Aspect-Based Agreement Reversal in Neo-Aramaic

12 Pages·2012·0.3 MB·English

Aspect-Based Agreement Reversal in Neo-Aramaic
Laura Kalin and Coppe van Urk
UCLAandMIT
1. Introduction
This paper discusses a pattern of aspect-based agreement reversal in Neo-Aramaic languages, in
which the functionof agreementmarkersswitches between perfectiveand imperfectiveaspect. In the
examples in (1a–b), for instance, the agreement morpheme that references the object in one aspect
referencesthesubjectintheother.
(1) Functionofagreementmarkersswitchesbetweenaspects:
a. qtil-´ı-le.
˙
kill.PERF-S.3PL-L.3MS
‘Hekilledthem.’
b. qatl-´ı-le.
˙
kill.IMPF-S.3PL-L.3MS
‘Theykillhim.’ (ChristianBarwar;Khan2008:167,282)
This reversal is not an instance of aspect-based split ergativity, since agreementin both aspects has a
nominative-accusativealignment. As such, agreementreversal persists even in unaccusatives, as seen
in (2a–b): the morpheme that references the unaccusative subject in each aspect is the same one that
referencesthetransitivesubjectin(1a–b).
(2) Reversalextendstounaccusatives:
a. Ma´mom´ıt-le q@`damta-w...
Mamodie.PERF-L.3MSmorning-CONJ
‘Mamodiedinthemorningand...’
b. lE´-qEm-i ra`ba.
NEG-grow.IMPF-S.3PLmuch
‘Theydonotgrowmuch.’ (ChristianBarwar;Khan2008:132,195)
Thisisanunusualpatternsinceitisbasedonthesamedistinctionasmanyergativesplits(namely,
aspect),butdoesnotappeartoinvolveanyergativity.Inthispaper,wearguethatagreementreversaland
splitergativityarenonethelessdrivenbythesameprocess. Wewillfirstshowthat,despiteappearances,
there is an asymmetry between the perfective and the imperfective. We then propose that agreement
reversal arises because imperfective Asp introduces an additional ϕ-probe, drawing on work on split
ergativitywhichsuggeststhataspectsplitsarisebecausenonperfectiveaspectsareassociatedwithmore
structure(Laka2006;Coon2010;Coon&Preminger2011).Inthisway,ourproposalprovidessupport
for this view of aspect-based splits in case and agreement, since it allows for the apparentlydisparate
patternsofsplitergativityandagreementreversaltobegivenaunifiedtreatment.
∗ OurthankstoByronAhn,SabineIatridou,AnoopMahajan,DavidPesetsky,MashaPolinsky,OmerPreminger,
Norvin Richards, and Carson Schu¨tze for helpful discussions and advice. We also owe a great debt to Laura
McPhersonandKevinRyanfortheirworkonSenaya.Weusethefollowingabbreviations: ACC=accusative,CL=
clitic,CONJ=conjunction,DEM=demonstrative,F=feminine,FUT=future,GEN=genitive,IMPF=imperfective,
L=L-suffix,M=masculine,NEG=negation,P=preposition,PERF=perfective,PL=plural,S=S-suffix,S/SG=
singular,1=1stperson,2=2ndperson,3=3rdperson.Theauthorsarelistedinalphabeticalorder.
© 2012 Laura Kalin and Coppe van Urk. Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
ed. Nathan Arnett and Ryan Bennett, 184-194. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
185
Thepaperisorganizedasfollows. Section2introducesthepatternofagreementreversal. Section
3 discusses the implications of the PCC effect found in the perfective and outlines the basics of our
proposal. Section 4 outlines how the presence of an additional ϕ-probe on imperfective Asp can
derive the pattern of agreement reversal, and presents evidence for this account from the behavior of
ditransitivesandfromanotherunusualaspectsplitinSenaya. Finally,section5showsthatouraccount
tiesinnaturallywithrecentworkonsplitergativity(Laka2006;Coon2010;Coon&Preminger2011)
andtheideathatnonperfectiveaspectsincludeadditionalprepositionalstructure(Demirdache&Uribe-
Etxebarria2000;Coon2010).
2. The patternofagreement reversal
Many of the northeasternNeo-Aramaiclanguageshave adoptedaspect-based splits in agreement,
apparentlyasaresultofcontactwithvarioussplitergativeKurdishlanguages(Doron&Khan2012).In
a number of Neo-Aramaic languages, this aspect split takes on an unusual form, in that no ergativity
appears to be involved. Instead, both sides of the split have a nominative-accusative alignment in
agreement,butthesubjectmarkingofoneaspectistheobjectmarkingoftheother.
WecallthispatternagreementreversalanditsurfacesinChristianBarwar,ChristianQaraqosh,and
relatedvarieties(Khan2002,2008;Coghill2003;Doron&Khan2012).1 WefocusonChristianBarwar
andChristianQaraqoshhere,becausethesearethemostwell-documented(Khan2002,2008).
Agreementreversalmanifestsitselfinthemorphologythatattachestotheverb. TheNeo-Aramaic
languageswediscusshereallmakeuseoftheverbaltemplatein(3),wherethetermsS-suffixandL-suffix
refertodifferentsetsofagreementmarkers.2
(3) VerbaltemplateinNeo-Aramaic:
Verbstem-S-suffix-L-suffix
TheparadigmsforthesemorphemesinChristianBarwar,fromKhan(2008),areinTables1and2.
Table1: S-suffixesinBarwar Table2: L-suffixesinBarwar
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1stperson -@n -@x 1stperson -li -l@n
2ndperson -@t -itu 2ndperson -lux(m.)/-l@x(f.) -lE´xi
3rdperson -∅(m.)/-a(f.) -i 3rdperson -le(m.)/-la(f.) -lE/-la
An importantfact about these paradigms, which holds in all agreementreversallanguages, is that the
default S-suffix (3rd person masculine singular) has a null spell-out. This will be important in our
analysis, aswe willproposethattheprobebehindS-suffixesispresentinsomederivationsbutfailsto
registeragreementandsospellsoutasdefault,whichisnull.
TheagreementmarkersinTables1and2combinewithanumberofdifferentverbalbases,which
areformedbymeansofroot-and-patternmorphology. Wewillbeconcernedwiththeimperfectiveand
perfectivebases. SomeexamplesoftheseinBarwararegiveninTable3.
Table3: Barwarverbalbases
Root Imperfectivebase Perfectivebase
pθx(‘toopen’) paθ@x pθix
m-sˇlx(‘tostrip’) msˇal@x msˇol@x
m-plx(‘touse’) mapl@x mupl@x
1 DoronandKhan(2012)treatagreementreversalasancaseofsplitergativityinvolvingextendedergativity(i.e.a
systeminwhichergativegeneralizestounaccusatives)intheperfective. Wedonothavethespacetodiscusstheir
proposalhere,thoughwenotethattheexistenceofsuchergativesystemsiscontroversialandthattheiraccountdoes
notprovideaprincipledexplanationofthedirectionalityoftheagreementasymmetriesbehindagreementreversal.
2 AlthoughweadoptthisterminologyfromKhan(2002,2008),thetermL-suffixisamisnomer,aswewillargue
thattheL-suffixesareclitics,followingDoronandKhan(2012). Thisismotivated, forinstance, bythefactthat
L-suffixes,butnotS-suffixes,canappearoutsideofotherencliticmaterial,specificallytheencliticauxiliary.
186
BothofthesebasestakeS-suffixesandL-suffixesinaccordancewiththeverbaltemplatein(3).
Thefunctionsoftheseagreementmarkersreversebetweenaspects,however. Whenattachedtothe
imperfectivebase,theS-suffixmarkssubjectagreementandtheL-suffixmarksagreementwithadefinite
orpronominalobject. Theexamplesin(4a–c),againfromChristianBarwar,illustrate.
(4) IMPERFECTIVE S-suffix=subject,L-suffix=object:
a. mEy-@´n-na ’ay-ba`xta.
bring.IMPF-S.1SG-L.3FSDEM-woman
‘Ishallbringthatwoman.’
b. xosˇe´ba la´-palx-i na`sˇe.
SundayNEG-work.IMPF-S.3PLpeople
‘OnSunday,peopledonotwork.’
c. ’a´namE´θ-en ’as@`rta.
˙
I die.IMPF-S.1SGevening
‘Ishalldieintheevening.’ (ChristianBarwar;Khan2008:115,132,135)
Thesubjectofatransitive,unergative,andunaccusativeallpatternalike(markedwithS-suffixes),while
objectsaretreateduniquely(markedwithL-suffixes).
