The Case Mirror Peter de Swart Contact Address: PIONIER Project Case Cross-linguistically Department of Linguistics University of Nijmegen P.O. Box 9103 6500 HD Nijmegen The Netherlands www.kun.nl/pionier [email protected] The Case Mirror Peter de Swart Master’s Thesis General Linguistics Faculty of Arts University of Nijmegen August 2003 Peter de Swart 9938338 1st supervisor: dr Helen de Hoop 2nd supervisor: prof. dr Pieter Muysken Dank Aan de medewerkers van het PIONIER project “Case Cross-linguistically” Aan Miriam Butt en Andrej Malchukov voor hun nuttige commentaar op een eerdere versie van deze scriptie. Aan Pieter Muysken, dat hij tweede begeleider wilde zijn en voor het waardevolle commentaar op een eerdere versie. Aan Helen de Hoop, voor de prettige samenwerking, de enthousiaste discussies en het immer relevante commentaar. Verder voor de ongekende mogelijkheden die ze me het afgelopen jaar gaf om me te ontwikkelen in de taalwetenschap. Aan mijn moeder zonder wie grote delen van deze scriptie nog steeds handgeschreven zouden zijn. Corien, Emar, Marieke and Henri voor de zomerse discussie en verwarring over dankwoorden, ergativiteit en lijdende vrouwen. Table of Contents General Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Optimality Theory 3 1.1 Conflicting Constraints: The Architecture of an OT-grammar 3 1.1.1 The Architecture of an OT-grammar 4 1.1.1.1 The Generator 4 1.1.1.2 Constraints 5 1.1.1.3 The Evaluator and the Optimal Output 5 1.1.2 The Metalanguage of Optimality Theory 6 1.2 Markedness 7 1.2.1 Harmonic Alignment 7 1.2.2 Local Conjunction 8 Chapter 2 Differential Object Marking 11 2.1 Differential Object Marking Cross-linguistically 11 2.2 An OT-model for Differential Object Marking: Aissen (2000) 13 2.2.1 Animacy and Definiteness 13 2.2.2 Markedness Reversal, Iconicity and Economy 14 2.2.3 Deriving Constraints 16 2.2.3.1 Animacy 16 2.2.3.2 Definiteness 17 2.2.3.3 Iconicity and Economy 18 2.2.4 One Dimensional DOM 19 2.2.4.1 Definiteness 20 2.2.4.2 Animacy 20 2.2.5 Two Dimensional DOM 21 2.3 Discussion 25 2.3.1 Local Conjunction of ‘Star Zero’ 25 2.3.2 Other Features besides Animacy and Definiteness 25 2.3.3 How Semantic are the Features? 27 2.3.4 Case Alternations 29 2.3.5 Case Marking of Prototypical Objects 31 2.3.6 The Unmarked Object 31 2.4 Concluding Remarks 34 Chapter 3 Differential Subject Marking 35 3.1 Subjects Cross-linguistically: a short overview 35 3.1.1 Subjects in Coast Salish 35 3.1.2 Split Ergativity in Dyirbal 38 3.2 An OT-model for Subject Choice: Aissen (1999) 39 3.2.1 Subjects and Syntactic Markedness 39 3.2.2 The Dimensions of Subject Choice 40 3.2.2.1 Universal or Language Specific? 40 3.2.2.2 Relevant Dimensions and their Markedness Reversal 41 3.2.2.3 Deriving Constraints 41 3.2.2.3.1 Person 41 3.2.2.3.2 Semantic Role 43 3.2.2.3.3 Discourse Prominence 43 3.2.3 The Expression of Markedness 44 3.2.3.1 Voice 44 3.2.3.1.1 Lushootseed 44 3.2.3.1.2 Lummi 45 3.2.3.1.3 Squamish 46 3.2.3.2 Morphological Markedness 47 3.2.3.3 Case Marking: Split Ergativity 48 3.2.3.3.1 Dyirbal 48 3.2.3.4 Direction 49 3.3 Discussion 50 3.3.1 Local Conjunction of ‘Star Zero’ 51 3.3.2 Differential Subject Marking in Transitive Construction 51 3.3.3 Differential Subject Marking in Intransitive Constructions 53 3.4 Concluding Remarks 55 Chapter 4 Modelling Differential Case Marking 57 4.1 The Interaction of Aissen’s Frameworks 57 4.1.1 The Implicit Models in Aissen’s Frameworks 57 4.1.2 Subject-Object Dependencies 60 4.2 Transitivity and the Unmarked Object 62 4.2.1 The Transitivity Parameters of Hopper & Thompson 62 4.2.1 Transitive Constructions 64 4.2.3 Markedness of Structure 65 4.2.3.1 Semantic Transitivity 66 4.2.4 Language Particular Markedness 68 4.3 Semantic Distinctness as a Trigger for Differential Case Marking 69 4.3.1 Minimal Semantic Distinctness 70 4.3.2 Properties of the Arguments 72 4.3.3 Properties of the Predicate 75 4.3.4 Other Properties 77 4.3.5 Differential Case Marking and Semantic Distinctness in Hindi 77 4.3.5.1 Tense Split and Subject Marking 78 4.3.5.2 Object Marking 79 4.3.6 Summary 82 4.4 Case Marking as a Mirror 83 4.4.1 Bidirectional Optimality Theory: Blutner (2000) 83 4.4.2 The Constraints 86 4.4.2.1 Constraints on Form 87 4.4.2.2 Constraints on Meaning 87 4.4.3 Language Particular Constraint Rankings 88 4.4.3.1 Spanish 88 4.4.3.2 Malayalam 90 Conclusions 95 References 97 List of Abbreviations 1 First person NNOM Non-nominative 2 Second person NOM Nominative 3 Third person NSPEC Nonspecific A Transitive subject OBJ Object marker ABL Ablative OBL Oblique ABS Absolutive OJ Object ACC Accusative P Transitive object ADEL Adelessive PART Partitive AGT Agent PAT Patient ANIM Animate PAST Past CONN Connective PERF Perfective DAT Dative PL Plural DEF Definite PN Proper noun ERG Ergative PREP Preposition F Feminine PRES Present FUT Future PRO Pronoun GEN Genitive S Intransitive subject GR Grammatical relation SG Singular HUM Human SPEC Specific INAN Inanimate SIM Imperative singular INDEF Indefinite SU Subject INF Infinitive SUB Subjunctive INST Instrumental TRANS Transitive INTR Intransitive V Verb LOC Locative VOL Volitional 1 General Introduction General Introduction Some languages with overt case marking on their subjects and objects do not mark all their arguments in the same way. They only mark a subset of their objects and subjects and often differ in which subset. This phenomenon is called differential case marking and it is this phenomenon that is the subject of this thesis. In the example in (1) we see an example of a language that employs different case marking on its direct objects depending on the features of the argument that functions as the direct object. (1) HINDI [Indo-Aryan; Mohanan 1990] h a. ilaa-ne haar-ko ut aayaa Ila.ERG necklace.ACC lift.PAST ‘Ila lifted up the necklace.’ h b. ilaa-ne haar ut aayaa Ila.ERG necklace.NOM lift.PAST ‘Ila lifted up a/the necklace.’ The Hindi examples in (1) show differential case marking on the object haar 'necklace'. If this object has a definite interpretation the accusative form haarko is used, but when the object is not specified for definiteness, i.e. it can either be definite or indefinite, the nominative form haar is used. As we will see similar patterns exist for the use of case marking on subject arguments. In this thesis I focus on patterns of differential case marking. I examine which semantic features play a role in these systems and which morphosyntactic devices are used to mark subjects and objects. Central is the relation between markedness of form and markedness of meaning. In the first chapter I introduce the framework of Optimality Theory which is used in the analyses in this thesis. Optimality Theory describes linguistic phenomena in terms of conflicting constraints. I set out the general principles of the theory and discuss some particular formal mechanisms. The second chapter deals with differential case marking of direct objects. First I introduce the phenomenon of differential object marking with some examples from the world’s languages. This short overview is followed by the General Introduction 2 outline of an Optimality Theoretic analysis of differential object marking as formulated in Aissen (2000). Her model is formulated on the basis of the principle of ‘markedness reversal’ which states that what is unmarked for the object is marked for the subject and vice versa. I end the chapter by signalling some problems for this particular analysis. In chapter 3 I continue the discussion of differential case marking systems by focussing on the different ways in which subjects are encoded in the different languages of the world. I start with some examples of differential subject marking in Lummi, a Salish language, and the Australian language Dyirbal. This introduction is followed by an Optimality Theoretic analysis again formulated by Judith Aissen (1999). This chapter also end with a discussion of this formalization in which some of the shortcomings of the model are highlighted. The fourth and final chapter focuses on the development of a new formal model of differential case marking patterns. First, I discuss how the two models discussed in chapter 2 and 3 are related to each other. We will see that it is not sufficient to have two separated models for differential case marking of objects and subjects, but that one single model is needed in which the features of both subject and object are taken into account. I continue by looking at the role semantic and morphosyntactic structures play in differential case marking systems. I show which alternations in semantic features are relevant in describing the alternations we find in morphosyntactic structures. I focus on the relation between markedness of form and markedness of meaning. A relation, which, as I will show, is assumed in the formalization developed by Aissen (1999, 2000), but which does not follow naturally from her system. I propose the principle of ‘minimal semantic distinctness’ which states that the two arguments of a transitive predicate must be minimally distinct.