Introduction

Many morphologically ergative languages display asymmetries in the extraction of core arguments: while absolutive arguments (transitive objects and intransitive subjects) extract freely, ergative arguments (transitive subjects) cannot. This falls under the label "syntactic ergativity" (see, e.g. Dixon 1972Dixon , 1994Manning 1996; Polinsky to appear(b)). These extraction asymmetries are found in many languages of the Mayan family, where in order to extract transitive subjects (for focus, questions, or relativization), a special construction known as the "Agent Focus" (AF) must be used. These AF constructions have been described as syntactically and semantically transitive because they contain two non-oblique DP arguments, but morphologically intransitive because the verb appears with only a single agreement marker and takes an intransitive status suffix (Aissen 1999; Stiebels 2006). In this paper we offer a proposal for (i) why some morphologically ergative languages exhibit extraction asymmetries, while others do not; and (ii) how the AF construction in Q'anjob'al circumvents this problem. We adopt recent accounts which argue that ergative languages vary in the locus of absolutive case assignment (Aldridge 2004(Aldridge , 2008aLegate 2002Legate , 2008, and propose that this variation is present within the Mayan family. Based primarily on comparative data from Q'anjob'al and Chol, we argue that the inability to extract ergative arguments does not reflect a problem with properties of the ergative subject itself, but rather reflects locality properties of absolutive case assignment in the clause. We show how the AF morpheme -on circumvents this problem in Q'anjob'al by assigning case to internal arguments.

show abstract

“…This might be compared to the "voice" systems of Austronesian languages (see, e.g. Chung & Polinsky 2009 and references therein).…”

Section:  Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries

Coon¹,

Pedro²,

Preminger³

2014

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides the Philippine-type voice system, Austronesian languages often show another typologically unusual syntactic property-the so-called subject-only restriction (SOR). As discussed in Chung and Polinsky (2009) and Gärtner, Law, and Sabel (2006), SOR is a restriction that permits only subjects (or the sentence's most prominent argument) to extract. "Extraction" in this context encompasses wh-movement, topicalization, relativization, and focus constructions.…”

Section: Deriving the Subject-only Restrictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(30) Subject-only restriction is Tagalog (Rackowski and Richards, 2005, p As with AVS, theoretical accounts of SOR are heterogeneous and range from invoking the Phase Impenetrability Condition (in combination with the claim that 𝑣P is a phase) (Rackowski and Richards, 2005) to positing a restriction against "promotion-to-trigger" and whmovement occupying the same Ā-position (Pearson, 2005). For a detailed overview of proposals, see surveys in Chung and Polinsky (2009) and Gärtner, Law, and Sabel (2006). Within the nominalization hypothesis, Kaufman (2009b) proposes an explanation for SOR as a restriction to extract from NP which, in essence, is similar to our proposal but differs in the detail as we will propose that SOR goes back directly to restriction against extraction from PP.…”

Section: Deriving the Subject-only Restrictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-standard glossing abbrevations include: av = actor voice; bv = benefactive voice; cm = case marker; iv = instrumental voice; lv = locative voice; pv = patient voice. Besides the question of whether the system regulates voice or information structure, scholars also disagree on whether arguments in the clause structure are base-generated where they surface or whether the surface structure is derived via movement (Chung and Polinsky, 2009). For the extraction of non-DP arguments in AVS languages, see Kroeger (1993, 43ff) and Erlewine (2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The origins of the Austronesian voice system and subject-only restriction

Beguš¹,

Dąbkowski

Drummond³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Austronesian voice system (AVS) is among the most typologically intriguing and well-studied phenomena in syntax. Previous diachronic accounts have used the comparative method to argue that either the voice function or the nominalization function of the voice affixes should be reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian (PAn). We propose an alternative path of development using internal reconstruction as a primary methodological tool. First, we reconstruct both the voice and nominalization functions to PAn. We then argue that the non-active voice affixes originated in Pre-PAn as prepositions, which were incorporated into the verb complex as postverbs; the nominalizing function, on the other hand, arose through an inter-stage with compounds. This proposal accounts for a number of properties of AVS, including the prominence of arguments promoted to subject position and the subject-only restriction, and is supported by a typological parallel in Dinka. Finally, we discuss methodological issues in reconstructing typologically unusual morphosyntactic phenomena.

show abstract

Syntactic Ergativity

Polinsky

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter presents the phenomenon of syntactic ergativity (SE), defined as the grouping of the absolutive subject and absolutive object into a natural class, to the exclusion of the ergative argument, with respect to A′‐movement. Two families of approaches to SE can be distinguished: those which place the explanatory burden on the derivation of the absolutive, and those which invoke the properties of the ergative expression to explain SE. For the first family of approaches, which include explanations based on locality and A′‐movement for case, the exclusion of the ergative from A′‐movement is a side effect of satisfying Case‐licensing needs of the absolutive. In the second type of approach, the restriction on A′‐movement of the ergative follows either from criterial freezing or from the adpositional‐phrase nature of the ergative. The approaches converge on the notion that ergative is an inherent case, assigned either by a verbal head or by an adposition selected by a v head.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries

The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries

The origins of the Austronesian voice system and subject-only restriction

Syntactic Ergativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About