Withtheperfectivebase,however,L-suffixesnolongermarkobjects,butcross-referencethesubject,
eveninanunaccusative.S-suffixesnowfunctionasobjectmarkers,andsoonlyappearintransitives.3
(5) PERFECTIVE S-suffix=object,L-suffix=subject:
a. xawr-a˘waθ-i brat-i grisˇ-a-la.
friend-PL-1SGdaughter-1SGpull.PERF-S.3FS-L.3PL
‘Myfriendspulledmydaughter.’
b. kalbanwix-le.
dog bark.PERF-L.3MS
‘Thedogbarked.’
c. brat-i qim-la.
daughter-1SGrise.PERF-L.3FS
‘Mydaughterrose.’ (ChristianBarwar;Doron&Khan2012:231)
Wewillrefertothispatternasagreementreversal. Itcanbeschematizedasin(6).
(6) Verbalbase S-suffix L-suffix
Imperfective - SubjAgr - ObjAgr
Perfective - ObjAgr - SubjAgr
Thisaspectsplitisquiteunusual.Itisreminiscentofsplitergativity,sinceitshowsupinaplacetypical
ofergativesplits,namelybetweentheperfectiveandimperfective(e.g.HindiandChol). However,both
sidesoftheaspectsplithaveafullynominative-accusativealignment,sothatthereisnorealergativity
anywhereinthesystem.
3. The perfective andthe PCC
We will start by developing our account of the perfective, which we take to have the most basic
syntax. We argue that, despite appearances, there is only one ϕ-probe in the perfective, which has
3 Justlikeobjectagreementintheimperfective,thisagreementissubjecttoadefinitenessrestriction. Wewillnot
tobetooconcernedwiththishere,thoughthereareatleasttwoaccountsofthisthatarefullycompatiblewithour
theoryofagreementreversal.Oneoptionistosaythatindefiniteobjectsundergopseudo-incorporation,inthesense
of Massam(2001) andDayal (2011), sothat theyareinaccessible foragreement. Another optionisthat definite
objectsraisetotheedgeofalowerphase(e.g.VP),followingthetreatmentofSakhadifferentialobjectmarkingin
BakerandVinokurova(2010). Thismovementstepwouldmakedefiniteobjects,butnotindefiniteobjects,visible
foragreement.TheformerapproachisadoptedfortheSenayafactsin(22a–b)inKalinandvanUrk(toappear).
187
to license both the subjectand the object. Thisprobeclitic-doublesthe subject, while registeringtrue
agreementwiththeobject,creatingtheappearanceoftwoseparateagreementmorphemes.Theempirical
motivationforthisproposalcomesfromthe existenceofa StrongPCC effectbetweenthesubjectand
theobjectintheperfective,andoursyntaxfortheperfectivemirrorstheBe´jarandRezac(2003)theory
ofthisphenomenon.
3.1.ThePersonCaseConstraint
ThePERSON CASECONSTRAINT(PCC)referstotheungrammaticalityofcertaincombinationsof
person when two argumentsoccupy the same domain (Bonet 1991). We will be concernedhere with
theStrongPCC,whichrestrictsthelowerargumentto3rdperson.InGreekditransitives,forinstance,a
directobjectcliticinthecontextofanindirectobjecthastobe3rdperson:
(7) DirectobjectcliticofGreekditransitiveshastobe3rdperson:
a. Tha tu to stilune.
FUTCL.GEN.3SGCL.ACC.3SGsend-3PL
‘Theywillsendittohim.’
b. *Thatu se stilune.
FUT CL.GEN.3SGCL.ACC.2SGsend-3PL
‘Theywillsendyoutohim.’ (Greek;basedonAnagnostopoulou2005)
WecanstatetheStrongPCCasfollows:
(8) StrongPCC(Bonet1991):
FortwoargumentsinadomainX,thelowerargumenthastobethirdperson.
Intheagreementreversallanguages,aStrongPCCeffectobtainsbetweenthesubjectandobjectofthe
perfective,suchthattheobjecthastobe3rdperson:4
(9) Barwarobjecthastobe3rdpersonintheperfective:
a. *grisˇ-an-le.
pull.PERF-S.1FS-L.3MS
‘Hepulledme.’
b. *grisˇ-at-le.
pull.PERF-S.2FS-L.3MS
‘Hepulledyou.’
c. grisˇ-´ı-le.
pull.PERF-S.3PL-L.3MS
‘Hepulledthem.’ (ChristianBarwar;Doron&Khan2012:232)
Most accounts of the PCC assume that PCC effects arise when two arguments compete for the
attentionofoneϕ-probe(e.g.Anagnostopoulou2003;Be´jar&Rezac2003;Nevins2007;Rezac2011).5
Assuch,wetaketheexistenceofaPCCeffecttosuggestthatthereisonlyoneϕ-probeintheperfective
ofagreementreversallanguages,whichhastolicenseboththesubjectandtheobject.
