Yidiny Coordination Reduction and Syntactic Ergativity

Home , Split ergativity

Item Type Article; text

Authors Frazier, Michael

Publisher University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona)

Journal Coyote Papers

Rights http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Download date 28/09/2021 15:39:12

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/253417 Yidiny Coordination Reduction and Syntactic Ergativity

Michael Frazier Northwestern University

1. Introduction

Syntactic ergativity refers to the phenomenon, found almost exclusively in a subset of languages with Absolutive/Ergative morphology, that some syntactic processes treat transitive objects and intransitive subjects as a natural class to the exclusion of transitive subjects. In this paper I present an analysis of a typologically unusual pattern of argument sharing or Coordination Reduction (CR)1 in Yidiny, a Pama-Nyungan language from North Queensland, Australia (Dixon (1977)), with an eye to what the theoretical status of syntactic ergativity is: is it a homogeneous phenomenon derivable from a parameter of the grammar (what we might call Hypothesis A), or is it a descriptive rubric for a distributional pattern than can emerge from multiple underlying mechanisms (Hypothesis B). Herein I propose that the assumption that (whatever the mechanism is) one mechanism accounts for these syntactically ergative patterns (Hypothesis A) is incorrect, and that syntactic ergativity can occur in a language for at least two reasons. It may occur either because of some operation yielding prominence of the internal argument of a transitive verb in the syntax, or because of the interaction of syntactic mechanisms with case-marking in a language with morphological ergativity. Yidiny shows two dissociated patterns of syntactic ergativity, one appearing to be dependent upon surface morphological features in CR and another indifferent to them in A0 structures, that are most naturally analyzed as arising due to separate mechanisms. Because within a single language syntactically ergative phenomena can dissociate, there must be at least two possible routes to syntactic ergativity. The evidence of Yidiny suggests that syntactic ergativity can result from sensitivity to a position available to internal arguments and the single arguments of intransitives, or from the sensitivity of a given syntactic operation to Case (or case)2 features. In Yidiny, both kinds of syntactic ergativity appear to be present.3 The outline for this paper is as follows. First, I review the points of Yidiny morphosyntax relevant to the argument at hand. Then, I discuss why it would be most natural to treat the pattern of syntactic ergativity exhibited in Coordination Reduction separately from that seen elsewhere in the language. I review some evidence that the absolutive case-form is a syncretic morphological default in Yidiny, and then discuss the similarity that the CR pattern shows, once the syncretic nature of the absolutive is known, to matching effects Grimshaw (1977) observed in other languages. After presenting an analysis of Yidiny CR in these terms, I close with suggestions for further research. 2. Yidiny Morphosyntax

Yidiny has split-ergative case-marking of the typologically common NP-split pattern (Silverstein (1976), inter alia), which is also common within Pama-Nyungan Dixon (1976). Full nouns possess

1I use the term Coordination Reduction (CR) as a surface rubric for a family of constructions in which an argument in the ﬁrst of a series of coordinated clauses licenses the omission—whether by ellipsis, a null pro-form, or some other mechanism—of a co-referent argument in subsequent clauses. 2Herein I capitalize the term ‘Case’, and Nominative, Accusative, etc., when reference is intended to abstract features involved in NP-licensing rather than to the morphological form of nominals (‘case’) which I take to reﬂect, among other things, this abstract licensing. I assume an assignment or valuation approach to Case-licensing broadly as in Chomsky (2000), Chomsky (2001). 3Recent examples of these classes of proposals include Aldridge (2008) and Otsuka (2010) respectively.

19 Table 1: Yidiny Case Marking Split

man I/(1.sing) A wagudyanggu ngayu S wagudya ngayu O wagudya nganyany

distinct ergative and absolutive forms, which is to say that the transitive subject is marked distinctly from the intransitive subject and transitive object, which are marked alike (in Dixon’s terms, A6=S=O)4. 1st and 2nd person pronouns, on the other hand, have distinct nominative and accusative forms, so that the transitive object is marked distinctly from the intransitive and transitive subject, which are marked alike, as shown in Table 1. (In Dixon’s terms, A=S6=O.) This kind of split, between speech act participants (i.e. 1st/2nd person pronouns) and non-participants (i.e. full nouns) is a pattern that is familiar from the work of Silverstein (1976), Keenan & Comrie (1977), and many others. In most of its clause-combining structures, Yidiny exhibits syntactic ergativity of a kind similar to the well-attested pattern where A0-processes like relativization are only grammatical, or are grammatical in more contexts, when the moved element originates in an absolutive (intransitive subject or transitive object) position (Dixon (1994)). The status(es) of these clause-types are not entirely clear: they often bear a plausible similarity to correlatives (Srivastav (1991)), though their exact analysis is not directly relevant to the point at hand. Dixon (1977) terms them “subordinatives,” a descriptive usage which I follow here. The generalization concerning these constructions is that an argument may be shared between the subordinative clause and the matrix clause if, in each clause, it is either an intransitive subject or transitive object (i.e. what would be marked absolutive if a full NP).5 When this is not the case, as in (1), the subordinative clause verb6 is obligatorily in an intransitivizing form, such as the antipassive in (1), which has the effect of placing the ‘logical’ transitive subject ngayu ‘I / (1psg-NOM)’ in the position of intransitive subject, allowing it to be omitted under coreference with the transitive object nganyany ‘me / (1psg-ACC)’ in the matrix clause. Note that morphological matching is not required here: although the pronouns take nominative/accusative case forms, the transitive object and intransitive subject behave alike in this construction.

(1) gana nyundu:ba nganyany wamban, wurba:dyinyu:n dyambu:n-da TRY you.PL-NOM I-ACC wait-IMP, seek-ANTIP-DAT.SUBORD grub-LOC You wait for me, who am seeking grubs. (adapted from Dixon 1977:331) 2.1. Coordination Reduction

It is in coordinated clauses that Yidiny displays a pattern of syntactic ergativity that is apparently unattested elsewhere.7 In most circumstances, Yidiny behaves like its more famous neighbor Dyirbal in having ergatively aligned argument sharing (or coordination reduction, hereafter CR) between apparently coordinated clauses. So in (2) below, it is the transitive object wagudya ‘man’, rather than the transitive subject bunya:ng ‘woman’, that is interpreted as the intransitive subject of mangga:ny ‘laughed’. Similarly, in (3), the intransitive subject of the ﬁrst conjunct, dunda:lay ‘car’, licenses argument omission in the transitive

4A = transitive subject, O = transitive object, S = intransitive subject. 5In Apprehensional subordinatives, in contrast to the other classes Dixon (1977a) identiﬁes, the shared element need only be absolutive in the embedded clause. 6Or, in some cases, the matrix clause verb. 7Though Yidiny has no overt coordinator, a construction similar to coordination, and which will be referred to for brevity’s sake as coordination throughout, can be identiﬁed. This construction is distinguished by, apart from the argument sharing restrictions that are at issue, the presence of obligatory tense matching between the verbs of the conjoined clauses, and potential occurrence of both clauses in a single intonational phrase, properties which do not obtain of adjacent independent clauses (Dixon (1977)).

20 object position of the second conjunct, rather than in the transitive subject position, as would be the case in any English analogue.

(2) bunya:ng wagudya wurra:ny mangga:ny woman-ERG man-ABS slap-PAST laugh-PAST The woman slapped the man and (*she/he) laughed. (Dixon (1976)) (3) dunda:lay dyungga:ng gaba:ynydya, walba:ng bundya:dyinyu car-ABS run-PAST road-LOC, stone-ERG hit-:dyi-PAST A car was going along the road, and a stone smashed [into it]. (Dixon (1977):285)

This is strikingly unlike the pattern observed in superﬁcially similar constructions in English and other familiar languages, in which transitive and intransitive subjects are able to be shared between coordinated clauses to the exclusion of transitive objects.8 In Yidiny, there is an additional CR pattern that displays English-like argument sharing. In particular, when pronouns are arguments of coordinated clauses, they exhibit the English-like pattern of accusatively-aligned CR. Transitive and intransitive subjects behave alike in being able, unlike transitive objects, to be shared between conjuncts. The result of this is that, just as in English, a transitive subject will control the interpretation of a null intransitive subject coordinated with it, rather than the opposite pattern observed with full nouns, as in (2, 3).

(4) ngayu nyuniny bandya:rr, wanda:ny I-NOM you-ACC followed, fall.down-PAST I followed you, and (I/*you) fell down. (from Comrie (1989))

The complexity of Yidiny’s CR pattern results from the possibility of full nouns and pronouns occurring together as arguments of a transitive conjunct. When a transitive conjunct contains a pronoun subject and a full noun object, both arguments of the transitive conjunct are able to control the interpretation of a null intransitive subject in the second conjunct, and the resulting, conjoined sentence is ambiguous, as in (5, 6).

(5) ngayu bama bandya:rr, wanda:ny I-NOM person-ABS follow-PAST, fall.down-PAST I followed the person, and (I/he) fell down. (Dixon 1977a:390) (6) ngayu bunya wurra:ny mangga:ny I-NOM woman-ABS slap-PAST laugh-PAST I slapped the woman and (I/she) laughed. (Dixon 1976)

On the other hand, when a transitive conjunct contains a full noun subject and a pronoun object, neither argument of the transitive conjunct is able to control the interpretation of a null intransitive subject in the second conjunct, and CR is consequently impossible, as in (7).9 The generalization here is that a pronoun argument may be shared between coordinated clauses if, in each clause, it is either a transitive or intransitive subject (nominative). On the other hand, a full noun phrase argument may be shared if in each clause it is either a transitive object or intransitive subject (absolutive).

8English-like right-node raising, which can target transitive objects, does not typically target intransitive subjects. 9The unavailability or, at least, restricted availability of pro-drop, which is normally quite free in Yidiny, may be another distinguishing trait of CR structures in this language.

21 (7) *bama:l nganyany bundya:ny, wanda:ny person-ERG I-ACC hit-PAST, fall.down-PAST The person hit me and (*he/*I) fell down. (Comrie 1989, citing Dixon p.c.) 3. Analysis

Yidiny exhibits strikingly different behavior in CR and A0-like subordination phenomena, though syntactically ergative patterning obtains in both domains. This difference is unexpected if syntactic ergativity is a uniﬁed phenomenon. Syntactic ergativity in CR appears to be restricted to follow the distribution of morphological ergativity, while in the rest of the language syntactically ergative phenomena appear to target morphologically ergative/absolutive and nominative/accusative NPs indifferently (cf. ex. (1)). To put it another way, the question is why morphological split-ergativity should extend to the syntax at all, and why it should do so in only this one construction. If the syntactic ergativity exhibited in Yidiny CR (viz. in full NPs) were dependent upon that exhibited in A0 processes, we would expect the range of possible CR targets (NPs that can be shared between coordinated clauses) to be a subset of the range of A0 targets (NPs that can undergo A0- movement). That is, if whatever restricts correlative or subordinative argument sharing to transitive objects and intransitive subjects were operative in CR as well, we would expect the same restriction to obtain here as well, with perhaps other restrictions in addition. Instead, the same restriction applies for full NPs and a distinct but partially overlapping restriction applies for pronouns. In what follows, I review some assumptions about Yidiny clause structure and case morphology, discuss the similarity of its CR construction to syncretic matching effects documented elsewhere, and propose an analysis of Yidiny CR in those terms. I assume that cross-clausal coreference in Yidiny subordinatives is an instance of the A0-restriction documented in Dixon (1994), and propose that Yidiny CR results instead from sideward movement, with its disjoint restrictions for full and pronominal NPs following straightforwardly from a well-attested condition on morphological realization, Anderson (1969)’s Elsewhere Condition, but as applied to sharing structures (Franks (1993)). 3.1. Yidiny Clause Structure

I adopt Aldridge (2008)’s proposal that in languages with syntactic ergativity of the A0-restriction type, this restriction results from movement of the internal argument to vP’s outer speciﬁer due to an obligatory EPP feature on transitive v. This causes the internal argument to become an intervener over the external argument, rendering the external argument unable to be reached by Probes for A0-movement. So transitive clauses like those in (2-6) have a vP structure like the schematic in (8).

0 (8) [vP NP1ACC [vP NPERG [v vT RANS [VP [t]1 V ]]]]

I assume that the coordinate structure where Yidiny CR is licensed involves coordinated vPs with a null coordinator head. There is some reason to believe that the conjuncts are indeed rather small, smaller than a complete clause: in particular, if Yidiny CR is licensed in something smaller than TP (and than MoodP, or whatever equivalent projection is taken to be responsible for imperatives), then the tense- matching effect mentioned in footnote 7 follows straightforwardly, assuming that T is capable of valuing the tense on multiple verbs by AGREE or a similar mechanism. If only one T head / mood head exists in the numeration of a CR sentence, there should be no way for the verbs in the conjuncts to express distinct tense / mood values. So the structure for a CR sentence in Yidiny, abstracting away from the details of the argument sharing itself, should be something like figure 1. I assume asymmetrical coordination; for arguments for this structure for coordination in general, see Munn (1993), Johannessen (1998), Zhang (2010), inter alia, a diverse family of proposals. What is necessary for the analysis to work is simply that the &P, lacking categorical features of its own, takes its category label from its Specifier, so that the &P in Yidiny CR constructions will be a vP and thus susceptible to selection from T. TP and higher projections ae omitted from figure 1 for resons of space; moreover I do not indicate whether one or another argument raises into

22 Figure 1: Transitive-Intransitive Coordination

vP &0

NP1ACC vP & vP

0 NPERG v vINT RANS VP

NPNOM V vT RANS VP

[t]1 V

the T projection since I have no evidence either way.10 3.2. Case Morphology

I assume a late-insertion framework like that of Halle & Marantz (1993), such that feature structures created in the narrow syntax are re-written as phonological forms in the PF branch. Following Legate (2007), I assume that if a language with NP-split ergativity exhibits DP-internal case-mismatches, as in the Yidiny appositive construction in (9), this is evidence that “absolutive case” is not syntactically real but arises as a morphological default. Absolutive then occurs because structural Nominative and Accusative Case are both realized by a single default marking (usually a zero), while inherent Ergative Case possesses a dedicated morphological form. In languages of this type, differential case-marking patterns between classes of nominals result from differential case syncretism in the paradigms of different classes of NPs (typically nouns vs. pronouns, or speech-act participants vs. all others), rather than from availability of different structural positions to different classes of NPs. While full nouns in Yidiny have a single form syncretizing structural Nominative and Accusative (a zero) and a distinct form for inherent Ergative Case (-ng(gu)/-du), pronouns have a syncretic form covering inherent Ergative and structural Nominative (a zero), and a distinct form for structural Accusative case (with a partially fused sufﬁxal element -ny); cf. Table 1 for the split, Table 2 for the Cases expressed. (9) nganyany dyina bangga:ldu gunda:dyinyu I-ACC foot-ABS axe-ERG cut-:dyi-PAST The axe cut my foot. (Dixon (1977):282) I therefore assume that in Yidiny, Nominative, Ergative and Accusative are all assigned in the syntax as in Warlpiri and other languages. Ergative is an inherent Case (Woolford (2006)) assigned to the speciﬁer of vP, while Nominative and Accusative are structural Cases assigned under AGREE by T and v (or possibly V) respectively. For pronouns, Accusative Case has a distinct realization, while for nouns, it is Ergative Case that has a distinct form; and the other core cases are realized by the default -∅ morpheme. In other words, ‘absolutive’ in Yidiny is the realization of structural Nominative and Accusative for full nouns, which lack dedicated forms to realize these Cases, while ‘nominative’ for pronouns realizes both structural Nominative and inherent Ergative Case, for the same reason. So an appropriate set of DM-style lexical insertion rules for Yidiny’s case markers would be as in Table 2 (cf. Legate (2007) on Warlpiri).11 3.3. Matching effects

In a variety of constructions in many languages ‘matching effects’ (Grimshaw (1977)) have been documented where an element shared between clauses is required to satisfy selectional or other featural 10See Aldridge (2008) for a proposal that, in some syntactically ergative languages, T need not exhibit EPP- properties. 11I use [±Participant] for the feature distinguishing participant pronouns from 3p NPs, as in Tenny (2006)’s adaptation of the Harley & Ritter (2002) system.

23 Table 2: Yidiny Case Realization

[Case: Ergative] [-Partic] −→ -ng(gu)/-du [Case: Accusative] [+Partic] −→ -ny [Case: Dative] −→ -(n)da [other cases] . . . [Case] −→ -∅

requirements imposed in both conjuncts. In matching effects for nominals, a single NP, whether the head or ‘pivot’ of a free relative, an element shared in RNR, or one that has undergone Across-the-Board wh-movement, is required to match in Case in its multiple positions (either two base positions, as in ATB or RNR, or a base position and a moved position, as in free relatives). In (10), the RNR-shared element ‘plate’ receives Accusative Case in one conjunct and Nominative in the other, and cannot be shared between these conjuncts; expression of neither Case can salvage the sentence. (10) *On ne ostavil, tak kak emu nadoela, tarelk-u/a s chernoj kaemkoj. he not kept, as him sick.of, plate-ACC/NOM with black border He didnt keep, as he was sick of, the plate with a black border. Russian (from Asarina (2010)) What is relevant to Yidiny CR is that syncretic forms can salvage some mismatches, allowing an element to be shared between conjuncts even though it is required to express, for instance, a distinct Case in each conjunct, if a syncretic case form is available. In (11) the shared element ‘saucer’ receives the same Cases as in (10) but has a single form expressing Nominative and Accusative, and the RNR is licit. (11) On ne ostavil, tak kak emu nadoela, bljudc-e s krasnoj kaemkoj. he not kept, as him sick.of, plate-ACC&NOM with red border He didnt keep, as he was sick of, the saucer with a red border. Russian (from Asarina (2010)) Matching effects of this kind have been extensively documented in many languages, for instance Pullum & Zwicky (1986), Franks (1993), Citko (2005), and many others. Given the empirical and theoretical reasons for considering the Yidiny nominative and absoutive case forms to be syncretic, default forms, the different behavior in CR of full NPs and pronouns can be treated as an instance of a syncretic matching effect. 3.4. Coordination Reduction

Yidiny CR is surprising precisely because it appears to be a case of syntax following morphology, contra the well-known generalization that syntax does not make reference to morphology (Zwicky (1996)). Yidiny participant pronouns have accusatively aligned case forms and show accusative patterns of sharing (or omission, etc.) under coordination, while Yidiny nouns have ergatively aligned case forms and show ergative patterns of sharing. If CR were to be derived from the conjunction of two constituents out of both of which the shared element has moved, this would represent a syntactic conﬁguration sensitive to the morphological properties of its constituents, rather than the other way around. Instead, it is more theoretically coherent to posit that the licit CR patterns in Yidiny are distinguished from the illicit ones not because the licit patterns instantiate a particular conﬁguration from which the illicit ones are excluded, but because the language possesses the morphological resources to realize the licit, and not the illicit, patterns. The morphological character of the matching effect in Yidiny CR suggests that the element shared between clauses in Yidiny CR is underlyingly one syntactic item which is, in the course of the derivation, associated with multiple positions in the conjoined structure. In each of these positions it receives distinct Case features, which, if it is to be licensed to be spelled out, it must spell out with a single form (cf. Citko (2005), Asarina 2010, inter alia, for similar discussions).

24 In the course of the derivation, the two conjuncts are built up separately in different workspaces (W1, W2), and the shared element is merged in both. Assuming a late-insertion framework where Case features assigned in the narrow syntax are rewritten in the PF branch with morphophonological features, most of the unusual pattern of Yidiny CR can be derived from a cross-linguistically well- attested constraint on feature realization, when arguments are allowed to receive distinct sets of Case features in two positions but constrained to spell them out uniformly. To see how this might work, we will focus on the morphosyntactic realization of the shared element. Assume that the element shared between conjuncts is merged separately into each conjunct.12 The derivational history of a shared item will proceed as below, taking the example of bunya ‘woman’ from (6) above, on the ‘she laughed’ reading. (The order of merger into the two conjuncts is expository and does not make a principled difference.)

1. Lexical item WOMAN Merges with V; VP Merges with vT RANS and WOMAN receives structural ACC from v → [Case: ACC., -Participant]

W1: [vP vT RANS[EPP ] [VP WOMAN[CASE:Accusative] SLAP ]]

0 2. Transitive conjunct is built up until it includes [vP 1PSING[Case:ERG] v ]. WOMAN re-merges with vP to satisfy its EPP requirement as in Aldridge 2008. 0 0 W1: [vP WOMAN[CASE:ACC] [v 1PSING[Case:ERG] [v vT RANS [VP WOMAN[CASE:ACC] SLAP ]]]] 3. WOMAN Merged with V in other conjunct.

