Syntactic Ergativity

Polinsky, Maria

doi:10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom051

Cited by 29 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(68 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The subject in (1) is uniquely marked with an ergative -k, in contrast to the subject in (2). Syntactic ergativity is instead the kind of ergativity whereby some syntactic phenomena only target those arguments belonging to the same class according to the classification above (for instance, relativization which applies to unaccusative subjects and objects, but not to Agents of transitive verbs; see Polinsky 2017). A useful example is Tongan, where the relativization of the ergative subject requires a resumptive pronoun (RP) in the base-generated position, in contrast to the absolutive subject that does not; compare (3) and (4).…”

Section: Morphological and Syntactic Ergativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergativity, agreement and alignment shift in Western Indo-Aryan

Chandra¹,

D’Alessandro²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Western Indo-Aryan languages are known for their aspect-based split ergativity, where subjects in the perfective are marked with an ergative case and unmarked objects usually trigger verbal agreement. In this paper, we survey data from multiple languages in the area and identify patterns that indicate an ongoing ergative to nominative shift. We show that languages that initiate verbal agreement with differentially marked objects (DOM) start deviating and losing the ergative case. With the subsequent emergence of an auxiliary, the subjects also start to control agreement on T. These patterns, we claim, evolve when accusative objects trigger agreement at the vP-edge, forcing subjects to get a nominative case from T in the expanded clausal spine. Our study identifies a diachronic path, from a system where the v de facto licenses both arguments to another system with a clear division of labour between v that licenses the objects, and T that licenses the subjects.

show abstract

Section: Morphological and Syntactic Ergativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergativity, agreement and alignment shift in Western Indo-Aryan

Chandra¹,

D’Alessandro²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Mandar, the processes of whmovement, focus-fronting, and relativization are subject to the restriction that they target only the pivot. This is the Mandar-particular instantiation of the Subjects-Only Extraction Constraint that is common to many languages of Western Austronesia (Keenan 1976), and it resembles the Ergative Extraction Constraint that recurs in High Absolutive languages further afield (Larsen and Norman 1979;Campana 1992;Murasugi 1992;Campana 1992;Bittner and Hale 1996b, a;Otsuka 2006;Legate 2008;Coon et al 2014;Assmann et al 2015;Brown 2016;Deal 2016;Polinsky 2016Polinsky , 2017bAissen 2017;Ershova 2019).…”

Section: Mandar Basicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two steps to high absolutive syntax: Austronesian voice and agent focus in Mandar

Brodkin

2022

J East Asian Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The westernmost languages of the Austronesian family show verbal alternations that are traditionally referred to as a voice system. This paper investigates the syntax of the voice system in Mandar, a language of the South Sulawesi subfamily. It argues that this alternation tracks alternations in argument structure, determines patterns of Case-Licensing in the voicep, and positions a single argument, the pivot, to raise to the highest a-position in the clause. The process that positions the pivot is decomposed into two steps: first, a process of Object Shift that moves definite arguments out of the vp and second, a process that places the pivot in spec,tp as the result of Case-Licensing by t0. Evidence for this analysis is drawn from contexts where the external argument undergoes $${\bar{\textsc {a}}}$$ A ¯ -extraction and the internal argument is definite. In that context, the language employs a special construction which allows the external argument to be the pivot, allows the internal argument to undergo Object Shift, and provides the means to Case-License it within the vp. I refer to this construction as the Agent Focus and argue that it has a syntax similar to the analogous construction in the Mayan languages of the Q’anjob’alan subfamily.

show abstract

“…(see a.o. Cinque 1990;Falk 2006;Stiebels 2006;Deal 2016;Polinsky 2017); in the former, the restriction on subjects is due to their structural environment, i.e. their relation to other elements in the clause (see a.o.…”

Section: Evidence For a Structure-dependent Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quirks of subject (non-)extraction in Igbo

Amaechi

Georgi

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present new data on a subject/non-subject extraction asymmetry in Igbo constituent questions. We provide evidence that the superficially morphological phenomenon reflects a deeper syntactic asymmetry: Unlike wh-non-subjects, wh-subjects cannot undergo local Ā-movement to the left periphery (SpecFoc); rather, they have to stay in their canonical position SpecT. The same constraint also leads to the that-trace effect (absence of the complementizer) in the embedded clause of long subject wh-movement. We argue that what is responsible for the special status of wh-subjects is their high structural position. We provide an optimality-theoretic analysis of the asymmetry that is based on anti-locality: Local subject Ā-movement is excluded because it is too short. Moreover, we address the nature of apparent wh-in-situ in Igbo.

show abstract

Syntactic Ergativity

Cited by 29 publications

References 77 publications

Ergativity, agreement and alignment shift in Western Indo-Aryan

Ergativity, agreement and alignment shift in Western Indo-Aryan

Two steps to high absolutive syntax: Austronesian voice and agent focus in Mandar

Quirks of subject (non-)extraction in Igbo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About