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
• 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)
⇒ Udi agreement markers are lexically attached:
allomorphy and morphotactics handled by morphological component
Berthold Crysmann 1 Introduction 2
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)
⇒ 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
Berthold Crysmann 1 Introduction 2
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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Syntactic distribution 3
• 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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Syntactic distribution 4
• 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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Syntactic distribution 5
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
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
(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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 6
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
(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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 6
• 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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 7
• 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
‘S/he is not planting a tree in the yard.’ (Harris, 1992, 145)
c. mahlinayard
xodtree
nut’neg
bost’-al-leplant-fut2-3sg.d
‘S/he is not planting a tree in the yard.’ (Harris, 1992, 145)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 8
• 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)
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 9
• 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
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 10
• 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
Berthold Crysmann 2 Morphological Properties 11
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⟨
1NP[str ], 2 NP[str ]| 3⟩
Inversion verbs
[
arg-st⟨
1NP[str ], . . .⟩
]
→
[
arg-st⟨
1NP[abs],. . .⟩
]
∨
Berthold Crysmann 3 Case marking 13
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⟨
1NP[str ], 2 NP[str ]| 3⟩
Inversion verbs
[
arg-st⟨
1 , 2NP[str ],. . .⟩
]
→
[
arg-st⟨
1 , 2NP[erg],. . .⟩
]
∨
Berthold Crysmann 3 Case marking 13
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⟨
1NP[str ], 2 NP[str ]| 3⟩
Inversion verbs
[
comps⟨
. . . 1NP[str ]. . .⟩
]
→
[
comps⟨
. . . 1NP[dat]. . .⟩
]
Berthold Crysmann 3 Case marking 13
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
Berthold Crysmann 3 Morphotactics 15
• 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
Berthold Crysmann 3 Morphotactics 16
• 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
Berthold Crysmann 3 Morphotactics 16
• 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.
Berthold Crysmann 3 Morphotactics 17
• 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
Berthold Crysmann 3 Morphotactics 18
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
conx | info-struc | focus{
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
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
conx | info-struc | focus{
1
}
≺≺
hd verb
cont[
liszt 〈〉]
• Infixed agreement
dom
⟨
ph 〈at’u〉
prd +
liszt nelist
,
ph 〈k’sa〉
prd −
liszt elist
⟩
Berthold Crysmann 3 Syntactic placement 19
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
conx | info-struc | focus{
1
}
≺≺
hd verb
cont[
liszt 〈〉]
• Negation
dom
⟨
ph 〈tet’u〉
prd −
liszt nelist
,
ph 〈ak’sa〉
prd +
liszt nelist
⟩
Berthold Crysmann 3 Syntactic placement 19
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
conx | info-struc | focus{
1
}
≺≺
hd verb
cont[
liszt 〈〉]
• FutureII
dom
⟨
ph 〈ballu〉
prd +
liszt nelist
⟩
Berthold Crysmann 3 Syntactic placement 19
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