W2: [VP WOMAN[CASE:ACC] LAUGH ]

4. VP Merged with vINT RANS, which has no Case to assign.

W2: [vP vINT RANS [VP WOMAN[CASE:ACC] LAUGH ]] 5. One conjunct Merged with null &, and resulting &P merged with other conjunct. &P takes its category label (vP) from its most recently Merged constituent.

W2: [&P [vPINT RANS]] 0 W2: [&P(=vP) [vPT RANS] [& &[vPINT RANS]]] 6. &P Merged with T. WOMAN receives structural NOM from T → [Case: Accusative, Nominative, -Participant]13 0 W2: [TP T [&P(=vP) [vPT RANS] [& &[vPINT RANS . . . WOMAN[CASE:ACC,NOM] . . . ]]]]

Assume that the spellout rules in Table (2) are subject to the condition in (12).

(12) Feature-realization: the single occurrence of a shared item must realize the largest possible nondistinct subset of the features of each of its positions, or lexical insertion will fail.

This formulation is due to Franks (1993), and is essentially the Elsewhere Condition of Anderson (1969) et. seq. as applied to sharing constructions.14 The effect of this constraint is that spellout of an element that has received two sets of Case features is only possible in a narrow range of circumstances. Whatever form best realizes (in addition to the lexical features of the shared element itself such as

12I remain neutral as to whether this occurs via Merging externally into one conjunct and then undergoing parallel Merge into the other as in Citko (2005)’s model, or by a process of Copy and Re-Merge (assuming that Case features assigned in the ﬁrst Merged position are Copied in addition to lexical features) as in Nunes’ Sideward Movement (Nunes (2001)) model. The derivational history of the shared NP should be set-theoretically, though not graph- theoretically, identical on these two accounts. 13If the intransitive vP is a weak phase in the sense of Chomsky (2001) (perhaps because unaccusative) the intransitive argument can remain in situ and still receive Nominative Case; otherwise it will need to have raised into Spec,vP to render it visible to T. 14Ideally this constraint would be derived from more general principles of lexical insertion, but is stated as a stipulation here for simplicity.

25 Table 3: CR Possibilities

[+Partic., Case: ERG, NOM] X spells out as null [] [+Partic., Case: ACC, NOM] ∗ blocked by -ny [-Partic., Case: ERG, NOM] ∗ blocked by -ng(gu)/-du [-Partic., Case: ACC, NOM] X spells out as null [] [+Partic., Case: DAT/ABL/.. . , NOM] ∗ blocked by -(n)da, -m(u),...

[+Participant], [+Speaker], etc.) the features assigned to the shared element in one position (in the example above, [ACC]) is also the form that best realizes the features assigned to the shared element at its other position ([NOM]). In the example above, default null case is nondistinct from both the speciﬁcation [−Participant, ACC] and [−Participant, NOM] and spellout of a single form is licensed. On the other hand, sharing of [−Participant] forms (full noun NPs) between transitive and intransitive subject positions (as in the starred interpretation in (2)) is impossible because a form exists that spells out [−Participant, ERG], and this form will block the application of the default rule but be inconsistent (assuming (12) is interpreted distributively) with the speciﬁcation [-Participant, NOM]. Similarly, since [+Participant] NPs (pronouns) have a distinct accusative form, this is the optimal realization in the transitive object position in (4) in which the 2p pronoun receives structural Accusative Case, but it is incompatible with the intransitive subject position where it receives structural Nominative, leading to the unavailability of the starred interpretation. Yidiny’s CR possibilities are schematized in Table 3. In (7), this condition can account for the ungrammaticalty of the coordination, since the only possible elements to be shared with (and thus control the interpretation of) the apparently empty position in the second conjunct are a pronoun object and a full noun transitive subject, but the former is blocked by the availability of an [+Participant, ACC] form and the latter by that of an [-Participant, ERG] form, either of which would be inconsistent with the structural Nominative assigned to the intransitive subject of the second conjunct. The ambiguity of examples like (5) and (6) follows from the different patterns of Case syncretism pronouns and nouns participate in. Because the transitive conjunct in these examples contains a [-Participant, ACC] argument and a [+Participant, ERG] argument, the unpronounced subject position in its intransitive conjunct is licensed equally well if it is [+Participant, NOM] or [-Participant, NOM], because both [+Participant, ERG, NOM] and [-Participant, ACC, NOM] spell out with default null (absolutive/nominative) case. 3.5. Open problems

