Berthold Crysmann - coli.uni-saarland.decrysmann/papers/BFG-Pres.pdf · 2 Data 2.1 Syntactic...

On the Placement and Morphology of Udi Subject Agreement

Berthold Crysmann

Deutsche Forschungszentrum Kunstliche Intelligenz and

Universitat des Saarlandes

Berthold Crysmann 1

1 Introduction

• Subject-verb agreement in Udi realised by clitic person/number markers

• Agreement markers are subject to allomorphic variation

choice between paradigms largely governed by lexical properties of the verb

• Agreement markers attach to a variety of different hosts (Harris, 1992, 1996, 1997):

– negation

– wh-constituents

– focussed constituents

– verb (suffix/infix)

• Local and non-local attachment display same allomorphic variation (Harris, 1992)

Berthold Crysmann 1 Introduction 2

1 Introduction





– negation

– wh-constituents




⇒ Udi agreement markers are lexically attached:

allomorphy and morphotactics handled by morphological component


1 Introduction





– negation

– wh-constituents




⇒ Udi agreement markers are lexically attached:

allomorphy and morphotactics handled by morphological component

⇒ Complex verbs in Udi map onto more than one domain object:

non-local attachment governed by linearisation component


2 Data

2.1 Syntactic distribution of Udi Agreement

• Agreement marker attaches to a constituent in focus

• Focussed constituents typically occur in immediately preverbal position

• Hosts are categorically heterogeneous (including PPs)

• Other phrases may intervene between the focussed constituent and the verb,

separating the agreement marker from the head of the clause

(1) a. . . . hunarheroic.deeds

rust’am-en-neRustam-erg-3sg

besadoes

‘Rustam does heroic deeds.’ (Harris, 1996, 207; PancviZe, 1974, 238; folk

tale)

b. methis

xinarengirl.erg

tagsaonly

k’inigiGo-laxo-nebook.pl.dat-about-3sg

fikirbesathinks

‘Does this girl only think about books?’ (Harris, 1996, 208)

Berthold Crysmann 2 Syntactic distribution 3

2 Data

2.1 Syntactic distribution of Udi Agreement

• Agreement marker attaches to a constituent in focus

• Focussed constituents typically occur in immediately preverbal position

• Hosts are categorically heterogeneous (including PPs)

• Other phrases may intervene between the focussed constituent and the verb,

separating the agreement marker from the head of the clause

(2) a. saone

q’o��aold

kaft’ar-rewoman-3.sg

pascaGunking

t’o.Go. lbeside

esacomes

‘An old woman comes to the king.’ (Harris, 1996, 205; folk tale)

b. sinwho.erg

usinearly

aytk’ayn,speaks,

sot’in-q’a-nhe.erg-subj-3.sg

okuzaox.dat

xewater.abs

tadigive

‘Whoever speaks first, let him give water to the ox.’ (Harris, 1996, 205;

PancviZe, 1974, 149)

c. a. ilenchild.erg

pis-nebadly-3.sg

icuxself.dat

tasc’abehaves

‘The child behaves (himself) badly.’ (Harris, 1996, 205)


• Wh-questions also serve as a host for the agreement marker

• Questioned constituent typically surface in the focus position,

• Wh-phrases can still be separated from the verb, taking the agreement marker along

• Agreement marker does not attach to the homophonous relative pronoun (not shown)

(3) a. methis

isq’armuxman.pl.abs

manowhich

aizi-q’unvillage.dat-3pl.d

karxesa?live

‘Which village do these men live in?’ (Harris, 1996, 210)

b. xinarmuxgirl.pl.abs

ma-q’unwhere-3pl.d

taisa?go

‘Where are these girls going?’ (Harris, 1996, 210)

c. ek’aluG-nuwhy-2sg.d

miahere

are?came

‘Why have you come here?’ (Harris, 1996, 210; Dirr, 1928, 62)

d. et’e-awhy-3sg.d

met’inhe.erg

t’ap’exawhipped

‘. . . [to see] why he whipped it.’ (Harris, 1996, 205; Dirr, 1928, 60)


• If the negative marker te is present, agreement obligatorily attaches to it

• Negation preempts attachment to focussed (or questioned) constituents

(4) a. zuI

k’inigaxbook.dat

te-znot-1sg

beserequested

‘I didn’t ask for a book.’ (Harris, 1996, 212)

b. zuI

k’iniga-zbook.dat-1sg

beserequested

‘I asked for a book.’ (Harris, 1996, 212)

c. * zuI

k’iniga-zbook.dat-1sg

tenot

beserequested (Harris, 1996, 212)

