1 / 25

Fused grammatical functions and discourse roles in Ob-Ugric: Consequences for Case Theory

Fused grammatical functions and discourse roles in Ob-Ugric: Consequences for Case Theory. Katalin É. Kiss SOUL 2019, Tartu. Claims:. The Ob-Ugric sentence displays a partial fusion of grammatial functions and discourse roles; this system presents challenges to Chomskyan case theory.

spencer
Download Presentation

Fused grammatical functions and discourse roles in Ob-Ugric: Consequences for Case Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fusedgrammaticalfunctions and discourserolesinOb-Ugric:Consequences for Case Theory Katalin É. Kiss SOUL 2019, Tartu

  2. Claims: • The Ob-Ugricsentencedisplays a partialfusion of grammatialfunctions and discourseroles; • this system presents challenges to Chomskyan case theory.

  3. Road map: • Fusion of thetopic and subject roles via passivization - multiple case assignment (nominative overwriting oblique) • Partial fusion of the secondary topic and object roles - divorcing object licensing and accusative assignment • Topicalized goal arguments are promoted to object - lexical (vs. syntactic) derivation? • Oblique subjects functioningasshifted topics - multiple case assignment (oblique overwriting nominative)?

  4. The Ob-Ugricsubject is alsoprimarytopic (1) Petrau:r-na [VPmo:jpǝrwa:nt-ǝs] (Khanty) Peter forest-locbearsee- past.3sgʻPetersaw a bear in the forest.’ Ifthedeepsubject is [-specific], passivization: (2)a. protäpǝt-jŏŋńot-nǝpet-aj(Khanty) he seventyarrow-loc pierce-pass.3sgʻHewas pierced by seventy arrows.’ b. ńāwrampor-nē-ntot-we-s (Mansi)childPor-woman-lat take-pass-past.3sgʻThe childwastakenbya Por woman.’

  5. A minimal pair: (3)a. *XojJuwan re:sk-ǝs? (Khanty)who Ivan hit-past.3sgʻWho hit Ivan?’ b. Juwanxoj-nare:sk-ǝs-a?Ivanwho-loc hit-past-pass.3sgʻWhowas Ivan hit by?’

  6. Passivizationalsoin case of unergatives and unaccusatives (4) a. Mŏw šĭw-ǝnͻmǝs-ʌ-a. (Khanty)earthmist-loc sit.down-pres-pass.3sg ʻMistis sitting on the earth.’ Lit.: ʻThe earth is sat on by mist.’ b. Näγ tak mujnēt-nǝ jͻχt-w-ǝn. (Mansi) you so guest.pl-lat come-pass-2sgʻGuests will come to you.’ Lit.: ʻYou will be come to by guests.’

  7. Passivization alsoin presentative sentences (5)a. puwlǝpsi-na e:t-s-a. (Khanty)tumor-loc enter-PAST-PASS.3SG ʻAtumor appeared.’ Lit.: ʻ(pro) was entered by a tumor.’ b. äkₒ-mǟstkͻmnǝtäwl-ǝw-sMansisuddenly man-lat appear-PASS-PAST.3SG ʻSuddenly a man appeared.’ Lit.: ʻSuddenly, (there) was appeared by a man.’

  8. Theoretical implications i. Ob-Ugric NP movement is motivated by discourse requirements (rather than case requirements) ii. The argument to be promoted to subject does not move for case; it can have inherent case - cf. (6)a. Nare:-l ńoxǝs-na xu:j-l-a (Khanty) bench-3SG sable-LOC lie-PRES-PASS.3SG 'There are sables lying on his bench.' b. proKul'-na joxet-s-a devil-LOC come-PAST-PASS.3SG 'A devil came to him.'

  9. What happens to the locative/lative case of the argument to be promoted to subject? NP-movement involves dual case-assignment; the new nominative case overwrites the existing oblique case. (Cf. Richards 2013 on English pseudo-passives; Chen 2018 on Amis, etc.)

  10. Focusobjects versus topicobjects Focussed objects: VP-internal no agreement (7)a.Petra u:r-na [VPmo:jpǝrwa:nt-ǝs] (Khanty) Peter forest-locbearsee- past.3sgʻPeter saw a bear in the forest.’ Topicalizedobjects: VP-external, O-V agreement b. Petra mo:jpǝru:r-na [VPwa:nt-sǝ-lli]Peter bearforest-locsee-past-sg<3sg ʻPetersaw thebear in the forest.’

  11. An agreeingobject is in a derivedposition A floatingquatifiermarksthe base position of the object: (8)a. Luw[VPasa a:n-ǝt(*asa) il pa:jǝt-ǝs] (Khanty)he all cup-PL all down drop-PAST.3SGʻHe droppedallthecups.’ b. Luwasa a:n-ǝt[VP(asa) il pa:jǝt-sǝ-lli] he allcup-PL all down drop-PAST-SG<3SG ʻAllthecups, he dropped.’

  12. Semanticevidence of topicalization: (9) a.Whatdidyoudo? (Khanty) Ma tamkalaηwe:l-s-əm/*we:l-s-e:m I thisreindeer kill-past-1sg/kill-past-sg<1sg ‘I killedthisreindeer.’ b. Whatdidyoudowiththisreindeer? Ma tamkalaη*we:l-s-əm /we:l-s-e:m I thisreindeer kill-past-1sg/kill-past-sg<1sg ‘I killedthisreindeer.’

  13. Topicalized objects bear ACC in Eastern Mansi (10)a. kom jowt-nyõõlwø-s (E Mansi) man bow-arrow take-past.3sg‘The man took a bow and an arrow’ b. õõw-møöätkont-iil-ømdoor-accnegfind-SG<1sg‘I don’t findthedoor.’

  14. Relics of the accusative marking of secondary topics in Vasyugan Khanty (11)a. pǝγ-ǝl-nǝ qoγ juγwaγa-γǝn. (Vasyugan Khanty) son-3SG-LOC long she call-PST.3SG ‘Her son called her for a long time.’ b. nöŋ-ətmöγinemp-ə waγ-wǝlt? you-ACC what name-INS call-PRES-3PL ‘What name do they call you?’

  15. MansiAgrSP Khanty AgrS NP1 AgrS’ NP1AgrS’ AgrOPAgrSAgrOPAgrS [+nom, +topic] [+nom, +topic] NP2 AgrO’ NP2 AgrO’ TP AgrOVoicePAgrO [+acc, +topic] [+acc, +topic] T’ Voice’ VoiceP T TP Voice Voice’ T1 VP VoiceVP T [+/-active] V’ V’ V V

  16. Is the caseless object pseudo-incorporated into the V? No, because it can be referential: (12) ton k°än-pöäl-nø seemøl-nyoxøs, såjrøng-nyoxøs jälp-øng that up-side-LAT black-sable white-sable sacred-ADJ toågl-äät nok-posyg-øs. (E Mansi; Virtanen 2014: (25)) cloth-POSS.3SG up-pull-PAST.3SG ‘Upon that, he put on his sacred costume of black sable, white sable.’

  17. Is the VP-internal object caseless? Shall we give up the Case filter? Another option: to divorce syntactic Case (object licensing) and morphological case; to assume that the object is licensed by the Vunder government, and its accusative case is assigned by AgrO in a specifier–head configuration (Bobaljik 2017)

  18. Topicalizationof a goalviapromotiontoobject (13)a. Whodoyourelatethetaleto? Am mōjttawenmojt-i-lum. (N Mansi) I talehe.LATtell-PRS-SG<1SG ‘I relatethetaletohim.’ b. Whatdoyoutellhim? Am tawemōjt-əlmōjt-i-lum.I he.ACCtale-INSTRtell-PRS-SG<1SG ‘I tellhim a tale.’

  19. Secundativestructurewithnon-topicgoal? (14) Nataša Ksuša nīpək-at məj.(Khanty; F. Gulyás)Nataša Ksuša book-insgive.past.3sg’Natasa gave Ksuša a book.’

  20. Semanticdifferencebetweenthetwo variants (15)a. λüwmantemkatquλə-γənməj. Khanty(s)he I.DAT twofish-DU give-PAST.3SG ‘Shegavetwofishtome.’ b. λüwmant katquλə-γən-atməj.(s)he I.ACC twofish-DU-INS give-PAST.3SG ‘Sheprovidedmewith 2 fish.’  

  21. Is the relation between the directive and secundative constructions derivational? No - cf. current views about the English double object structure: Uniform Multiple Meaning Approach (Beck & Johnson 2004; etc):caused motion vs. caused possession Single Meaning Approach (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2008): give: only transfer of possession; difference only in information structure. Different argument realization only in languages with rigid word order.

  22. Obliquesubjectsinactivesentences (16)a.so:rńi-napos-ij-ǝl. (N Khanty) gold-LOC float-IMPF-PRES.3SG ‘The gold is floating down.’ b.pantoməjpoγ-əλi-nwu-λ-təγ. (E Khanty) and thisoneboy-DEM.LOCknow-PRS-SG>3SG ‘And this little boy knows it’ c. Sidar ʧöŋwä pöʧkän-nǝ toʃö ajrit-nǝ olaγ-wǝl (Vasyugan Khanty) Sidar late gun-LOC also canoe-LOC lie-PRES.3SG 'Late Sidar's gun also lies in the boat.'

  23. The status of locative subjects Not ergative subjects (contra Baker (2015)) because they also occur with unaccusative Vs and transitive Vs. Not Icelandic-type quirky subjects because not lexically constrained. Not locative agents but locative subjects of all kinds

  24. Locative subjects Filchenko (2007), Sosa (2017): An active subject can bear locative case if itfunctions as a temporarily foregrounded shifted topic. A parallel with Amis contrastive topics (Cheng 2018)? Amis: subjects of perfectiveclauses receive genitive case, and also an additional nominativecase when they are contrastive topics. Khanty: subjects get an additional locative case when they move on to a functional projection to check their contrastive feature?

  25. Selected references Baker, M. 2015. Case. Cambridge University Press. Beck, S. & K. Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry35:97-123. Bobaljik, J.2008. Where is phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In: Harbour et al. (eds), Phi-Theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules. OUP, 295-328. Chen, Tingchun 2018. Multiple Case Assignment: An Amis Case Study. PhD MIT. Filchenko, A. 2007. A grammar of Eastern Khanty. PhD diss., Rice U. Houston. Richards, N. 2017. Multiple case assignment and the English pseudo-passive. In N. LaCara et al. (eds), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, I. 313–319. Linguistics OAP. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity'', Journal of Linguistics44:129-167. Sosa, S. 2017. Functions of morphosyntactic alternations, and information flow in Surgut Khanty. PhD diss, Helsinki University.

More Related