linguistic fossils Katalin É Kiss Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy and Pázmány P University Claim Linguistic fossils are potential sources of syntactic reconstruction ID: 495730
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Syntactic reconstruction from" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Syntactic reconstruction from linguistic fossils
Katalin É. Kiss
Research
Institute
for
Linguistics
of
the
Hungarian
Academy
and Pázmány P.
UniversitySlide2
Claim
Linguistic
fossils are potential sources of syntactic reconstruction
.
A
fossilized
linguistic
fragment
provides
reliable
information
on a proto-construction if it can be fit together with other
fragments
p
reserved in the given language and/or
in
the sister languages.Slide3
A case study: Fitting
together
fragments preserved in Uralic languages
Hungarian
,
Eastern
Khanty
,
Samoyedic
:
Inverse
Agreement
Constraint
Khanty
,
Mansi
,
Samoyedic
:
Differential
Object-Verb
Agreement
Hungarian
,
Eastern
Mansi
:
Person-Case
Constraint
Eastern
Mansi
:
Differential
Object
MarkingSlide4
The grammatical system to be
reconstructed
from
the fragments:
Topical
objects
marked
by
-
agreement
on
the
verb
, and
- a
case
suffix
on
the
object
.
The
constraints
regulate
the
relative
topicality
of
the
subject
and
the
object
:
the
object
can’t
be more
topical
than
the
subject
.
Slide5
Fragment 1: Inverse Agreement
Constraint
in
Hungarian Verbal
agreement
with
3rd
person
objects
; no
agreement
with
1st
/
2nd
person
objects
:
(1)
János
lát-
ja
-Ø
őt/őket
.
John
see-
OBJ
-3SG
him
/
them
(2)
János
lát-Ø
engem/minket
.
John
see-3SG
me
/
us
(3)
János
lát-Ø
téged/titeket
.
John
see-3SG
you
sg
/
you
plSlide6
A weak (relativized) constraint
:
S3
<
O2: (4) Ő lát-Ø téged.
he
see-3
sg
you.
acc
S1
>
O2
: (5)
Én
lát-
l
-ak
téged
.
I
see-
2
obj
-1sg
you
.
S3
<
O1
: (6)
Ő lát engem
.
he
see.3
sg
me
S2
<
O1
: (7)
Te
lát-sz
engem
.
you
see-2
sg
you.
acc
Slide7
A weak (relativized) constraint
:
S1sg > O1pl
:
O-V
agr
(8)a.
Én minket
ajánl-
om
/*
ajánl-ok
.
I
us
recommend-
obj.
1sg
/
recommend-
1sg
‘
I
recommend
us
.’
S2
sg
>
O2
pl
:
O-V
agr
b.
Te titeket
ajánl-
od
/*
ajánl-asz
?
you
sg
you
pl
-2
pl-acc
recommend-
obj
-2sg
/
rec.-2
sg
‘
Do
you
sg
recommend
you
guys
?Slide8
A weak (relativized) constraint
:
S1pl > O1sg
:
no
O-V
agr
(9)a.
Mi engem
választ-unk
/
*
választ
-
ju
-
k
.
we
me
elect-
1pl
/
elect-
obj
-1pl
‘
We
elect
me
.’
S2
pl
>
O2
sg
:
no
O-V
agr
b
.
Ti téged
választo-tok
/
*
választ
-
já
-tok
?
you
pl
you
sg
elect-
2sg
/
elect-
obj
-
2
sg
‘
Do
you
guys
elect
you
sg
?Slide9
The Inverse Agreement Constraint (
IAC
)
(
Comrie 1980)(10) Inverse Agreement
Constraint
An
object
agreeing
with
a
verb
must be
lower
in
the
animacy
hierarchy
than
the
subject
agreeing
with
the
same
verb
.