To be precise, we adoptthe Be´jar and Rezac (2003)accountof the StrongPCC. Be´jar andRezac
propose that a ϕ-probe can sometimes agree with multiple arguments because ϕ-probes consist of
separate person (π) and number (#) probes, which probe independently. These probes can end up
targetingdifferentDPsif theonethatprobesfirst, whichBe´jarandRezacassume isthepersonprobe,
triggers a change in the DP it agrees with. For Be´jar and Rezac, this change is clitic-doublingof the
4 Inordertoexpressa1stor2ndpersonobjectwiththeperfective,theselanguagesmakeuseoftwostrategies.The
objectcanbeembeddedunderapreposition,inwhichcaseallpersonsareacceptable,ortheperfectiveisexpressed
periphrastically,byputtingaperfectiveprefixontheimperfectivebase(agreementisjustasintheimperfective).
5 Note that the syntactic signature of the PCC means that a morphological analysis of agreement reversal, as
suggested by Baerman (2007) for Hertevin, is not appropriate for Barwar. For detailed argumentation that the
PCCissyntactic,seeRezac(2011).
188
goal DP, which they assume makes argumentsinvisible for further probing.6 If the person probe is a
clitic-doubler, the highest argument becomes inaccessible to further probing. The number probe will
thenenduptargetingadifferentDP.Inthisway,oneϕ-probecanagreewithmultiplearguments.
Thetreein (10)representsthissituation. PersonprobesfirstandagreeswithDP . Aspartofthis
1
Agreerelation,thepersonprobeclitic-doublesDP ,sothatDP becomesinvisibleforfurtherprobing.
1 1
Numberthenprobes,ignoringDP ,andagreeswithDP .
1 2
(10)
π,# CL DP
1 X DP
2
Be´jarandRezacproposethattheStrongPCCeffectemergesinthisenvironment.Specifically,they
arguethattheStrongPCCeffectarisesbecause1stand2ndpersonDPsarespecialinthattheyrequire
personagreementtobelicensed. TheycallthislicensingrequirementthePLC,statedasfollows:
(11) PersonLicensingCondition(PLC;Be´jar&Rezac2003):
Interpretable1st/2nd-personfeaturesmustbelicensedbyenteringintoanAgreerelationwithan
appropriatefunctionalcategory.
ThePLCmeansthat,inthesituationin(10),onlythehigherargumentcanbe1stor2ndperson,since
only the higher argument,DP , entersinto person agreement. In contrast, the lower argumentin (10)
1
DP ,onlyagreeswithanumberprobeandsowillviolatethePLCif1stor2ndperson.
2
The PLC is a licensing requirement that is independent of case. Be´jar and Rezac assume that
agreementwithanyϕ-probe,whetheritisapersonornumberprobe,sufficesforcaseassignment. As
such,a3rdpersonDPinthelowerpositionin(10)iscase-licensedbyvirtueofagreeingwithanumber
probe. And, since a 3rd person DP is not subjectto the PLC, it does not need to agree with a person
probe to be licensed. In this way, the lower argumentis restricted to 3rd person and the Strong PCC
effectisderived.
3.2.Agreementintheperfective
ToderivetheStrongPCCeffectinagreementreversallanguages,weimplementtheBe´jarandRezac
(2003)account.Wewilltreattheperfectiveinagreementreversallanguagesasanenvironmentinwhich
oneϕ-probeagreeswithmultiplearguments.Inparticular,weproposethatChristianBarwarandrelated
languagesdifferfromothernominative-accusativelanguagesinthatTcarries aϕ-probe, butnotv, so
thatvisinactive.7 Asaresult,thereisnoheadthatisdedicatedtolicensingobjects;thus,intransitives,
boththesubjectandtheobjecthavetobelicensedbyT.
To be precise, we propose that the person probeon T in agreementreversallanguagesis a clitic-
doubler, which clitic-doubles the DP it agrees with. The reflex of this relation is an L-suffix, which
we take tobe a clitic, followingDoronandKhan(2012;see also fn. 2). In theperfective,intransitive
and transitive subjects are then referenced by L-suffixes, because they are the highest argument and
thereforetheargumentthatthepersonprobeonTagreeswithandclitic-doubles. Thenumberprobeon
Tsubsequentlyagreeswithanobject,ifoneispresent.Weproposethatthisagreementisspelledoutby
6 We can see that cliticization makes DPs invisible for probing in languages like Greek and Basque, in which
clitic-doubledargumentsdonotcountforintervention. Onewayoftheoreticallyimplementingthisobservationis
proposedbyAnagnostopoulou(2003),whosaysthatthetailofaclitic-doublingchainisanA’-traceandthehead
ofthechainisnolongeraphrase,butahead.
7 IthastobeTthatisactiveandnotv,becausethiswouldnotmapstraightforwardlyontoaPCCconfiguration.
Specifically,iftheϕ-probewereonv,thenwewouldhavetomakeanadditionalstipulationaboutthedirectionality
ofprobing(upwardsthendownwards)inordertoaccountforthefactthatthePCCaffectsobjectsandnotsubjects.
Inaddition,whiletheperfectivecouldbeaccountedforthiswiththisstipulation,itdoesnotallowimperfectiveAsp
tointerfereinthedesiredwayintheimperfective,asisneededtoderiveagreementreversal;see§4.1.
189
an S-suffix, which markstrue agreement. These assumptionsimplementthe Be´jar and Rezac account
andsoderivetheprofileofagreementintheperfective.
To see exactly how this works, we will run through the derivations of perfective transitives and
intransitives. Consider first an example of a perfectivetransitive (12), in which an L-suffix marks the
subjectandanS-suffixtheobject.Thishasthesyntaxin(13).
(12) PERFECTIVE TRANSITIVE S-suffix=object,L-suffix=subject:
xawr-a˘waθ-i brat-i grisˇ-a-la.
friend-PL-1SGdaughter-1SGpull.PERF-S.3FS-L.3PL
‘Myfriendspulledmydaughter.’ (ChristianBarwar;Doron&Khan2012:231)
(13) TP
AspP
T CL
π,#
Asp vP
PERF
Subj
v VP
V Obj
Inthisderivation,persononTprobesfirst,licensingthesubject,andtriggeringcliticdoubling.This
cliticdoublingspellsoutasanL-suffix,sinceL-suffixesarethecliticseries.NumberonTnowprobes.It
ignoresthesubjectbecausethesubjectisclitic-doubled(seefn.6),andagreeswiththeobject,licensing
itaswell. NumberagreementwiththeobjectisspelledoutasanS-suffix. ThisderivesthePCCeffect,
sincetheperfectivetransitivemapsexactlyontotheBe´jarandRezac(2003)configurationin(10). The
objectoftheperfectiveonlyagreesfornumber,andsoviolatesthePLCif1stor2ndperson.
Thisaccountextendstoperfectiveintransitives,like(14),whichhavethestructurein(15).
(14) PERFECTIVE INTRANSITIVE L-suffix=subject:
brat-i qim-la.
daughter-1SGrise.PERF-L.3FS
‘Mydaughterrose.’ (ChristianBarwar;Doron&Khan2012:231)
(15) TP
AspP
T CL
π,#
Asp vP
PERF
v VP
V Subj
Inthisstructure,persononTprobesthesubjectandtriggerscliticdoubling(becauseπindiscriminately
clitic-doubles the argument it agrees with). This clitic spells out as an L-suffix. Number on T now
probes. Sincethesubjecthasbeenclitic-doubled,itisnolongervisibleforprobing. Assuch,number
findsnothingandspellsoutasthedefaultS-suffix(3sgmasculine),whichisnull.
Thisconcludesouraccountof agreementin the perfective. Intransitiveandtransitive subjectsare
markedthe same waybecausebothare clitic-doubledbythe personprobeonT. Transitiveobjectsare
different,becausetheyarethetargetofrealagreement,namelywiththenumberprobeonT.
190
4. The syntaxofagreement reversal
In this section, we develop our account for the imperfective. We propose that imperfective Asp
introducesanadditionalϕ-probe,whichcausesanapparentreversalinagreement. Thisprobe,andnot
T,willtargetthesubject,becauseAspismergedfirst. Tcanthenignorethesubjectandlicensetheobject
instead. ThisexplainswhythereisnoPCCeffectintheimperfectiveandwhyimperfectiveobjectsare
markedinthesamewayasperfectivesubjects—bothareprobedbyT.
4.1.Anadditionalϕ-probeintheimperfective
Asnoted,theimperfectivediffersfromtheperfectiveinthatthereisnoPCCeffect:theobjectisnot
limitedto3rdperson. Instead,we getfullagreementforpersonandnumberwithboththesubjectand
theobject,as(16)illustrates.
(16) NoPCCeffectintheimperfective:
’u-bt-amr-@`n-nux.
˙
CONJ-FUT-say.IMPF-S.1SG-L.2MS
‘AndIshallsaytoyou.’ (ChristianBarwar;Khan2008:175)
Assuch, we assumethatthereare two ϕ-probesin the imperfective,so thatthe subjectandthe object
can be licensed separately for person. In particular, we propose that imperfective Asp introduces an
additionalϕ-probe. This ϕ-probe is not a clitic-doubler, so that it only registers agreementwith (but
doesnotclitic-double)thesubject.
Inaddition,weassumethatS-suffixesspelloutrealagreementregardlessofwhatheadinitiatesit.
As a result, both agreementthat is triggeredby imperfectiveAsp and agreementtriggered by number
onTisspelledoutasanS-suffix. Imperfectivesubjectsandperfectiveobjectsarethenmarkedwiththe
samesuffixnotbecausetheyagreewiththesamehead,butbecausebotharethetargetofrealagreement.
To see how this proposal derives agreement reversal, we will examine how transitives and
intransitivesarederived.Considerfirstimperfectiveintransitives,liketheunaccusativein(17),inwhich
thesubjectisreferencedbyanS-suffix. Thesehavethestructurein(18).8
(17) IMPERFECTIVE INTRANSITIVE S-suffix=subject:
’a´namE´θ-en ’as@`rta.
˙
I die.IMPF-S.1SGevening
‘Ishalldieintheevening.’ (ChristianBarwar;Khan2008:132)
(18) TP
T AspP
Asp vP
IMPF
ϕ-probe
v VP
V Subj
In this structure, the ϕ-probe on imperfective Asp is the ϕ-probe that is merged first and so it agrees
with the subject. Because S-suffixes spell out agreement (regardless of where agreement originated),
thisspellsoutasanS-suffix. PersonandnumberonTthenprobe,butfindnoactivegoal,andsospell
outasthedefaultS-suffix,whichisnull.
8 AlthoughwerepresentAspasanundifferentiatedprobehere,itisalsoassumedtoconsistofaseparateperson
andnumberprobe.Sinceneitherisaclitic-doubler,theseprobeswilljustalwaysagreewiththesameargument.
191
Recall now that, in imperfectivetransitives, fullobject agreementis marked with an L-suffix, the
samemorphemethatmarkssubjectagreementintheperfective,asintheexamplein(19). We assume
theunderlyingstructurein(20).
(19) IMPERFECTIVE TRANSITIVE S-suffix=subject,L-suffix=object:
’u-bt-amr-@`n-nux.
˙
CONJ-FUT-say.IMPF-S.1SG-L.2MS
‘AndIshallsaytoyou.’ (ChristianBarwar;Khan2008:175)
(20) TP
AspP
T CL
π,#
Asp vP
IMPF
ϕ-probe
Subj
v VP
V Obj
Inthistree,theϕ-probeonimperfectiveAspagreeswiththesubject,asabove,andthisagreement
spellsoutasanS-suffix. WeproposenowthatBarwarmakesavailableamovementsteptospec-TPfor
thesubject,sothatitgetsoutofthewayoftheagreementprobeonT.Thisallowstheobjecttobeagreed
withwithoutthesubjectintervening.9 ThepersonprobeonTnowclitic-doublestheobject,creatingan
L-suffix. Thenumberprobedoesnotfind anargumentto agreewith, becausethe availablearguments
have either been clitic-doubledor movedout of the way of the probe on T, and so it spells out as the
defaultS-suffix,whichisnull.
ThisaccountderivestheappearanceofagreementreversalintheNeo-Aramaiclanguageswehave
examined. Agreement reversal boils down to the interaction of two factors. First, the ϕ-probe on
imperfectiveAspcausestheimperfectiveobjecttobetreatedliketheperfectivesubject(bothareprobed
byπonT).Second,becausetrueagreementspellsoutuniformlywithS-suffixes,perfectiveobjects(true
agreementwithT)aremarkedjustlikeimperfectivesubjects(trueagreementwithAsp).
4.2.Evidenceforthisaccount
This section briefly discusses some evidence for our account. First of all, the current proposal
derives some puzzling facts about a common strategy for expressing multiple objects in ditransitives
in these languages. Specifically, it makes an interesting prediction aboutditransitivesthat we show is
correct.Asthetreein(20)illustrates,thenumberprobeonTremainsfreeinouranalysisofimperfective
transitives,unlikeinperfectivetransitives(15),inwhichallprobesagree. Ifanadditionalargumentis
available,wethenpredictthatitcanbeagreedwithintheimperfective,butnotintheperfective.Further,
weshouldthenseethePCCresurfaceandaffectthelowestargument.