Future research will investigate an attested further restriction in Yidiny CR (over and above the interpretative asymmetry between nouns and pronouns), to determine what accounts for the generalization that transitive subject (ergative) nouns and transitive object (accusative) pronouns cannot be shared in CR, even with other transitive subject nouns and transitive object pronouns. These structures are unattested15 and reportedly impossible (Dixon (1977):388-389), but nothing we have discussed so far rules them out. A suggestive possibility is that some constituent or other must raise into the T- domain either for linearization or EPP purposes, and whichever argument is selected must be compatible with T-Case (NOM). There is some evidence (outside the scope of this paper) that Yidiny is a multiple- Nominative language in the sense of Szabolcsi (2009) that may allow an fuller account in these terms to be constructed. A related puzzle is that, under standard assumptions about linearization, an additional Merge outside the coordination, for which there is no apparent word order evidence, will be necessary in order to linearize the proposed structure. In the absence of another motivation for this movement (that is, if inherent Ergative is always assigned to transitive subjects in Yidiny, removing Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (2001)’s Case-competition motivation for evacuating vP, and if T need not bear an EPP feature in languages with syntactic ergativity, as proposed by Aldridge (2008), this movement may be a last-resort mechanism of some kind. 15To the best of the author’s knowledge no clear cases are attested in the extant Yidiny materials, though some possible instances are under further investigation.

26 4. Conclusion

Much of the apparently obscure Yidiny CR pattern can be accounted for by combining a set of internally motivated case realization rules with a cross-linguistically well-attested output condition on morphological realization. The divergence of this pattern from the morphology-insensitivity of A0-type syntactic ergativity exhibited elsewhere in the language and the possibility of assimilating the unusual CR pattern to syncretic matching effects indicates that syntactic ergativity is a partially heterogenous phenomenon that can arise from multiple underlying mechanisms, suggesting a possible avenue for explaining exceptions (such as van de Visser (2003) on Balinese) to otherwise well-attested generalizations about the distribution of syntactic ergativity. References

Aldridge, Edith (2008). Minimalist analysis of ergativity. Sophia Linguistica 55, 123–142. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou (2001). The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32:2, 193–231. Anderson, Stephen R. (1969). West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Asarina, Alya (2010). Neutrality vs. ambiguity in resolution by syncretism: Experimental evidence and consequences. Paper presented at NELS 41. Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Martin, Roger, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, 89–156. Chomsky, Noam (2001). Derivation by phase. Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Linguistics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1–52. Citko, Barbara (2005). On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36:4, 475–496. Comrie, Bernard (1989). Language Universals and Linguistics Typology, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Dixon, Robert M.W. (1976). The syntactic development of Australian languages. Li, Charles (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, University of Texas Press. Dixon, Robert M.W. (1977). A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge University Press. Dixon, Robert M.W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. Franks, Steven (1993). On parallelism in across-the-board dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry 24:3, 509–528. Grimshaw, Jane (1977). English Wh-Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 111–176. Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78:3, 482–526. Johannessen, Janne Bondi (1998). Coordination. Oxford University Press. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:1, 63–99. Legate, Julie Anne (2007). Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39:1, 55–101. Munn, Alan Boag (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Maryland. Nunes, Jairo (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:2, 303–344. Otsuka, Yuko (2010). DP ellipsis in Tongan: is syntactic ergativity real? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:2, 315–342. Pullum, Geoffrey & Arnold Zwicky (1986). Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62, 751–773. Silverstein, Michael (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Dixon, Robert M.W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian Languages, Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 112–171. Srivastav, Veneeta (1991). The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:4, 637–686. Szabolcsi, Anna (2009). Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically: Data, diagnostics, and preliminary analyses. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Papers in Syntax. Tenny, Carol L. (2006). Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15:3, 245–288. van de Visser, Mario (2003). Syntactic ergativity in Dyirbal and Balinese. Linguistics in the Netherlands 20, 177– 188. Woolford, Ellen (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37:1, 111–130. Zhang, Niina Ning (2010). Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge University Press. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1996). Syntax and phonology. Brown, Keith & Jim Miller (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories, Oxford: Elsevier Science, 300–305.