* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 2. Theoretical Issues with Case and Agreement
Antisymmetry wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Norse morphology wikipedia , lookup
Modern Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Arabic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish pronouns wikipedia , lookup
Esperanto grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Grammatical case wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASE AND AGREEMENT ANDTHETHEORETICALISSUES RELATEDTOTHISRELATIONSHIP OURROADMAP vTheoreticalassumptionsandan overviewofX-Bartheory vCaseassignmentandcaserealization v Casevscase vThebasicsofagreement vWheretherelationshipbetween caseandagreementgets complicated v AlookatChoctaw SOURCES 2 Burzio,Luigi.2000.Anatomyofgeneralization.InEric Reuland,ed.,Argumentsandcase:ExplainingBurzio’s Generalization,195–240.Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Johnson, Kyle.2011.Introduction totransformational grammar.Ms.UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst. Kratzer,Angelika.1996.Severingtheexternalargument fromitsverb.InRooryck,Johan,andLaurieZaring,eds. Phrasestructureandthelexicon,109-137.Springer:New York. Woolford,Ellen.2006.Case-agreementmismatches.In CedricBoeckx ed.AgreementSystems,317-339.John Benjamins. Woolford,Ellen.2008.Isagreementreallyindependentof case?Ms.,UniversityofMassachusetts. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 3 Morphology (in general) in a Theoretical Context BigPictureIssue: Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery o Forthemostpart,we’lladopttheperspectivethatsyntacticstructures andoperationsareresponsibleforwordformation. o Thisisnotuncontroversial.There’saschoolofthoughtwhichprettymuch removessyntacticoperationsfromthebusinessofwordformationand heavilyenrichesthemorphologicalcomponentofthegrammar.(Wedelve moredeeplyintothisissueinTopicsinMorphology.) (Re)familiarizing ourselves with the x-bar skeleton 4 •Thepositionsofheads,phrases,andspecifers canbe switched.Forinstance,inaverb-finallanguage,we wanttheverbtocomeaftertheobjectintheVP. •Someheadsarelexical.Forourpurposes,words “startoff”inthesepositions.Thewordsmightmove tootherpositions. •Someheadsarefunctional.Theydo“work”inthe syntacticstructureandmayormaynothostalexical item.Theworkthatweareconcernedwithhas morphologicalconsequences •Thecomplementtoaheadiswhat’srequiredbythe head- i.e.,atransitiveverbneedsanobject. •Adjunctsprovideadditionalinformation- e.g., prepositionalphrases,adjectives,adverbials. VP:ate asavorywafflefordinner head complement adjunct Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery •Thespecifierpositionhasdifferentfunctions. Sometimes,aphraseisbornthere.Sometimes phrasesmovetospecifierspots. 5 Why X-Bar??? “…a goal of syntactic theory should be to contribute towards structuring the universe of Gs.” [Johnson 2011:3] v Inessence, theX-Barmodelfacilitates(aweakerstance)ormakespossible(astrongerstance)the acquisitionprocessbyseverelyconstrainingtherangeofpossiblegrammars. v “IfeverylanguagelearnerisequippedwiththisX’Theory,thentheywillconvergeonmoreorlessthe sameGL whenpresentedwiththeinformationthatbeingintheenvironmentofspeakersofL provides.Iftherearedifferences intheGLsthatlearnersconvergeon,thesewilltracebackto different decisionstheselearnershavemadeabouttheidentityofW,X,Y,andZorhowtheirlinear orderisdetermined.Iftherestofamodelthatincorporatestheseconstraintsiscorrect,then,it shouldallowanylanguagelearner topickoutaGLveryclosetotheGLgivingshapetothespeechin thatlearner’senvironment.”[Johnson,p.4] v Thesyntacticians’task,then,istofigureouttheminutiaethattheX-Barskeletonrepresents andto thebestofourability,usethismodeltoaccountforavarietyofphenomena. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 6 What are the XP categories in Xbar theory? NounPhrase DeterminerPhrase VerbPhrase AdjectivePhrase AdverbPhrase PrepositionalPhrase Complementizer Phrase TensePhrase LightVerbPhrase,akaLittlevPhrase Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery Headsofthese phrasesassign case(probablynotan exhaustivelist) 7 [Cherlon]prefers[bourbonbarrel-agedbeer]. nom acc How does this work? • . Nominative T hastwofunctions: •(Finite)Tassigns nominativecasetothe subject. • Talsotransmitstense informationtotheverb. •InEnglish,Vmovestov •Insomelanguages,V movesallthewayupto T •SinceThasarelationship withboththesubjectand theverb,theverbagrees withthesubject. Accusative valsohastwofunctions: •Itassignsaccusativecasetotheobject •Thesyntacticjob •Itprovidesahome– viaitsspecifier– fortheverb’s externalargument(thesubject) •Thesemanticjob Important:Thisis themodelforsimple nominativeaccusativesystems, independentof whetherthecase thatisassigned syntacticallyis morphologically realized. Case: abstract case: morphological Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery § Marantz (1984):Theentirepredicate(notjusttheverb)assignsaθ-roletothesubject.Themeaning/propertiesof theobjectinfluencethemeaningoftheverb,which,inturn,determinesthesemanticpropertiesofthesubject. § Theobjectisassigneditsthetarolebytheverb.Thesubjectisassigneditsthetarolebytheentirepredicate. The Subject-Object Asymmetry (1) a.throwsupportbehindacandidate d.throwaparty b. throwabaseball e.throwafit c. throwaboxingmatch(takeadive) (2) a.takeabookfromtheshelf d.takeanaspirin b.takeabustoNewYork e.takealetterinshorthand • Kratzer (1996)arguesthatweneedasyntacticposition forthesubject thatdistancesthesubjectfromtheverb. • Fromasyntacticperspective,we’reusedtothinkingaboutaverb’s argumentsastheDPs/CPs/PPsthattheverbssubcategorizesfor. • Fromasemanticperspective,verbsrefertoeventsandinorderto derivethemeaningofaverb,theeventthattheverbreferstoispartof theverb’smeaning. • So,verbstakeanargumentthatisanevent.[Thisisn’trepresentedin oursyntaxtrees.WetalkalotaboutthisinSemantics.] c.takeanap (3) a.killacockroach d.killabottle(emptyit) b.killaconversation e.killanaudience(wowthem) c.killaneveningwatchingTV Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery (Kratzer 1996,EX6-8) 8 IMPORTANT:Objectsare“internal”argumentsoftheverbandsemantic subjectsare“external”arguments. Thesemanticfunctionofv isto“introduce”theexternalargumenttothe eventencodedintheVP.Thesyntacticfunctionofv istoassignaccusative casetotheverb’sobject.Whyshouldthesetwothingsberelated? 9 Burzio’s Generalization •Ifaverbassignsaccusativecase,thenitassignsanexternalθ-role. •Nosemanticsubjectθ-role→noaccusativeCase •Intechnicalterms:Whenaverbphrasecombineswithaheadthatintroducesanexternal argument,thatheadassignsaccusativecasetotheinternalargumentoftheverb. •Inb/dthere’sonlyaninternalargument,andtheinternalargumentsurfaces insubjectposition. a. Shefiredme. b.Iwasfired. c. Theybrokethewindow.(EX26)d.Thewindowbroke.(EX2) (fromBurzio 2000) •Weknowthere’snotaone-to-onemappingbetweencase, grammaticalrelations,andthematicroles. •Anotherinstanceofthismismatchisfoundwithunaccusatives, whichpatternlikepassivesinsomeways. •Noaccusativeassignedtothesemanticobject. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery – Unergatives haveanunderlyingsemanticsubject.e.g.Maryslept. 10 – Unaccusatives haveanunderlyingsemanticobject. – Someverbsalternatebetweenbeingtransitiveandintransitive. – Maryfrozethepopsicles. – Thepopsiclesfroze.Popsicles isthesemanticobject.Whydowethinkthis? More about Intransitives – Intransitivesentences,resultatives modifyobjects,notsubjects. – Johnhammeredthemetalflat.Themetalisflatasaconsequence ofbeing hammered. – *Johnhammeredthemetalsweaty.John issweatyasaresultofhammering metal. – Passivesallowforaresultative tomodify thesemanticobject/syntacticsubject. – Themetalwashammeredflat. – Resultatives arealsoallowedwiththesyntacticsubjectofsomeintransitives… – Thepopsiclesfrozesolid. Theunderlying objectdoesnotget accusativecasein passivesorin unaccusatives. – …Butnotwithothers. – *Marysleptrejuvenated.(OntheinterpretationthatMaryisrejuvenatedasaconsequenceof sleeping.) – The popsicles isasemanticobject– justlikethe metal inthepassive. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery Examplestakenfrom: http://web.mit.edu/norv in/www/24.902/unaccus atives.html 11 In some languages, auxiliary selection distinguishes unaccusatives and unergatives Unaccusative - be Unergative - have Italian Italian a.Mariaè arrivata c.Mariaha telefonato Mariastartsoff Mariais arrived-fem.sg.‘ astheobject, ‘Mariahasarrived.' butisnot assigned accusativecase. German Mariais b.DieMariaist angekommen assigned theMariais arrived nominative byT. ‘Mariahasarrived.' Examplestakenfrom: http://web.mit.edu/norv in/www/24.902/unaccus atives.html Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery Mariahas telephoned 'Mariahastelephoned.’ German b.DieMariahat telefoniert theMariahas telephoned 'Mariahastelephoned.' Thereisno underlying object.Maria startsoffasthe subject, andis assigned nominative byT. And remember Georgian Student-i 12 mivida. student-ABSwent 'Thestudent went.' Student-ma Ceril-i unaccusative daCera student-ERGletter-ABSwrote 'Thestudent wrotetheletter.' http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/L12paper.html unergative Butt2006: 157 Georgian distinguishes betweenunaccusatives and unergatives. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C.Ussery 13 Case and Infinitives: Raising vs Subject control 1. Barnettseemed tounderstandtheformula.Raising 2. Barnetttried[Barnett]tounderstandtheformula.SubjectControl – Inthesecondsentence,Barnett istheagentofthetryingandofthe understanding. TheCaseFilter:AllDPs musebemarkedwitha Weneedsomeiteminthelowerclausetosatisfythesemanticrequirementsof Caseinordertobe theembeddedverb. pronounced. – ThetechnicaltermforthissilentDPis PRO.PROisarguedtonotgetcase. Hence,itssilence.Non-finiteTisarguedtonotassigncase.[Wealreadyknow thatit’smorecomplicatedthanthis.] – Barnetti tried[PROi tounderstandtheformula]. Barnettseemed[Barnett tounderstandtheformula]. – – – •Caseisanecessary,not sufficientconditionfor pronunciation. •Silentsubjectsin pro-droplanguages. ThereisnoPROintheseem sentence.Thereisonlyonesemanticsubject. •Non-finiteTdoesnot Ling 216 ~ Winter 2016 ~ Cherlon Ussery assigncase…maybe. 3. Barnettpersuaded thedoctor toexamineTilman. 4. Barnettbelieved[thedoctor/her tohaveexaminedTilman]. ECM – InECM,theverbinthemainclauseistransitive andtheembedded clauseisthe objectoftheverb. – – ObjectControl 14 Object Control Theembedded subjectisaccusativeandwehaveareasonforthisexceptionality. vs Exceptional Non-finiteTdoesn’t assignnominative, sotheembedded subjectgets accusativefrom theverbinthemainclause. Case Marking – ThereisnoPROinECMconstructions.Theverbinboth themainclauseandthe verbintheembedded havesemanticsubjectsandeachsubjectispronounced. – ObjectControlconstructions areditransitives.Persuade hastwoobjects– theDP ‘thedoctor’ andtheclause‘PROtoexamineTilman.’ – The doctorisboth theobjectofpersuade andthesubjectofexamine.The doctor cannotgetcaseintheembedded clauseandisrepresented byPRO. – Barnettpersuadedthedoctori [PROi toexamineTilman]. – Unlikeinsubjectcontrol,inobjectcontrol,theobjectiscoreferential withPRO. Ling 216 ~ Winter 2016 ~ Cherlon Ussery TheBigPictureisthatinfinitives playabigroleinCasetheory. “Normal” v’s and “Special” v’s 15 Normal Icelandic 1.a.Viðlásumbókina. we.Nom read.1plbook.the.Acc ‘We readthebook.”(Sigurðsson1996,Ex14) Inboth theDat-Nom Icelandicsentence andtheErg-Abs Gujaratisentence,the verbagreeswiththe nom/absobject, not withthedat/erg subject. --Normalv:assignsaccusativetotheobject b.Einum málfræðingi líkuðu þessar hugmyndir. one.Dat linguist.Dat liked.3plthese.Nom ideas.Nom.pl ‘Onelinguist likedtheseideas.’(SigurðssonandHolmberg 2008,EX1) --Specialv:assignsdativetothesubject NOTE:Thesenon-Nominativesreally aresubjects,nottopicalizedobjects.We’ll see evidence forthat.And,I’mignoringtheoptionalityoftheverbalagreement. Special Gujarati(spokeninIndiabyabout50millionppl) 2.a.Sudha awy-i. Sudha(fem).Abscame-fem ‘Sudha came.’ --Normalv:there’snoobjectforv toassigncaseto b.Sudha-eradiokhəridy-o. Sudha(fem)-Ergradio(masc).Absbought-masc ‘Sudha boughtaradio.’ (Woolford 2006,EX38c/39) --Specialv:assignsergativetothesubject Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 16 Little v-dative and ditransitives English Thestudentsgavetheirprofessoranecklace. Icelandic Ég sendi Hildi fiskinn I.Nomsent.1sgHildur.Dat.sg.fem.fish.the.Acc.sg.masc. ‘IsentHildur thefish.’ English: V→ v(dat) → v(acc) Icelandic:V→ v(dat) → v(acc)→ T (Icelandic is a verb-second language and negation comes after the verb.) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery Caseisarelationship betweenaheadandaphrase. Interim Summary Aheadchecks/assigns(theparticular terminologyvaries,butthegeneral conceptisthe same)case toaphrasethatoccupies aparticular structuralposition. Particular headsarebornwithaparticular casetogiveaway.E.g.: FiniteTassignsnominative,v assignsaccusative Special v’scanassigndifferentcases Prepositionsassignavarietyofcases(accusativeinEnglish) There isadistinctionbetweenabstractCaseandmorphological case. AllNPswhicharepronouncedarearguedtohaveabstractCase,whichisassigned inthesyntax.Sometimesthere isamorphological expressionandsometimesnot. 17 Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery A Look at Choctaw Spokenbyappr.10,400peopleinLouisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma,andTennessee 18 Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 19 Is agreement really independent of Case in Choctaw? [Woolford 2008] NO YES v Caseandagreementarelinked. v Yes:Averbcanagreewitha nominativeinmorethanoneway. v Agreementfollowsthepattern observedinnominative-accusative systems. v Theverbagreeswiththenominative. v Thechoicebetweenusing“true” agreementandusingaclitic depends onanactive-stative distinction…maybe. v Theagreementmorphemeisused withmoreactive/volitionalactivities. v Thecliticisusedwithless active/volitionalactivities. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery v Thisdivisionisverytentative – Davies1986:“InChoctaw,‘theagreementsystemandthecasemarkingsystemfunction independently…’” – Broadwell2006:casesystemisnominative-accusative – Mithun 1991:Agreementsystemisactive-stative – Allsubjectsarenominative. – Themoreagentivesubjectsare“cross-referenced”withSeriesIforms. 20 Previous Literature Thelessagentivesubjectsare“cross-referenced”withSeriesII/IIIforms,whichalsocrossreferenceobjectsandpossessors Woolford’sProposal:Thereisadistinctionbetween“true” agreementandclitics. – • “Trueagreement”isWoolford’stermandreferstoverbalagreement withnominatives. • Anominativecanbecross-referencedwitheitheratrueagreement morphemeorapronominalclitic. • • Anaccusativecanonlybecross-referencedwithaclitic. • • Woolford doesn’t committotheexactdistinction [activevs stative/externalargumentvsinternalargument,orsomethingelse] Verbsdon’tagreewithaccusatives Thenominativeandaccusativeclitics lookthesame.The morphologicalexpressiondoesnotnecessarilymatchtheabstract Case. Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 21 Overview of C/case in Choctaw ChoctawisSOV Subjectsarenominative Objectsareaccusative • Accusativeisoptionally markediftheobjectis adjacenttotheverb. • Accusativeisobligatorily markediftheobject moves. • Condition on morphological realizationof case Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery • No(morphological) dative. Inditransitives, the accusativemarkeris optional fortheargument adjacenttotheverb. • Free(unbound) pronouns aremarkedfornominative andaccusative,butthey onlyappearwhenfocused andcontrastive. 22 Agreement vs clitics in Choctaw Agreement – Series1:cross-referencesonly,butnotall,nominatives – Occuratleftedge,exceptfor1sgform,whichprecedesthetensesuffix – (WhenwelookatDakota,we’llseethatthedistributionofpronouns varieswithintheverbalcomplex.) Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 23 Clitics – -Clitics always have an abstract Case that matches the abstract Case of the noun they cross-reference. -Series II has both nominative and accusative clitics that are syncretic. -But…the nominative clitic is closer to the verb than the accusative clitic. -A clitic that cross-references a subject is closer to the verb than any other clitic Thereisno3rd personclitic,sothe 2nd personobject clitic isclosestto theverbin(23). Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery YucatecMayaisspoken by1millionish ppl inMexicoandBelize 24 Aspect, agreement, and clitics in Yucatec Maya Thenominative subjectofanintransitive iscross-referencedbyagreementwhen theaspectisimperfective,but byaclitic whentheaspectisperfective. And, theclitics aren’tdistinguished for case.Theaccusativeform inthe transitivesentencein(27)isthesameas thenominativeform intheintransitive sentencein(26). Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery 25 – TheCasevscasedistinctionisveryimportantinsyntacticand morphologicaltheory. – Sometimes there’sanalignment betweenCaseandcase,butoften times not. – AgreementisarguedtobesensitivetoCaseinChoctaw Ling 222 ~ Fall 2016 ~ C. Ussery Summary