9 Thisisnotacountercyclicderivation.Instead,theclaimhereisbasicallythatthereisanEPPfeatureonTwhich
isunorderedwithregardtoT’sotherfeatures, sothattheorderingofprobingandmovement isfree. Weassume
thenthatthereisreallymovementofthesubjecttospec-TPinallofthederivationsdiscussed. Crucially,however,
orderingthemovementsteptospec-TPbeforeprobingresultsinungrammaticalityintheperfective,sinceitprevents
thesubjectfrombeinglicensed.Assuch,movementtospec-TPhastobeorderedafterprobinginthesederivations
and so does not affect the conditions on agreement. For more on the idea that arguments can move out of the
wayofaϕ-probeinthisfashion,seeHolmbergandHro´arsdo´ttir(2003),AnandandNevins(2006),Legate(2008),
SigurDssonandHolmberg(2008),Preminger(2011),andHalpert(2012).
192
Inanumberoftheagreementreversallanguages,includingChristianQaraqoshandAlqosh(Khan
2002;Coghill2003),weseeexactlythis,thoughwithatwistthatwewillshowprovidesstrongsupport
for our analysis.10 We illustrate with Qaraqosh (Khan 2002). In Qaraqosh, ditransitivesindeed allow
both objects to be marked on the verb with the imperfective base (and not with the perfective base!).
Intheseconstructions,a strongPCC effectobtains,so thatonly3rdpersondirectobjectsare tolerated
(21a).Ifthedirectobjectis1stor2ndperson,theindirectobjecthastobeexpressedinaPP(21b):
(21) StrongPCCeffectinQaraqoshditransitives:
a. k-ew-i-lux-ila.
INDIC-give.IMPF-S.3PL-L.2MS-COP.3FS
‘Theygivehertoyou.’
b. k-ew-´ı-lax gda´l-eh.
INDIC-give.IMPF-S.3PL-L.2FSto-P.3MS
‘Theygiveyoutohim.’ (ChristianQaraqosh;Khan2002:143–144)
This is exactly what our analysis predicts: the indirect object is the higher of the two objects, and is
probedbypersononTandclitic-doubled(surfacingasanL-suffix,thecliticseries);thedirectobjectis
thelowerobject,and,assuch,onlythenumberprobeonTagreeswithit,restrictingitto3rdperson.
However,thereisaninterestingwrinkleinthispattern.Observethat,in(21a),thedirectobjectisnot
expressedwithanS-suffix,asperfectiveobjectsare. Instead,agreementwiththedirectobjectishosted
ontheencliticauxiliary-i,whichalsoservesasthecopula. Weproposethatthisauxiliaryisinsertedto
hostthe strandednumberagreementonT, adoptinga viewofauxiliariesin whichtheyare insertedto
hoststrandedinflectionalfeatures(seeBjorkman2011forextensivediscussion).11
Assuming this, our analysis straightforwardlyderivesan otherwise puzzlingconstellation of facts
aboutthis way of realizingagreementin ditransitives. We derivethe presenceof a strongPCC effect.
More strikingly, our analysis explainswhy it is the highest verbalelement(the enclitic auxiliary)that
expressesagreementwiththelowestargument(thedirectobject). Finally,ourproposalderivesthefact
thatthisstrategyisavailableonlywiththeimperfectiveandnotwiththeperfective.
Anotherpieceofevidencefortheanalysisofagreementreversalpresentedherecomesfromanother
unusualaspectsplitfoundintheNeo-AramaiclanguageSenaya(Kalin&vanUrk,toappear).12 Inthis
language,agreementreversalisonlypartial. JustasinBarwarandrelatedlanguages,theimperfective
uses an S-suffix to mark the subject and an L-suffix to crossreference the object. In the perfective,
however,Senayadiffersfromthe languagesdiscussed. An L-suffixreferencesthe subject, butthereis
noobjectagreementandnoS-suffix(22a–b),sothatdefiniteorpronominalobjectscannotbelicensed
atallintheperfective(cf. fn. 3).
(22) PERFECTIVE NoS-suffix,L-suffix=subject:
a. axniidmex-lan.
we sleep.PERF-L.1PL
‘Weslept.’
b. axniixaksuutaksuu-lan.
we a book write.PERF-L.1PL
‘Wewroteabook.’ (Senaya)
In Senaya then, we overtly see what we argued is true for the agreement reversal languages
underlyingly: thereisoneagreementprobeintheperfective,buttherearetwo intheimperfective. As
such, the present account can straightforwardlybe extended to Senaya, if we assume that, in Senaya,
the L-suffix has been re-analysed as true agreement on T, while S-suffixes spell out agreement on
imperfective Asp. There is then no clitic doubling in Senaya, and the number and person probes on
10 Otheragreementreversallanguages,likeBarwar,simplydonotallowobjectagreementwithmultipleobjectsin
aditransitiveandinsteadalwaysexpresstheindirectobjectinaPP(Khan2008).
