scholarly journals Loci of agreement and deviations from the Mirror Principle in Hungarian verbs

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 379
Author(s):  
Kevin Kwong
Keyword(s):  
Linear Order ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Hierarchical Order ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Mirror Principle

In this revised account of Hungarian verbal agreement, I propose that the language’s locus of subject agreement is not T, unlike in current Minimalist analyses, but Pred (or Asp), just above direct object agreement in v. Furthermore, the surface linear order of affixes (stem – tense/mood – object agreement – subject agreement) does not conform to the hierarchical order of syntactic heads (V < v < Pred < T/M), thus violating the Mirror Principle, because local dislocation in postsyntactic morphology adjusts the initial linearization of the heads.

Gender agreement alternation in Aqusha Dargwa

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitry Ganenkov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Gender Agreement ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Gender Features

Abstract The article discusses gender agreement alternation in Aqusha Dargwa (Nakh-Daghestanian, the Caucasus, Russian Federation). The phenomenon is observed in periphrastic verbal forms with transitive verbs where gender agreement on the auxiliary can show the gender features of either the ergative subject or the absolutive direct object. Considering existing analyses of the phenomenon in terms of information structure, I argue that agreement alternation cannot be captured by sentence-topic-oriented accounts. I also discuss a structural proposal developed by Sumbatova and Lander (2014) and show that their analysis cannot be maintained in full. Instead, I propose a modified analysis according to which only subject agreement, but not object agreement, results from a cross-clausal referential dependency between the ergative subject of the lexical verb and the absolutive subject of the matrix restructuring verb. On this view, agreement alternation may be assimilated to the familiar distinction between ergative and biabsolutive constructions found elsewhere in Nakh-Daghestanian.

Diagnosing Object Agreement vs. Clitic Doubling: An Inuit Case Study

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Michelle Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Recent Literature ◽  
Comparative Data ◽  
Clitic Doubling ◽  
Agreement Morphology ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Morphological Diagnostics

Much recent literature has focused on whether the verbal agreement morphology cross-referencing objects is true φ-agreement or clitic doubling. I address this question on the basis of comparative data from related Inuit languages, Inuktitut and Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), and argue that both possibilities are attested in Inuit. Evidence for this claim comes from diverging syntactic and semantic properties of the object DPs encoded by this cross-referencing morphology. I demonstrate that object DPs in Inuktitut display various properties mirroring the behavior of clitic-doubled objects crosslinguistically, while their counterparts in Kalaallisut display none of these properties, indicating genuine φ-agreement rather than clitic doubling. Crucially, this distinction cannot be detected morphologically, as the relevant cross-referencing morphemes are uniform across Inuit. Therefore, this article cautions against the reliability of canonical morphological diagnostics for (agreement) affixes vs. clitics.

scholarly journals Intra-paradigmatic variation in Eleme verbal agreement

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Bond
Keyword(s):  
Second Person ◽  
Person Plural ◽  
Serial Verb Constructions ◽  
Grammatical Subject ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Serial Verb ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
Auxiliary Verb

Mismatches in the morphosyntactic features of controllers and targets in the Eleme (Ogonoid, Niger-Congo) participant reference system allow for a subject agreement paradigm in which the person of the grammatical subject is indicated by a verbal prefix, while plural number is marked by a suffix on different targets — either lexical verbs or auxiliaries — based on the person value of the controller. I examine the distribution of Eleme ‘Default Subject’ agreement affixes and the intra-paradigmatic asymmetry found between second-person plural and third-person plural subjects in Auxiliary Verb Constructions (AVC) and Serial Verb Constructions (SVC). I argue that the criteria by which the various agreement affixes select an appropriate morphological host can be modelled in terms of agreement prerequisites even when distributional variation is paradigm internal.

scholarly journals Clitic or Agreement Restriction in Santali: A Typological Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-33
Author(s):  
Mayuri J. DILIP ◽  
Rajesh KUMAR
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Two Parameters ◽  
Feature Checking

This paper investigates the syntactic configuration of pronominal number marking in Santali. Syntactic, morphological and prosodic restrictions show that pronominal number markers have properties of an affix as well as a clitic. A marker is an affix due to the fact that it cannot participate in a binding relation with other arguments. A pronominal number marker also functions as a clitic since it is attached to prosodically the most prominent constituent. The arguments that trigger object agreement do not manifest one particular case, but instead indicate a dissociation between a case and object agreement. On the other hand, the argument with subject agreement manifests nominative case only, indicating an association between nominative case and subject agreement. Both subject and object agreement are sensitive to case that indicates a property of an affix. Keeping in view the distribution of the pronominal number markers, we analyze feature checking of the two parameters, namely agreement and case in Santali.