(
11)
Animacy
hierarchy
1SG
>
1PL
>
2SG
>
2PL
>
3SG
>
3PLSlide10
(12) Animacy Hierarchy (
Hungarian
)
1PL 1SG > 2SG > 2PL > 3 speaker
participant
non-participant
(13)
Inverse
Agreement
Constraint
(
Hungarian) An object agreeing with a verb must be lower in the animacy hierarchy than the subject agreeing with the same verb, unless both the subject and the object represent the lowest level of the animacy hierarchy.Slide11
Strong IAC in Eastern
Khanty
,
Samoyedic: no agreement with 1st and
2nd
person
objects
(
14)
Vera
ʌüw-at
wū-ʌ-
təɣ. Vera she-acc know-prs-obj.3sg ‘Vera knows her.’ (15)a. ʌüw mān-t /nüŋ-at wū-ʌ. he I-acc /you-acc see-prs.3sg ‘He sees me/you.’ b. mā
nüŋ-at wū-ʌ-əm. I
you-
acc
see-
prs-1sg
‘
I
see
/
know
you
sg
.’Slide12
Strong IAC also in Tundra
Nenets
(
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011):
(16)
Wanya
syita
ladə
◦
-
da
.
John he.
acc hit- obj.3sg ’John hit him.’(17) Wanya syiqm◦/syit◦ ladə◦ /*ladə◦-da John I.acc/you.acc hit.3sg/hit- obj.3s ’John hit me/
you.’ Slide13
Fragment 2: Differential object-verb agreement
in
Uralic (Ugric & Samoyedic)Optional
definite
O–V
agreement
?
(18)a
.
ku
rit
tu-s
man boat take-past.3sg man ‘The man took a boat.’ b. ku rit tu-s-t man boat take-past-obj.3sg ‘The man took the boat.’ (Khanty)Slide14
Nikolaeva (1999; 2001), Dalrymple & Nikolaeva
(2011):
O-V
agreement in Khanty and in the Samoyedic
languages
(Tundra
Nenets
,
Selkup
,
Nganasan
)
iff
O is
given
,
topical
:(19)a. [TopP S [VP O V+AgrS ]] b. [TopP S [TopP O [VP V+AgrO+AgrS ]]] Slide15
(Eastern) Uralic sentence
structure
:
SOV, with S = primary topic
(20)a
.
(
luw
)
juwan
re:
sk-əs
he
Ivan
hit-
past.3sg ‘He hit Ivan.’ b. juwan xoj-na re:sk-əs-a Ivan who-loc hit-past-pass.3sg ‘Who was Ivan hit by?’ (Khanty) Slide16
(Eastern) Uralic sentence
structure
:
SOV
, with S = primary topic
(21)a.*
xoj
tam
xu
:j an
wa
:
nt-əs
who
this man not see-past.3sg ‘Nobody saw this man.’ ´ b. tam xu:j xoj-na an wa:n-s-a this man who-loc not see-past-pass.3sg ‘This man was not seen by anybody.’ (Khanty) Slide17
Object conveying new
information
:
(22)a.
What happened?
ma
tam
kalaη
we
:
l-s-əm
/
*
we
:l-s-e:m I this reindeer kill-past-1sg/kill-past-obj.1sg ‘I killed this reindeer.’ Given object: b. What did you do with this reindeer? ma tam kalaη *we:l-s-əm /we:l-s-e:m I this reindeer kill-past-1sg/kill-past-obj
.1sg ‘I killed this reindeer.’
(
Khanty
)
Slide18
(23) Presupposed object:
Ma
ta
:
ləx ta:ta a:kət-l-
e
:
m
anta
to
:
ta
I
mushroom
here
collect-
pres-
obj.1sg not there‘I collect mushrooms HERE, not THERE.’A new O with a familiar possessor counts as given:(24) Luw kalaη-əl re:sk-əs-li he reindeer-3sg hit-past-obj.3sg ‘Hei hit hisi/*j
reindeer.’Slide19
O–V agreement with familiar
objects
also
in IO-shift constructions:(25)a
.
Am
mis-um-n
pum
sāγr-ēγ-um
I
cow-1sg-dat hay cut-pres-1sg ‘I cut hay for my cow.’ b. Am mis-um pum-el sāγr-i-l-um I cow-1sg hay-instr cut-pres-obj-1sg ‘I supply my cow WITH HAY.’ (Northern Mansi)Slide20
The Inverse Agreement Constraint
is an
Inverse
Topicality Constraint(26) Inverse
Topicality
Constraint
A
secondary
topic
cannot
be more
topical
than the primary topic of the same clause.(27) An object more topical than the subject of the same clause can only be construed as a focus.Hungarian: topical-O – V agreement definite-O – V agreement The Inverse Topicality Constraint
is a linguistic fossil. Slide21
Fragment 3: Differential object
marking
in
UralicEastern Mansi: O case-marked
iff
secondary
topic
:
(28) a.
kom
jowt-nyõõl
wø-s
man bow-arrow take-past ‘The man took a bow and an arrow’ b. õõw-mø öät kont-iiløm door-acc neg find-obj.1sg ‘I can’t find the door.’ Slide22
Fragment 4: A Person-Case Constraint
1st
and
2nd
person objects are
caseless
:
(29)
öän-øm
jål-ääl-ääl-øn
.
I-1
sg
down-kill-
imp-obj.2sg ‘Kill me!’ (30) Om nää-n jorøl tảt-øs-løm tøg. I you-2sg on.purpose bring-past-obj.1sg here ‘I brought you here on purpose.’ (Eastern Mansi)Slide23
Objects anchored to a 1st
/
2nd
person possessor are caseless:
(31)
ääk-
øn
komøly
woåxtl-øs-løn
!
uncle-2
sg
how leave- past-obj.2sg ‘How could you leave your uncle!’ (E Mansi)A possessive suffix doesn’t exempt from accusative marking:(32) sågrøp-øtääm kont-øs-tø. axe-3sg.acc find-past-obj.3sg ‘He found
his axe.’ Slide24
Functions of non-possessively used
possessive
agreement
morphemes in Uralic:
(i)
3rd
person
:
identifying
,
deictic
role
;
(
ii
) 1st/2nd person: associative role; the speaker/addressee is the reference point;(iii) the possessive ending can express contrast.Slide25
Hungarian: generalized object marking;
the
Inverse Object Marking Constraint is a linguistic fossil
No
accusative
-
t
on
sg
1
,2
objects
:
(33) sg1: eng-em vs. pl1: mi-nk-et I-poss1sg we-poss1pl-acc sg2: tég-ed pl2: ti-tek-et
you-poss2sg
you
pl
-
poss
2
pl-
acc
sg
3
:
ő-
t
’
pl
3
:
ő-k-
et
(s)
he-
acc
(s)he-
pl-
acc
Slide26
If O has a 1sg or
2
sg
possessor, the accusative -t
is
optional
:
(34)
Összetörték az autó-m
(
-at
)
/
autó-d
(
-at
)
. broke-3pl the car- poss1sg(-acc)/poss2sg(-acc) ‘They broke my car/your car.’Slide27
Piecing together the
surviving
fragments
:
Samoyedic
N
Khanty
E Khanty
E Mansi
Hungarian
Proto-Uralic
Topical
O – V
agreement
+
+
+
+
+
Inverse
Agreement
Constraint
+
+
+
+
Topical
O
marking
+
+
Inverse
O Marking
Constraint
+
+
+Slide28
The Proto-Uralic System
i.
Differential
Object-V agreement: V+AgrO+AgrS iff
O
is
secondary
topic
ii
.
Inverse
Agreement
Constraint
(=
PCC): *V + AgrO1/2 + AgrS3 Repair: V+AgrS3iii. Differential Object marking: O + ACC iff O is secondary topiciv. Inverse Object-marking Constraint (=PCC) *O1/2+ACC Repair: O1/2 *O+POSS1/2+ACC O+POSS1/2Slide29
Reconstructing the function of
the
Proto-Uralic
system: In Khanty
,
Mansi
and
Samoyedic
,
verbal
agreement
is
topic-doubling
–
cf
.
Givón (1975), Farkas & Kazazis (1980), Kallulli (2008), Dočekal & Kallulli (2012); In Eastern Mansi, also object-marking marks the topic position of the object – cf. Enc (1991), Dalrymple & Nikolaeva (2011) differential O-V agreement and differential O-marking encod(ed) the topic status of the
O.Slide30
The Inverse Agreement Constraint and
the
Person-Case
Constraint are manifestations of an Inverse Topicality Constraint
.
(35)
Inverse
Topicality
Constraint
The
hierarchy
of
topicalized
constituents
in the same (external or internal) structural domain should not contradict their ranking in the hierarchy of discourse participants. Slide31
Standard explanations of the Person-Case
constraint
:
two arguments attempt feature checking
with
the
same
probe
Béjar
&
Rezac
(2009
):
the
internal and external argument compete for agreement with the v node. First downward search, then upward search.PCC: A probe with completely valued features is inactive for upward agreement. A 1st
person internal argument (speaker, participant
,
person
)
leaves
no
features
to
be
checked
.Slide32
Why is O-marking blocked
in
Eastern
Khanty and Hungarian in the case of objects
with
a
1st
or
2nd
person
possessor
?
Because
what triggers the PCC is not the interaction of the person features of S and O but the discourse hierarchy of their referents. (An O with a 1st/2nd person possessor is a part, or a belonging, of the speaker or the listener. )
The reconstructed system
provides
evidence
against
the
feature
checking
explanation
: Slide33
Conclusion:
Linguistic
fossils
are potential sources of syntactic reconstruction. The
Eastern
Uralic
languages
had
differential
object-verb
agreement
and
differential
object marking. They encoded the topic role of the object. The Inverse Agrement Constraint and the Person-Case Constraint ensured that the structural hierarchy of topics do not contradict their hierarchy in the animacy scale.The PCC of the
Indo-European etc. languages may have had
the
same
function
.Slide34
Selected references
Dalrymple
, Mary & Irina
Nikolaeva
2011. Objects and Information Structure. CUP.
Docekal
Mojmír
&
Kallulli
2012. More
on
the
semantics
of
clitic
doubling. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. by C. Pinon, 113–128. Mouton. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/É. Kiss, Katalin 2005. The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian − a relic of a Uralic–Siberian Sprachbund? In Organizing Grammar. Linguistic
Studies in Honor of
Henk
van
Riemsdijk
,
ed
.
by
Hans
Broekhuis
et
al
, 108-116.
Mouton
.
É. Kiss, K. 2012. Null
pronominal
objects
in
Hungarian
.
Acta
Linguistica
Hafniensia
44: 92-206.
É. Kiss, Katalin 2013. The
Inverse
Agreement
Constraint
in
Uralic
Languages
.
Finno-Ugric
Languages
and
Linguistics
2 (1): 2-21.
Kallulli
, Dalina. 2008.
Clitic
doubling
,
agreement
, and
information
structure
.
In
Clitic
doubling
in
the
Balkan
languages
,
ed
.
by
D.
Kallulli
& L.
Tasmowski
, 227–255. Amsterdam:
Benjamins
.
Nikolaeva
, I. 2001.
Secondary
topic
as
a
relation
in
information
structure
.
Linguistics
39: 1-49.
Nikolaeva
, Irina 2002.
Possessive
affixes
in
the
pragmatic
structuring
of
the
utterance
:
Evidence
from
Uralic
.
In
International
Symposium
on
Deictic
Systems and
Quantification
,
Izhevsk
,
ed
.
by
Bernard
Comrie
&
Pirkko
Suihkonen
.
Benjamins
.
Nikolaeva
, Irina 2014.
A
Grammar
of Tundra
Nenets
. Berlin:
Mouton
de
Gruyter
.
Sipőcz, Katalin 2012.
Ditranzitív
igék a manysiban.
Nyelvtudományi Közlemények
109: 123-136.
Virtanen
,
Susanna
2014.
Pragmatic
object
marking
in
Eastern
mansi
.
Linguistics
52: 391–413.
Virtanen
,
Susanna
2015.
Transitivity
in
Eastern
Mansi
. PhD
dissertation
. University of Helsinki.