• In non-negative, broad focus sentences, agreement is found on the verb

• Yes/no questions pattern with declaratives

(5) a. viyour

babafather

ar-e-ne?come-aor-3sg

‘Did your father come?’ (Harris, 1992, 137)

b. aslaxmatter

b-e-ne.do-aor-3sg

‘She took care of the matter.’ (Harris, 1992, 137)


2.2 Morphological properties

• Two sets of agreement markers

• Allomorphy is lexically determined

• Choice of agreement paradigm reflects the verb’s

case marking properties (Harris, 1984):

– Direct verbs only take ergative or absolutive

subjects

– Inversion verbs may mark their subjects with

dative case

– Choice of agreement marker does not reflect

surface case

direct inversion

1sg -z(u) -za

2sg -n(u) -va

3sg -ne/-a -t’u

1pl -yan -ya

2pl -nan -va.

3pl -q’un -q’o

(6) a. zuI.abs

a-r-e-zuhither-come-aor-1sg

k’wahome

‘I came home.’ (Harris, 1997, 1)

b. Garboy.abs

a-r-e-nehither-come-aor-3sg

k’wahome

‘The boy came home.’ (Harris, 1997, 1)

Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 6







subjects


dative case


surface case

direct inversion

1sg -z(u) -za

2sg -n(u) -va

3sg -ne/-a -t’u

1pl -yan -ya

2pl -nan -va.

3pl -q’un -q’o

(7) a. zame.dat

a-za-k’-sasee1-1sg-see2-pres

selgood

lazatt’upretty

pak.garden.abs

‘I see a good, pretty garden.’ (Harris, 1984, 247; PancviZe, 1974, 70)

b. Garaxboy.dat

tethat

a-t’u-k’-sasee1-3sg-see2-pres

xinar-agirl.dat

. . .

‘When the youth saw the girl . . . ’ (Harris, 1984, 248; PancviZe, 1974, 70)








subjects


dative case


surface case

direct inversion

1sg -z(u) -za

2sg -n(u) -va

3sg -ne/-a -t’u

1pl -yan -ya

2pl -nan -va.

3pl -q’un -q’o

(8) a. zuI.erg

a-za-k’-sasee1-1sg-see2-pres

selgood

lazatt’upretty

pak.garden.abs

‘I see a good, pretty garden.’ (Harris, 1984, 247; PancviZe, 1974, 70)

b. zuI.erg

ek’a-zawhat.abs-1sg

aba?know

‘What do I know?’ (Harris, 1997, 1)


• Direct/inverse alternation generalises to non-local realisation of agreement:

(9) a. zuI.erg

ma-zwhere-1sg.d

as-besawork-do

‘Where do I work.’ (Harris, 1992, 136)

b. ma-nwhere-2sg.d

as-besawork-do

‘Where do you work.’ (Harris, 1992, 136)

c. methis

xinarengirl

ma-awhere-3sg.d

as-besawork-do

‘Where does this girl work.’ (Harris, 1992, 136)

(10) a. zuI.erg

ek’a-zawhat.abs-1sg.i

aba?know

‘What do I know?’ (Harris, 1997, 1)

b. unyou.erg

ek’a-vawhat.abs-2sg.i

aba?know

‘What do you know?’ (Harris, 1997, 1)

c. met’inshe.erg

ek’a-t’uwhat.abs-3sg.i

aba?know

‘What does (s)he know?’ (Harris, 1997, 2)


• With some tense forms (e.g. Future II), non-local realisation is blocked entirely:

(11) ek’awhat

b-al-ludo-fut2-2sg

‘What will s/he do?’ (Harris, 1992, 146)

• In the futureII, negation is realised by the prefix nut’-

• Agreement is final

(12) a. mahlinayard

xodtree

te-neneg-3sg.d

bost’e-saplant-pres

‘S/he is not planting a tree in the yard.’ (Harris, 1992, 143)

b. * mahlinayard

xodtree

te-neneg-3sg.d

bost’-alplant-fut2


c. mahlinayard

xodtree

nut’neg

bost’-al-leplant-fut2-3sg.d



• In wh-questions, 3rd person singular agreement -ne alternates to -a

• Alternation not restricted to locally attached agreement markers

(13) a. mawhere

bost-al-aplant-fut2-3sg.q

‘Where will s/he plant it?’ (Harris, 1992, 147)

b. ma.Gsong

siwho.gen

te-aneg-3sg.Q

kefile-salike

‘Who doesn’t like singing?’ (Harris, 1992, 147)

c. suwho.abs

te-aneg-3sg.q

arecome

‘Who did not come?’ (Harris, 1992, 147)


• In the absence of negation, wh-phrases or focussed constituents, agreement surfaces

on the verb

• In complex verbs, e.g. noun incorporation, agreement attaches to the predicate

nominal, resulting in infixation (Harris, 1997)

(14) . . . pascaG-unking-gen

Gar-muG-onboy-pl-erg

lask’o-q’un-b-esawedding-3pl-do-pres

‘The king’s sons married.’ (Harris, 1997, 2, Dirr, 1928, 62)

• With monomorphemic bases of transitive verbs, agreement marker is infixed before

the root-final consonant (Harris, 1997):

Infixed Suffixed

a-t’u-k’-sa ‘sees (tr)’ ak’-ne-sa ‘is visible (intr)’

bi-ne-t’-sa ‘sows (tr)’ bit’-t’e-sa ‘is sown (intr)’

bo-ne-x-sa ‘boils (tr)’ box-ne-sa ‘boils (intr)’

u-ne-k-sa ‘eats (tr)’ uk-ne-sa ‘is edible (intr)’

u. -ne-G-sa ‘drinks (tr)’ u. G-ne-sa ‘is drinkable (intr)’

• Infixation not determined by purely prosodic factors


• Infixed agreement markers still observe the standard placement properties w.r.t.

negation, wh-phrases etc.

(15) a. Zame.dat

golovery

bu-za-q-salove1-1sg-love2-pres

bezmy

a.il-o.G-o.xchild-pl-dat

‘I love my children very much.’ (Harris, 1984, 248; Dirr, 1904)

b. * Manuwhich

ukalseyfood.abs

tenot

bu-va-q’-salove1-2sg-love2-pres

(Harris, 1997, 3)

c. Manuwhich

ukalseyfood.abs

te-vanot-2sg

buq’-salove-pres

‘Which food do you like?’ (Harris, 1997, 3)

2.3 Problems

• Non-locally attached agreement markers neither encode a property of the host

phrase nor the host word

• Allomorphy applies regardless of attachment site

• Complementary distribution between local and non-local attachment

• Separability governed by purely morphological factors


3 Analysis

• Agreement affixes are uniformly introduced in the lexical entry of the verb

• Non-local attachment is regarded as an instance of discontinuous lexical items

• HPSG’s distinction between tectogrammatical signs and phenogrammatical domain

objects provides basic prerequisite for the treatment of morphological discontinuity

(Kathol, 1995)

• Separability is governed by morphotactic constraints

• Approach previously applied to European Portuguese clitic placement (Crysmann,

to appear) and Fox complex predicates (Crysmann, 1999)

Berthold Crysmann 3 Analysis 12

3.1 Case marking

• Udi case marking follows the ergative

pattern

• Manning und Sag (1999)’s theory of

ergativity directly captures the typical

case reversal with direct and inverse

verbs

• Absolutive/ergative marking applies

to arg-st

• Direct objects in Udi may be freely

assigned dative case (Harris, 1984)

• Inverse agreement verbs may also

mark their subjects with dative case

• Harris (1984) relates case marking

properties of inverse verbs to subject

demotion

• Oblique dative marking applies to

comps

subj⟨

2

⟩

comps⟨

1 | 3⟩

arg-st⟨

1NP[str ], 2 NP[str ]| 3⟩

Direct verbs

subj 〈〉

comps⟨

2 , 1 | 3⟩

arg-st⟨


Inversion verbs

[

arg-st⟨

1NP[str ], . . .⟩

]

→

[

arg-st⟨

1NP[abs],. . .⟩

]

∨

Berthold Crysmann 3 Case marking 13

3.1 Case marking


pattern




verbs


to arg-st







demotion


comps

subj⟨

2

⟩

comps⟨

1 | 3⟩

arg-st⟨


Direct verbs

subj 〈〉

comps⟨

2 , 1 | 3⟩

arg-st⟨


Inversion verbs

[

arg-st⟨

1 , 2NP[str ],. . .⟩

]

→

[

arg-st⟨

1 , 2NP[erg],. . .⟩

]

∨


3.1 Case marking


pattern




verbs


to arg-st







demotion


comps

subj⟨

2

⟩

comps⟨

1 | 3⟩

arg-st⟨


Direct verbs

subj 〈〉

comps⟨

2 , 1 | 3⟩

arg-st⟨


Inversion verbs

[

comps⟨

. . . 1NP[str ]. . .⟩

]

