Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2023) ► pp.194–213

Case and agreement puzzle in the Moksha debitive

| HSE University

This paper is dedicated to the debitive construction in Moksha Mordvin, which exhibits patterns unusual for a dative-infinitive construction (DIC). The non-finite verb can agree with its internal argument but not with the external one. The internal argument can bear both the definite nominative case, which is otherwise restricted to subjects of finite clauses, and the definite genitive case, which can mark both direct objects and definite possessors. Personal agreement is mandatory in the former case but prohibited in the latter. I propose that the Moksha debitive construction includes a null modal verb that assigns dative to the external argument of the infinitive. The case marking on the internal argument is determined by its structural position, in accordance with Dependent Case Theory. The case of Moksha demonstrates that the dative case in DICs can be inherent (contra what has been argued on the basis of Russian DICs) and that an argument for biclausality can be constructed based on case and agreement patterns.

Keywords: Moksha, Uralic, dative case, dative-infinitive constructions, agreement, Dependent Case Theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Moksha debitive
  • 2.Analysis
    • 2.1Null matrix modal verb
    • 2.2Is dative structural?
    • 2.3Position of the internal argument and the case and agreement pattern
      • 2.3.1Moksha case system
      • 2.3.2The agreement probe
      • 2.3.3Where is the internal argument?
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glossing abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00020.shi
References (38)
Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Christina Sevdali
2020 Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 381. 987–1051. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick
2004 The case of Q. In Proceedings of FASL, vol. 121, 1–35.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
1985 The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 161.373–415.Google Scholar
2015 Case. Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrie, Michael & Christine Pittman
2010 Mandatives: Lessons on raising/control diagnostics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 551. 131–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bikina, Daria
2021 Moksha “definite” declension, D-linking, and global choice functions. Talk given at Southern New England Workshop in Semantics, UConn (virtually). [URL]
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2008 Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burukina, Irina
2020 Mandative verbs and deontic modals in Russian: Between obligatory control and overt embedded subjects. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 51. 54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth
2004 Restructuring in English. Unpublished manuscript. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Efremov, Evgenii
2020 Dative case with infinitives in Russian. In Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. [URL]
Egorova, Anastasia
2018 Sentencial’nye aktanty [Sentential arguments]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 666–706. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Marta Grzybowska
2014 Non-canonical grammatical relations in a modal construction: The Latvian debitive. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Grammatical relations and their non-canonical encoding in Baltic, 97–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kashkin, Egor
2018 Opredelënnost’ [Definiteness]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 122–152. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Kholodilova, Maria
2018a Imennaja predikacija [Nominal predication]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 616–632. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
2018b Morfologija imeni [Nominal morphology]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 63–121. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Kozlov, Alexey
2018 Glagol [Verb]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 341–395. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
2000 Case and licensing. In Eric J. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 11–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Roger
2001 Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 141–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc & Rok Žaucer
2006 On the intensional FEEL-LIKE construction in Slovenian: A case of a phonologically null verb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 241. 1093–1159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murav’ëva, Aleksandra & Maria Kholodilova
2018 Poslelogi i reljacionnye imena [Postpositions and relational nouns]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 212–248. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Pleshak, Polina
2015 Semantics and morphosyntax of Moksha possessive constructions. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 1111. 379–393.Google Scholar
2021 The exponence of caseless NPs in Moksha. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 61. 628–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 The status of Dative case in the Moksha case paradigm. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 51. 108–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2014 Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
to appear. Taxonomies of case and ontologies of case. In Elena Anagnostopoulou, Christina Sevdali & Dionysios Mertyris eds. On the place of case in grammar Oxford Oxford University Press
Rivero, María Luisa
2003 Reflexive clitic constructions with datives: syntax and semantics. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, vol. 111, 469–494.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson
2001 On the nature of default case. Syntax 41. 205–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1989 Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. University of Lund dissertation.
Stenin, Ivan
2018 Passiv [Passive voice]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 491–545. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana
2017 Kodirovanie prjamogo dopolnenija v mokšanskom jazyke [Encoding direct objects in Moksha]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies 131. 123–157.Google Scholar
2018 Predikacii s glagolʹnym skazuemym [Clauses with verbal predicates]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 546–615. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana & Maria Kholodilova
(eds.) 2018 Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective]. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Tsedryk, Egor
2017 Dative-infinitive constructions in Russian: Are they really biclausal. In Wayles Browne, Miloje Despic, Naomi Enzinna, Simone Harmath-de Lemos, Robin Karlin & Draga Zec (eds.), Proceedings of Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, vol. 251, 298–317. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
2006 Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 371. 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne
2003 Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zakirova, Aigul
2018 Nominalizacii [Nominalisations]. In Svetlana Toldova & Maria Kholodilova (eds.), Èlementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of the Moksha language in a typological perspective], 753–778. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar