Advertisement

Person Hierarchy Interactions in Syntax

  • Milan RezacEmail author
Chapter
  • 501 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 81)

Abstract

Chapter 3 uses the modular signature of syntax to show that some phi-agreement dependencies belong to syntax rather than realizational morphology. They are interactions between the transitive subject and object according to their person features, or person (hierarchy) interactions, in Algonquian, Mapudungun, and Arizona Tewa. The key finding is that the interactions are visible to other syntactico-semantic phenomena, unlike the morphological phenomena of Chapter 2. Other aspects of their ‘modular signature’ agree, notably operation across phrase-structurally unbounded domains. The person interaction of Arizona Tewa introduces the notion of a syntactic repair of a person (hierarchy) constraint for the subsequent chapters: the emergence of an otherwise unavailable syntactic structure in response to the impossibility of the regular one by a person constraint.

Keywords

Syntactic Structure Embed Clause Matrix Clause Inverse Structure Syntactic Consequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10: 2–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73: 705–750.Google Scholar
  4. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Agent focus and inversion in Tzotzil. Language 75: 451–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albizu, Pablo. 1997a. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface, ed. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–33. Donostia: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
  6. Albizu, Pablo. 1997b. The syntax of person agreement. Ms., University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  7. Allen, Barbara J., and Donald G. Frantz. 1983. Advancements and verb agreement in Southern Tiwa. In Studies in Relational Grammar 1, ed. David M. Perlmutter, 303–316. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Allen, Barbara J., and Donald Frantz 1986. Goal advancement in Southern Tiwa. IJAL 52: 388–403.Google Scholar
  9. Allen, Barbara J., Donald Franz, D. B. Gardiner, and David Perlmutter. 1990. Verb agreement multistratal representation in Southern Tiwa. In Studies in Relational Grammar 3, ed. Paul Postal and Brian Joseph, 321–383. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Anderson, Stephen. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arnold, Jennifer. 1994. Inverse voice marking in Mapudungun. In Proceedings of the BLS 20, 28–41. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  12. Arnold, Jennifer. 1997. The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 34: 9–48.Google Scholar
  13. Arnold, Jennifer. 1998. Reference forms and discourse patters. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. Baker, Mark. 2003. On the loci of agreement: inversion constructions in Mapudungun. In Proceedings of NELS 33, 25–49. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  15. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  17. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. Anna-Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2007. Cyclic Agree. Ms., University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., and Université de Nantes. On-line: http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/sites/sfl/IMG/pdf/BR2005.pdf. Accessed September 4 2010.
  19. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Berinstein, Ava. 1985. Evidence for multiattachment in K'ekchi Mayan. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  21. Berinstein, Ava. 1990. On distinguishing surface datives in K'ekchi. In Studies in Relational Grammar 3, ed. Paul M. Postal and Brian D. Joseph, 3–48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Grammatical relations typology. Ms. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  24. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? In Phi theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phillip Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple Case checking. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. Alana Johns, Diane Massam., and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Boeckx, Cedric. 2008b. The Person-Case Constraint and patterns of exclusivity. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 87–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Branigan, Phil, and Marguerite MacKenzie. 2001. Altruism, Ā-movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 2002: 385–407.Google Scholar
  28. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of Case. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø / CASTL.Google Scholar
  31. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Dahlstrom, Amy. 1986. Plains Cree morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  33. Davies, William D., and Luis Enrique Sam-Colop. 1990. K'iche' and the structure of antipassive. Language 66: 522–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1999. What Algonquian morphology is really like: Hockett revisited. In Papers from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, ed. Leora Bar-el, Rose-Marie Déchaine, and Charlotte Reinholtz, 25–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  35. Delancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57: 626–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Diesing, Molly, and Eloise Jelinek. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dixon, R. M. W. 2000. A-constructions and O-constructions in Jarawara. International Journal of American Linguistics 66: 22–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Farell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Georgi, Doreen. 2009. Local modelling of global Case splits. MA thesis, Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  42. Guillaume, Antoine. 2006. Revisiting ‘split ergativity’ in Cavineña. International Journal of American Linguistics 72: 159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hale, Kenneth. 2001. Eccentric agreement. In On Case and agreement, ed. Pablo Albizu and Beatriz Fernández, 15–48. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
