Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 14:2 (2014) ► pp.243–288

Complete and defective agreement in Kutchi

We describe and analyze the previously undocumented verbal agreement system of Kutchi (Indo-Aryan). We argue that Kutchi instantiates a novel type of split ergativity. First, it exhibits an aspect split in that agreement in non-perfective clauses behaves on a par with agreement in intransitive perfective clauses, in stark contrast to transitive perfective clauses. A striking property of Kutchi is that these asymmetries manifest themselves in the richness of agreement. In the former configurations, the verb agrees with the subject for person, number and gender. In the latter, on the other hand, agreement is systematically defective and reliable fails to cross-references certain φ-features. In addition to this aspect split, Kutchi displays a person split: While the verb normally agrees with the subject, it surprisingly fails to do so in transitive perfective clauses with a 1st person subject. Instead, it is the object that triggers agreement in these configurations, likewise in a defective manner. We will argue that these agreement asymmetries are syntactic in nature rather than morphological. Our analysis builds on, and extends, previous work by Laka (2006) and Coon (2010).
Keywords: split ergativity, aspect split
Published online: 9 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14.2.02kei
References (76)
Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 101. 2–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 171. 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 211. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Lorie Heggie & Francisco Ordóñez (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. University of Toronto dissertation.
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 401. 35–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1993. Ergativity and ergative unergatives. In Colin Phillips (ed.), Papers on case and agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 45–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 53–85. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differenzielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brown, Jason, Karsten Koch & Martina Wiltschko. 2004. The person hierarchy: Primitive or epiphenomenal? Evidence from Halkomelem Salish. In Keir Moulton & Matthew Wolf (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 34), 147–162. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2005. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2013. Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of “upward” complementizer agreement and the mechanics of Case, Ms., University of Missouri, to appear in Syntax.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica silesiana 31. 13–21.Google Scholar
. 1984. Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages. Linguistics 221. 857–864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2010. Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2012. Split ergativity and transitivity in Chol. Lingua 1221. 241–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. TAM split ergativity: Part 1. Language and Linguistics Compass 71. 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2012. Towards a unified account of person splits. In Jaehoon Choi, E. Alan Hogue, Jeffrey Punske, Deniz Tat, Jessamyn Schertz & Alex Trueman (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 29), 310–318. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Michael Barlow & Charles Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini & Devyani Sharma. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 101. 369–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. Ergativity. Language 551. 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 321. 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frampton, John. 2002. Syncretism, impoverishment, and the structure of person features. In Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha & Keiko Yoshimura (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 38), 207–222. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing, Ms., Northeastern University.
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum & Ivan Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick & Pritty Patel. 2006. Long distance agreement and restructuring predicates in Kutchi Gujarati, Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Ken. 1972. A new perspective on American Indian linguistics. In Alfonso Ortiz (ed.), New perspectives on the Pueblos, 87–103. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds.), Papers at the Interface, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–449. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Republished 2000 in: Research in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, eds. Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstein & Ur Shlonsky, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–151.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Tony Bures (eds.), Papers on phonology and morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Hanson, Rebecca. 2000. Pronoun acquisition and the morphological feature geometry. In Ilana Mezhevich & Michael Dobrovolsky (eds.), Calgary working papers in linguistics, 1–14. Calgary: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds.), Papers on phonology and morphology, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 2003. Distributed Morphology. In Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second GLOT international state-of-the-article book, 463–496. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elisabeth Ritter. 2002a. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 781. 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002b. Structuring the bundle: A universal morpho-syntactic feature geometry. In Horst Simon & Heike Wiese (eds.), Pronouns: Features and representations, 23–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian & Marc Richards. 2010. A probe-goal approach to agreement and non-incorporation restrictions in Southern Tiwa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 281. 681–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hook, Peter. 1978. The Hindi compound verb: What it is and what it does. In Kripa Shanker Singh (ed.), Readings in Hindi-Urdu linguistics, 129–154. New Delhi: National Publishing House.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller. 2011. Non-zero/non-zero alternations in differential object marking. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39), 441–454. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Jonathan Bobaljik & Colin Phillips (eds.), Papers on case and agreement I, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 149–172. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 2006. Deriving split-ergativity in the progressive. In Alana Jones, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiradije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 173–196. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1984. Actance variations and categories of the object. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 269–292. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2005. Phases and cyclic agreement. In Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds.), Perspectives on phases, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 147–156. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Li, Chao. 2007. Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 1171. 1462–1482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magier, David. 1983. Topics in the grammar of Marwari. University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
Mahajan, Anoop. 2012. Ergatives, antipassives and the overt light v in Hindi. Lingua 1221. 204–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), 234–253. University of Maryland. Reprinted 2000 in: Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, ed. by Eric Reuland, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–30.
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. MIT, Cambridge, MA dissertation.
. 1997. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari & Yamuna Kachru. 1977. Relational grammar, ergativity, and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua 411. 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patel-Grosz, Pritty & Patrick Grosz. 2013. Structural asymmetries: The view from Kutchi Gujarati and Marwari, Ms., Universität Tubingen. DOI logo
. 2014. Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati. In Pritha Chandra & Richa Srishti (eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface: Views from South Asian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samilan, Wendy Wilkins & Joseph Emonds (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and Merge. University of Toronto dissertation.
. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The person case constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 61–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2004. Object shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2008. Quirky expletives. In Roberta d’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar H. Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 181–213. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 21. 27–42.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006. Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 201–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On ‘ergativity’ in Halkomelem Salish. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 197–227. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In Roberta d’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar H. Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 281–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 301. 257–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yuan, Michelle & Matthew Tyler
2023. Agreement and the Realization of Arguments. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.