Object agreement marking and information structure along the Quechua-Spanish contact continuum

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 544-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Mayer ◽  
Liliana Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Structure Mapping ◽  
Primary Object ◽  
Object Clitics ◽  
Study Support ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Syntactic Properties ◽  
Informational Value

Direct object clitics in Spanish are morphological markers at the interfaces of syntax, phonology, morphology, and information structure (Zwicky, 1985; Ordóñez & Repetti, 2006; Belloro, 2007; Spencer & Luís, 2012). They play an important part in argument morphology in Spanish and are subject to variability in bilingual acquisition (McCarthy, 2008). In this paper we explore the morphology-syntax-information structure mapping of direct object clitics in clitic structures in a range of speakers that includes Quechua-dominant bilinguals and Spanish monolingual individuals along a continuum of language contact situations. Our findings indicate clear dissociation between syntactic properties and marking of morphological features. They also indicate a progression from default gender marking in clitics to a scalar system of clitic forms based on animacy and informational value along the continuum of speakers. Finally, while clitics in liberal clitic doubling varieties receive a focus interpretation (Sánchez, 2010; Sánchez & Zdrojewski, 2013), our data indicate that in some Spanish contact varieties they denote the primary object and secondary topic (Sánchez, 2003; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2011; Mayer, 2008, 2013, forthcoming). The findings of this exploratory study support the view that while clitics exhibit common syntactic properties across a continuum of speakers, they may vary in morphological marking and informational value.

Morphosyntactic Restructuring in Child Heritage Georgian

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-263
Author(s):  
Cass Lowry ◽  
LeeAnn Stover
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Heritage Speakers ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Oral Fluency ◽  
Heritage Speaker ◽  
Default Case ◽  
Age Patterns ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Object Agreement ◽  
Person Agreement

This study investigates morphosyntactic restructuring in Heritage Georgian, a highly agglutinative language with polypersonal agreement. Child heritage speakers of Georgian (n = 26, age 3-16) completed a Frog Story narrative task and a lexical proficiency task in Georgian. Heritage speaker narratives were compared to narratives produced by age-matched peers living in Georgia (n = 30, age 5-14) and Georgian children and young adults who moved to the United States during childhood (n = 7, age 9–24). Heritage Georgian speakers produced more instances of non-standard nominal case marking and non-standard verbal subject agreement than their homeland peers. Individual morphosyntactic divergence was predicted by lexical score, but not by oral fluency or age. Patterns of divergence in the nominal domain included overuse of the default case (nominative) as well as over-extension of non-default cases (ergative, dative). In the verbal domain, person agreement was more consistently marked than number. Subject agreement exhibited more divergence from the baseline than object agreement, contrary to previous evidence from similar heritage languages (e.g., Heritage Hindi, Montrul et al., 2012). Results indicate that morphosyntactic production in child Heritage Georgian generally displays the same divergences as adult heritage-language grammars, but language-specific differences also underscore the need for continued documentation of lesser-studied heritage languages.

scholarly journals A Minimalist-Based Approach to Phrasal Verb Movement in North Hail Arabic

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murdhy Radad Alshamari ◽  
Marwan Jarrah
Keyword(s):  
Linear Order ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Verb Movement ◽  
Internal Argument ◽  
Phrasal Verb

<p>This research explores one less-investigated though significant manifestation of verb movement in North Hail Arabic, namely verb topicalization alongside its internal argument and any accompanying adjunct. In adequate dialogical and pragmatic contexts, the lexical verb (L-verb), the direct object (DO), and VP and vP adjoining adjuncts appear to move to the Specifier position (Spec) of a dedicated Topic Phrase in the left periphery in the sense of Rizzi (1997). This quasi-holistic movement is labelled as <em>Defective Predicate Topicalization</em> (DPT), where all predicate elements, apart from Tense, move overtly to Topic Phrase. Linear order between the L-verb, the DO, and any accompanying adjuncts is assumed, among others, to be evidence supporting this contention. Furthermore, the study argues that DPT is syntactically licensed for its phrasal-movement fashion. Hence, no violation of (head-related) locality principles is involved.</p>

