ANOTHER LOOK AT ERGATIVITY 2 Three initial descriptive generalizations
Maria Polinsky 2.1 G1: No morphologically unmarked ergative Harvard University AFLA-16 (1) Ergative is always morphologically marked UC Santa Cruz, May 3, 2009 ABSOLUTIVE MARKED ABSOLUTIVE UNMARKED
1 Introduction ERGATIVE MARKED Tongan, Chukchi Rennellese, Avar
INITIAL GENERALIZATIONS: ERGATIVE UNMARKED there are no unmarked ergatives (unmarked accusatives are attested, unattested unattested e.g., Harar Oromo, Tuvan, Kumyk, Kazakh, Khanty, Finnish)
historically, ergatives develop from passives/middles or clauses with Is the absence of unmarked ergatives an accidental gap? a topicalized possessor/locative, often with a nominalization
there are no ergative languages with the SVO word order 2.2 G2: Diachrony of ergativity
Are these generalizations simple accidents of cross-linguistic Two main scenarios: distribution? passive-to-ergative reanalysis (Benveniste 1952, Kurylowicz 1964, Hohepa 1969, Clark 1976, Anderson 1977, Chung 1978, GOAL OF THIS TALK: Comrie 1978, Seiter 1980, Ross 2002, Otsuka in press, a.o.)
present a new analysis of the ergative case (with a particular possessor/locative-to-subject reanalysis (Kurylowicz 1964, emphasis on Austronesian languages) that ties these three Bubenik 1993, Dixon 1994, Bynon 2005, Johns 1992, generalizations together Kaufman 2008, 2009, McGregor 2009, a.o.)
develop the conception that morphologically ergative languages are (2) Passive-to-ergative reanalysis not structurally uniform Theme Agent Predicate
Initial stage Subject PP adjunct VerbPASSIVE OUTLINE OF THE TALK: (by-phrase) three initial descriptive generalizations End stage Object Subject Verb ergative as a prepositional phrase (in V-initial ergative languages) an aside on Niuean outstanding questions and some answers conclusions
1
By way of illustration: Pukapukan (Polynesian), based on Chung (1978: Ch. 7) 2.3 G3: No ergative languages with the SVO basic order (3) *na patu-a te tamaiti e mātou Æ PAST hit-PASS DET child by us Ergative languages tend to be verb-peripheral (Trask 1979, Mahajan 1994, Predicate Passive subj By-phrase 1997)
Comrie (2008): 38 languages with ergative case marking; 34 languages are na patu Ø te tamaiti e mātou (S)OV, 4 languages are VSO/VOS PAST hit ABS DET child ERG we Predicate Object Subject (6) morphological ergativity and word order ‘We hit the child.’ Language Word (4) Clause with a possessor/locative and perfect(ive) reanalyzed as ergative: family/group order [Possessor/locative XP [ Subject V ] BE] Æ DP DP PredP Sino-Tibetan SOV SC RESULTATIVE ERG ABS Northwest Caucasian SOV Nakh-Dagestanian SOV Paleo-Siberian SOV Theme Predicate Eskimo-Aleut SOV Pama-Nyungan SOV Initial stage Possessor/locative Subject of a small BE Salish VSO/VOS PP clause with a Mayan VSO/VOS resultative predicate Austronesian VSO/VOS
Intermediate Possessor/locative Object Perfective stage XP predicate (+ In those languages that have split ergative/non-ergative marking, the ergative BE) marking is associated with the verb-final order (Hindi), Pama-Nyungan languages—cf. Tsunoda 1981. End stage Subject (Agent) Object Verb
(7) Austronesian languages with morphological ergativity (see also Ball 2007)
By way of illustration: Indo-Aryan (Kuryłowicz 1964, Benveniste 1952, Garrett 1990, Language Word order Bynon 2005) Roviana VSO Nêlêmwa VOS (5) tád vā rsinām ánusrutam āsa Æ Early Vedic Némi VOS that.NOM PRT poet.GEN.PL hear.PAST.PART.NOM was Sanskrit Tongan VSO/VOS subject possessor resultative BE Niuean VSO/VOS Samoan VSO/VOS rsinām tád vā ánusrutam āsa Modern Rennellese VOS/VSO poet.ERG that.ABS PRT hear AUX.PAST Indo-Aryan Tokelau VSO subject object analytical predicate E.Futuna/Uvea VSO/VOS ‘The bards heard that.’ (after Bynon 2005: 24) In both scenarios the source of the ergative DP is a prepositional phrase
2
SVO languages (Rotuman, Indonesian, Chuukese, Drehu, etc.) do not show (9) right-hand highest specifier (Georgeopoulos 1991, Guilfoyle et al. morphological ergativitity (see also Trask 1979, Mahajan 1994, 1997 for this 1992, Paul 2000; Potsdam and Polinsky 2007, a.o.) generalization outisde Austronesian) TP Is this an accidental gap? 3 T’
3 Whence the ergative in verb-initial languages? 3 T vP Proposal: in head initial ergative languages, the ergative expression is a PP 3 base-generated in spec,vP PP v’ ergative 3 v VP Role of v: 3 1. introduces an external Θ-role V DP 2. has a PP specifier (cf. Williams 1981, 1985; Hasegawa 1988; Watanabe 1996; Goodall 1997, Kayne 2005, but contra Grimshaw 1990, Collins 2005) 3. provides structural case to an internal argument Churchward (1953), Broschart (1994): Tongan ‘e is a preposition 4. creates a predication relation between its complement and specifier (Kratzer 1994, 1996; Kayne 2005; den Dikken 2006; Koopman 2008) theta-licensing (Williams 1985; Goodall 1997, Neeleman 1997): base-generated PP whose complement (DP) is theta-licensed by the v head from the outside
(8) left-hand specifier the interpretation of the DP complement changes depending on the predicate that it co-occurs with TP 3 T’ 3.1 The ergative is higher than the absolutive 3 T vP Evidence that the ergative is structurally higher than the absolutive: binding, 3 control, coreference (Anderson 1982, Dixon 1994, Aldridge 2004, 2008, PP v’ Legate 2008, a.o.) ergative 3 v VP 3.2 The ergative is a PP
3 Evidence for a P head: overt morphological marking; peripheral placement V DP under stacking; inability to license depictives; PP island effects
3
overt marking no depictive licensing by the ergative phrase (cf. Williams 1980, Neeleman 1997 on PPs and depictives) the ergative is always overtly marked (12) Johni brought Maryk the catm sicki/m/*k English (13) Napoleoni sent General Legrandk new soldiersm barely awakei/m/*k head-initial ergative, prepositional; head-final ergative, postpositional (14) *This cathedral was painted by Picasso angry (15) Chagalli was remembered by Picassok tiredi/*k (10) a. PP Samoan 3 (16) a. na’e manatu’i ‘e Siale ‘a Mele ‘aneafi Tongan P DP PAST remember ERG C ABS M yesterday e 3 ta’e konā D NP sober le foma’i ‘doctor.ERG’ b. na’e manatu’i ‘a Mele ‘e Siale ‘aneafi ta’e konā PAST remember ABS M ERG C yesterday sober b. PP Shapsug ‘Yesterday Charliei remembered Maryk soberk/*i.’ 3 Adyghe (17) a. na su’esu’e telefua e le foma’i le tama Samoan DP P PAST examine naked ERG DET doctor DET boy 3 ya ‘girl.ERG’ ‘The doctor examined the boy naked .’ NP D i k k/*i b. na su’esu’e telefua le tama e le foma’i pIaSe- r- PAST examine naked DET boy ERG DET doctor
‘The doctori examined the boyk nakedk/*i.’ always the peripheral marker in a sequence of stacked elements (18) a. na su’esu’e e le foma’i le tama ananafi telefua Nakh-Dagestanian languages (Comrie and Polinsky 1998) PAST examine ERG DET doctor DET boy yesterday naked (11) a. ata ‘brain’ Tsez ‘Yesterday the doctori examined the boyk naked?k/?i.’ b. ata-ma-r-ce-zā b. na su’esu’e le tama e le foma’i ananafi telefua PAST examine DET boy ERG DET doctor yesterday naked brain-OBL.STEM-LAT-EQUATIVE-ERG ‘the one that behaves like s/he is inside the brain’ ‘Yesterday the doctori examined the boyk nakedk/*i.’ c. ata-ce-r-zā see also Mosel (2004: 264, 281-284)
brain- EQUATIVE-LAT-ERG (19) ne togā he hoana hana taane Niuean ‘the one that is moving towards what is brain-like’ d. *ata-ma-r-zā-ce PAST embarrass ERG wife 3.POSS husband he toloaga tagata he itafua brain-OBL.STEM-LAT- ERG-EQUATIVE e. *ata-ce-zā-r OBL gathering people OBL angry ‘The wife shamed her husband in front of the people as he/*she was brain- EQUATIVE-ERG-LAT angry.’ (based on Sperlich 1997: 316) Australian languages (Dench and Evans 1988; Schweiger 2000) (20) a. buch-ul tyi chäm-i Chol irrelevant for Polynesian where stacking is impossible seated-POS(ITIONAL) PERF(ECTIVE) die-INTRANS (Churchward 1953: 115; Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1993: 347) ‘He died sitting down.’ b. buch-ul tyi majl-i-yoñ seated-POS PERF go-INTRANS-ABS1 ‘I went seated (e.g. in a car).’
4
w (21) a. buch-ul tyi k-tyaj-a-yety b. e séni [ni q’á.y-t-əx seated-POS PERF ERG1-find-TRANS-ABS2 DET woman AUX kill-TRANS-2SG.SUBJ ‘I found you seated’ w k θə sqéəq-s] NOT: "I was seated when I found you." DET younger_brother-3POSS b. buch-ul-ety tyi k-tyaj-a-yety ‘the woman whose younger brother you killed’ (Gerdts 1988: 75) seated-POS-ABS2 PERF ERG1-find-TRANS-ABS2
‘I found you seated’ no extraction out of the ergative subject NOT: "I was seated when I found you." w w c. *buch-ul-oñ tyi k-tyaj-a-yety (25) a. ni q’ əl-ət-əs kθə sqéəq-s seated-POS-ABS1 PERF ERG1-find-TRANS-ABS2 AUX bake-TRANS-3ERG DET younger_brother-3POSS w (‘I found you while I was seated.’) (Jessica Coon, pers. comm.) e séni k θə scé.tən DET woman DET salmon quantifier float? ‘The woman’s younger brother baked the salmon.’ w w quantifier float data are more equivocal: there is a strong preference for the b. *e séni [ni q’ əl-ət-əs kθə sqéəq-s absolutive (e.g., Mosel and Hovhaugen 1993: 712-14 for Samoan), but it is DET woman AUX kill-TRANS-2SG.SUBJ DET younger_bro-3POSS not categorical; see Massam (2002) for an overview of the Polynesian data w k θə scé.tən] and an alternative explanation based on event semantics DET salmon
(‘the woman whose younger brother baked the salmon’) comparison with quantifier float from English PPs (Gerdts 1988: 74) (22) a. ?Who did we give all a toy? b. *To which children did she give all a toy? Mayan: extraction out of the absolutive but not ergative documented for c. *By which speakers was this question addressed all yesterday? Jacaltec (Craig 1977), Chol (Coon 2009), Tzotzil (Aissen 1996), Tzutujil d. *She put a napkin next to the knives each (Dailey 1981)
opacity coordination Salish: possessor extraction is possible out of absolutives but not out of in languages where P does not cliticize on DP, coordination should produce ergatives (Gerdts 1988: 76) (26) ERG [NP+CONJ+NP] extraction out of the absolutive subject w (27) a. sā fasi le maile e [le teine ma le tama] Samoan (23) a. ni xčénəm k θə sqéəq-s e séni Halkomelem PAST hit DET dog ERG DET girl and DET boy AUX run DET younger_brother-3POSS DET woman ‘The girl and the boy hit the dog.’ ‘The woman’s younger brother ran.’ b. * sā fasi le maile [e le teine] ma [e le tama] w b. e séni [ni xčénəm k θə sqéəq-s ] PAST hit DET dog ERG DET girl and ERG DET boy DET woman AUX run DET younger_brother-3POSS ‘the woman whose younger brother ran’ (Gerdts 1988: 74) A-bar movement restriction imperfect comparison with indirect object in English ditransitives extraction out of the absolutive object (Hornstein and Weinberg 1980, den Dikken 1995, Pesetsky 1995) (24) a. ni č q’á.y-t kwθə sqéəq-s AUX 2 SG.SUBJ kill-TRANS DET younger_brother-3POSS (28) a. ??/*this is the student [she has never given __ a B] b. *this is the student [that she has never given __ a B] e s éni c. *who is (it) pleasant to give __ comments? DET woman ‘You killed the woman’s younger brother.’
5
(29) accessibility to A-bar movement: verb-initial ergative languages Extraposition of preverbal subject—e.g., Maori (Bauer 1993, see also Language Does ABS Does ERG Compensatory Woolford 1991) A’-move A’-move strategy Halkomelem Yes No Nominalization, antipassive Subject lowering—e.g., Chamorro (Chung 1998) Jakaltec Yes No Agent focus/antipassive Tongan Yes No Resumption 4.2 Satisfying the EPP in a verb-initial morphologically ergative language Samoan Yes No Resumption or antipassive Roviana Yes No Resumption 4.2.1 Phrasal movement Tokelau Yes No Resumption Futunan Yes No Resumption or antipassive Main ingredients: Rennellese Yes No Resumption or antipassive the EPP is satisfied by phrasal movement of VP Pukapukan Yes No Antipassive moved VP is an island Niuean Yes YES NA? (a PP in spec,v is not “good enough” to satisfy the EPP?)
) Interim conclusion: the ergative is a PP, base-generated in spec,vP (32) TP (30) PP 3 2 T vP P° DP VP 3 4 PP v' D° 3
v VP (31) [ ERG ] ~> λx ιy (x = y) 4
) Motivating the descriptive generalizations: very popular in analysis of Austronesian languages (Aldridge 2004, 2006; G1: The constant overt marking of the ergative is determined Chung 2006; Cole and Hermon 2008; Cole et al. 2002; Massam 2000, by its categorical status as a PP 2001; Massam and Smallwood 1997; Oda 2005; Pearson 2001, 2005, G2: The PP status of the ergative is consistent with the 2006; Potsdam 2007 and in press; Rackowski and Travis 2000; Travis diachronic path of morphological ergativity (passive-to- 2008, a.o.) ergative reanalysis) inasmuch as phrasal movement is independently attested in Austronesian, it provides a reasonable mechanism for satisfying the EPP in a 4 Morphological ergativity and verb-initial orders morphologically ergative verb-initial language
4.1 Pathways to verb-initiality VOS order follows; VSO order can also be derived via object shift if needed Phrasal movement (VP fronting)—e.g., Niuean, Seediq, Zapotec, Chol for particular languages (see Massam 2000; Chung 2006) (Massam 2000, 2001, Aldridge 2004, Lee 2006, Coon in press)
Head movement (v°/V°-to-T°)—e.g., Celtic, Afro-Asiatic (Emonds 1980, McCloskey 1996a, b, 2005; Koopman and Sportiche 1991, Hoyt 1989, Shlonsky 1997, Roberts 2001)
6
4.2.2 Head movement 4.2.3 Subject starts out high
(33) XP Subject lowering (Chung 1998, 2005) 3 X TP (35) CP 5 3 3 v-V ..X T' C TP 3 3 T vP SU T' 3 3 PP v’ T VP 3 3 v VP V OBJ 4 3 V V SU
(34) VP- and V-raising in a sample of Austronesian languages (based on Prediction: Verb initial languages derived by subject lowering and by subject Potsdam in press) extraposition should not display morphological ergativity
LANGUAGE WORD ORDER V1 STRATEGY SOURCES
Malagasy VOS VP raising Pearson 2006, (36) morphological ergativity vis-à-vis V1-derivation Potsdam 2006a,b
Maori VSO VP raising Herd 2003, Bauer VP- Verb Subject Subject 1993 raising raising extraposition lowering Niuean VSO VP raising Massam 2000, 2001, (e.g., (e.g., Seiter 1980 Chamorro) Palauan) Seediq VOS VP raising Aldridge 2002, 2004, Base position of Holmer 2005 subject low can be low high high Toba Batak VOS VP raising Cole & Hermon 2006
Morphological Tagalog VSO, VOS V raising Aldridge 2002, 2004 ergativity yes yes no no Tongan VSO, VOS V raising Otsuka 2000, Custis possible 2004
) Motivating the descriptive generalizations: G1: The consistent overt marking of the ergative is determined by its categorial status as a PP G2: The PP status of the ergative is consistent with the diachronic path of morphological ergativity G3: The co-occurrence of morphological ergativity with verb- initial orders is not accidental
7
5 Is Niuean an exception? b. *e ta’ahine na’a ‘alu ‘a Sione Tongan DET girl PAST go ABS John 5.1 An aside on Niuean relativization (mo ia) Niuean vs. Tongan: ergative extracts with a gap in Niuean but has to be resumed with 3SG by a clitic in Tongan (‘the girl that John went with’) (37) a. to kai he tama e tau pateta Niuean FUT eat ERG child ABS PL potato resumption ‘The child will eat the potatoes.’ (41) a. e fakamatalaaga ne fanogonogo Niuean b. e tama ka kai (*e ia) e tau pateta ABS speech NON.FUT listen ABS child FUT.DEP eat ERG 3SG ABS PL potato a au *(ki ai) ‘the child who will eat the potatoes’ (Seiter 1980: 94) ABS 1SG to RP ‘the speech which I listened to’ (Seiter 1980: 95) (38) a. na’e kai ‘e ta’ahine ‘a e iká Tongan b. e ta’ahine na’a fakatau tohi Tongan PAST eat ERG girl ABS DET fish DET girl PAST sell book ‘The girl ate the fish.’ ‘a Sione *(ki ai) b. e ta’ahine na’a *(ne) kai ‘a e ika ABS John to RP DET girl PAST RP eat ABS DET fish ‘the girl that John sold books to’ ‘the girl that ate the fish’
