Ryan Walter Smith - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Ryan Walter SmithUniversity of Arizona1st North American Conference on Iranian Linguistics04/29/2017

Subject-object asymmetries in

Zazaki

Argument Ellipsis:

A problem for the anti-agreement theorySlide2

IntroductionMany languages permit argument ellipsis (AE).An argument may be null, permitting sloppy or quantificational interpretations not attested with overt pronouns.In some languages (Persian), sloppy/quantificational readings are not possible in subject position.

One explanation of this is that the absence of agreement in a language permits AE in the first place (Saito 2007), and that subject/object asymmetries arise due to subject-verb agreement (

Sener

& Takahashi 2010; Sato &

Karimi

2016).Slide3

Goal of the talkI provide evidence from Zazaki (Northwestern Iranian) against Saito’s anti-agreement theory of AE.Due to the split-ergative agreement pattern of Zazaki, the anti-agreement theory predicts that AE should be possible with subjects in the past tense, and with objects in the present.

This is not the case:

Zazaki

permits object AE, and disallows subject AE, regardless of which argument is agreed with.Slide4

OverviewIntroduce argument ellipsis and subject/object asymmetries therein.Discuss the anti-agreement theory and its merits.Introduce Zazaki

AE and the problem it poses for the anti-agreement idea.

Discuss problems for other approaches

Conclude with some possible alternatives.Slide5

Argument EllipsisMany languages exhibit argument ellipsis (AE): arguments may be left unpronounced, leading to the possibility of the types of strict/sloppy ambiguities observed in cases of ellipsis. These contrast with the use of an overt pronoun, which, in most circumstances only permit strict readings.

Extensively studied in the context of East Asian languages like Mandarin (Huang 1991) and Japanese (

Hoji

1998;

Tomioka

2003;

akahashi

2008;).Slide6

Strict/Sloppy ambiguities in Japanese(1) Taroo-wa jibun-no sensei-o mita Taroo

-Top self-Gen room-

Acc

saw

‘Taro saw his teacher’

(2)

Hanako-mo

__

mita

Hanako

-also saw

Hanako

also saw (her own or Taro’s teacher)’

(3)

Hanako-mo

kare

-o

mita

Hanako

-also he-

Acc

saw

‘

Hanako

also saw him’ (only Taro’s teacher)Slide7

Strict/Sloppy cont.These are attested in the subject position in Japanese as well.(4) Taroo-wa jibun-no teian

-

ga

saiyoo

sareru

to

omotteiru

Taroo

-Top self-Gen proposal-Nom accept do-pass-

prs

C think-

prs

‘Taro thinks his proposal will be accepted’

(5)

Hanako-mo

__

saiyoo

sareru

to

omotteiru

Hanako

-also accept do-pass-

prs

C think-

prs

‘

Hanako

also thinks (Taro’s/her own proposal) will be accepted’

(6)

Hanako-mo

sore-

ga

saiyoo

sareru

to

omotteiru

Hanako

-also that-Nom accept do-pass-

prs

C think-

prs

‘

Hanako

also thinks it will be accepted’ (only Taro’s proposal)Slide8

Sloppy readings of null objects in PersianPersian also permits argument ellipsis, showing the same sloppy/strict ambiguity (Sato & Karimi 2016).(7) Bahâr

mo’allem

-

esh

-o dust

dâr

-e

Bahâr

teacher-3.Sg-RÂ friend have-3.Sg

‘

Bahar

likes her teacher’

(8) Mohsen ham _ dust

dâr

-e

Mohsen also friend have-3.Sg

‘Mohsen also likes (his own/

Bahâr’s

teacher)’

(9) Mohsen ham un-o dust

dâr

-e

Mohsen also 3.Sg-RÂ friend have-3.Sg

‘Mohsen also likes him/her’ (only

Bahâr’s

teacher)Slide9

The subject/object asymmetry in Persian AEUnlike Japanese, however, sloppy readings are not generally possible in subject position. A similar restriction is found in Turkish (Sener & Takahashi 2010).(10) Bahâr

goft

ke

dust-

hâ

-

sh

miyân

Bahar

said that friend-Pl-3.Sg come-3.Pl

‘

Bahar

said that her friends are coming’

(11) Mohsen

goft

ke

__ ne-

miyâ

-n

Mohsen said that Neg-come-3.Pl

‘Mohsen said they’re not coming’ (only

Bahâr’s

friends)

(12) Mohsen

goft

ke

unâ

ne-

miyâ

-n

Mohsen said that 3.Pl Neg-come-3.Pl

‘Mohsen said they’re

not

coming’ (only

Bahâr’s

friends

)Slide10

Interim Recap and a QuestionJapanese and Persian both permit AE.They differ in that while Japanese permits AE in subject and object position, Persian (as well as Turkish) does not permit it in subject positionWhy should this be?Slide11

Enter the anti-agreement theorySaito (2007) proposes the anti-agreement theory of AE:(13) The anti-agreement theory of argument ellipsis A

language will allow argument ellipsis if it

lacks

phi-agreement with its

arguments.

Languages like Japanese and Korean lack agreement, and thus allow AE.

Languages like English possess subject-verb agreement (as well as agreement between v and the object to assign accusative Case), and thus lack AE entirely.Slide12

Anti-agreement: a success for Persian?Languages like Persian (and Turkish) possess subject-verb agreement.As such, the anti-agreement theory correctly predicts that AE will be unavailable in the subject position of these languages, while permitting it in object position.As such, Sener & Takahashi (2010) and Sato &

Karimi

(2016) have argued that the anti-agreement theory receives support from Turkish and Persian, respectively

But what if we expand the empirical domain a bit?Slide13

Enter ZazakiZazaki is a Northwestern Iranian language, spoken primarily in eastern Turkey.Zazaki permits AE: null objects are ambiguous between a strict and sloppy reading.

(14) Muhsin

malım-ē

xo

vēnen

-o

Muhsin teacher-ez.3.sg.m

self

see-3.sg.m

‘Muhsin

sees

his

teacher

’

(15) Rıza

ki

vēnen

-o (16) Rıza

ki

ey

vēnen

-o

Rıza also

see

-3.sg.m

Rıza

also 3.sg.m.obl see-3.sg.m

‘

Rıza also

sees

’ (

strict

/

sloppy

)

‘Rıza also

sees

him

’ (

strict

only

)Slide14

Zazaki: Like Persian after all?Like Persian and Turkish, Zazaki exhibits a subject/object asymmetry: subjects do not permit sloppy readings.(17)Muhsın-i

vat

ke

dost-

ē

xo

oda

ken

-o

pak

Muhsin

-obl.sg.m

said that friend-

ez.sg.m

self

room.f

do-3.sg.m

clean.m

‘

Muhsin

said that his friend cleans the room’

(18) Rıza-y vat

ke

banyo

-y k-en-o

pak

Rıza-obl.sg.m

said that bathroom-

obl.sg.m

do.3.sg.m clean

‘

Rıza

said that cleans the bathroom’ (only

Muhsin’s

friend)

(19) Rıza-y vat

ke

o

banyo

-y ken-o

pak

Rıza-obl.sg.m

said that 3.sg.m.dir bathroom-

obl.sg.m

do-3.sg.m clean

‘

Rıza

said that he cleans the bathroom’ (only

Muhsin’s

friend)

At first glance, this seems to offer further support for the anti-agreement theory.Slide15

Zazaki split-ergativity and a predictionZazaki is split-ergative.In the present, the verb agrees with the subject, but in the past, it agrees with the object

.

The anti-agreement theory makes a prediction here: in the past tense, the subject/object asymmetry should be the

reverse

of the one in the present tense.

We should expect the

object

to fail to possess sloppy readings in the past, while the

subject

should permit such sloppy readings.Slide16

A failed predictionThis is not borne out! Null objects continue to possess sloppy interpretations in the past tense, while null subjects are unambiguous.(20) Muhsin-i

dost

-

ē

xo di-y

Muhsin

-obl.sg.m

friend-ez.3.pl self saw-3.pl

‘

Muhsin

saw his friends yesterday’

(21)

Rıza

-y

ki

di-y

Rıza-obl.sg.m

also saw-3.pl

‘

Rıza

also saw (his own or

Muhsin’s

friends)’ Slide17

A failed prediction, cont.Subjects are unambiguous despite lack of agreement(22) Muhsin-i vat

ke

dost-

ē

xo

oda

kerd-e

pak-e

Muhsin-

obl.sg.m

said that friend

-

ez.sg.m

self

room.f

did-3.sg.f

.

clean-

sg.f

‘

Muhsin

said that his friend cleaned the room’

(

23)

Rıza-y vat

ke

banyo

kerd

pak

Rıza

-obl.sg.m

said that bathroom

did.

3.sg.m

clean.sg.m

‘

Rıza

said that cleans the bathroom’ (only

Muhsin’s

friend)

The anti-agreement theory thus makes an incorrect prediction about the distribution of AE in

Zazaki

!Slide18

Alternative approaches?Saito’s approach is not the only theory of AE out there.Another idea has been presented by Ohtaki (2012): that AE is only possible in languages with non-fusional

case morphology.

Japanese and Korean are highly agglutinative (

watashi-ga

‘I-nom’), and therefore allow AE.

English case morphology is

fusional

(I, my, me), so no AE!Slide19

More problemsOhtaki’s approach isn’t fine-grained enough: ceteris paribus, it predicts that a language will either have AE or it won’t. We shouldn’t expect to find languages where AE is possible in some positions but not in others.Even putting that aside, the theory makes the incorrect prediction that

Zazaki

shouldn’t have AE, since

Zazaki

case morphology is

fusional

.

Case, number, and gender are fused in pronouns (

ez

‘1.sg.dir’, m

ı

‘1.sg.obl’)

, and the same features are expressed in a single morpheme on nouns.Slide20

Where to go from here?There are a few possible directions to explore for AE in these languages.Sato’s (2015) idea that subject/object asymmetries arise from definiteness/specificity restrictions on the subject in some languages.A null pronoun approach (

Hoji

1998;

Tomioka

2003): sloppy interpretations of null subject/objects arise because null pronouns are

property anaphora

.