  44. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Haude, Katharina. 2006. A grammar of Movima. Doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  46. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  47. Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. Ergative ‘splits' and argument type. In MIT working papers in linguistics 18, 15–42. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  48. Jelinek, Eloise, and Andrew Carnie. 2003. Argument hierarchies and the mapping principle. In Formal approaches to function in grammar, ed. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and MaryAnn Willie, 265–296. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  49. Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1983. An agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70: 697–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johns, Alana. 1993. The occasional absence of anaphoric agreement in Labrador Inuttut. In Microparametrix syntax and dialect variation, ed. James R. Black and Virginia Montapanyane, 121–143. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  52. Kaiser, Elsi. 2003. The quest for a referent. Doctoral dissertation, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  53. Klaiman, Mimi H. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 88: 227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kroskrity, Paul V. 1985. A holistic understanding of Arizona Tewa passives. Language 61: 306–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Laka, Itziar. 1993a. The structure of inflection. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 21–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  57. Lakämper, Renate and Dieter Wunderlich. 1998. Person marking in Quechua – A constraint-based minimalist analysis. Lingua 105: 113–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lesourd, Philip. 1976. Verb agreement in Fox. In Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, vol. 2, ed. Jorge Hankamer and Judith Aissen, 445–528. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  60. Lochbihler, Bethany. 2008. Person licensing: The Algonquian-Romance connection. In Proceedings of Canadian Linguistics Association 2008. On-line: //www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/actes2008.html. Accessed September 4 2010.
  61. Marantz, Alec. 2000 [1991]. Case and licensing. In Arguments and Case, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  62. Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  63. Mühlbauer, Jeffrey. 2008. The representation of intentionality in Plains Cree. Doctoral dissertation, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  64. Nash, Léa. 1997. La partition personnelle dans les langues ergatives. In Les pronoms: Morphologie, syntaxe et typologie, ed. Anne Zribi-Hertz, 129–150. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
  65. Nichols, Lynn. 1996. A constraint on A-positions and the Projection Principle. In Proceedings of ESCOL 95, 224–235. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  66. Nichols, Lynn. 1998. Topics in Zuni syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  67. Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena. Lingua 111: 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Noyer, Rolf R. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  69. Piggott, Glyne. 1989. Argument structure and the morphology of the Ojibwa verb. In Theoretical perspectives on Native American languages, ed. Donna B. Gerdts and Karin Michelson, 176–208. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  70. Polinsky, Maria. 2003. Non-canonical agreement is canonical. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6: 156–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rhodes, Richard. 1976. The morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa verb. Doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  73. Rhodes, Richard. 1993. Syntax vs. morphology: A chicken and egg problem. Proceedings of BLS 19, Special session on syntactic issues in Native American languages, 139–147. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  74. Rhodes, Richard. 1994. Valency, inversion, and thematic alignment in Ojibwe. Proceedings of BLS 20, 431–446. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  75. Rice, Keren, and Leslie Saxon. 1994. The subject position in Athapaskan languages. In MIT working papers in linguistics 22, 173–195. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  76. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rosen, Carol. 1990. Rethinking Southern Tiwa: The geometry of a triple-agreement language. Language 66: 669–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Silverstein, Michael. 1986. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Features and projections, ed. Peter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 163–232. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  79. Trommer, Jochen. 2001. Distributed Optimality. Doctoral dissertation, Potsdam, NY: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  80. Trommer, Jochen. Hierarchy-based competition and emergence of two-argument agreement in Dumi. Linguistics 44: 1011–1057.Google Scholar
  81. Turan, Umit Deniz. 1996. Null vs. overt subjects in Turkish discourse. Doctoral dissertation, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  82. Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way Case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zúñiga, Fernando. 2002. Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Doctoral dissertation, Zürich: University of Zurich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Paris 8Saint Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations