Case and Agreement From Fringe To Core A Minimalist Approach 1st Edition Stefan Keine PDF Available
Case and Agreement From Fringe To Core A Minimalist Approach 1st Edition Stefan Keine PDF Available
★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (44 reviews )
EBOOK
Available Formats
https://ebookfinal.com/download/core-clinical-competencies-in-
anesthesiology-a-case-based-approach-1st-edition-christopher-j-
gallagher/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/analysing-english-sentences-a-
minimalist-approach-1st-edition-andrew-radford/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/core-radiology-a-visual-approach-to-
diagnostic-imaging-1st-edition-jacob-mandell/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/religion-and-politics-under-
capitalism-a-humanistic-approach-to-the-terminology-1st-edition-
stefan-arvidsson/
Sociology A Down To Earth Approach Core Concepts 4th
Edition James M. Henslin
https://ebookfinal.com/download/sociology-a-down-to-earth-approach-
core-concepts-4th-edition-james-m-henslin/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/chinese-propaganda-posters-from-
revolution-to-modernization-1st-edition-stefan-landsberger/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/profit-from-the-core-a-return-to-
growth-in-turbulent-times-chris-zook/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/managerial-statistics-a-case-based-
approach-brett-sasrsniti/
Case and agreement from fringe to core a minimalist
approach 1st Edition Stefan Keine Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): Stefan Keine
ISBN(s): 9783110234404, 3110234408
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.51 MB
Year: 2010
Language: english
Linguistische
Arbeiten 536
Herausgegeben von Klaus von Heusinger, Gereon Mller,
Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus, Elisabeth Stark und Richard Wiese
Stefan Keine
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-023439-8
e-ISBN 978-3-11-023440-4
ISSN 0344-6727
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Distributed Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Vocabulary Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3 Impoverishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.4 Feature Subanalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Impoverishment by Harmonic Alignment of Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 The Operation Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4 Eccentric Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1 Ergative Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.1 Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.2 Itelmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2 Dative Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2.1 Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2.2 Itelmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2.3 Scale Effects on Dative Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
vi
7 Ξ-Impoverishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.1 Nez Perce ‘Pseudo-Antipassive’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.1.1 Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.1.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.1.3 Ditransitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
7.2 Niuean ‘Pseudo Noun Incorporation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
7.2.1 Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
7.2.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
7.2.3 Instrumental Advancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
7.3 Selayarese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7.3.1 Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7.3.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.4 Antipassive as Impoverishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
vii
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Preface
This book sets out to develop a unified theory of various, apparently unrelated, instances
of eccentric argument encoding—phenomena that are puzzling from the point of view
of standard theories of case and agreement. It includes, but is not limited to, accounts
of
– global case splits in Umatilla Sahaptin, Yurok, and Kolyma Yukaghir; and
My main proposal centers around recasting the relationship between the two well-
established operations, ‘Agree’ and ‘impoverishment’. I contend that these operations
interact with each other in intricate but highly systematic ways. All phenomena men-
tioned above are argued to be identical on an abstract level of analysis: They involve
impoverishment effects on Agree. Thus, what appears mysterious on the surface dis-
solves into the principled interaction of fundamental operations.
First and foremost, I would like my to express my gratitude to Gereon Müller and
Fabian Heck, who provided very detailed and thoughtful written comments and dis-
cussed various aspects of this work with me, from which I benefited greatly. Their
influence on this study is tremendous. For discussions and helpful comments I would
like to thank Petr Biskup, Gisbert Fanselow, Doreen Georgi, Andrew Nevins, Marc
Richards, Helena Trompelt, Dieter Wunderlich, and Malte Zimmermann. I am par-
ticularly indebted to Marc Richards for proof-reading various versions of this work
and commenting on it. Naturally, those mentioned do not necessarily agree with my
analyses.
I am grateful for the opportunity to present parts of this work at the Workshop on
Theoretical Morphology 3 (wotm 3) in Leipzig, the syntax/morphology colloquium
at the University of Leipzig, ConSOLE XVII in Nova Gorica, the Leipzig/Potsdam
Workshop Morphology and Movement in Wittenberg, as well as the 4th International
Conference on Formal Linguistics in Beijing. I am indebted to the audiences there.
The research reported here as well as the process of writing-up was supported by
a DFG grant to the project Argument Encoding in Morphology and Syntax, as part of
Forschergruppe 742. I am grateful to the responsible authorities.
x
Finally, I would like to thank my friends, inside as well as outside of linguistics. Last,
but certainly not least, my heartfelt thanks go to my family: Ute, Steffen, and Christian.
I dedicate this book to them.