Connected to the fact that many (all?) of these languages have bare number-neutral

nominals

.Slide21

Conclusion and future researchI have argued against Saito’s anti-agreement theory of AE on the basis of evidence from Zazaki.I have also argued against Ohtaki’s

non-

fusional

case morphology approach on the way.

Future research will look more closely at AE in

Zazaki

(as well as Japanese and Persian), manipulating factors like topicality and contextual licensing to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenonSlide22

To Heidi Harley, robert henderson, simin karimi, Ryoichiro kobayashi, and

yosuke

sato

for discussion. To

roya

kabiri

,

mohsen

mahdavi

mazdeh

,

rana

nabors

for

persian

judgments. To my consultant

mesut

asmen

keskin

for his

zazaki

judgments. And to audiences at the university of

arizona

and at nacil1 for listening!

THANK YOU!!Slide23

ReferencesHuang, C. T. J. (1991). Remarks on the status of the null object. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 56-76.

Otani

, K., & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis.

Linguistic Inquiry

, 345-358

.

Saito, M. (2007). Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis.

Language Research 43(2)

, 203-227

.

Sato, Y. (2015). Argument ellipsis in Javanese and voice agreement.

Studia

Linguistica

,

69

(1), 58-85

.

Sato

, Y., &

Karimi

, S. (2016). Subject-object asymmetries in Persian Argument Ellipsis and the Anti-agreement Theory.

Glossa

: a journal of general linguistics 1(1)

.

Sener

, S., & Takahashi, D. (2010). Ellipsis of arguments in Turkish and Japanese.

Nanzan

Linguistics 6

, 79-99

.

Takahashi, D. (2008). Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis.

Linguistic Inquiry

,

39

(2), 307-326

.

Tomioka

, S. (2003). The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications.

The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures

,

61

, 321.Slide24

Appendix: Quantificational Readings of AETakahashi (2008) points out that null arguments that refer to quantified NPs are ambiguous between referring to the same set of entities (the “E-type” reading) and a reading where it refers to a different set of objects (the “quantificational reading”).(24) Taro-wa

san-

nin

-no sensei-o mi-ta

Taro-Top three-cl-gen teacher-

acc

see-

pst

‘Taro saw three teachers’

(25)

Hanako-mo

__ mi-ta

Hanako

-also see-

pst

‘

Hanako

also saw (the same three or different teachers)’Slide25

Quantificational readings in Persian AEPersian also permits this ambiguity.(26) Mohsen se-tâ mo’allem-o

da’vat

kard

Mohsen three-cl teacher-

râ

invite did

‘Mohsen invited three teachers.’

(27)

Royâ

ham __

da’vat

kard

Royâ

also invite did

‘

Royâ

also invited (the same or different set of teachers’Slide26

No quantificational readings in subject positionAs you might expect, Japanese permits quantificational readings in subject position, but Persian does not.(28) Mohsen goft ke

se-

t

â

dâneshju

ingilisi

mi-

xun

-an

Mohsen said that three-cl student

english

imp-read-3.pl

‘Mohsen said that three students are studying English’

(29)

Rahâ

goft

ke

farânse

mi-

xun

-an

Rahâ

said that French imp-read-3.pl

‘

Rahâ

said that they are studying French’ (E-type only)Slide27

Zazaki Quantificational AE in objectsZazaki permits quantificational readings of null objects in both the present and the past.(30) Muhsın

hirē

malım

-an

dawet

k-en-o.

Muhsin

three teacher-

obl.pl

invitation do-pres.ind-3.sg.m.

‘

Muhsin

will invite three teachers’

(31)

Rıza

ki

dawet

k-en-

o

Rıza

also invitation do-pres.ind-3.

sg.m

‘

Rıza

will also invite’ (Quant / E-type

)

(32)

Muhsin

-i

hirē

malım-i

dawet

kerd

-i

Muhsin

-obl.sg.m

. three teacher-

dir.pl

invitation did-3.pl.

‘

Muhsin

invited three

teachers’

(33)

Rıza

-y

ki

dawet

kerd

-i

Rıza

-obl.sg.m

also invitation did-3.pl

‘

Rıza

also invited’ (Quant/E-type)

Slide28

No quantificational AE for Zazaki subjectsNo quantificational readings in the subject position!(34) Muhsin-i

vat

ke

hirē

ṭeleb-an

İngılızki

wend

Muhsin-obl.sg.m

said that three student-

obl.pl

English read.3.sg

‘

Muhsin

said that three students studied English’

(35)

Rıza

-y vat

ke

Fransızki

wend

Rıza-obl.sg.m

said that French read.3.sg

‘

Rıza

said that studied French’ (E-type only)

(36)

Muhsin

-i

vat

ke

hirē

ṭelebe-y

İngılızki

wanen-ē

Muhsin-obl.sg.m

said that three student-

dir.pl

English read-3.pl

‘

Muhsin

said that three students study English

’

(37)

Rıza

-y vat

ke

Fransızki

wanen-ē

Rıza

-obl.sg.m

said that French read-3.pl

‘

Rıza

said that study French’ (E-type only)