UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Nisgha syntax and the ergativity hypothesis Belvin, Robert S. 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A8 B44.pdf [ 3.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096319.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096319-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096319-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096319-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096319-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096319-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096319-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096319-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096319.ris

Full Text

NISGHA SYNTAX AND THE ERGATIVITY HYPOTHESIS  by ROBERT S. BELVIN  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Linguistics  We a c c e p t t h i s to  THE  thesis  the required  as conforming standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH October  ©  Robert  COLUMBIA  1984  S. B e l v i n ,  1984  In  presenting  this  requirements  Columbia,  freely  available  permission  scholarly  I agree that for  partial  purposes or  understood  that gain  by  may his  copying  shall  the  reference  for extensive  Department  financial  in  fulfilment  of  the  f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e The U n i v e r s i t y  British  that  thesis  not  be or  Library and s t u d y . of  this  granted  by  the  allowed  permission.  Linguistics The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date: October  1984  Columbia  Head  it  agree  thesis  representatives.  or p u b l i c a t i o n  make  I further  copying  her  be  shall  of  of It  for my is  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r  without  my•  written  ABSTRACT N i s g h a has been c l a s s i f i e d linguists  as s y n t a c t i c a l l y  Tarpent).  This  differently argument  proposed  than  three  (Rigsby,  Rood,  that  in certain  of a t r a n s i t i v e  verb  patterns  of the t r a n s i t i v e  or t h e  of s y n t a c t i c  r e c e n t l y by A l e c  Marantz  ergativity (1981) and  H y p o t h e s i s . The d e f i n i t i o n functions  is called  essentially  [NP,VP] and  the  says,  [ N P , S ] , we  will  functions  and  roles:  Syntactically  Ergative  Syntactically  Language  Accusative  Language  Agent-[NP,VP]  Agent-[NP,S]  Patient-[NP,S]  Patient-[NP,VP]  Morphological  ergativity  i s considered  phenomenon. I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y traditional  defined  a  different  as f o l l o w s  d e f i n i t i o n ) : Morphologically  l a n g u a g e s mark t h e s u b j e c t  of a t r a n s i t i v e  the  and t h e s i n g l e  object  of a t r a n s i t i v e  intransitive Given syntactic  single  h a s been  have t h e f o l l o w i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s o f g r a m m a t i c a l  the  and  intransitive.  the grammatical  thematic  different  by t h e f a c t  the p a t i e n t  definition  Ergativity given  the agent  of an  A new  ergative  i s motivated  constructions  by a t l e a s t  ergative  verb,  and  argument  leave  of an  unmarked.  t h e above d e f i n i t i o n accusativity,  syntactically  (following  accusative  of s y n t a c t i c  ergativity  and  I b e l i e v e N i s g h a c a n be shown t o be and m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y  i i  ergative.  Levin  (1983) p r o p o s e s a number of ergativity, Some d o n ' t  none of apply,  well  as  also  present  to  some of  the  particular, Principle, the  foundational  framework  I discuss  the  Nishga.  accusativity. in Chapter  p r i n c i p l e s of  (Chomsky  analysis  1981)  of  Nisgha.  As 1,  I  the  which w i l l  t h e t a - c r i t e r ion,  Case F i l t e r ,  Chapter  accusativity  be  In  the  Projection  Government, P r o p e r  Government  Principle.  