Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati

Abstract

This paper explores the φ-agreement system in Kutchi Gujarati, focusing on canonical transitive cases and on non-canonical cases involving psych predicates and modal auxiliaries. Based on the agreement pattern in the future perfect, we argue that φ-agreement in Kutchi Gujarati involves two agreement probes, a higher (number/person) probe in T, and a lower (gender/number) probe in the v/Asp area. After showing how such a system derives the split-ergative agreement pattern in canonical transitive constructions (Section 2), we extend our analysis to other types of verbs, specifically to psych predicates (such as gam ‘like’) and to constructions that involve modal auxiliaries (such as par ‘have to’), both of which require a dative-marked subject (Section 3).

Partially ordered case hierarchies

“…Note that it does not matter whether the object shows DOM or not, it triggers the same type of agreement, suggesting that both types of objects are in a relation with v. Indeed, Grosz & Patel-Grosz (2014: 241) conclude that DOM "appears to be connected to abstract (accusative) case licensing by v". In sum, Kutchi Gujarati agreement patterns show that direct objects pattern together, independently of DOM, and that both types pattern differently from indirect objects as well as subjects (see Grosz & Patel-Grosz 2014 for more detailed discussion). This is strongly indicative of a distinct type of syntactic relation (direct object) which, independently of its morphology, shows characteristic syntactic behaviour that crucially differs from that of other syntactic relations, even if their expression is syncretic.…”

“…Gujarati also has a complex agreement system (Comrie 1984;Mistry 1997;Grosz & Patel-Grosz 2014). Addressing it in detail goes beyond the scope of the present paper, but agreement is relevant in two respects.…”

“…Gujarati (Indo-Aryan) is a split-ergative language with overt markers of ergative (-e), locative (-e), dative (-ne), genitive (-n+agr), as well as DOM, spelled out as -ne, like dative (see Table 1 and Comrie 1984;Mistry 1997;Grosz & Patel-Grosz 2014;Irimia 2020). Unmarked noun phrases are often referred to as absolutive.…”

“…Objects with the DOM suffix -ne can control agreement, while datives with -ne cannot. Following Mistry (1997;; Grosz & Patel-Grosz (2014), and in particular Irimia (2020), I take this to mean that -ne represents the syncretic spell-out of two underlyingly different syntactic objects. In addition, the unmarked object kagəL in (8a) can also control agreement on the verb, showing that morphologically unmarked objects ((8a)) and objects with DOM ((8b)) behave alike, to the exclusion of dative-marked arguments (see also Mistry 1997: 432).…”

Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt II)

“…In contrast, subject‐verb agreement is frequently found only on heads. There are very few examples of agreeing adverbs in the literature (see D'Alessandro (, p. 37) on the Ripano dialect of Italian, Grosz and Patel‐Grosz (, p. 228) on Kutchi Gujarati, and Carstens and Diercks () on Lubukusu/Lusaamia). If it is correct to say that adverbs are syntactically similar to adjectives as is often assumed, then the failure of adverbs to show agreement is noteworthy.…”