Agreement in Kuki-Chin languages of Barak valley

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauthang Haokip
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Future Tense ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Plural Form ◽  
Barak Valley ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Person Agreement

Abstract This paper discusses the agreement system of five Kuki-Chin (KC) languages of Barak valley, viz. Saihriem, Hrangkhol, Chorei, Sakachep, and Ronglong. The paper has an introduction, and five sections dedicated to agreement in different contructions: intransitive structures, transitive structures, agreement with the same person, agreement with ditransitive verbs, and agreement in hortative and imperative constructions. The discussion of agreement is further divided into subparts by paradigm; non-future, future and negative; and by languages. As in most KC languages, the Barak valley KC languages exhibit both preverbal and postverbal agreement clitics. The preverbal agreement clitics are homophonous with the possessive pronouns which occur before a noun. In intransitive constructions, the future affirmative paradigm has the same subject agreement clitics as the non-future paradigm. But unlike the non-future paradigm, the agreement clitics occur mostly after the verb and before the future tense marker in the future paradigm. In intransitive constructions, the postverbal agreement clitic shows up only in the future negative paradigm. As in the case of preverbal agreement clitics, the subject NP of an intransitive verb in the future negative paradigm can be dropped, and it can be recovered from its corresponding postverbal agreement clitics. Across the Barak valley KC languages, a transitive verb agrees with its object for the 1st person. Saihriem is the only language which shows number distinction for the second person object. If a verb takes more than one object, one with an inanimate direct object and the other with an indirect human object, the human indirect object takes precedence over the inanimate direct object for agreement. The Imperative construction takes the regular pre-verbal subject agreement marker for 1st and 3rd person in both the singular and plural form. On the contrary, the second person does not take any agreement marker. However, the number (singular and plural of the person) is distinguished in the imperative marker itself.

On the Origins and Elimination of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages

1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vit Bubenik
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
Type B ◽  
Morphological Marker ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Intransitive Verb ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
And Gender

Ergativity is a term used in traditional descriptive and typological linguistics to refer to a system of nominal case-marking where the subject of an intransitive verb has the same morphological marker as a direct object, and a different morphological marker from the subject of a transitive verb. Languages in which this system is found are divided into two main types, A and B (following Trask 1979:388). In Type A the ergative construction is used equally in all tenses and aspects. Furthermore, if there is verbal agreement, the verb agrees with the direct object in person and number in exactly the same way it agrees with the subject of an intransitive verb. The verb agrees with the transitive subject in a different way. Well-known representatives of this type are Basque, Australian ergative languages, certain North American languages, Tibeto-Burman and Chukchee. In type B there is most often a tense/aspect split, in which case the ergative construction is confined to the perfective aspect (or the past tense), and the nominative-accusative configuration is used elsewhere. Furthermore, if there is verbal agreement, the verb may agree with the direct object in number and gender but not in person.

scholarly journals Russian constructions with numerals and quantifiers: Their non-standard use in the subject and object position

Rhema ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 70-89
Author(s):  
Alexander В. Letuchiy
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Object Position ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
Object Behavior

In the article, I describe cases of special behavior of Russian phrases with quantifiers like neskol’ko ‘some’, mnogo ‘many, much’ and small numerals like dva ‘two’. I show that they can occur in the subject position in contexts that usually do not contain a canonical DP/NP subject (constructions with the verb xvatat’ ‘be enough’, negation contexts with the verb byt’ ‘be’ and its habitual / iterative correlate byvat’), and for neskol’ko-like quantifiers, the direct object position with intransi- tive predicates like na-...-sja circumfixed verbs is also available. The reason of non- canonical subject behavior is the possibility to be subjects without controlling plural verbal agreement, while the non-canonical direct object behavior is possible because neskol’ko-like quantifiers lack the category of case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document