All other relativization works the same in Tongan and Niuean: 5.2 Proposal absolutives extract with a gap Niuean ergative relativization involves a null resumptive pronoun comitatives do not extract at all all other constituents require resumption (42) e tama ka kai Ø e tau pateta ABS child FUT.DEP eat ERG RP ABS PL potato absolutive extraction ‘the child who will eat the potatoes’ (39) a. e tagata ne moto Niuean ABS person NON.FUT punch ABS extraction—true gap e koe (*a ia) (43) [DP DP [NP NPi [CP Opi [TP … ti]]] ERG 2SG ABS 3SG ‘the person that you punched’ (Seiter 1980: 94) ERG extraction—null resumptive b. e ta’ahine na’e taa’i ‘e Mele Tongan (44) [DP DP [NP NPi [CP Opi [TP … Null RPi]]] DET girl PAST hit ERG M (*‘a ia) Extraction of other PPs—overt resumption ABS 3SG (45) [DP DP [NP NPi [CP Opi [TP …Prp aii]]] ‘the girl that Mary hit’
5.3 Preliminary evidence: aggressively non-d-linked questions (what-the- no extraction of comitatives hell questions) (40) a. *e tama ne fakatau ō hifo Niuean ABS child NON.FUT together go.down.PL descriptive generalization in search of an explanation: a Maka (mo ia) resumptive pronouns are incompatible with de dicto reading and aggressively ABS M with 3SG non-d-linked reading (Doron 1982: 26-27, Boeckx 2001: 58, Abels 2003: (‘the child that Maka came down with’) (Seiter 1980: 95) 181)
8
(46) a. ?Which car did Gary say that the man who borrowed it English Fijian, Tongan: overt resumptives are incompatible with aggressively non-d- impressed his friends? linked wh-questions (Alexopoulou and Keller 2007, Xiang et al. 2008) (52) a. o cei o a soli-a kina Fijian b. *What the hell did Gary say that the man who borrowed it KO who 2SG.SU PAST give-TRANS RP impressed his friends? na nomu i vola? (47) a. Which gadget is it that she complained that it DET 2SG.POSS NMLZ book doesn’t work in the kitchen? ‘Who did you give your book to?’ b. *What on earth is it that she complained that it b. *o cei soti o a soli-a kina doesn’t work in the kitchen? KO who EMPH 2SG.SU PAST give-TRANS RP na nomu i vola? (48) a. Lequel de ces ministres est-ce que les médias French DET 2SG.POSS NMLZ book se demandent(-ils) s’il plait à Sarkozy? CLEFTS (‘Who on earth did you give your book to?’) ‘Which secretary is it that the media are asking if Sarkozy likes him?’ (53) a. ko hai heni ‘oku ne manatu’i ‘a Mele? Tongan b. ??Qui est-ce que les médias se demandent(-ils) s’il KO who here PRES ERG.RP remember ABS M plait à Sarkozy? ‘Who remembers Mary?’ ‘Who are the media asking whether Sarkozy likes him?’ b. *ko e ‘ai mo’o hai ‘oku ne manatu’i c. *Que diable est-ce que les médias se demandent(-ils) KO DET who PRES ERG.RP remember s’il plait à Sarkozy? ‘a Mele? ‘Who the hell are the media asking whether Sarkozy likes him?’ ABS M (49) a. ??Lequel de ces bâtiments est-ce qu’il est déjà détruit? (‘Who on earth remembers Mary?’) ‘Which building is already in ruins?’ (cf. Churchward 1953: 164 on ko e ‘ai mo’o WH) b. *Que diable est-ce qu’il est déjà détruit? (‘What the hell is already in ruins?’) Niuean: aggressively non-d-linked wh-questions are incompatible with overt resumptives (50) a. pjios itan aftos pu ton Greek (54) a. ko e hā e mena ne tagi Niuean who was DEM.MASC.SG.NOM with RP CLEFTS KO DET what DET thing DEP.TENSE cry sinandises? ai a koe? met.2SG RP ABS 2SG ‘Whom did you meet?’ (lit.: ‘Who was it that you met with him?’) ‘What did you cry about?’ (Sperlich 1997: 267) b. *pjios sto dhiavolo itan aftos pu ton b. *ko e hā e mena nī ne tagi who to-the devil was DEM.MASC.SG.NOM with RP KO DET what DET thing EMPH DEP.TENSE cry sinandises? ai a koe? met.2SG RP ABS 2SG (‘Who the hell did you meet?’) (‘What on earth did you cry about (lit.:it)?’)
(51) a. pjio /?ti ipe oti to exei dhiavasi? Niuean: no aggressively non-d-linked wh-questions with the ergative “gap” which/what said.3SG COMPL RP AUX.3SG ead. (55) a. ko hai ne kai e tau mena haaku? ‘Which (book)/What did he say that he had read?’ KO who DEP.TENSE eat ABS PL thing my b. *pijo/ti sto dhiavolo ipe oti to exei ‘Who ate my stuff?’ which/what to-the devil said.3SG COMPL RP AUX.3SG b. *ko hai nī ne kai e tau mena haaku? dhiavasi? KO who EMPH DEP.TENSE eat ABS PL thing my read (‘Who the hell ate my stuff?’) (‘What the hell did he say that he read it?’)
9
Aggressively non-d-linked wh-questions with intransitive predicates are 6 Outstanding questions allowed: (56) a. ko hai ne tala atu ki a koe 6.1 Binding out of a PP? KO who DEP.TENSE say/tell DIR to DET 2SG ke hau? The ergative binds anaphors in the absolutive and other lower positions COMP come ‘Who told you to come?’ (Sperlich 1997: 106) (58) ‘Oku tokanga’i pē ‘e Mele ia Tongan b. ko hai nī ne tala atu ki PRES watch INTENS ERG M 3SG KO who EMPH DEP.TENSE say/tell DIR to ‘Mary looks after herself.’ a koe ke hau? ‘Mary LOOKS after him/her.’ DET 2SG COMP come (59) ‘Oku sai’ia pē ‘a Mele ‘i a ia ‘Who the hell told you to come?’ PRES like INTENS ABS M DAT DET 3SG ‘Mary likes only herself.’ ) Preliminary evidence from aggressively non-d-linked wh-words ‘Mary LIKES him/her.’ supports the notion that Niuean ergative leaves a null resumptive pronoun Two possible solutions: ) If so, Niuean is not different from its close relatives in disallowing The burden on the binder: binding from a PP as the phi-features of D extraction of the ergative phrase with a gap get transferred to P (Rezač 2008) The burden on the bindee: the “bound” element is exempt from (57) accessibility to A-bar movement: verb-initial ergative languages (revised) Binding Theory principles
Language Does ABS Does ERG Compensatory Category of the bound element A’-move A’-move Strategy Halkomelem Yes No Nominalization, antipassive Range of possibilities: Jakaltec Yes No Agent focus/antipassive Explicit pronouns :: explicit reflexives :: (indeterminate forms), e.g., in Standard Malay and Standard Javanese (Cole and Hermon Tongan Yes No Resumption 1998, 2005, 2008b) Samoan Yes No Resumption or antipassive Generic pronouns not subject to Binding Theory (Cole and Hermon Roviana Yes No Resumption 2008b, Davies 2008) Tokelau Yes No Resumption Futuna Yes No Resumption or antipassive (60) distribution of reflexive-like forms in languages in question Rennellese Yes No Resumption or antipassive Pukapukan Yes No Antipassive Language Generic form (same as pronoun) Niuean Yes NO Resumption (null) Halkomelem Yes Jakaltec Yes Tongan Yes Samoan Yes Roviana Yes Tokelau Yes Futuna Yes Rennellese Yes Pukapukan Yes Niuean Yes
10
Focused assertion of identity: Generic pronouns co-occur with intensifiers Two possible solutions: whose main function is to limit the set of alternatives to the referent of the v is not generated NP (McKay 1991, Baker 1995, Levinson 2000, Gast and König 2006) v is generated, but the external argument does not have to be present (Bennis 2004); if the external argument is present, split intransitivity (61) If Cassandra has filled my bed with fleas I am sure they will bite herself would follow (see also Garrett 1990 on its origins) (Jane Austen, cited in Baker 1995, (9i)) UNRESOLVED QUESTION: what motivates the optionality of the external (62) a. *‘Oku tokanga’i ‘e Mele pē ia Tongan argument on the latter solution? PRES watch ERG M INTENS 3 SG 6.3 Split ergativity b. *‘Oku tokanga’i ia pē ‘e Mele
PRES watch 3SG INTENS ERG M (65) ERG ~ PERFECTIVE: (‘Mary looks after herself.’) a. if a language has split case marking based on aspect/tense, the
ergative pattern correlates with perfective/past ) Generic pronouns: In languages under consideration, pronouns and b. if the ergative pattern is found in the imperfective/non-past, it is also reflexive anaphors do not have different lexical forms and do not found in the perfective/past express different features, hence Binding Theory is not violated (Tsunoda 1981; Van Valin 1991)
UNRESOLVED QUESTION: assuming that morphologically ergative languages have Imperfective projected by a high AspP, which provides aspectual specification bound variables, what allows for binding by the DP inside the ergative to an entire event (Ritter and Rosen 1998, 2005, Travis 1991, 2000, Borer PP? 1994, Fukuda 2009, a.o.)
(63) a. [Every student’s certificate] was signed by his supervisor (66) TP b. [No girl’s parents] could understand why she was so sad 3 (Kayne 1994) T’
6.2 Unergatives 3 Standard assumption: unergatives include an outer v shell (Hale and Kayser T AspP ← imperfective 1993; Chomsky 1995) 3 DP Asp’ (64) vP 3 3 Asp vP PP? v’ 5 3 v VP ! UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS: V Is there independent evidence for parametrized projection of aspectual heads, and if yes, does it correlate with split ergativity? Split intransitivity—some intransitive verbs have an ergative argument, others Are tense-induced splits aspectual splits in disguise? have an absolutive argument; e.g., Batsbi (Holisky and Gagua 1994), Can a similar analysis be extended to nominal/pronominal split? Northern Pomo (O’Connor 1992), Imonda (Seiler 1985), Basque (Levin 1983a,b, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003, Laka 2006), Nepali (Li 2007)
11
(67) ERG ~ NOUNS: Criterial freezing (Rizzi 2006, to appear) makes wrong predictions for a. if a language has split case marking based on the nominal/pronominal ergative languages: distinction, the ergative pattern occurs with nouns The ergative never appears in a criterial position but fails to A-bar b. if the ergative pattern occurs with pronouns, it also occurs with nouns move. By contrast, the absolutive raises to a criterial position (presumably the same position that the nominative raises into in nominative-accusative languages) but is not frozen for further 7 Conclusions movement (while there are restrictions on the extraction of the nominative, there are no such restrictions on the extraction of the Back to the three initial descriptive generalizations absolutive)
G1: there are no unmarked ergatives because ergatives are PPs, not DPs, and the P head remains visible (either as a free standing adposition or cliticized to the References DP) Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. alternative: all ergatives include a silent P head which assigns an Ph. D. Diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs. indirect case (by analogy with English indirect objects) Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Berlin: Springer. Aissen, Judith. 1996, Pied-piping, abstract agreement, and functional G2: historically, Austronesian ergatives develop from passives, which is projections in Tzotzil. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 447- reflected in their structural position (specifier of the highest v) and related 491. syntactic properties (inability to license depictives, difficulty in floating Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. quantifiers, inaccessibility to movement) Ph.D.Diss. Cornell University. Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative approaches to syntactic ergativity. Language G3: ergative languages have verb-peripheral order—motivated by phrasal and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2.5, 966-995. movement in verb-initial languages, with the ergative staying in spec, v Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1999. Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. WCCFL 18, 14-26. Somerville, However, the correlation between morphological ergativity and Ma.: Cascadilla Press. verb-final order still needs to be explained Alexopoulou, Theodora, and Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence Morphologically ergative languages are not uniform, with some processor. Language 83, 110-160. parametric variation following from headedness (cf. also Manning Anderson, Stephen. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become 1996, Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2008) ergative. In Charles N. Li (ed.). Mechanisms of syntactic change, 317-364. The properties of ergative languages (overt marking, historical connection to Austin: University of Texas Press. passive, and verb-peripheral characteristics) are correlated Baker, C. L. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71, Implications beyond ergativity 63-101. Ball, Douglas. 2007. On ergativity and accusativity in Proto-Polynesian and Architecture of ergative languages: If the ergative is a PP, no special case Proto-Central-Pacific. Oceanic Linguistics 46, 128-153. assignment mechanism is required for ergative languages, hence no Bejar, Susana, and Diane Massam. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2, 65- need for differentiated T based on transitivity (pace Legate 2008) 79. Bennis, Hans. 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych-verbs. In Artemis Syntactic effects of morphology: If the ergative is a PP the syntactic Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert (eds.). The ramifications of ergativity are predictable; they may simply disguise a unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 83-121. more uniform syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
Benveniste, Emile. 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. BSLP 48, Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008a. VP raising in a VOS language. 176-186. Syntax 11, 144-197. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2008b. Malay/Indonesian syntax from an operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar (eds.). Phi- Austronesian perspective: An introduction. Lingua 118, 143-1439. Theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, 295-328. Oxford: Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, Kozue Inoha, and Yassir Tjung. 2002. A Oxford University Press. constraint on wh in situ in Javanese. In Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2008. Case in GB/Minimalism. In Richards (eds.). MIT working papers in linguistics 44: The proceedings of Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.). Handbook of case, 44-58. the eighth Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 91-106. Cambridge, Oxford: Oxford University Press. MA: MITWPL. Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Mechanisms of chain formation. Ph. D. Diss., University Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8, of Connecticut. 81-120. Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Elena Benedicto and Jeff Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winifred Lehman (ed.). Syntactic Runner (eds.). Functional projections, 19-48. UMass Occasional Papers, typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: 17.) University of Texas Press. Broschart, Jürgen. 1994. Präpositionen im Tonganischen. Zu Varianz und Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Invarianz des Adpositionsbegriffs. Bochum: Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.) Bubenik, Vit. 1993. Morphological and syntactic change in Late Middle Indo- The World Atlas of Language Structures, Munich: Max Planck Digital Aryan. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21, 259-281. Library, 2008. Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source Comrie, Bernard, and Maria Polinsky. 1998. The great Dagestanian case hoax. of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological In Anna Siewerska and Jae J. Song (eds.). Case, typology and grammar, 95- Society 103, 1-72. 115. (Typological Studies in Language 38.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carnie, Andrew, and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.). 2000. The syntax of verb initial Coon, Jessica. 2009. Interrogative possessors and the problem with pied-piping languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. in Chol. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 165-175. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Coon, Jessica, in press. VOS as predicate fronting in Chol. Lingua Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.006 Michaels, and J. Uriagareka (eds.). Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Craig, Collette. 1977. The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, 89-115. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Press. Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Custis, Tonya. 2004. Word order variation in Tongan: A syntactic analysis. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ph. D. Diss., University of Minnesota. Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement. Chicago: University of Chicago Dailey, Jon. 1981. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Press. Linguistics 2 (2). Chung, Sandra. 2005. What fronts? On the VP-raising account of verb-initial Davies, William. 2008. Madurese reflexives with reference to Malay/ order. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.). Verb first: Indonesian. Lingua 118, 1603-1616. On the syntax of verb-initial languages, 9-30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Rijk, Rudolph. 1972. Relative Clauses in Basque: A Guided Tour. In Paul Chung, Sandra. 2006. Properties of VOS Languages. In Martin Everaert and Peranteau et al. (eds.). The Chicago Which Hunt, 115-135. Chicago: Chicago Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 685-720. Linguistic Society. Malden, Ma.: Blackwell. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan grammar. London: Oxford University den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, Press. predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 1998. Long distance reflexives in Singapore Dench, Alan, and Nicholas Evans. 1998. Multiple Ccase-marking in Australian Malay: An apparent typological anomaly. Linguistic Typology 1, 57-98. languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8, 1-47. Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 2005. The typology of Malay reflexives. Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lingua 115, 627-658.
13
Doron, Edit. 1982. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Linguistic Forum 19, 1-48. Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.). Phrase structure and the lexicon, 169- Emonds, Joseph. 1980. Word order in generative grammar. Journal of 196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Linguistic Research 1, 33-54. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Fukuda, Shin. 2009. Aspectual verbs as functional heads. MS., UCSD. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66, 261- Laka, Itziar. 2006. On the nature of case in Basque: Structural or inherent? In 296. Hans Broekhuis, et al. (eds.). Organizing grammar, 374-382. Berlin: Gast, Volker, and Ekkehard König. 2006. Focused assertion of identity: A Mouton de Gruyter. typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 10, 223-276. Lee, Felicia. 2006. Remnant raising and VSO clausal architecture: a case study Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A'- of San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec. Dordrecht: Springer. binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Legate, Julie A. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, Gerdts, Donna. 1988. Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Levin, Beth. 1983a. On the nature of ergativity. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Garland. Levin, Beth. 1983b. Unaccusative verbs in Basque. NELS 13, 129-144. Goodall, Grant. 1997. (theta)-alignment and the By-phrase. CLS 33(1), 129-139. Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec Li, Chao. 2007. Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 117, of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and 1462-1482. Linguistic Theory 10, 375-414. Mahajan, Anoop. 1994. The ergativity parameter: Have/be alternation, word Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1988. Passives, verb raising and the affectedness condition. order and split ergativity. NELS 24, 317-331. WCCFL 7, 99-113. Mahajan, Anoop. 1997. Universal grammar and the typology of ergative Hendrick, Randall. 2005. Tongan determiners and semantic composition. languages. In Artemis Alexiadou and Alan Hall (eds.). Studies in universal Language 81, 907-926. grammar and typological variation, 35-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hohepa, Patrick. 1969. The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages. Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical Journal of the Polynesian Society 78, 295-329. relations. Stanford: CSLI. Holisky, Dee Ann, and Rusudan Gagua. 1994. Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In Rieks Massam, Diane. 2000. Subjects and Predicates in Niuean. In Wolfgang Sperlich Smeets (ed.). The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Volume 4: The and Stephen Fischer (eds.). Leo Pasifika, Proceedings of the Fourth North East Caucasian Languages, 147-212. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics, Niue Island, 218-232. Hoyt, K. 1989. Verb raising in Lebanese Arabic. MIT Working Papers in Institute for Polynesian Languages and Literatures, Auckland, New Zealand. Linguistics 11, 76-104. Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of and Linguistic Theory, 19, 153-197. Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Massam, Diane. 2002. Some notes on the quantifier Oti in Niuean. Rongorongo Kaufman, Daniel. 2008. Austronesian typology and the Nominalist Hypothesis. Studies. Paper presented at AFLA 15. Massam, Diane. 2005. Lexical categories, lack of inflection, and predicate Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A fronting in Niuean. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, Sheila Ann Dooley Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics, position paper. (eds.). Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, 227-242. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kayne, Richard. 2005. Prepositions as probes. In Richard Kayne. Movement and Massam, Diane, and Karin Smallwood. 1997. Essential features of predication silence, 85-104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. in English and Niuean. NELS 27, 263-272. Koopman, Hilda. 2008. Samoan ergativity as double passives. MS., UCLA. McCloskey, Jim. 1996a. On the scope of verb movement in Irish.' Natural Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche 1985. Theta theory and extraction. Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 47–104. GLOW Newsletter 14, 57-58. McCloskey, Jim. 1996b. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In Robert Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche 1991.The position of subjects. Borsley and Ian Roberts, eds. The syntax of the Celtic languages: A Lingua 85, 211-258. comparative perspective, 241–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14
McCloskey, Jim. 2005. Predicates and heads in Irish clausal syntax. In Andrew Rackowski, Andrea, and Lisa Travis. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP Carnie, Heidi Harley, Sheila Ann Dooley, eds. Verb first: On the syntax of movement and adverbial placement. In Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle verb-initial Languages, 155–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (eds.). The syntax of verb initial languages, 117-141. Oxford: Oxford McGregor, William. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics University Press. Compass 3, 480-508. Rezač, Milan. 2008. Phi-Agree and theta-related case. In Daniel Harbour, David McKay, Thomas. 1991. He himself: Undiscovering an anaphor. Linguistic Adger, and Susana Bejar (eds.). Phi Theory. Phi features across modules Inquiry 22, 368-373. and interfaces, 83-129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mosel, Ulrike. 2004. Complex predicates and juxtapositional constructions in Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In Samoan. In Isabel Bril and Françoise Ozanne-Riviere (eds.). Complex W. Geuder and Miriam Butt (eds.). The projection of arguments: Lexical predicates in Oceanic languages, 263-296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. and syntactic constraints, 135-164. Stanford: CSLI. Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 1983. Le drehu, langue de Lifou (Ìles Loyauté). Paris: Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 2005. Topic or aspect: Functional Société d'Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. heads, features and the grammatization of events. In Paula Kempchinsky and Neeleman, Ad. 1997. PP-complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Roumyana Slabakova (eds.). Aspectual inquiries, 21-40. Dordrecht: Theory 15, 89-137. Kluwer. O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1992. Topics in Northern Pomo grammar. New Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. York: Garland. In Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds.). Wh-movement: Moving on, 97- O’Herin, Brian. 2002. Case and agreement in Abaza. Arlington: University of 133. Cambrigde, MA: MIT Press. Texas Press. Rizzi, Luigi. To appear. On some properties of criteria freezing. Otsuka, Yuko. 2000. Ergativity in Tongan. Ph.D. Diss., Oxford University, Roberts, Ian. 2001. Head movement. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.). Linacre College. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 113-147. Malden: Otsuka, Yuko. 2005. Two derivations of VSO: A comparative study of Niuean Blackwell. and Tongan. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.). Seiler, Walter. 1985. Imonda, a Papuan language. Canberra: Australian Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, 65-90. Amsterdam: John National University. Benjamins. Seiter, William J. 1980. Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland. Otsuka, Yuko. In press. Neither accusative nor ergative: An alternative analysis Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: of case in Eastern Polynesian. In Claire Moyse-Faurie and Joachim Sabel An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (eds.), Morphosyntactic aspects of Oceanic languages. Sperlich, Wolfgang (ed.). 1997. Tohi vagahau Niue. Niue language dictionary: Paul, Ileana. 2000. Malagasy clause structure. Ph. D. Diss,, McGill University. Niuean-English, with English-Niuean finderlist. Honolulu: Govt. of Niue in Paul, Ileana. 2001. Concealed pseudo-clefts. Lingua, 111, 707-727. association with Dept. of Linguistics, University of Hawai’i. Pearson, Matt. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A' element. Natural Schweiger, Fritz. 2000. Compound case markers in Australian languages. Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 381-457. Oceanic Linguistics 39, 2, 256-284. Pearson, Matt. 2006. Predicate fronting and constituent order in Malagasy. Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Carol Tenny and James Manuscript, Reed College. Pustejovsky (eds.). Events as grammatical objects: The converging Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 145-185. Stanford, CA: CSLI Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Publications. Press. Travis, Lisa. 2005. VP-internal structure in a VOS language. In Andrew Carnie, Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity Heidi Harley, Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.). Verb first: On the syntax of verb- requirement on ellipsis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 577- initial languages, 203-226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 613. Trask, Larry. 1979. On the origins of ergativity. In Winifred Lehman (ed.). Potsdam, Eric. In press. Austronesian verb-initial languages and Wh-question Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 395–404. strategies. Austin: University of Texas Press. Potsdam, Eric, and Maria Polinsky. 2007. Missing complement clause subjects Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case marking patterns. Linguistics 19, 389-439. in Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics 46, 277-303. Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Case absorption and wh-agreement. Dordrecht:
15
Kluwer. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203-308. Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81-114. Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 297-315. Woolford, Ellen. 1991. VP-internal subjects in VSO and non-configurational languages. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103-129. Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 111-130. Xiang, Ming, Dustin Heestand, and Maria Polinsky. 2008. Resumptive pronouns: (Non)rescuing Function? CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~herpro/files/CUNY-2008-RP-3-12.jpg
Maria Polinsky Department of Linguistics Boylston Hall Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected]
This project was supported in part by NSF grants BCS-0131993 and BCS- 0231946 and by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University. I would like to thank my language consultants Sisilia Lutui and Melenaite Taumoefolau (Tongan), Tammy King (Niuean), Line Faalevalea (Samoan), and Taina Rokotuivekau (Fijian). The Greek examples are courtesy of Sabine Iatridou and Alexia Ioannidou.
I am grateful to Edith Aldridge, Jeremy Aron-Dine, Winifred Bauer, Ivano Caponigro, Jessica Coon, Norbert Corver, Marcel den Dikken, Nomi Erteschik- Shir, Shin Fukuda, Grant Goodall, Valentine Hacquard, Vincent Homer, Roni Katzir, Hilda Koopman, Manfred Krifka, Beth Levin, Anoop Mahajan, Diane Massam, Ulrike Mosel, Andrew Nevins, Yuko Otsuka, Eric Potsdam, Omer Preminger, and Peter Sells for helpful discussions. All errors are my responsibility.
16
APPENDIX (70) properties of the two types of morphological ergativity
Some speculations about head-final ergative languages HIGH ERGATIVE LOW ERGATIVE ERG is directly accessible to Yes No Two pathways to ergativity: A-bar movement Possessive/locative PP in a higher projection Æ high ergative ERG is uniformly used No Yes regardless of theta-role (affective construction) by-phrase in spec,vP (as in the verb-initial type); may raise to satisfy the ABS is inside Small clause VP EPP Æ low ergative Possessive predicate Intransitive (BE, STAY) Intransitive or
transitive
example languages NE Caucasian, Chukchi, (68) high ergative Tibeto-Burman Circassian XP 3 UNRESOLVED QUESTION: “PP” TP i What exactly motivates the verb-final structure—object case ergative 3 assignment? proi T’ 3 Does extraction/non-extraction out of the ergative PP correlate with VP T extraction/non-extraction out of other PPs? 3 SC V (71) extraction out of PPs in morphologically ergative languages 3 DPABS PredP LANGUAGE EXTRACTION IF RESUMPTION IS AVAILABLE, OUT OF PP DOES THE ERGATIVE RESUMPTIVE ELEMENT MATCH OTHER RESUMPTIVES? (69) low ergative TP Ergative Polynesian Resumption No: Special form for ergative, 3 languages same form for all other PPs T’ NW Caucasian Resumption Yes: Same resumptive form for 3 (Circassian, Abaza) all PPs including ergative vP T Chukchi No 3 Halkomelem No PP v' Basque No ergative 3 Dagestanian Yes VP v Ergative Tibeto- Yes
3 Burman languages DPABS V
17
Dagestanian (NE Caucasian): extraction out of all PPs with a cliticized b. ‘e lava ‘e Pita ‘o ako postposition; no extraction out of a PP with a heavy postposition, no TENSE be able ERG P COMP learn postposition stranding ‘a e lea faka-Tonga ABS DET language Tongan (72) a. kid-bā čanta imxo-xo-r kur-no Tsez ‘Peter can learn the Tongan language.’ girl-ERG bag.ABS hollow-APUD-LAT throw-PAST (Chung 1978; Hendrick 2005, Woolford 2006) ‘The girl tossed the bag into (inside) the tree hollow.’ b. [ __ čanta imxo-xo-r kāru] kid (75) a. ‘e lava expl [‘o ako ‘e Pita ‘a e lea...] bag.ABS hollow-APUD-LAT throw-PST.PART girl TNS be able COMP learn ERG P ABS DET language ‘the girl that tossed the bag into the tree hollow’ ‘It is possible that Peter will learn Tongan.’ UNRAISED c. [kid-bā čanta __ kāru] imxo b. ‘e lava ‘a Pitai [‘o ako ti ‘a e lea] girl-ERG bag.ABS throw.PST.PART hollow TNS be able ABS P COMP learn ABS DET language ‘the tree hollow into which the girl tossed the bag’ ‘Peter is able to learn Tongan.’ RAISING c. [TP ‘e [vP lavak ‘e Pita [VP ‘o ako ‘a e lea…]] (73) a. kid-bā čanta imx-ā teł-xo-r kur-no TNS be able ERG P CONN learn ABS DET lg girl-ERG bag.ABS hollow-INESS inside-APUD-LAT throw-PAST SERIAL VERB ‘The girl tossed the bag inside the tree hollow.’ ‘Peter is able to learn Tongan.’ CONSTRUCTION b. *[ kid-bā čanta __ teł-xo-r kāru] imxo girl-ERG bag.ABS inside-APUD-LAT throw.PST.PART hollow (76) evidence in support of structural differences between (b) and (c): c. *[ kid-bā čanta __ kāru] imx-ā teł a. serialization is attested in Tongan (Otsuka 2000) girl-ERG bag.ABS throw.PST.PART hollow-INESS inside b. ‘o is ambiguous between complementizer and conjunction (Churchward (‘the tree hollow into which the girl tossed the bag’) 1953, Chung 1978) c. wh-in-situ possible for both DPs in (c) but not for the absolutive DP in Basque: ergative and dative A-bar move; PPs with overt postpositions do not (b) (de Rijk 1972) c. two separate negations in (b), single negation in (c) d. the embedded complement of (b) can be fronted, the “embedded” Raising portion in (c) cannot
Can ergative still be a DP in an inherent case? ) No reliable evidence of ergative preservation under raising, lack of Argument from case preservation (cf. Koopman 2008 for other arguments support for the idea that ergative is an inherent case against the inherent case analysis of the ergative) ) The “raised” DP is always ABS upstairs Crucial example: Tongan lava ‘be able to’ (Woolford 2006, citing Chung 1978) (74) a. ‘e lava ‘o ako ‘e Pita TENSE be able COMP learn ERG P ‘a e lea faka-Tonga ABS DET language Tongan ‘Peter can learn the Tongan language.’
18