Abbreviations
abl ablative
abs absolutive
acc accusative
anaph anaphora
anr action nominalizer
ap antipassive
asp aspect
a external argument of a transitive verb
caus causative
cnd conditional
comp complementizer
dat dative
dd Dative Displacement
def definite
dflt default
df dative flag
dim diminutive
dis distributive
do direct object
ed Ergative Displacement
erg ergative
excl exclusive
fam familiar
fem feminine
fut future
gen genitive
hab habitual
hon honorific
hum human
imperf imperfective
inc incompletive aspect
ind indicative mood
inf infinitival
instr Instrumental
intr intransitive marker
inv.erg inverse ergative (in Umatilla-Sahaptin)
io indirect object
xii
loc locative
masc masculine
mod modalis
neut neuter
nom nominative
nonfin non-finite
nspec non-specific
num number
obj.c object-controlled complementizer
objv objective (case)
obj object
obl oblique
obv.c obviative complementizer
o internal argument of a transitive verb
part participial mood
pauc paucal
perf perfective
pers person marker
pl plural
poss possessive
pred predicative marker
pres present
px prefix
q question marker
sbjnctv subjunctive
sg singular
spec specific
subj subject
sx suffix
s single argument of an intransitive verb
temp.c temporary action complementizer
tm theme marker
top topic
trans transitive
trs transitivizer
1 Introduction
In the recent history of the Minimalist Program, considerable attention has been paid
to case and agreement systems. While progress has been made in some domains,
many proposals remain language-specific in scope. In addition, quite often empirical
patterns resist a treatment in terms of independently motivated principles. Such
patterns of eccentric argument encoding are often treated as language-specific quirks
with no obvious relation to seemingly more ‘well-behaved’ systems. This book sets
out to develop a unified theory of various patterns of eccentric argument encoding.
Empirically, it draws from a variety of apparently non-related phenomena that have so
far remained more or less mysterious from the viewpoint of recent syntactic theories.
Specifically, I argue that these systems, despite their differences, receive a unified
treatment if one adopts a minor readjustment in the grammatical architecture which
has far-reaching consequences for syntactic processes in general. The present study
explores the view that two operations that are not normally thought to interact in fact
do interact: Agree and impoverishment. Once these two operations are allowed to affect
each other in principled ways, several patterns of eccentric argument encoding that
have so far escaped a uniform treatment fall out straightforwardly. The systems under
consideration, despite appearances, are thus far from idiosyncratic. Rather, they are
the result of independently motivated and widely adopted operations and, crucially,
their interaction.
In standard conceptions of the grammatical architecture as assumed within Mini-
malism and Distributed Morphology, Agree is a syntactic operation that percolates
feature values from one head to another. Impoverishment, on the other hand, is widely
conceived of as a morphological operation that deletes morpho-syntactic features. Ap-
plying within morphology, impoverishment takes place after the syntactic derivation
has terminated and only has an effect on vocabulary insertion (Bonet 1991, Noyer 1992,
1997, Halle and Marantz 1994). This general conception is depicted in figure 1.1.
There thus exists an extrinsic ordering relation between Agree and impoverishment
in the sense that all operations of the former type take place before all operations of the
latter type: Since (1) all Agree operations take place within syntax, (2) impoverishment
syntax morphology
... / ⋮ / ⋮ / ...
Agree Impoverishment
⋮ ⋮
Figure 1.1
Standard view of the order between agree and impoverishment
2
Agree j
... / / ...
(
impoverishment
Figure 1.2
Order between Agree and impoverishment proposed here
applies within morphology and (3) morphology applies after syntax, the output of
impoverishment can never form the input to Agree and consequently cannot influence
agreement relations. I will refer to the conception of figure 1.1—viz., all Agree opera-
tions take place before all impoverishment operations because they apply in different
grammatical components—as modular ordering.
In this study I explore some consequences of the alternative view that no such
modular ordering holds between Agree and impoverishment. The basic underlying idea
is that both operations apply within a single grammatical component. This move has the
consequence that as before the output of Agree may form the input to impoverishment
but, furthermore, the reverse may also hold: impoverishment may apply prior to Agree
and thereby influence it in a variety of ways. This conception is depicted in figure 1.2.
The main claim of this book is that impoverishment operations and Agree may freely
interact with each other. Specifically, impoverishment may in principle apply before or
after agreement. This is incompatible with any grammatical architecture that situates
impoverishment and Agree within two distinct grammatical modules that are strictly
ordered with respect to each other, such as the one depicted in figure 1.1. In the standard
view of grammatical architecture as conceived within the Minimalist Program, Agree
takes place syntax-internally, and impoverishment after the syntactic derivation is
terminated. This implies that all Agree operations have to precede all impoverishment
operations, which is obviously incompatible with the main claim proposed here, i.e.
that the output of impoverishment may constitute the input to Agree. The present
proposal thus makes it necessary that both agreement and impoverishment apply
within the same module (in the sense that modules are inherently ordered with respect
to each other). Thus, a priori it may either be the case that both impoverishment
and agreement take place within syntax proper or that both apply post-syntactically.
Note that figure 1.2 is silent about this issue. Neither the proposal in this book nor the
empirical evidence that is about to be considered unambiguously enforces a choice in
either direction. Both possibilities are in principle consistent with the main claim of
the present study. For the sake of the exposition, however, I will assume throughout
this book that Agree and impoverishment take place within syntax. They thus interact
with syntactic structure-builing processes. Some tentative remarks on this issue can be
found in chapter 8.
3
Impoverishment that takes place prior to Agree may influence it in a variety of ways.
Firstly, it may feed agreement; secondly, it may bleed agreement; and thirdly, agreement
may percolate the information that impoverishment has taken place to a different head
and thus yield the impression of a non-local computation. Each of these three patterns
will be encountered in the case studies that form the main part of this work.
Throughout this study I will follow recent trends in approaches to syntax that assume
strict locality conditions on the syntactic derivation. Consequently, all the analyses
developed here only make use of local operations and are hence compatible with a
phase-based notion of syntactic locality. As a matter of fact, the analyses are not only
compatible with a local approach to syntactic derivations but in fact presuppose it.
To the extent that these analyses are on the right track, they provide an argument for
derivational locality.
The structure of the book is as follows: I will first introduce the theoretical back-
ground assumptions that this work is couched in by laying out the main assumptions
of Distributed Morphology in section 2.1, including, of course, the role of impoverish-
ment, coupled with the meta-grammatical iconicity principle, introduced in section
2.2. An additional result of this work will be that greater empirical restrictiveness can
be achieved if impoverishment is not conceived of as an arbitrary rule but rather as
the result of constraint interaction in an Optimality-Theoretic fashion. Section 2.3
contains a brief overview of the relevant concepts, specifically harmonic alignment
of markedness scales, followed by an illustration based on object marking in Hindi.
Finally, section 2.4 introduces the second most important operation in the present
context: Agree.
Chapter 3 will set the stage for the main proposal by outlining and comparing two
competing proposals concerning the input of agreement. The first one asserts that
agreement is determined on the basis of abstract syntactic case (section 3.1), while the
second one holds that agreement feeds on morphological case (section 3.2). As will
be shown, for both proposals there exist empirical data that remain unaccounted for.
Against this background, my main proposals are then laid out in section 3.3 and argued
to overcome the problems encountered by the competing conceptions. This chapter
contains analyses for differential subject and object marking and their interaction with
verbal agreement in Hindi on the one hand and Marathi as well as Punjabi on the other.
Chapters 4 to 7 consider various empirical phenomena that at first glance do not
appear to be related and which have received considerable attention due to their in-
triguing properties. I argue that these systems receive a unified and principled account
in terms of impoverishment applying before Agree. Chapter 4 considers eccentric
agreement in Basque and Itelmen. In these languages, ergative and dative arguments
may, under certain well-defined conditions, control absolutive agreement on the verb,
without affecting the case assigned to them or showing any syntactic alternation. As it
turns out, these systems exhibit quite a bit of alternation as to the exact conditioning
factors. I propose that these systems and the observed alternations are systematically
4
derived by the interaction between impoverishment and Agree. As it turns out, the
analyses for Hindi split-ergativity in chapter 3 and for Basque eccentric agreement
treat the two phenomena as underlying identical, with only surface factors blurring
the picture (section 4.3).
In chapter 5, I develop a treatment of the well-known nominative objects in Icelandic
and their effects on verbal agreement. I will argue in this chapter that nominative on
objects syntactically does not pair with nominatives assigned to subjects but rather
behaves like an accusative. The analysis will center around the claim that the object
nominative is abstractly an accusative, disfigured by impoverishment influencing
Agree.
Chapter 6 proposes an account for seemingly global case splits in Umatilla Sahaptin,
Yurok and Kolyma Yukaghir. Global case splits are case marker alternations that
are conditioned by the properties of a co-argument. I claim that these splits can be
accounted for in strictly local terms if analyzed as impoverishment effects.
Finally, chapter 7 develops an analysis of transitive clauses in Nez Perce, Niuean,
and Selayarese that involve intransitive argument encoding. Descriptively, the object
in these constructions is invisible for the purposes of argument encoding. I propose
that this behavior emerges as a consequence of impoverishment.
Chapter 8 summarizes the findings of this study, reviews various alternative ap-
proaches also compatible with the main proposal of this book, and draws a conclusion.
Other documents randomly have
different content
Genetics - Field Notes
Fall 2021 - Academy
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookfinal.com