.ì Case-competition in syntax ............................... óìÉ É.ì.Õ Case assignment in Sakha (Baker & Vinokurova óþÕþ, Levin & Preminger to appear) ......................... ó¦þ É.ì.Õ.Õ Accusative in Sakha as dependent case .............. ó¦Õ É.ì.Õ.ó Genitive and nominative in Sakha ................. ó¢þ É.ì.Õ.ì Sakha: A summary .......................... óäþ É.ì.ó A syntactic case calculus ............................ óäÕ É.¦ Summary .......................................... óäß É.A Appendix: case assignment and case-discrimination in the Kichean Agent-Focus construction ........................................ óäÉ viii Õþ Extensions & Outlook óߢ Õþ.Õ e logic of φ-agreement as an exemplar of syntactic computation ........ óßä Õþ.Õ.Õ Object Shi .................................... óßß Õþ.Õ.ó e Deniteness Eect ............................. óì Õþ.Õ.ì Long-distance wh-movement ......................... óÉÕ Õþ.ó Outlook: What is le for ‘uninterpretable features’? ................. óÉ Conclusion ìþß References ìÕÕ Acknowledgements is work was only made possible because a number of people lent sometimes staggering amounts of their own time to help me with it. First and foremost among these are Sabine Iatridou, David Pesetsky, and Norvin Richards. It is not an exaggeration to say this book would not have existed without them. Special thanks also go to Maria Polinsky, who meticulously read through an earlier version of this work and oered copious advice on both substance and organization that I found indispensable; and to Jessica Coon, whose infectious love of Mayan languages is what got me working on them in the rst place, and who has been a friend, collaborator, and inspiration to me in my own work. And thank you to the reviewers, who have challenged me and helped me rene and improve various aspects of the theory presented here. Various portions of this work have beneted greatly from discussions, emails exchanges, and hallway conversations over several years with Karlos Arregi, Andrew Nevins, and Milan Rezac, on issues of syntax and morphology (both in and outside of Basque). Robert Henderson, who has always been willing to give of his time and expertise, has been a great help on all things Mayan, and on Kichean in particular. ere remain a great many people who have, at some point or another, given comments, had discussions, or otherwise contributed to this work or its logical precursors. A non-exhaustive list includes Judith Aissen, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Rajesh Bhatt, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Sandy Chung, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Marcel Den Dikken, Ricardo Etxepare, Claire Halpert, Stephanie Harves, Itziar Laka, Idan Landau, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, and Hedde Zeijlstra. x I owe special thanks to those who have shared data and judgments from their native languages with me: Ana López de Mateo (Kaqchikel); Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (Icelandic); and Ricardo Etxepare, Aritz Irurtzun, and Itziar Laka (Basque). I would also like to thank those who have generously shared the results of their own eldwork, both data and analyses, with me: Robert Henderson (Kaqchikel, K’ichee’) and Claire Halpert (Zulu). And though they were not involved in this work directly, I feel I cannot but thank Tal Siloni and Julia Horvath, who I learned so much from, and whose inuence on me as a linguist pervades all of my work. is book is no exception. Finally, I would like to thank those who did not contribute directly to the scholarly side of this work, but without whom I cannot even fathom having completed it. Diesel Cafe (Somerville, MA) and Recess Coee (Syracuse, NY), where many of the keystrokes that went into these pages occurred, and who supported the eort with Lattes and just the right amount of background noise. My dear friend Lauren. Little Spike. And Gillian, who deserves the kind of thanks that I could not t into these paragraphs if I tried. Abbreviations Zf« absolutive Zhh accusative Zh± active voice Zoê adverbial Z Agent-Focus Z§ aorist Z£ antipassive Z§± article Z¶ augment Z¶ì auxiliary fu benefactive hZ¶« causative h clitic h classier h completive h conjoint oZ± dative ou demonstrative ou± determiner o« disjoint u§ ergative uêo evidential uìh exclusive uì£ expletive u feminine ¶± future u genitive Zf habitual xii £ imperfective h incompletive h inclusive h locative Z«h masculine nominative ñ nominalization f oblique £Z«ê passive £h particle £u§ perfect pl/£ plural £«« possessive £§u£ preposition £§u« present £§ê perfective £§± participle § relational noun «h small-clause sg/« singular Chapter Õ Introduction e central question investigated in this book is how the obligatory nature of predicate-argument agreement (henceforth, φ-agreement) is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Allocutive Marking and the Theory of Agreement
