INTRODUCTION Introduction 2/42 INTRODUCTION Alternations I am - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Patterns of variation in the expression of case and agreement András Bárány Leiden University Centre for Linguistics 9 November 2019, BaSIS Workshop  a.barany@hum.leidenuniv.nl 

INTRODUCTION Introduction 2/42

INTRODUCTION Alternations ‘I am giving bread to the child.’ give-PRS- 1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] ma-l- em bread-LOC child.NOM I b. mā ‘The mother gives bread to her child.’ give-PRS.3SG ] ma-l bread.NOM child-3SG.POSS.SG-LAT mother-3SG.POSS a. āntʹe-l Synja Khanty (Uralic; F. Gulyás 2015a,b) (1) Alternations can affect both m(orphological)-case and agreement Many languages (and predicates) show alternations in argument realisation 3/42 • Causative alternation: I opened the door. / The door opened. • Ditransitive alternation: I gave Mary the book. / I gave the book to Mary. [ R ńāwrem-al-a ] [ T ńāń [ R ńāwrem ] [ T ńāń-ən

INTRODUCTION Alternations not affecting m-case ‘Markus sent me to John (earlier today).’ 1SG.OBJ -send-SG.SBJ.HOD ] b-re-y John-DAT 1SG.ABS Markus-ERG b. Markus-w ‘Markus gave me the money (earlier today).’ 1SG.OBJ -give-SG.SBJ.HOD ] b-mae-y 1SG.DAT leaf.ABS kati tree Markus-ERG a. Markus-w Ngkolmpu (Yam; Carroll 2016: 149, glosses simplifjed) (2) Alternations can co-occur with, but independently of m-case as well … 4/42 [ T pr ] [ R nson [ T ngko ] [ R Jon-en

INTRODUCTION Alternations without m-case ‘We gave it to people.’ ( bokyo ‘the money’) ] 2.person 1PL-14.OM-give-PST b. twa- bo -h-ile ] 14.money 1PL-2.OM-give-PST a. twa- ba -h-ile Bembe (Bantu; Iorio 2015: 105–106) (3) … and alternations can be completely independent of m-case 5/42 [ T bokyo ‘We gave them money.’ ( batu ‘the people’) [ R batu

INTRODUCTION Today’s talk ?  6/42 • Do such alternations have a common core? Case? • What patterns underlie them across languages? • What’s the role of morphological case and abstract Case? • What factors determine case and agreement in alternations? • Alternations with m-case • Alternations without m-case • Conclusions

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE Alternations with m-case 7/42

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE you.SG-ACC ‘I saw you.’ see-PST-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ / waːn-s- eːm see-PST-1SG.SBJ ] waːn-s-ə-m I The cases of Khanty ma (4) Northern Khanty (Nikolaeva 1999: 65) Khanty and Mansi (Ob-Ugric; Uralic) have m-case and object agreement 8/42 • Objects of transitive verbs (P) are NOM or ACC (for pronouns) • All varieties allow agreement with the NOM/ACC object • Object agreement is differential [ P naŋ-eːn

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE give-PRS.3SG ‘I am giving bread to the child / to you.’ give-PRS-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] ma-l- em bread-LOC you-ACC child.NOM I b. mā More cases of Khanty ‘The mother gives bread to her child.’ ] ma-l bread.NOM child-3SG.POSS.SG-LAT mother-3SG a. āntʹe-l Sinyja Khanty (F. Gulyás 2015a,b) (5) 9/42 In ditransitives, T or R can be NOM/ACC — only NOM/ACC can agree [ R ńāwrem-al-a ] [ T ńāń [ R ńāwrem / naŋ-en ] [ T ńāń-ən

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE / * weːl-s-əm ? So what triggers differential object agreement? ‘I killed it.’ kill-PST-1SG.SBJ / * weːl-s-əm kill-PST-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ b. weːl-s- eːm ‘I killed this reindeer.’ kill-PST-1SG.SBJ kill-PST-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ Differential agreement ] weːl-s- eːm reindeer kalaŋ this Context: What did you do to this reindeer? Northern Khanty (Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011: 146 = [D&N2011]) (6) 10/42 Agreement in Khanty is differential : only some objects control agreement a. [ P tam

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE Is DOA due to information structure? ‘He hit Peter/him.’ hit-PST.3SG.SBJ / * reːsk-əs hit-PST-3SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] reːsk-əs- li he-ACC / luw-eːl Peter.NOM he luw b. Context: What did John do to Peter? ‘Which reindeer did he kill?’ kill-PST-3SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ / * weːl-s-əlli? kill-PST.3SG.SBJ ] weːl-əs reindeer kalaŋ which Northern Khanty (Nikolaeva 2001: 17, 30) (7) (Nikolaeva 2001) Differential object agreement (DOA) in Khanty seems to be sensitive to topicality 11/42 a. [ P mati [ P Peːtra

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE cry-CAUS-PST-3SG.SBJ ‘He made Peter cry.’ cry-CAUS-PST-3SG.SBJ / * xoːllə-ptə-s cry-CAUS-PST-3SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] xoːllə-ptə-s- li Peter.NOM ‘He made me cry.’ / * xoːllə-ptə-s Is DOA always due to information structure? cry-CAUS-PST-3SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] xoːllə-ptə-s- li I.ACC Context: Whom did he make cry? Northern Khanty (D&N2011: 149) (8) Not always… a causee object has to agree, even when in focus. 12/42 a. [ CAUS maːneːm b. [ CAUS Peːtra

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE Is DOA always due to information structure? (continued) ? If it’s not information structure (IS)… what does determine object agreement? ‘I gave a/the cup to Peter.’, cf. ‘I provided Peter with a cup.’ give-PST-1SG.SBJ /* ma-s-əm. give-PST-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] ma-s- eːm cup-LOC Peter.NOM I b. ma ‘I gave a/the cup to Peter.’ give-PST-1SG.SBJ / ma-s-əm. give-PST-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ ] ma-s- eːm to eːlti Peter cup.NOM I a. ma Northern Khanty (D&N2011: 148) (9) ACC R arguments also must agree, independently of information structure. 13/42 [ T aːn ] [ R Peːtra [ R Peːtra ] [ T aːn-na

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE Grammatical functions 14/42 D&N2011: grammatical function (GF) determines object agreement • In LFG, GFs (SUBJ, OBJ, OBL, POSS, …) are primitives • DOs have a restricted OBJ θ GF (cf. Bresnan & Kanerva 1989) • IOs, i.e. recipients, causees, and certain themes/patients , have the OBJ GF • D&N2011: Topical theme/patient objects are OBJ  The OBJ GF requires object agreement • Agreeing objects can control into AN clauses, fmoat quantifjers, …

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE tu-s- en ? ‘I gave the cup to Peter.’ give-PST-1SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ Peter-DAT tea cup.ACC ‘Where did you take the cup?’ Object position instead of GF? take-PST-2SG.SBJ>SG.OBJ where ] χŏlta tea cup.ACC Sinya Khanty (Arkadʹij Longortov, p.c.); VP-external position of theme (10) Nikolaeva (2001) suggests that agreeing objects are VP-external 15/42 • Agreeing theme/patient objects often precede other objects a. [ P śajan b. [ T śajan ] [ R Petra-ja ] mă-s- em . • Bárány (2016, to appear), Smith (to appear): position of OBJ is the trigger

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE  Agree Appl agrees with its Spec Bárány (2016, to appear):  Agree SBJ v R / P Appl P V VP Applʹ ApplP v ʹ v P VP is a “hard phase”, not accessible Object position as a trigger Smith (to appear): v agrees downwards, SBJ v R / P Appl P V VP Applʹ ApplP v ʹ v P (11) All agreeing objects are “high”, i.e. outside of VP 16/42

ALTERNATIONS WITH M-CASE Interim summary: Object agreement in Khanty At fjrst glance, Khanty DOA looks like its sensitive to topicality ? GF or movement? Clear restrictions in Khanty: 17/42 • But this only holds for themes/patients and there are other factors • Depends on independent evidence (and your framework of choice…) • GFs are notoriously fuzzy : sometimes they fjt well, sometimes they do not • m-case restricts agreement: only ACC objects can agree • Topic status correlates with agreement for theme/patient

ALTERNATIONS WITHOUT M-CASE Alternations without m-case 18/42

ALTERNATIONS WITHOUT M-CASE Alternations without morphological case ? To what degree are these a consequence of Case? ? If we do not see Case, is it there? 19/42 There are agreement alternations without or independently of m-case • Some languages have “symmetric” object agreement… • … and other symmetric or asymmetric operations

ALTERNATIONS WITHOUT M-CASE ‘ You slept.’ ? Evidence for abstract (inherent) ergative Case ? ‘ She saw you .’ 3ERG-see-TV y -il-a’. ASP-2ABS b. Max- ach sleep-ITV Abstract Case in the absence of morphological case way-i. ASP-2ABS a. Max- ach Q’anjob’al (Mayan; Coon, Mateo Pedro & Preminger 2014: 187) (12) 2008, Sheehan & van der Wal 2016, 2018, Coon 2017) There is evidence for abstract Case without morphological expression (Legate 20/42 • Mayan languages show ergative agreement alignment without m-case

ALTERNATIONS WITHOUT M-CASE Case-sensitive agreement without m-case ? A model for ditransitives in Bantu? +Agree ERG +Agree ABS T SBJ v V OBJ VP v ʹ v P Tʹ +Agree ABS T SBJ v V VP v ʹ v P Tʹ (13) Subjects get Case in different ways in Mayan 21/42 • ERG is assigned by v and v spells out ERG agreement

ALTERNATIONS WITHOUT M-CASE 14.money ] 2.person 1PL-14.OM-give-PST b. twa- bo -h-ile Abstract Case in ditransitives? ] 1PL-2.OM-give-PST a. twa- ba -h-ile Bembe (Bantu; Iorio 2015: 105–106) (3) Abstract Case could be involved in object agreement symmetry 22/42 [ T bokyo ‘We gave them money.’ ( batu ‘the people’) [ R batu ‘We gave it to people.’ ( bokyo ‘the money’)

ALTERNATIONS WITHOUT M-CASE Abstract Case in ditransitives? (continued) DAT +Agree ACC v R Appl V T VP Applʹ ApplP v ʹ OBL ? +Agree ACC v R Appl V T VP Applʹ ApplP v ʹ (3ʹ) 23/42 • DAT is inherent case assigned by Appl • Like in Khanty, only ACC can agree — T gets oblique Case?