11 Crucially,insertionoftheauxiliaryisnottriggeredbytheL-suffix,sinceitisacliticandnotaninflectionalfeature
onT.Inthisway,thispatternalsoprovidessomeindirectsupportfortheideathattheL-suffixisaclitic.
12 ThedatainthissectioncomesfromfieldworkandmorphologicalanalysisbyLauraMcPhersonandKevinRyan.
193
Tagreewiththesameargument. Inthisway,theapproachdevelopedhereallowsforaunifiedaccount
oftwounusualaspectsplits,agreementreversalandSenaya’ssystemofpartialagreementreversal.This
approachtoSenayaagreementisfurtherexploredinKalinandvanUrk(toappear).
5. Accounting foraspect splits
Our syntax for agreement reversal languages derives agreement reversal from the idea that the
perfective has one ϕ-probe and the imperfective has two. The question that arises now is why there
shouldbeanadditionalϕ-probeintheimperfective. Inthissection,wesuggestthattheanswerliesin
workonaspect-basedsplit ergativitywhicharguesthatsuch splitsarise becausenonperfectiveaspects
introduceadditionalprepositionalstructure(Laka2006;Coon2010;Coon&Preminger2011).
Recent work on split ergativity explores the hypothesis that nonperfective aspects are associated
withadditionalstructure(Laka2006;Coon2010;Coon&Preminger2011). Thisworkismotivatedby
Dixon’s(1994)observationthatthereisaconsistentdirectionalitytoaspectsplits. Dixonpointsoutthat
aspect-basedergativesplitsarealwaysergativeontheperfectiveside(23),asschematizedin(24).
(23) Dixon’sobservation(1994:99):
“...If a split is conditioned by...aspect, the ergative marking is always found...in perfective
aspect.”
(24) Universaldirectionalityofaspectsplits:
(ERG/ABS)perfective>>imperfective>>progressive(NOM/ACC)
Coon (2010) proposes that Dixon’s observation derives from the idea, developed in work on
tense and aspect by Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000), that nonperfective aspects involve a
prepositionalpredicateabsentintheperfective. Coonpointsoutthatsuchanadditionalpredicatemay
also introduce a new case/agreement domain, shifting a language out of its canonical case/agreement
pattern. Split ergative languages are then really ergative throughout, but the presence of additional
case/agreementdomainsinsomeenvironmentsdisruptsthispattern.
This approach to split ergativity has been explored in two ways. For Basque and Chol, Laka
(2006) and Coon (2010), respectively, propose that this extra prepositional predicate is expressed as
an independentverb, so that nonperfectiveaspects are biclausal. Coon and Preminger (2011)suggest
thattheprepositionalpredicateintroducedbynonperfectiveaspectsmayintroduceanadditionalphase
boundary(Coon&Preminger2011),disruptingaMarantzianassignmentofergativecase.
Theseallinvolvenaturalpropertiesofprepositions. Sinceprepositionsarepredicates,theycanbe
expressedasamainverb.Inaddition,prepositionsarephases,sothatwemightexpectthispropertytobe
preservedaswell. Anotherpropertyofprepositionsisthattheycanintroduceϕ-probesandassigncase.
Ifwe taketheaboveviewofsplitergativityliterally, wemightimaginethatthesepropertiestoocould
effectanaspectsplit. Thisiswhatweproposeliesbehindtheadditionalϕ-probeintheimperfectivein
Neo-Aramaic.Whatdistinguishesagreementreversallanguagesisthat,inordertoexpressnonperfective
aspect, they make use of a prepositional predicate that retains a ϕ-probe. As a result, there is an
additionalϕ-probeintheimperfective.
Thestructureofperfectiveandimperfectiveaspectinagreementreversallanguagesisthen(25a–b),
whereAsp introducesaPwhichhasretaineditsϕ-probe.
IMPF
(25) a. Perfectiveaspect: b. Imperfectiveaspect:
TP TP
T AspP
T AspP
ϕ-probe
ϕ-probe
Asp vP
PERF
Asp PP
IMPF
...
vP
P
ϕ-probe
...