2  i t i s argued  b e c a u s e of  prepositional  the  p h r a s e s and  s u g g e s t s movement. I can extraposition to  be  of a  the  that  position  find  no  SVO  correct  and  position  we  get  position  of  prepositional  a n a p h o r s . We  also  in  One  t h i s way.  v e r b movement rightward. A ( b a s e d on  the  the  i s that further  the  distribution  prepositional  factor  to  phrase,  Case t o  phrases  force but  there  that  of  does  of  for  rightward  genitives)  iii  clause-initial both  the  reflexive facts  only  in Nisgha  govern government  is also  need  we  this discussion  Nisgha categories  structure  of  weak c r o s s o v e r  conclusions  argument  to  concerning  p h r a s e s and the  [NP,S]. If  v e r b movement  predictions  explain of  syntactic  f o r c i n g v e r b movement, namely t h e  t o p r o v i d e a means f o r a s s i g n i n g assume a D - s t r u c t u r e  of  shows  subcategorized  b e c a u s e of  prepositional  factor  Nisgha  p o s i t i o n of  also  r e f l e x i v e a n a p h o r s . The  appear  " p o s i t i v e " for  II  In  of  the  Empty C a t e g o r y  Chapter  syntactic  E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis  subsequent  the  for  some show s y n t a c t i c  o u t l i n i n g the  relevant  and  w h i c h come out  and  Government-Binding  diagnostics  presented  of  here. Also analysis  i n Chapter  o f N i s g h a , which  comprehensive argues for  2 I discuss Marie-Lucie Tarpent's  that  analysis  Nisgha  ergativity  H y p o t h e s i s and  i s t h e most  recent  and  of t h e l a n g u a g e . T a r p e n t  is syntactically  are reviewed  ergative.  i n the l i g h t  a r e shown t o be  (1982)  Her  of t h e  arguments  Ergativity  non-arguments.  Chapter I I I This chapter contains a short learnability for  i s s u e and  evaluating  how  competing  i t might  discussion  of  the  be used a s a  criterion  a n a l y s e s , s u c h as t h o s e  discussed  above.  i v  Table CHAPTER  of  Contents  1  A. L i s t  1 o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s and t e c h n i c a l  terms  1  B. I n t r o d u c t i o n  3  C. Word O r d e r  5  D. A Summary  of the E r g a t i v i t y  E. M o r p h o l o g i c a l F.  Hypothesis  Ergativity  15  The G o v e r n m e n t - B i n d i n g Framework  G. Summary CHAPTER  8  o f R e s u l t s t o be P r e s e n t e d  2 ...  17 23 . . .25  A. Arguments A g a i n s t  S-Ergativity  25  B. V e r b Movement  30  C. T a r p e n t ' s  36  Arguments  D. C o o r d i n a t e  Reduction  E.  Focusing  F.  The I m p e r a t i v e  42 45  Construction  G. D e l e t i o n o f R e c o v e r a b l e H. I n d i r e c t  Causation  (Jussive Construction)  I . P a s s i v e and A n t i p a s s i v e CHAPTER  Elements  3  48 50 52 55 61  v  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My s i n c e r e s t  t h a n k s t o my c o n s u l t a n t s  Carjple M o r a e s , S a d i e S c a r r o t t Stewart, W i l f r e d cooperation, also  grateful thesis  l e s s than  Ron  Their  were i n v a l u a b l e .  Thanks  M i c h a e l Rochemont, and t h e r e s t  t o Don J o h n s o n a n d C a t h y Howett  thank my p a r e n t s  spiritual  and S a r a h P i c a r d .  from whose comments I b e n e f i t e d  under  Nyce,  Angus, W i l l a r d M a r t i n ,  i n t e r e s t and p a t i e n c e  t o my s u p e r v i s o r ,  committee  to  Stevenson  Harry  greatly. f o r typing  ideal circumstances. F i n a l l y  f o r t h e i r u n f a i l i n g moral,  support.  vi  of my  I am a l s o this I want  f i n a n c i a l and  CHAPTER 1  A. L I S T OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMS C-command  -  a c-commands  /3 i f and o n l y i f :  (i)  a does n o t c o n t a i n /3  (ii)  Suppose t h a t  maximal  '^'•••'7  sequence  such  7  (b)  7.  (c)  7^ i m m e d i a t e l y  Then  = a  = a  j  (II)  D-structure  -  approximately  subject.  D-object  -  the D - s t r u c t u r e  object.  d e t e r m i n a t e marker; d i s c u s s i o n , ergative third  infix; discussion,  person  discussion,  INFL -  future  ergative section  section  section  1B.  1B,2C.  pronominal p r o c l i t i c ;  2D.  marker.  approximately Chomsky  indirect  "inflection  (1981) INFL  head o f S 10 -  discussion,  1F.  the D - s t r u c t u r e  FUT -  d o m i n a t e s /3  1  "deep s t r u c t u r e " ;  -  3ERG -  either  0, o r  6 = 7^ and 7  D-subject  ERG -  + 1  connective  section  DM -  dominates 7 ^  i f S d o m i n a t e s a, t h e n  (I) S dominates  conn. -  i s the  that:  (a)  n  n  i s understood  (sentence). object.  1  element"; i n t o be t h e  2 JUSS LF -  j u s s i v e morpheme; d i s c u s s i o n ,  section  approximately " l o g i c a l  understood to  be a l e v e l ND  -  form";  o f s y n t a x , as  n o n - d e t e r m i n a t e marker;  i n Chomsky  2H.  (1981).  discussion,  section  1B. NP  -  noun p h r a s e .  PP  -  prepositional  PRO  -  p r o n o m i n a l anaphor (following  pro  -  phrase.  Chomsky  p r o n o m i n a l anaphor (following  REL  -  relative  R-expression  -  referential  Chomsky  marker;  t h i s , paper  which cannot  w h i c h must be  non-pronominal  governed  1982).  discussion,  may  governed  1981).  expression; this  be  section  2E.  f o r the purposes of  be u n d e r s t o o d as a  lexical  NP.  3 B.  INTRODUCTION Nisgha  ( m s G a ? ) i s spoken  western  B.C.,  family.  It i s closely  Skeena  and  River,  The  and  purpose  constrained  (2)  related  o f t h i s paper of N i s g h a  that  ergative  on  the language,  types  recurrent  i n the language,  v e r b ; common noun  and  fti-tit  (group)  language  taken  has  place.  been  i n t r o d u c e some discuss  to  done  basic  certain  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  examples.  argument woman r a n . "  woman  wan TOP  (3)  the  "The  pronominal  sit  i s , as i s  movement has  X hanaq' ND  previously  and  of t h e work w h i c h  morphemes t o f a c i l i t a t e  Intransitive  2  t h a n has  language,  I shall  the  t o d e v e l o p a more  whether N i s g h a  i s , t h e o r d e r b e f o r e any  sentence  run  syntax  along  Tsimshian.  what t h e D - s t r u c t u r e word o r d e r o f  previously  pax-  i s (1)  to determine  B e f o r e p r e s e n t i n g any  1  to Coast  of  Language  t o G i t k s a n , spoken  more d i s t a n t l y  a syntactically  determine is,  i s a member of t h e T s i m s h i a n  account  been o f f e r e d , claimed,  i n t h e Nass R i v e r v a l l e y  1  3pl  argument "They  s a t down."  4  Transitive 3  c£k -  a -  w  kill  verb;  common noun arguments  i stltntsk -  i wan  "The hunter  ND deer  a deer."  w  ERG ND hunter  shot  pronominal arguments 4  k&*-  - m ni: - n  9  "We saw y o u . "  see ERG 1 p l TOP 2 s g pronominal agent 5  y&c  -  hit/kill  9  -  y -  J ''us - y  "I  ERG 1sg ND dog 1sg  hit/killed  my d o g . "  pronominal p a t i e n t 6  set5:q-  e -  t  nu:- m  sanp5:kit  "The  i n v i t e ERG 3 s g TOP 1 p l c h i e f Transitive 7  invited  us."  verb with a r e c i p i e n t  kinam- e give  chief  \ hanaq'-  ERG ND woman  X ho:n  *>& -  i  likilepn&  ND f i s h prep ND someone  "The lady gave someone some f i s h . "  Note the l a b e l l i n g of c e r t a i n morphemes ( a l l above l a b e l l i n g from Tarpent a c c o r d i n g to Tarpent  (p. it  agent of a t r a n s i t i v e  verb.  different  the  "ERG" i n d i c a t e s ,  56, f n . 8 ) ,  immediately f o l l o w i n g  true d i s t r i b u t i o n a l l y ,  1982).  of  is ergative,  that that  the argument i s to s a y ,  Although what Tarpent  says  is  the  is  I w i l l present evidence f o r a  p e r s p e c t i v e on t h i s morpheme in s e c t i o n 2C.  The stem [ n i - ] , topicalizer.  l a b e l l e d "TOP" i s s a i d to be a  For the examples I employ i t  c o u l d be j u s t as  5 easily of  my  use "ND"  be  uderstood  argument  Tarpent's i s one  this  is irrelevant,  labelling.  Finally,  i n the Tsimshian  grammatical  function  one  non-determinate the d e t e r m i n a t e  transitive and in  marker  v e r b or t h e  are preceded  by  Tarpent  reports that  agent  m a r k e r ) and (1981:4). evidence  t-gus  and  that  a specifier.  There  markers  of an  and  preceded  marker  noun  [s] i f they or  appear  in a  PP.  i s (1) a p r o p e r  ascendent,  (where  of a  intransitive,  (3)  name,  the  [ t ] i s the  determinate  "so and  so"  of t h e s e morphemes s e r v e s  i s morphologically ergative.  be d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n  C.  t o an  t-gun  distribution Nisgha  their  nouns a r e  (4) t h e word k' inas: , meaning  The  though  of a t r a n s i t i v e  a deteminate  (2) k i n s h i p t e r m s r e f e r r i n g demonstratives  argument  the deteminate  o t h e r c o n t e x t s , e.g.  labelling  [ t ] i f they are the p a t i e n t  single  to  called  determinate  marker. Determinate  purposes  continue  t h e morpheme  i s more l i k e  t h r e e of t h e s e morphemes, two  f o r the  so I s h a l l  literature  are  by  stem, but  o f a s e t of what a r e u s u a l l y  "connectives" actual  as a pronoun  as  They  will  1E.  WORD ORDER The  possible  word o r d e r  i n Nisgha  to focus elements  t h e c l a u s e and  making  is fairly  in different  above d i s p l a y  It is  by moving them t o t h e  slight  positions,  the usual order  front  m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the  s e n t e n c e . V a r i o u s o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s can appear  rigid.  but i n an  cause  basically,  non-focus  elements the  independent  of  to  sentences  sentence.  6  Thematically  this  o r d e r , as c a n be seen  Verb-Agent-Patient (-Recipient). At  least  two d i f f e r e n t  regarding Nisgha's proposes  *Note t h a t  within,  p r o p o s a l s have been made  argue  i n no c a s e  except  third  (except  with her a n a l y s i s .  clitics  with  and not person), arguments;  analyses the [ t ] i n sentences  a 3sg agreement m a r k e r , and I  I t i s needed  so t h a t  the proper  e r g a t i v e ) i s assigned to the l e x i c a l  a pronominal  2  another  i s coreferent  w i t h any p r o n o m i n a l  (6) a s , more o r l e s s ,  (i.e.,  i s there  i n the case of t h i r d  t h e y do n o t " a g r e e "  v e r b . Note t h a t it  which  framework.  on t h e v e r b . T h e s e s u f f i x e s a r e  t h e y a r e t h e arguments. T a r p e n t  since  person  b e s t a n a l y s e d as p r o n o m i n a l  agreement m a r k e r s  case  an A s p e c t s  e x p r e s s i o n i n the sentence  therefore  agree  (1975)  for transformations  more o r l e s s ,  the p e r s o n a l s u f f i x e s  like  1  V e r b - A g e n t - P a t i e n t , w h i l e Rood (1977) a r g u e s f o r  constructed  since  the above, i s  D - s t r u c t u r e word o r d e r . R i g s b y  V e r b - P a t i e n t - A g e n t . Both  lexical  from  patient  has moved between  when t h e p r o n o m i n a l  patient  agent,  i t and t h e is third  person  does n o t move. F o r example,  h&c bite This  -  - i  a  ni -  t  "The dog b i t him."  ERG ND dog TOP 3sg  s e r v e s as f u r t h e r  the t h i r d  ^us  person  evidence  pronominal  would be ambiguous,  since  t o t h e 3sg p r o n o m i n a l  f o r Tarpent's a n a l y s i s . If  patient  d i d move,  the sentence  t h e 3sg [ t ] c o u l d c o r e f e r  or non-pronominal  argument.  either  7  Their  transformations,  theoretical  model, a r e  c h a n g e s s u c h as 8i  xS  following:  I  Indefinite  N  ana:x  eat  1sg  bread  the  '(Rigsby  c h a n g e d , and  not  differently.  t o the  data,  (Chomsky  changes  only  we  NP  x  ana:x  ni-y  eat  bread  1sg  ate  bread"  do  1981),  2  w o u l d not  would a n a l y s e especially  are  and  verb  patient  also related  framework  to apply  to  in section  may  Government-Binding  i n which a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  and  the  constrained  a number of p r i n c i p l e s .  refers  exchange  such changes  a more  the  itself  his proposal  1F and  to Aspects  of  I  such  will of  in Chapter  2.  the  of  Theory  I  1965).  derive noun  since  agent  they  transformation  word o r d e r  (Chomsky,  the  Aspects wish  i n v o l v e d . The  specifically  above would v i o l a t e  (cont'd) "Aspects"  I  the  In an  p e r m i s s i b l e , but  D-structure  3  NP  V  "I  s u r f a c e o r d e r i n g , but  Syntax  x  /\  bread"  d i s c u s s Rigsby's  2  structural  1975:349)  framework the  making  S  NP  —>  O b s e r v e some of  theory  this  3  Incorporation  y  be  powerful,  /  gup  ."I a t e  given  V  [-def]  verb  extremely  expect,  8i i  NP  their  might  v  / \  has  one  \ NP  VP V  the  as  ( i i ) from  ( i ) at a l l .  i n c o r p o r a t i o n as  i t i s not  fully  If anything,  a lexical  productive.  process,  I  as  8  will  also briefly  Before Coast  going  on  consider  Rood's p r o p o s a l  I w i s h t o m e n t i o n Dunn's  T s i m s h i a n . He  discusses  the  wherein c e r t a i n p r e d i c a t e s  precipitate  an  general t o be  this  the  groups  comparison  of  the  recent  work done on  two  THE  t o be  there  ergative  to e x p l a i n  paradigms  found  accusative.  or  In seems  dialect  sufficiently  beyond the  s c o p e of  has  been an  this  assignment  their  relation  existence  world's  hypothesis  status  of  the  Ergativity  observation  that  there  cross-liguistically, with  Hypothesis  of  Marantz of to two  languages: has  (1981)  0-roles  has  to  grammatical basic the  syntactic  ergative  been e x p o u n d e d upon  syntax  and by  extensively  of N i s g h a  as  ( M a r a n t z ) r e s t s on  i s a core  c l a s s of  regularly associates  c e r t a i n grammatical  of  i n p a r t i c u l a r on  ergative  accusative. The  a  paper.  i n c r e a s i n g amount  ( 1 9 8 3 ) , whose work I have drawn on  f o r the  to  languages to c o n s i d e r  the  the  i n the His  major  seem t o be  languages. Alec  about  functions  others.  i n Nisgha, which  three  the  languages,  argument p o s i t i o n s and  testing  the  "split  more l i k e l y than  of  ERGATIVITY HYPOTHESIS  years  proposed a theory  Beth L e v i n  of  1981). T h e r e  ergative  syntactically  the  found  d i f f e r e n c e s between  A SUMMARY OF In  i s not  most c o n s e r v a t i v e  significant  D.  phenomenon  (c_f. T a r p e n t  are  type c o n s t r u c t i o n  1F.  (1979) a n a l y s i s  phenomenon of  ergativity"  ergative  in section  f u n c t i o n s . The  verbs  the  which,  certain hypothesis  0-roles  in  9 essentially particular  s a y s t h a t u n i v e r s a l grammar d o e s n o t f o r c e a s s o c i a t i o n of t h e m a t i c  f u n c t i o n s , but t h a t a given  r o l e s and  l a n g u a g e may  one  grammatical  c h o o s e one o f two  o p t i o n s , w h i c h a r e shown b e l o w : The E r g a t i v i t y  Hypothesis  Accusative Agent-  [NP,S]  Patient-  If  Ergative (subject)  fl  [NP,VP]  (object)  subject  verb w i l l  be a s s i g n e d  be a s s i g n e d  (henceforth  (object) (subject)  mean t h a t t h e d e e p  D - s u b j e c t ) of a  transitive the D-object  t h e p a t i e n t 0 - r o l e . T h e s e same g r a m m a t i c a l roles will  S - s t r u c t u r e ) , given  language w i t h a c c u s a t i v e that  hold at surface  a transitive  G i v e n an i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b  configuration,  i t will  the agent 0 - r o l e , w h i l e  f u n c t i o n s and t h e m a t i c (or  [NP,VP]  P a t i e n t - [NP,S]  a language i s a c c u s a t i v e  structure  will  Agent-  (still  structure  verb. considering  a  s y n t a x ) we p o s i t t h e same  i s , [NP,S]-agent,  [NP,VP]-patient.  This  while  *[NP,S] r e p r e s e n t s  t h e NP  i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t e d by S,  [NP,VP] r e p r e s e n t s  t h e NP  i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t e d by VP i n a  s t r u c t u r e s u c h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g (cf_. Chomsky  V  NP  [NP,S] i s c a l l e d internal  1965):  argument  t h e e x t e r n a l a r g u m e n t and [NP,VP] t h e (Williams  1980).  10  means t h a t ,  not o n l y  D-structure,  there  t h e m a t i c a l l y , but s y n t a c t i c a l l y , a t  will  be two t y p e s  of i n t r a n s i t i v e s :  assigning  a 0-role  t o [NP,S] ( a g e n t  assigning  a 0-role  t o [NP,VP] ( p a t i e n t o n l y ) . T h e s e w i l l  called (cf_.  "unergative"  Burzio At  and " u n a c c u s a t i v e "  1981, P e r l m u t t e r  S-structure,  disappears,  however, t h i s  for this  any  which does not a s s i g n  position assign  Filter  case t o i t s D-object.  two to  5  kinds  of the  difference  unaccusative  p o s i t i o n . The  a 0-role  to  who c l a i m s  an u n a c c u s a t i v e ) The D - o b j e c t  5  Thus, a l t h o u g h  of i n t r a n s i t i v e s ,  will  must  a l s o not  therefore t h e Case  at D-structure  at S-structure  that  D-subject  p o s i t i o n to get Case; otherwise  is violated.  be  respectively  structural  comes from work by B u r z i o ,  (as i s the case with  move t o s u b j e c t  those  verbs,  a l w a y s move t o S - s u b j e c t  argument verb  and  1978).  because the D-object  sentence w i l l  only)  those  there  there are  will  appear  be o n l y o n e .  T h e Case F i l t e r  Case  (capital  Case a s s i g n e r discussed  requires that  " c " i n d i c a t e s a b s t r a c t c a s e ) by an (Chomsky  more f u l l y  feature  [±T] i s u s e d  assigns  a 0-role  verb  assigns  discussed  Case  further  Antipassive  any non-empty NP be  l981). This  in section i n Levin  will  t o d e n o t e whether  to i t s D-object. i n connection  appropriate  1F. Note a l s o t h a t  to i t s D-subject.  (section 21).  principle  assigned  a  be the the verb  [±A] d e n o t e s whether a These  with  features w i l l  the P a s s i v e and  be  11  Now  structural  relations  syntax.  The  patient  0-role  0-role.  The  at  D-subject while  Given agent-only  have  an  the D-object  intransitive  verb  will  language,  because the  g e t Case s i n c e by r e c e i v e Case  relations  case  verb,  about  appear  internal  a syntactically ergative  syntactic Ergativity  (no  will,  unergative  argument w i l l  Hypothesis  to case  M-accusativity.  the  will  agent hold  the  (no  just  [NP,VP] as  i n an  at S - s t r u c t u r e ,  move i n o r d e r it will  to  not  position.  ergativity.  of e r g a t i v i t y  There  0-roles  i s no are  we  mention  have e i t h e r  s y s t e m , as may I  will  are of  r e l e v a n t . Case  i s a s e p e r a t e phenomenon, s u c h  e r g a t i v e language.  ergativity  the  [NP,S] a r g u m e n t )  unergative  a c c u s a t i v e l a n g u a g e may  morphological  referring  be  t o be  or an a c c u s a t i v e c a s e  syntactically  assigned  at D - s t r u c t u r e  i n t h e above d e s c r i p t i o n  i t i s claimed,  assigned  0-roles  Burzio's generalization  syntactic  be  ergative  verb.  intransitives  s y s t e m s ; o n l y s t r u c t u r e and  marking,  be  and  unaccusative  in i t s D-structure  Note t h a t talking  of  will  will  the p a t i e n t - o n l y verb w i l l  accusative again  be  and  in a language w i t h  of a t r a n s i t i v e  same s y n t a c t i c  argument). Both types  and  we  S-structure, given a t r a n s i t i v e  while  t9-roles  c o n s i d e r what a s s o c i a t i o n s of  that  an  a  henceforth  refer  and  accusativity  as d e f i n e d  as  S-ergativity  and S - a c c u s a t i v i t y ,  ergativity  and  i n the  accusativity ( i . e .  