Ergativity in Indo-Aryan

Case and agreement patterns that are present in Old, Middle, and New Indo-Aryan languages have been argued to require the following perspective: since ergative case marking and ergative (object) agreement in these languages are historically tied to having originated from the past perfective morphological marker ta, they can only be fully understood from a perspective that factors in this development. Particular attention is given to the waxing and waning of ergative properties in Late Middle Indo-Aryan and New Indo-Aryan, which give rise to recurring dissociation of case and agreement; specifically, object agreement in the absence of ergative case marking is attested in Kutchi Gujarati and Marwari, whereas ergative case marking without object agreement is present in Nepali. With regard to case, recent insights show that “ergative/accusative” may be regularly semantically/pragmatically conditioned in Indo-Aryan (so-called differential case marking). Pertaining to agreement, a central theoretical question is whether “ergative” object agreement should be analyzed uniformly with subject agreement or, alternatively, as a type of participle agreement—drawing on synchronic parallels between Indo-Aryan and Romance.

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

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.

The North Samoyedic interrogative verb meaning ‘say what’

A cross-linguistically rare interrogative category (i.e., an interrogative verb with the meaning ‘say what’) is observed in the North Samoyedic (Uralic) languages. The interrogative verb in these languages is used in content questions, and functions as the predicate of the main or the embedded clause. It takes the regular verb morphemes with two exceptions: it (i) does not display object agreement, and (ii) cannot combine with the regular past tense morpheme. Furthermore, there is also an ordering restriction on multiple questions containing the interrogative verb. The morphosyntactic evidence suggests that the North Samoyedic interrogative verb is analyzed as a result of a wh-object incorporation. Kokkuvõte. Nikolett Mus: Põhjasamojeedi keelte küsiverb tähendusega ‘mida ütlema’. Põhjasamojeedi (uurali) keeltes esineb keeleüleselt haruldane küsiv kategooria (st küsiverb tähendusega ’mis asja’). Nendes keeltes kasutatakse küsiverbi sisuküsimustes ja küsiverb toimib pea- või kõrvallauses predikaadina, liitudes tavaliste verbimorfeemidega, välja arvatud kahel juhul: küsiverb (i) ei väljenda objektiühildumist, ja (ii) ei kombineeru lihtmineviku morfeemiga. Lisaks on küsiverbil teatavad järjestuspiirangud küsiverbi sisaldava kompleksküsimuse korral. Morfosüntaktilised andmed viitavad, et põhjasamojeedi küsiverb on analüüsitav kui küsisõnalise objekti inkorporatsiooni tulemus. Аннотация. Николетт Муш: Северосамодийский вопросительный глагол ‘что сказать’. В северосамодийских языках (уральская языковая семья) есть типологически редкий вопросительный глагол со значением ‘что сказать’. Этот глагол используется в частных вопросах в качестве предиката главного или подчиненного предложения. Он принимает обычные словоизменительные суффиксы за двумя исключениями: он не сочетается (i) с объектным спряжением и (ii) с показателем прошедшего времени индикатива. Кроме того, существуют ограничения на относительный порядок вопросов с вопросительным глаголом. Данные морфосинтаксиса свидетельствуют о том, что северносамодийский вопросительный глагол возник в результате инкорпорации объекта — вопросительного местоимениия.

Processing agreement in Hindi: When agreement feeds attraction

Previous studies have demonstrated robust agreement attraction effects in subject-verb agreement languages. It is an open question whether such attraction effects extend to languages whose agreement systems differ from this prototypical agreement pattern. To address this question, we conducted four forced-choice completion experiments investigating agreement processing in Hindi. Hindi has a mixed-agreement system, where subject-verb agreement and object-verb agreement occur in complementary structural contexts. We observed clear attraction effects in both subject and object agreement contexts. But we found little evidence that the distractor NP’s role, case or syntactic prominence modulated attraction. Rather, attraction occurred when the distractor was itself an agreement controller. We propose a Controller Coding account where Hindi speakers actively identify whether an NP is an agreement controller and encode this information in memory, with agreement interference arising primarily when multiple NPs are encoded as agreement controllers.

Morphosyntactic Restructuring in Child Heritage Georgian

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.

Clitic or Agreement Restriction in Santali: A Typological Analysis

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.

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

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.