Chapter published in:
Discourse Particles: Syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and historical aspects
Edited by Xabier Artiagoitia, Arantzazu Elordieta and Sergio Monforte
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 276] 2022
► pp. 101–130

Chapter 4
Agreeing complementizers may just be moody

| Boğaziçi University
| Boğaziçi University

This study investigates two discourse-related particles, ya and şo, in Laz, an endangered South Caucasian language. We argue that both ya and şo are indexical shift complementizers which can occur without an overt embedding verb, suggesting root complementizer behavior. However, when they appear embedded, the mood specification of the embedding verb determines which of the two will surface, suggestive of complementizer agreement in mood features. We show that, while ya and şo need to be semantically distinct in their root occurrences, there are compositionality challenges against the null hypothesis that ya and şo keep their meanings when embedded. As an alternative to a formal agreement account, we propose to semantically relate the embedded and root occurrences of these complementizers.

Keywords: root complementizers, indexical shift, imperative mood, complementizer agreement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The particles ya and şo are complementizers
    • 2.1Evidence for the complementizer status of ya and şo
    • 2.2Evidence for the complementizer status of ya and şo
  • 3.On the morphological distinctness of ya and şo
    • 3.1What do the roots complementizers in Laz mean?
    • 3.2Embedded ya and şo
      • 3.2.1Are embedded ya and şo differentiated through agreement?
      • 3.2.2Are embedded ya and şo differentiated semantically?
  • 4.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.276.04dem
References
Akkuş, Faruk & Hill, Virginia
2021 Overt speakers in syntax. Glossa 6(1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew
2004 Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, Robert B. Young (ed), 20–37. Ithaca: CLC Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., & Bobalijk, Jonathan
2017 On Inherent and Dependent Theories of Ergative Case. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa De Mena Travis (eds), 113–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. & Zeijlstra, Hedde
2019 Checking up on (ϕ-) Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeder, Winfried
2002 Speech and thought representation in the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages. In Reported Discourse: A meeting ground of different domains [Typological Studies in Language 52], Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds), 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Božič, Jurij
2019 Constraining long-distance allomorphy. The Linguistic Review 36(3): 485–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian
2013 Modified numerals as post-suppositions. Journal of Semantics 30(2): 155–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki
2016 Delayed valuation: a reanalysis of goal features, “upwards” complementizer agreement, and the mechanics of Case. Syntax 19(1): 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose
2020 A Theory of Indexical Shift. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demirok, Ömer & Öztürk, Balkız
2015 The logophoric complementizer in Laz. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Linguistics Research] 26(2): 45–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demirok, Ömer, Özyıldız, Deniz, & Öztürk, Balkız
2019 Complementizers with attitude. In Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 49, Maggie Baird & Jonathan Pesetsky (eds), 213–222. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael
2013 Lubukusu complementizer agreement as a logophoric relation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2): 257–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo
2008 On quotative constructions in Iberian Spanish. In Pragmatics of Clause Combining, Ritva Laury (ed), 35–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 From hearsay evidentiality to samesaying relations. Lingua 120(3), 604–627. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Quotative expansions. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Utrecht 2011, Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen, Luisa Meroni & Manuela Pinto (eds), 93–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
1985 Logophoric Systems in Chadic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7(1): 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, Tom
2002 When ‘say’ is not say: the functional versatility of the Bantu quotative marker ti with special reference to Shona. In Reported discourse: a meeting ground for different linguistic domains, Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), 253–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David
1989 Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Themes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds), 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena
2012 Interpreting imperatives. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Fine-tuning natural language imperatives. Journal of Logic and Computation 29(3): 321–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian
2000 How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110(2): 69–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2001 Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Quantifiers in questions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3(4): 449–526.Google Scholar
Lacroix, René
2009 Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie): grammaire et textes. PhD dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2. http://​theses​.univ​-lyon2​.fr​/documents​/lyon2​/2009​/lacroix​_r​/pdfAmont​/lacroix​_r​_these​.pdf
Lord, Carol
1993 Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Podobryaev, Alexander
2014 Persons, imposters, and monsters. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Portner, Paul
1997 The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5(2): 167–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, Robert B. Young (ed), 235–252. Ithaca: LSA and CLC Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul, Pak, Miok & Zanuttini, Raffaella
2019 The speaker-addressee relation at the syntax-semantics interface. Language 95(1): 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2014 Agreement and Its Failures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe
1999 Propositional attitudes and indexicality. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2003 A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, Kirill, & Sudo, Yasutada
2014 The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 381–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya
2019 A New Theory of Indexical Shift. Ms, University of Leipzig. https://​www​.dropbox​.com​/s​/dw5c9w51wn3l3xg​/sundaresan​_indexicalshift​.pdf​?dl​=0 (30 September 2021)
Szabolcsi, Anna
2015 What do quantifier particles do?. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 159–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde
2007 Modal Concord. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 17, Masayuki Gibson & Tova Friedman (eds), 317–332. Ithaca: CLC Publications. < CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 317–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar