On the Empirical Scope and Theoretical Status of the OC-NC Generalization

Ganenkov, Dmitry

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00321

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Finite Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, Caucasian languages (Khuduts Darwa and Udi, Nakh Daghestanian; Georgian) evince OC into desiderative inflected complements. In Khuduts Darwa, the embedded verb carries gender agreement (obligatory on all verbs that allow it) and with one class of infinitives, person agreement too (17b) (Ganenkov, 2019). This state of affairs presents a challenging question to typological studies of control: Why is the OC-NC generalisation valid for some languages but not for all?…”

Section: Landau -7 Of 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noncanonical Obligatory Control

Landau

2024

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive research on Obligatory Control (OC) in the past 2 decades has revealed a rich crosslinguistic terrain of deviations from the classical format. Five types of noncanonical OC are surveyed here: Finite control, controlled overt pronouns, partial control, proxy control and crossed control. Each one is described and illustrated, paying attention to methodological difficulties in establishing its characteristic empirical signature. We then turn to a critical assessment of leading theoretical accounts of these phenomena, pointing to merits and faults, and indicating how they can be integrated with broader concerns of syntactic theory.

show abstract

Section: Finite Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Landau -7 Of 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

Noncanonical Obligatory Control

Landau

2024

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to structural relations between a verb's arguments, existing work on Avar and related languages (Gagliardi et al 2014, Rudnev 2015, Polinsky 2016, Polinsky, Radkevich, and Chumakina 2017, Ganenkov 2019) is unanimous in claiming that the ergative argument in transitive clauses asymmetrically c-commands the absolutive one, displaying the characteristics of a prototypical subject in nominative-accusative languages. More specifically, the ergative can bind the absolutive but the converse does not hold; the ergative but not the absolutive changes to locative under causativization; the ergative but not the absolutive is the addressee of imperatives (Rudnev 2015:56-57).…”

Section: Argument-predicate Agreement In Avarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreeing Adpositions in Avar and The Directionality-of-Valuation Debate

Rudnev

2020

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the central spot afforded to unvalued features in current theorizing, the directionality of feature valuation is the subject of a lively debate in the syntactic literature. The traditional conception of upward valuation, whereby the unvalued probe inherits features from a valued goal in its c-command domain ( Chomsky 2000 , 2001 , Carstens and Diercks 2013 , Preminger 2013 ), has to compete with downward valuation ( Zeijlstra 2012 ), Hybrid Agree ( Bjorkman and Zeijlstra 2019 ), and bidirectional Agree ( Baker 2008 ), among others. Here, using data from Avar, I discuss the crosslinguistically rare phenomenon of adposition agreement, whereby certain adverbs, postpositions, and locative case forms undergo agreement with an absolutive argument. I set the stage by sketching the mechanism of case assignment and argument-predicate agreement in Avar ( section 1 ) and introducing the phenomenon of adposition agreement ( section 2 ). I then show that the agreement morphology on agreeing adpositions is a result of agreement rather than concord ( section 3 ). In sections 4 – 5 , I explore the consequences of adposition agreement in Avar for upward and downward valuation, concluding that upward valuation is better equipped to account for the observed patterns. In section 6 , I summarize the results of the discussion.

show abstract

“…A detailed argument that the infinitival complement with desiderative predicates represents OC is presented inGanenkov (under review). See alsoGanenkov (2019) for the argument that infinitival complements of desiderative verbs instantiate OC in the closely related Khuduts Dargwa.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Person agreement with inherent case DPs in Chirag Dargwa

Ganenkov

2021

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article argues that the syntactic behavior of non-absolutive subjects of finite clauses in the Nakh-Daghestanian language Chirag Dargwa is a result of their interaction with two different functional heads in a clause: v and T. Discussing empirical data from Chirag, I present the puzzling behavior of person agreement, which shows selective sensitivity to arguments in the ergative, dative, and genitive cases. The primary evidence comes from the periphrastic causative, which displays some typologically unusual properties in case marking and agreement. I show that the ability to trigger person agreement is not an intrinsic property of ergative, dative, and genitive DPs in Chirag, but rather is endowed to the highest DP in T’s c-command domain over the course of the derivation. I propose that all non-absolutive subjects start out as DPs assigned inherent case and a theta-role by v, and that T further assigns structural nominative case to the DP in Spec,vP, thus making it accessible to φ-probes.

show abstract

On the Empirical Scope and Theoretical Status of the OC-NC Generalization

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Noncanonical Obligatory Control

Noncanonical Obligatory Control

Agreeing Adpositions in Avar and The Directionality-of-Valuation Debate

Person agreement with inherent case DPs in Chirag Dargwa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About