→

[

comps⟨

. . . 1NP[dat]. . .⟩

]


3.2 Allomorphy

• Selection of direct agreement

word

hd verb

subj

⟨

NP

per 3

num sg

⟩

arg-st list

(

[

inh |que {}]

)

→

morph

⟨

agr-aff

ph⟨

ne⟩

⟩

• Selection of inverse agreement

word

hd verb

subj 〈〉

comps

⟨

NP

per 3

num sg

⟩

⊕ list

→

morph

⟨

agr-aff

ph⟨

t’u⟩

⟩

Berthold Crysmann 3 Allomorphy 14

3.2 Allomorphy

• Selection of non-wh direct agreement

word

hd verb

subj

⟨

NP

per 3

num sg

⟩

arg-st list

(

[

inh |que {}]

)

→

morph

⟨

agr-aff

ph⟨

ne⟩

⟩

• Selection of the 3rd singular direct question particle

word

hd verb

subj

⟨

NP

per 3

num sg

⟩

arg-st

⟨

...

[

inh |que{

[]}

]

...

⟩

→

morph

⟨

agr-aff

ph⟨

a⟩

⟩

Berthold Crysmann 3 Morphotactics 14

3.3 Morphotactics

• Udi verbs may contribute either one or two domain objects

[

hd 1 verb]

→

dom

⟨

hd 1

topo vc

⟩

©

⟨

[

hd[

prd −]

]

⟩

∨

dom

⟨

hd 1

topo vc

⟩

• Monotonic alignment constraints

1. place morphs relative to other morphs

2. place morphs at the edge of a dom-obj

3. place morphs at the edge of a dom-list


• Enclitic agreement markers must appear final on some domain object

word

hd verb

morph

⟨

agr-aff

ph 1

⟩

© list

→

dom

⟨

ph list ⊕ 1

hd verb

topo pre ∨ vc

⟩

© list

• Non-future2 tense markers appear right-most, i.e. final on the last domain object

word

hdverb

[

vform ¬fut2]

→

dom list ⊕

⟨

[

ph list ⊕ 1

]

⟩

morph

⟨

tns-aff

ph 1

⟩

© list


• Enclitic agreement markers must appear final on some domain object

word

hd verb

morph

⟨

agr-aff

ph 1

⟩

© list

→

dom

⟨

ph list ⊕ 1

hd verb

topo pre ∨ vc

⟩

© list

• Non-future2 tense markers appear right-most, i.e. final on the last domain object

word

hdverb

[

vform ¬fut2]

→

dom list ⊕

⟨

[

ph list ⊕ 1

]

⟩

morph

⟨

tns-aff

ph 1

⟩

© list

⇒ Agreement and tense must surface on distinct domain objects, coercing the

agreement marker to the first domain object


• Separable transitive stems

word

dom

⟨

ph list ⊕ 1 ⊕ list

cat 3

hd

verb

prd +

cont[

liszt 4 © list]

⟩

© list ∧ list ⊕

⟨

[

ph list ⊕ 2 ⊕ list]

⟩

morph

⟨

trans-stem

ph 1nelist ⊕ 2

⟨

C⟩

cat 3

cont[

liszt 4

]

⟩

© list

(

aff)

• Semantics of the stem mapped onto the primary dom-object

• Distribution of semantics across domain objects regulated by a compositionality

principle

The concatenation of the liszt values of the dom elements is a concatenation

of the liszt values of the morph elements.


• Negation appears leftmost, deriving obligatory attachment of agreement for

non-future2 tenses

word

hdverb

[

vform ¬fut2]

cont

key 1

liszt

⟨

... 2

neg-rel

arg 1

...

⟩

→

dom

⟨

ph 3 ⊕ list

hdverb

[

prd −]

cont

[

liszt⟨

... 2 ...⟩

]

⟩

⊕ list

morph

⟨

neg-stem

ph 3

⟨

te⟩

⟩

© list

• Future2 enforces synthetic realisation, resulting in suffixed realisation of agreement

word

hdverb

[

vform fut2]

→

dom

⟨

[

ph list ⊕⟨

2

⟩

⊕ 1 ⊕ list

]

⟩

morph

⟨

tns-aff

ph 1

⟩

©

⟨

stem

ph list ⊕⟨

2

⟩

⟩

© list

• Specification of singleton dom-list creates syntactic opacity


3.4 Syntactic placement

• Semantically vacuous verbs preceding the predicate head must be licensed by a

focussed constituent

s

dom

⟨

...

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

...

hd

verb

prd +

...

⟩

→

dom

⟨

...

cont 1

conx | info-struc | focus{

1

}

...

⟩

• Agreement marker must attach to the focussed constituent

cont 1


1

}

≺≺

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

• Prefixed agreement

dom

⟨

ph 〈t’u〉

prd −

liszt elist

,

ph 〈ak’sa〉

prd +

liszt nelist

⟩

∨

Berthold Crysmann 3 Syntactic placement 19




s

dom

⟨

...

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

...

hd

verb

prd +

...

⟩

→

dom

⟨

...

cont 1


1

}

...

⟩


cont 1


1

}

≺≺

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

• Infixed agreement

dom

⟨

ph 〈at’u〉

prd +

liszt nelist

,

ph 〈k’sa〉

prd −

liszt elist

⟩





s

dom

⟨

...

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

...

hd

verb

prd +

...

⟩

→

dom

⟨

...

cont 1


1

}

...

⟩


cont 1


1

}

≺≺

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

• Negation

dom

⟨

ph 〈tet’u〉

prd −

liszt nelist

,

ph 〈ak’sa〉

prd +

liszt nelist

⟩





s

dom

⟨

...

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

...

hd

verb

prd +

...

⟩

→

dom

⟨

...

cont 1


1

}

...

⟩


cont 1


1

}

≺≺

hd verb

cont[

liszt 〈〉]

• FutureII

dom

⟨

ph 〈ballu〉

prd +

liszt nelist

⟩


4 Conclusion

• Morphosyntactic paradox in Udi resolved on the basis of discontinuous lexical items

• Representation of lexical discontinuity parallels HPSG’s representation of syntactic

discontinuity

• Syntactic transparency governed by morphotactic alignment constraints

• Same approach already been applied to similar types of morphosyntactic mismatch:

Separable preverbs in Fox Crysmann (1999) and European Portuguese cliticisation

Crysmann (to appear)

• Class of elements attracting the Udi agreement marker (wh-phrases, negation,

focussed constituents) is highly similar to the elements triggering proclisis in

European Portuguese (negation, wh-phrases, quantifiers, focussed constituents)

Berthold Crysmann 4 Conclusion 20

References

Crysmann, B. (1999), “Morphosyntactic paradoxa in Fox,” in G. Bouma, E. Hinrichs,

G.-J. Kruiff und R. Oehrle, Hrsg., Constraints and Resources in Natural Language

Syntax and Semantics, Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, S. 41–61, Stanford,

CSLI publications. 12, 20

Crysmann, B. (to appear), “Clitics and coordination in linear structure,” in B. Gerlach

und J. Grijzenhout, Hrsg., Clitics from Different Perspectives (Working Title),

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, John Benjamins. 12, 20

Dirr, A. (1904), “Grammatika udinskogo jazyka,” Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija

mestnostej i plemen Kavkaza 33. 11

Dirr, A. (1928), “Udische Texte,” Caucasica 5, 60–72. 4, 10

Harris, A. (1984), “Case marking, verb agreement, and inversion in Udi,” in D. M.

Perlmutter und C. G. Rosen, Hrsg., Studies in Relational Grammar 2, S. 243–258,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 6, 11, 13

Harris, A. (1992), “The particle -a in Udi,” in H. I. Aronson, Hrsg., The Non-Slavic

Languages of the USSR, S. 135–156, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9

Harris, A. (1996), “Focus in Udi,” in H. I. Aronson, Hrsg., NSL 8: Linguistic Studies in

the Non-Slavic Languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic

Republics, S. 201–220, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. 2, 3, 4, 5

Berthold Crysmann 21

Harris, A. (1997), “What’s in a word? the problem of endoclisis in Udi,” paper presented

at the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), Yale University, CT. 2, 6,

7, 10, 11

Kathol, A. (1995), “Linearization-based German syntax,” Doktorarbeit, Ohio State

University. 12

Manning, C. und I. Sag (1999), “Dissociations between argument structure and

grammatical relations,” in A. Kathol, J.-P. Koenig und G. Webelhuth, Hrsg., Lexical

and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Studies in Constraint-based

Lexicalism, CSLI, Stanford. 13

PancviZe, V. (1974), Uduri enis gramat’ik’uli analizi, Mecniereba, Tbilisi. 3, 6

Berthold Crysmann 22

Date post:	16-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenliem
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Berthold Crysmann - coli.uni-saarland.decrysmann/papers/BFG-Pres.pdf · 2 Data 2.1 Syntactic...

Documents