Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inverse as Elsewhere
47th Algonquian Conference University of Manitoba 23 Oct 2015
Will Oxford • University of Manitoba [email protected]
Slide 2 of 23
Goals
• Topic: TA theme signs (cf. Oxford 2014a)
• Proposal: the TA theme sign is an object agreement marker (Brittain 1999; McGinnis 1999) in Voice°
*i ↔ [1]
*eθ ↔ [2]
*a· ↔ [3]
*ekw ↔ []
• What about the inverse theme sign *-ekw?
• New: *-ekw is the elsewhere spellout of Voice° – Spelled out when the usual object person feature has been
deleted by an OCP-style impoverishment operation
Slide 3 of 23
Plan
1. Analytical assumptions
2. Three facts about TA theme signs
3. Inverse as Elsewhere
4. Benefits
Slide 4 of 23
1. Analytical assumptions
Prefix Stem Theme
Sign Central
Agr Periph’l
Agr ni- wa:bam -a: -na:n -ag 1 see.TA 3OBJ 1p 3p
Voice° ext'l arg't
introducer (Bruening 2005)
Infl° higher
functional head
clitic double of Infl°
(Oxford 2014b; cf. Déchaine 1999)
Infl
InflP
Voice
VoiceP
vP
…OBJ…
SUBJ
‘we see them’ (1p→3p) in Algonquin (Jones 1977)
Slide 5 of 23
Analysis of central agreement (Infl°)
• The central agr't (Infl°) indexes the higher- ranked person…
• …or both persons
• Analysis: articulated probe on Infl° agrees with whichever argument best matches its features (or both, if equally good) – cf. Bejar & Rezac 2009, Lochbihler 2012, but with the probe moved
above both arguments (Oxford 2014c, Fry 2015)
– Independent: [uPerson, uProximate, uParticipant] (prefers 1st)
– Conjunct: [uPerson, uProximate] (1st and 3rd equally good) • Less "picky" probe = more portmanteau agr in conj't (Oxford 2014d)
1. Analytical assumptions
ni-wa:bam-a:-na:n 1- see -TS -1p ‘we see her’ (1p→3)
wa:bam-Ø-angij see -TS-1p→3 ‘we see her’ (1p→3)
wa:bam-a:-wa:j see -TS -3p ‘they see obv’ (3p→3′)
Slide 6 of 23
2. Three facts about TA theme signs
• Central agreement (Infl°) can index subject/object/both, but inverse forms are those in which Infl° indexes the object only.
• Robust: compare original non-inverse form (e.g. Algonquin)
replaced by inverse form in Plains Cree (Dahlstrom 1989)
#1 In inverse forms, the central agreement indexes only the object
ni-wa:bam-igo-na:n 1- see -INV -1p ‘she sees us’ (3→1p)
wa:bam-igo-wa:j see -INV -3p ‘obv sees them’ (3′→3p)
wa:bam-i-yaminj see -TS -3→1p ‘she sees us’ (3→1p)
wa:bam-iko-ya:hk see -INV -1p ‘she sees us’ (3→1p)
Algonquin Plains Cree
• TS > inverse
• Infl° > object only
Slide 7 of 23
• All change in TA theme signs involves extending inverse marking to more contexts (Oxford 2014a):
• The other three theme signs never get expanded to other contexts.
• “Overlay” of inverse marking (cf. Bliss, Ritter & Wiltschko 2014)
2. Three facts about TA theme signs
#2 In variation and change, the inverse theme sign is the wildcard.
PA
Con
jun
ct
Lac
Sim
on
Alg
onqu
in
Con
jun
ct
Pla
ins
Cre
e C
onju
nct
Del
awar
e C
onju
nct
Inde
pen
den
t
Bla
ckfo
ot
non-
lcl
3→3′ *a: *a: *a: *a: *a: *a:
3′→3 *ekw *ekw *ekw *ekw *ekw *ekw
mix
ed
1→3 *a: *a: *a: *a: *a: *a:
2→3 *a: *a: *a: *a: *a: *a:
3→1 *i *i (1s) *i (1s) *i
*ekw *ekw (1p) *ekw (1p) *ekw
3→2 *eθ (2s) *eθ (2s) *eθ
*ekw *ekw *ekw (2p) *ekw (2p) *ekw
loca
l 2→1 *i *i *i *i *i *ekw
1→2 *eθ *eθ *eθ *eθ *eθ *eθ
Bethany Lochbihler (p.c.): there's something “elsewhere-like” about the inverse
Slide 8 of 23
• Beneath the “overlay” of inverse marking, the theme sign slot displays an invariant pattern of exponence: – *i / 1OBJ
– *eθ / 2OBJ
– *a: / 3OBJ
• Inverse aside, TA theme signs are object person agreement markers (Brittain 1999, McGinnis 1999, contra Fry 2015)
2. Three facts about TA theme signs
#3 When the theme sign is not inverse, it agrees with the object.
PA
Con
jun
ct
Lac
Sim
on
Alg
onqu
in
Con
jun
ct
Pla
ins
Cre
e C
onju
nct
Del
awar
e C
onju
nct
Inde
pen
den
t
Bla
ckfo
ot
non-
lcl
3→3′ *a: *a: *a: *a: *a: *a:
3′→3 *ekw *ekw *ekw *ekw *ekw *ekw
mix
ed
1→3 *a: *a: *a: *a: *a: *a:
2→3 *a: *a: *a: *a: *a: *a:
3→1 *i *i (1s) *i (1s) *i
*ekw *ekw (1p) *ekw (1p) *ekw
3→2 *eθ (2s) *eθ (2s) *eθ
*ekw *ekw *ekw (2p) *ekw (2p) *ekw
loca
l 2→1 *i *i *i *i *i *ekw
1→2 *eθ *eθ *eθ *eθ *eθ *eθ
Slide 9 of 23
Drawing a generalization
• Observations: – #2 The distribution of inverse marking varies
– #1 In inverse forms, central agr (Infl°) indexes the object only
– #3 In non-inverse forms, theme sign (Voice°) indexes the object
• Generalization: either the central agreement indexes solely the object, or the theme sign indexes the object, but not both.
• Restatement: the theme sign (Voice°) indexes the object except when the central agreement (Infl°) does. – (in which case Voice° is instead spelled out as *-ekw)
2. Three facts about TA theme signs
V–Voice–Infl V–Voice–Infl OBJ OBJ OBJ
*-ekw INV
*-i, eθ, a: 1 2 3
Slide 10 of 23
3. Inverse as Elsewhere
• Analysis of features on Infl° (Central) and Voice° (T.S.)
• Infl°: Articulated probe agrees with best match(es) – Infl° can have person features of subject, object, or both
• Voice°: uniform object agreement; simple [uPers] probe – Voice° always has object's person features
Voice
Infl VoiceP
vP
…OBJ…
SUBJ
InflP
[uPers]
[uPers] [uProx] [uPart]
and/or
Slide 11 of 23
Deriving the generalization
• The theme sign (Voice°) indexes the object except when the central agreement (Infl°) does (in which case Voice° = *-ekw).
• Why? What happens when Infl agrees with the object?
• We end up with identical person features on Infl and Voice (i.e. those of the object), e.g. in an Independent 3→2 form
• This is the context where Voice° is spelled out as *-ekw: when its person feature is duplicated on Infl°
3. Inverse as Elsewhere
Voice
Infl VoiceP
vP
…OBJ…
SUBJ
InflP
[uPers]
[uPers] [uProx] [uPart]
Infl° [2]
Voice° [2]
Infl°
[2]
[3]
(structure to be
revised)
Slide 12 of 23
Person dissimilation
• There are languages in which configurations with adjacent person features are ill-formed.
• Prominent example: “spurious se” of Spanish
• Expected le lo (3.DAT + 3.ACC) realized as se lo
• Nevins 2007:276: “the presence of two identical adjacent person feature specifications is illicit” (cf. OCP)
• Repair by deleting the person features of the first clitic, leaving it to be spelled out as the underspecified form se. – dissimilation by impoverishment
3. Inverse as Elsewhere
Slide 13 of 23
The inverse as a spurious se effect
• I propose that exactly the same constraint and repair are responsible for Algonquian *-ekw.
• Voice° (theme sign) agrees with the object always and is normally spelled out as object agreement.
• When Infl° (central agr) chooses to agree only with the object, Voice° and Infl° end up with identical person features.
• Illicit; repair by deleting the person features of Voice°.
• Outcome: Voice° is spelled out by an underspecified form.
3. Inverse as Elsewhere
Infl° [2]
Voice° [2]
Infl° *i ↔ [1] *eθ ↔ [2] *a· ↔ [3] *ekw ↔ []
*-ekw is the elsewhere spellout of Voice°, appearing whenever Infl° targets the object, triggering impoverishment of the existing object agreement on Voice°.
Slide 14 of 23
4. Assessing the analysis
• 4.1 Equidistance and direct/inverse alignment
• 4.2 Person dissimilation in Algonquian
• 4.3 Theme signs as portmanteau agreement?
Slide 15 of 23
4.1 Equidistance and direct/inverse alignment
• Crucial proposal: Infl° can agree with either SUBJ or OBJ – But why doesn’t locality restrict Infl° to agreeing with SUBJ?
• Oxford 2014c (cf. Fry 2015): SUBJ and OBJ are equidistant from Infl° due to A-movement of the object to [Spec, VoiceP] – But again, why?
• Answer: rich object agreement on Voice° (distinguishing all persons) triggers A-movement of the object, making SUBJ and OBJ “symmetrical”
• Rarity follows from rarity of true object agreement (usually clitic doubling instead): Arregi and Nevins 2008; Woolford 2008, 2010; Preminger 2009; Nevins 2011; Kramer 2014
4. Assessing the analysis
True, rich object agreement is what makes dir/inv alignment possible
Slide 16 of 23
4.2 The pervasiveness of person dissimilation
• * [αPers] / [αPers]: just another in a long line of awkward stipulations to capture the inverse?
• No: Algonquian languages in fact go to great lengths to avoid having the same person feature twice in proximity.
• Infl° and Voice°: delete the person feature of Voice° (>INV)
• Reflexives (e.g. 1-on-1): use an intransitive instead.
• TA 3-on-3: must make one of the 3rds obviative.
• 3 noun, 3 possessor: must make noun obviative.
• AI agreement: 1 ni-niba:, 2 gi-niba:, 3 *o-nibe:-w (‘sleep’) – Just nibe:-w: 3rd-person -w elbows out 3rd-person o-
• Person dissimilation plays a crucial role in deriving inverse marking, but it’s just one effect of a much broader constraint.
4. Assessing the analysis
Slide 17 of 23
4.3 An alternative: theme signs as portmanteaux
• Me: T.S. = object agreement marker (Brittain 1999)
• Trommer 2003; Fry 2015: theme sign = portmanteau subject/ object agreement marker. This is true in a descriptive sense:
• Is -in actually a portmanteau marker indexing 1→2?
• Some initial downsides: – Lose insights provided by the object-agreement characterization
– Not straightforward: 3→2 Conjunct forms use -in too
• And I contend that the argument fails to take account the difference between syntagmatic and paradigmatic meaning.
4. Assessing the analysis
gi-wa:bam-in 2- see -2OBJ ‘I see you’ (1s→2s)
If T.S. -in = 2OBJ, then the morphology is just saying “__ see you”. What makes it ‘I see you’?
Slide 18 of 23
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic meaning
• Syntagmatic meaning: meanings of the individual morphemes
• Paradigmatic meaning: meaning of the form as a whole, by virtue of how it contrasts with other forms
• Algonquin example: 1→2 forms (can gloss TS as 2OBJ or 1→2)
4. Assessing the analysis
wa:bam-in-a:n see -2OBJ-1s ‘I see you (sg.)’
wa:bam-in-agogw see -2OBJ-1s→2p ‘I see you (pl.)’
wa:bam-in-a:ng see -2OBJ-1p ‘We see you (s/p)’
1s→2s
1s→2p
1s→2 (sg/pl)
Syntagmatic: 1p (we) and 2 (you sg/pl) Number of 2 not marked, can be sg/pl.
Syntagmatic: 1s (I) and 2 (you sg/pl) Number of 2 not marked, but it’s unambiguously singular. Why?
Because if we wanted 2pl, we would have used this form (paradigmatic)
Slide 19 of 23
Contrast and theme signs
• The morphology doesn’t necessarily spell out all the meaning.
• It spells out enough to locate the form in a paradigm, and the contrasts in the paradigm can allow the rest to be filled in.
• Syntagmatic: ___ see you (__→2)
• Why is it ‘I see you’ (1→2) and not ‘she sees you’ (3→2)?
• Paradigmatic: if we wanted ‘she sees you’, we would have said:
4. Assessing the analysis
gi-wa:bam-in 2- see -2OBJ ‘I see you’ (1s→2s)
gi-wa:bam-igo 2- see -INV ‘she sees you’ (3s→2s)
where INV indicates that the object ‘you’ is higher-ranked than subject (so subject must be 3rd)
Forms like this are not an argument against an object-agreement analysis of theme signs.
Slide 20 of 23
Summary of proposal
• Proposal: theme sign is an object agreement marker in Voice°, always (Brittain 1999).
• When Infl° also agrees with the object, it “steals” the object person feature from Voice° (via impoverishment).
• The outcome is an underspecified elsewhere spellout of Voice, *-ekw, which we know as the inverse theme sign.
Conclusion
*i ↔ [1] *eθ ↔ [2] *a· ↔ [3] *ekw ↔ []
Spellout of Voice°
Slide 21 of 23
Benefits
• Captures the fact that all but one of the TA theme signs are fully predictable from the person feature of the object (can’t be a coincidence)
• Captures the link between theme sign and central agreement: inverse theme sign appears only when central agr indexes solely the object
• Captures the fact that the inverse is the wildcard in all variation
• All variation in patterning of inverse marking follows from variation in the articulation of the probe on Infl° (independently required to account for variation in central agreement, e.g. more portmanteau in Conjunct)
• Allows a very simple spell-out rule for the theme sign: it’s always Voice°, conditioned only by object person, with underspecified elsewhere form.
• Symmetry of SUBJ/OBJ throughout the grammar (dir/inv align’t) due to equidistance created by typologically rare true strong object agreement.
• The “special” ingredient that derives inverse marking is a constraint that seems to be reflected throughout the grammar (*[αPers] / [αPers]).
Conclusion
Slide 22 of 23
References (1 of 2)
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2007. Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- constraint. In Proceedings of the 30th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 1–14.
Bejar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. LI 4-: 35–73. Bliss, Heather, Elizabeth Ritter, and Martina Wiltschko. 2014. A comparative analysis of
theme marking in Blackfoot and Nishnaabemwin. In Papers of the 42nd Algonquian Conference, 10–33.
Brittain, Julie. 1999. A reanalysis of transitive animate theme signs as object agreement: Evidence from Western Naskapi. In Papers of the 30th Algonquian Conference, 34–46.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2005. The Algonquian inverse is syntactic: Binding in Passamaquoddy. Ms., University of Delaware.
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1989. Morphological change in Plains Cree verb inflection. Folia Linguistica Historica 22: 59–72.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1999. What Algonquian morphology is really like: Hockett revisited. In Papers from WSCLA, 25–72.
Fry, Brandon. 2015. The derivation of theme-signs in Algonquin Ojibwe: A multiple agree approach. Talk presented at the 2015 CLA Annual Conference, University of Ottawa.
Jones, David. 1977. A basic Algonquin grammar. Maniwaki, Quebec. Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 593–634. Lochbihler, Bethany. 2012. Aspects of argument licensing. PhD thesis, McGill.
Slide 23 of 23
References (2 of 2)
McGinnis, Martha. 1999. Is there syntactic inversion in Ojibwa? In Papers from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, 101–118.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313.
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29: 939–971.
Oxford, Will. 2014a. Variation in TA theme signs. Paper presented at the 46th Algonquian Conference.
Oxford, Will. 2014b. Multiple instances of agreement in the clausal spine: Evidence from Algonquian. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, 335–343.
Oxford, Will. 2014c. Microparameters of agreement: A diachronic perspective on Algonquian verb inflection. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
Oxford, Will. 2014d. Intralanguage variation in multiple person agreement. Paper presented at WCCFL 32, USC.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666.
Trommer, Jochen. 2003. Distributed optimality. Ph.D. dissertation, Universit¨at Potsdam. Woolford, Ellen. 2008. Active-stative agreement in Lakota: Person and number alignment
and portmanteau formation. Ms., University of Massachusetts. Woolford, Ellen. 2010. Active-stative agreement in Choctaw and Lakota. Revista Virtual de
Estudos da Linguagem 8: 6–46.
