Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic

Abstract

Nez Perce is one among many ergative languages that consistently use nominative case, rather than ergative, for 1st and 2nd person transitive subjects. Two major lines of analysis have been proposed for the synchronic grammar of this type of ergative split. Morphological analyses approach the phenomenon as a case of syncretism between ergative and nominative in 1st and 2nd person; all transitive subjects are assigned an identical syntax. Syntactic analyses posit a featural or structural distinction between 3rd person subjects and 1st and 2nd person subjects, or the clauses containing them. On the basis of modification and coordination patterns, I argue that person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce requires a syntactic analysis. Comparison of the Nez Perce data with recent findings by Legate (2014) reveals variation among languages showing person-based split ergativity: some languages require a morphological analysis, and some (like Nez Perce) require a syntactic analysis. A treatment of the syntactic type of person-based split ergativity is proposed, making use of person-sensitive phrase structure as introduced by Bianchi (2006) and Merchant (2006).

Raising to Ergative: Remarks on Applicatives of Unaccusatives

“…Data are presented in the practical orthography used by the language program of the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. A table of correspondences to IPA is given in the appendix to Deal (2016b).…”

Compositional paths to de re

“…Nez Perce has rich systems of case and agreement, which work together to distinguish transitive from intransitive clauses. The case system shows a tripartite ergative alignment: intransitive subjects are NOMinative, but transitive subjects are ERGative (and objects are ACCusative) (Deal 2010b(Deal ,a, 2016b. Verb agreement is on a nominative-accusative basis.…”

“…However, as in many languages, pronouns are normally null (pro). Silent pro is possible in all argument positions and is avoided only in cases of focus, modification, or coordination (Deal 2010b) or cliticization (Deal 2016b). Throughout this paper, null arguments are marked as 'pro', with the gloss line reflecting the person and number features conveyed by the verbal inflection or the speaker's translation.…”

Analisis Kajian Sastera: Semiotik Dalam Novel Anwar Ridhwan

“…Akibatnya penulis menimbulkan tanda tanya klasik bagaimana makna dapat dimengertikan tanpa ayat. Deal (2016) menunjukkan bahawa syarat dasar analisis semantik membabitkan bingkai dan acuan sintaksis sebagai rangkaian makna. Sintaksis atau binaan ayat diperlukan dalam perungkaian maklumat baru.…”