    Allocutive marking and the theory of agreement SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge, November 5th, 2019 Thomas McFadden Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin [email protected] 1 Introduction In many colloquial varieties of Tamil (Dravidian; South Asia), one commonly comes across utterances of the following kind:1 (1) Naan Ãaaŋgiri vaaŋg-in-een-ŋgæ. I Jangri buy-pst-1sg.sbj-alloc ‘I bought Jangri.’2 Aside from the good news it brings, (1) is of interest because it contains two different types of agreement stacked on top of each other. 1. -een marks quite normal agreement with with the 1sg subject. 2. -ŋgæ marks something far less common: so-called allocutive agreement. + Rather than cross-referencing properties of one of the arguments of the main predicate, allocuative agreement provides information about the addressee. + The addition of -ŋgæ specifically indicates a plural addressee or a singular one who the speaker uses polite forms of address with. + If the addressee is a single familiar person, the suffix is simply lacking, as in (2). (2) Naan Ãaaŋgiri vaaŋg-in-een. I Jangri buy-pst-1sg.sbj ‘I bought Jangri.’ Allocutive agreement (henceforth AllAgr) has been identified in a handful of languages and is characterized by the following properties (see Antonov, 2015, for an initial typological overview): • It marks properties (gender, politeness. ) of the addressee of the current speech context. • It is crucially not limited to cases where the addressee is an argument of the local predicate. • It involves the use of grammaticalized morphological markers in the verbal or clausal inflectional system, thus is distinct from special vocative forms like English ma’am or sir.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Case and Agreement: Its Relationship to Morphology and Argument Structure
    The Syntax of Case and Agreement: its Relationship to Morphology and Argument Structure By Vita G. Markman A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School – New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Linguistics written under the direction of Professor Mark Baker and approved by Professor Mark Baker Professor Viviane Deprez Professor Ken Safir Professor Carson Schutze New Brunswick, New Jersey October 2005 © 2005 Vita G. Markman ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION The Syntax of Case and Agreement: its Relationship to Morphology and Argument Structure by VITA G. MARKMAN Dissertation Director Professor Mark Baker In this thesis I argue for a non-arbitrary relationship between the syntax of case and agreement and its morphological realization, as reflected in the following linguistic universals: 1. If a language overtly case-marks the subject, it overtly marks the object; 2.If a language has overt object agreement, it has overt subject agreement (Moravcik 1974, Comrie 1988, Lehmann 1982). The goal of this thesis is to explain the nature of the morphology-syntax connection the above universals embody and explore the consequences it has for syntactic theory, grammars of individual languages, and for UG. In this dissertation I depart from the Universal Approach (e.g. Chomsky 1981, Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980, and later in Chomsky 1995, 2000, Harley 1995, Sigurdsson 2003 inter alia) that treats case and agreement as universal properties of language and their overt realization as arbitrary and language specific. Building on a proposal presented in Pesetsky and Torrego 2001 that features are interpretable but may become uninterpetable if placed on a wrong head, I argue that case and agreement features are misplaced interpretable features used by languages to create PF-records of thematic relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Deixis and Reference Tracing in Tsova-Tush (PDF)
    DEIXIS AND REFERENCE TRACKING IN TSOVA-TUSH A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS MAY 2020 by Bryn Hauk Dissertation committee: Andrea Berez-Kroeker, Chairperson Alice C. Harris Bradley McDonnell James N. Collins Ashley Maynard Acknowledgments I should not have been able to finish this dissertation. In the course of my graduate studies, enough obstacles have sprung up in my path that the odds would have predicted something other than a successful completion of my degree. The fact that I made it to this point is a testament to thekind, supportive, wise, and generous people who have picked me up and dusted me off after every pothole. Forgive me: these thank-yous are going to get very sappy. First and foremost, I would like to thank my Tsova-Tush host family—Rezo Orbetishvili, Nisa Baxtarishvili, and of course Tamar and Lasha—for letting me join your family every summer forthe past four years. Your time, your patience, your expertise, your hospitality, your sense of humor, your lovingly prepared meals and generously poured wine—these were the building blocks that supported all of my research whims. My sincerest gratitude also goes to Dantes Echishvili, Revaz Shankishvili, and to all my hosts and friends in Zemo Alvani. It is possible to translate ‘thank you’ as მადელ შუნ, but you have taught me that gratitude is better expressed with actions than with set phrases, sofor now I will just say, ღაზიშ ხილჰათ, ბედნიერ ხილჰათ, მარშმაკიშ ხილჰათ..
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistics 203 - Languages of the World Language Study Guide
    Linguistics 203 - Languages of the World Language Study Guide This exam may consist of anything discussed on or after October 20. Be sure to check out the slides on the class webpage for this date onward, as well as the syntax/morphology language notes. This guide discusses the aspects of specific languages we looked at, and you will want to look at the notes of specific languages in the ‘language notes: syntax/morphology’ section of the webpage for examples and basic explanations. This guide does not discuss the linguistic topics we discussed in a more general sense (i.e. where we didn’t focus on a specific language), but you are expected to understand these area as well. On the webpage, these areas are found in the ‘lecture notes/slides’ section. As you study, keep in mind that there are a number of ways I might pose a question to test your knowledge. If you understand the concept, you should be able to answer any of them. These include: Definitional If a language is considered an ergative-absolutive language, what does this mean? Contrastive (definitional) Explain how an ergative-absolutive language differs from a nominative- accusative language. Identificational (which may include a definitional question as well...) Looking at the example below, identify whether language A is an ergative- absolutive language or a nominative accusative language. How do you know? (example) Contrastive (identificational) Below are examples from two different languages. In terms of case marking, how is language A different from language B? (ex. of ergative-absolutive language) (ex. of nominative-accusative language) True / False question T F Basque is an ergative-absolutive language.
    [Show full text]
  • Honorificity, Indexicality and Their Interaction in Magahi
    SPEAKER AND ADDRESSEE IN NATURAL LANGUAGE: HONORIFICITY, INDEXICALITY AND THEIR INTERACTION IN MAGAHI BY DEEPAK ALOK A dissertation submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Linguistics Written under the direction of Mark Baker and Veneeta Dayal and approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey October, 2020 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Speaker and Addressee in Natural Language: Honorificity, Indexicality and their Interaction in Magahi By Deepak Alok Dissertation Director: Mark Baker and Veneeta Dayal Natural language uses first and second person pronouns to refer to the speaker and addressee. This dissertation takes as its starting point the view that speaker and addressee are also implicated in sentences that do not have such pronouns (Speas and Tenny 2003). It investigates two linguistic phenomena: honorification and indexical shift, and the interactions between them, andshow that these discourse participants have an important role to play. The investigation is based on Magahi, an Eastern Indo-Aryan language spoken mainly in the state of Bihar (India), where these phenomena manifest themselves in ways not previously attested in the literature. The phenomena are analyzed based on the native speaker judgements of the author along with judgements of one more native speaker, and sometimes with others as the occasion has presented itself. Magahi shows a rich honorification system (the encoding of “social status” in grammar) along several interrelated dimensions. Not only 2nd person pronouns but 3rd person pronouns also morphologically mark the honorificity of the referent with respect to the speaker.
    [Show full text]
  • A Crosslinguistic Approach to Double Nominative and Biabsolutive Constructions
    A Crosslinguistic Approach to Double Nominative and Biabsolutive Constructions: Evidence from Korean and Daghestanian∗ Andrei Antonenko1 and Jisung Sun2 Stony Brook University1,2 1. Introduction Distribution of case among distinct grammatical relations is one of the most frequently studied topics in the syntactic theory. Canonical cases are, in accusative languages, subjects of both intransitive and transitive verbs being nominative, while direct objects of transitive verbs are usually marked accusative. In ergative languages, subjects of intransitive verbs share properties with direct objects of transitive verbs, and are marked absolutive. Subjects of transitive verbs are usually ergative. When you look into world languages, however, there are ‘non-canonical’ case patterns too. Probably the most extreme kind of non-canonical case system would be so-called Quirky Subject constructions in Icelandic (see Sigurðsson 2002). This paper concerns constructions, in which two nominals are identically case-marked in a clause, as observed in Korean and Daghestanian languages. Daghestanian languages belong to Nakh-Daghestanian branch of North Caucasian family. Nakh-Daghestanian languages are informally divided into Nakh languages, such as Chechen and Ingush, spoken in Chechnya and the Republic of Ingushetia, respectively; and Daghestanian languages, spoken in the Republic of Daghestan. Those regions are located in the Caucasian part of Russian Federation. Some Daghestanian languages are also spoken in Azerbaijan and Georgia. This study focuses on Daghestanian languages, such as Archi, Avar, Dargwa, Hinuq, Khwarshi, Lak and Tsez, due to similar behaviors of them with respect to the described phenomenon. 2. Ergativity in Daghestanian Aldridge (2004) proposes that there are two types of syntactically ergative languages, based on which argument is performing functions typical for subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • Pluractionals in Fwe
    DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND CULTURES BANTUGENT - UGENT CENTRE FOR BANTU STUDIES PLURACTIONALS IN FWE Hilde Gunnink - 28 August 2017 - CALL 47 Fwe • +- 20.000 speakers • spoken in Zambia and Namibia • Eastern Bantu, Bantu Botatwe (Bostoen 2009, de Luna 2010) Pluractionality pluractionality / verbal number: multiple events • ètêndè rìcóːkêtè ‘His leg is broken.’ • ètêndèrìcó ːkáùkìtè> PLURACTIONAL ‘His leg is broken in multiple places.’ Pluractionals 1. Suffix -a-: event-internal pluractionality 2. Stem reduplication: event-internal/external pluractionality 3. Prefix -kabú- / -yabú-: locative pluractional Pluractional -a- • derivational suffix -a- • obligatorily followed by another derivational suffix: – -ur- / -uk-: separative – -ik-: impositive – -ir-: applicative Pluractional -a- Pluractional -a- with separative -ur-/-uk- -dàm-à-ùr-à ‘to beat up, beat to a pulp’ -cènk-à-ùk-à ‘to look over both shoulders’ Pluractional -a- with transitive impositive -ik- -dáns-à-ìk-à ‘to scatter’ -hánj-à-ìk-à ‘to hang up (multiple objects)’ Pluractional -a- with applicative -ir- -shónj-à-ìr-à ‘to throw (multiple times)’ -sòs-à-ìr-à ‘to keep on poking a fire’ Pluractional -a- From *-ag- “imperfective/repetitive/habitual” (Meeussen 1967) Or from *-ad- “extensive: be in a spread-out position” (Schadeberg 2003)? “Extensive” -a- Yeyi (R41) -aar- “extensive” -tj’embaara ‘pinch repeatedly’ Tonga (M64) -aul-/-auk- “dispersive/frequentative” -yandaula ‘seek for, want in many places’ Lamba (M54) -al-/-aul-/-auk- “extensive” -kwamaula ~ -kwamala ‘tear to bits’ Kwangali
    [Show full text]
  • Diachrony of Ergative Future
    • THE EVOLUTION OF THE TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM IN HINDI/URDU: THE STATUS OF THE ERGATIVE ALGNMENT Annie Montaut INALCO, Paris Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ Abstract The paper deals with the diachrony of the past and perfect system in Indo-Aryan with special reference to Hindi/Urdu. Starting from the acknowledgement of ergativity as a typologically atypical feature among the family of Indo-European languages and as specific to the Western group of Indo-Aryan dialects, I first show that such an evolution has been central to the Romance languages too and that non ergative Indo-Aryan languages have not ignored the structure but at a certain point went further along the same historical logic as have Roman languages. I will then propose an analysis of the structure as a predication of localization similar to other stative predications (mainly with “dative” subjects) in Indo-Aryan, supporting this claim by an attempt of etymologic inquiry into the markers for “ergative” case in Indo- Aryan. Introduction When George Grierson, in the full rise of language classification at the turn of the last century, 1 classified the languages of India, he defined for Indo-Aryan an inner circle supposedly closer to the original Aryan stock, characterized by the lack of conjugation in the past. This inner circle included Hindi/Urdu and Eastern Panjabi, which indeed exhibit no personal endings in the definite past, but only gender-number agreement, therefore pertaining more to the adjectival/nominal class for their morphology (calâ, go-MSG “went”, kiyâ, do- MSG “did”, bola, speak-MSG “spoke”).
    [Show full text]
  • Habituality in Four Oceanic Languages of Melanesia
    STUF 2019; 72(1): 21–66 Kilu von Prince*, Ana Krajinović, Anna Margetts, Nick Thieberger and Valérie Guérin Habituality in four Oceanic languages of Melanesia https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2019-0002 Abstract: Our knowledge about tense, aspect and modality (TMA) in the Oceanic languages of Melanesia has so far been severely limited by the lack of available data. Habituality in particular, as one of the less described TMA categories, has not yet been widely discussed for this group of languages. Based on corpus data and elicitations, we give a detailed overview of four languages, identifying common trends and addressing specific questions of general concern. These include the relation of habituality to (im)perfectivity and the relation between habituality and irrealis. Keywords: aspect, Oceanic, reduplication, modality 1 Introduction The Oceanic language family roughly includes between 450 (Lynch et al. 2002) and 520 (Hammarström et al. 2017) individual languages. Most of them are spoken in Melanesia, specifically in Papua New Guinea, the Admiralty Islands, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia. In contrast to some of the bigger Oceanic languages of Polynesia such as Samoan or Maori, most of the Oceanic languages of Melanesia are spoken by relatively small communities of speakers, often do not have a standardized variety, a written tradition, or official status. Accordingly, they are often comparatively under-documented. *Corresponding author: Kilu von Prince, Institut für Deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]. Ana Krajinović, Institut für Deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany, E-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Mismatches in Honorificity Across Allocutive Languages
    Mismatches in honorificity across allocutive languages Gurmeet Kaur, Göttingen Akitaka Yamada, Osaka [email protected] [email protected] Symposium: The features of allocutivity, honorifics and social relation @ LSA 2021 1 Introduction • Allocutivity is a phenomenon, where certain languages have distinct verbal morphology that encodes the addressee of the speech act (Oyharçabal, 1993; Miyagawa, 2012; Antonov, 2015; McFadden, 2020; Kaur, 2017; 2020a; 2020b; Haddican, 2018; Alok and Baker, 2018; Yamada, 2019b; Alok, 2020 etc.) • A classic example comes from Basque. (1) a. Pette-k lan egin di-k Peter-ERG work do.PFV 3ERG-M ‘Peter worked.’ (said to a male friend) b. Pette-k lan egin di-n Peter-ERG work do.PFV 3ERG-F ‘Peter worked.’ (said to a female friend) (Oyharçabal, 1993: 92-93) • As existing documentation shows, allocutive forms may or may not interact with 2nd person arguments in the clause. • This divides allocutive languages into two groups: • Group 1 disallows allocutivity with agreeing 2nd person arguments (Basque, Tamil, Magahi, Punjabi). In the absence of phi-agreement, Group 2 (Korean, Japanese) does not restrict allocutivity with any 2nd person arguments. (2) Punjabi a. tusii raam-nuu bulaa raye so (*je) 2pl.nom Ram-DOM call prog.m.hon be.pst.2pl alloc.pl ‘You were calling Ram.’ b. raam twaa-nuu bulaa reyaa sii je Ram.nom 2pl.obl-DOM call prog.m.sg be.pst.3sg alloc.pl ‘Ram was calling you.’ 1 (3) Japanese a. anata-wa ramu-o yon-dei-masi-ta. 2hon-TOP Ram-ACC call-PRG-HONA-PST ‘You were calling Ram.’ b.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: a Case Study from Koro
    Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro By Jessica Cleary-Kemp A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair Assistant Professor Peter S. Jenks Professor William F. Hanks Summer 2015 © Copyright by Jessica Cleary-Kemp All Rights Reserved Abstract Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro by Jessica Cleary-Kemp Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair In this dissertation a methodology for identifying and analyzing serial verb constructions (SVCs) is developed, and its application is exemplified through an analysis of SVCs in Koro, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. SVCs involve two main verbs that form a single predicate and share at least one of their arguments. In addition, they have shared values for tense, aspect, and mood, and they denote a single event. The unique syntactic and semantic properties of SVCs present a number of theoretical challenges, and thus they have invited great interest from syntacticians and typologists alike. But characterizing the nature of SVCs and making generalizations about the typology of serializing languages has proven difficult. There is still debate about both the surface properties of SVCs and their underlying syntactic structure. The current work addresses some of these issues by approaching serialization from two angles: the typological and the language-specific. On the typological front, it refines the definition of ‘SVC’ and develops a principled set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Morphological Split
    Chapter 6 Morphological Split Chapter 6 Morphological Split: Accusative Behaviour of Pronouns As mentioned in the previous chapters, Tongan shows a morphological split based on types of nouns. Specifically, full NP’s are divided into ERG and ABS, while pronouns show an accusative pattern: S and A appear as a subject pronoun, while O is realised in a distinct form. We will argue, however, that the accusative pattern does not mean that the pronouns receive NOM in the subject position and ACC in the object position. Rather, it is due to the fact that pronominal subjects are realised as clitics in Tongan. We will argue that the form of a subject clitic reflects the theta-role it bears and not the case. In particular, we will argue that despite the identical phonological form, a subject clitic receives ERG when it refers to A, and ABS when it refers to S. In §6.1, we will look at the data that demonstrate the apparent accusative pattern, which Tongan pronouns show. Our data demonstrate another peculiar property of the Tongan pronouns, namely, the compulsory word order alternation. In §6.2, we will argue that the SVO order results from the fact that the subject pronouns are clitics attached to T. We will also argue that object pronouns are full pronouns. Object clitics are not part of the lexical inventory of Tongan. In §6.3, we will develop the hypothesis that the subject clitics in Tongan are theta-role absorbers in the sense of Aoun (1985) and therefore, are arguments. This hypothesis explains why the pronouns in Tongan show an accusative pattern.
    [Show full text]