s y s t e m s ) as M - e r g a t i v i t y and  to  12 With a l i t t l e definition fairly case  reflection,  of S - e r g a t i v i t y d i s c u s s e d  radical  potential  i f we r e t a i n  o f an e r g a t i v e c a s e f o r a great  deal  we d e f i n e an e r g a t i v e c a s e (external  and the s i n g l e  have no d i s t i n c t i v e potential  system. That  of c o n f u s i o n  type:  will  be d i s t i n c t l y  argument) o f a  o f an i n t r a n s i t i v e i s such  that  marked o r unmarked  i s ) i n both  S - e r g a t i v e and  languages:  0-role Accusative  Languages Case  Ergative  Case  Agt  UNMARKED(nom)  MARKED(erg)  Pat  MARKED(accus)  UNMARKED(abs)  Agent-only  Agt  UNMARKED(nom)  UNMARKED(abs)  Patient-only  Pat  UNMARKED(nom)  UNMARKED(abs)  Agent-Patient  will  compare t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s , w h i c h  S-accusative Verb  i s , there i s  and m i s l a b e l l i n g i f  verb  (internal argument  (marked by c a s e ,  S-accusative  be  l a b e l l i n g of  m a r k i n g . To s e e why t h e r e  for confusion,  will  system as f o l l o w s : t h e s u b j e c t  show t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f 0 - r o l e s w i t h arguments  there  the t r a d i t i o n a l  argument) o f a t r a n s i t i v e  marked, whereas t h e o b j e c t transitive  above,  r a m i f i c a t i o n s f o r the proper  systems, a t l e a s t  definition  one c a n s e e t h a t w i t h t h e  13  Verb type  0-role  Agent-Patient  S-ergative  Languages  Accusative  Case  Ergative  Case  Agt  MARKED(accus)  UNMARKED(abs)  Pat  UNMARKED(nom)  MARKED(erg)  Agent  Agt  UNMARKED(nom)  UNMARKED(abs)  Patient  Pat  UNMARKED(nom)  UNMARKED(abs)  (tables  from L e v i n , p.62)  Notice  that  exactly  the S-ergative  language with  a c c u s a t i v e case has  t h e same t h e same c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f marked and  unmarked a r g u m e n t s a s does t h e S - a c c u s a t i v e ergative with  case.  The same i s t r u e o f t h e S - a c c u s a t i v e  a c c u s a t i v e case  ergative  case  arguments,  language  and the S - e r g a t i v e  ( i . e . by l o o k i n g o n l y  language  at 0-roles  with language  with  a n d marked  t h e two a r e i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e ) .  What t h e above t a b l e p o i n t s t o i s t h e need t o d e t e r m i n e a l a n g u a g e ' s D- a n d S - s t r u c t u r e a n d how t h e y 0-role assignment  and case  marking  i n order  accurate  identification  of the language  possible  language  are again  time and  types  including their case  structural  marking. Notice  that  t o make an  type.  schematized  relations  in this  relate to  The f o u r below,  as w e l l as 0 - r o l e s  table there  paradigms which a r e i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e :  this  a r e no two  14  S-accusative Verb  Language  Structure Relation  type  I>  0-role  Case  System  Accusat ive  Ergative  Agt  D- sub j  s- s u b j  UNMARKED(nom) MARKED(erg)  Pat  D- o b j  s- o b j  MARKED(acc)  Agt  Agt  D-•sub j  s- •subj  UNMARKED(nom) UNMARKED(abs)  Pat  Pat  D-•obj  s- •subj  UNMARKED(nom) UNMARKED(abs)  Agt-Pat  S-erqative Verb  Language  Structure Relation  type  0-role  UNMARKED(abs)  Case  D-  S-  Agt  D-obj  S-obj  MARKED(acc)  UNMARKED(abs)  Pat  D-subj  S-subj  UNMARKED(nom)  MARKED(erg)  Agt  Agt  D-obj  S-subj  UNMARKED(nom)  UNMARKED(abs)  Pat  Pat  D-subj  S-subj  UNMARKED(nom)  UNMARKED(abs)  (tables  from  Agt-Pat  Accusative  System  L e v i n p.62)  Thus, one must have a l l t h r e e t y p e s given  language  language  i t  Levin language's its  following because  recent  t o be c e r t a i n  o f what t y p e o f  is. a number o f t e s t s  (p.58ff).  analysis,  they  Nisgha,  of i n f o r m a t i o n about a  f o r determining a  s t r u c t u r e a n d how i t r e l a t e s  I could t e l l . to  i n order  suggests  arguments  Ergative  Some of t h e s e  I will  mention  b u t most o f them have been  d i d not apply  t o Nisgha,  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e  as w e l l as c e r t a i n  analyses  t o t h e 0-marking of  of Nisgha  other  (Tarpent  at least  i n the  omitted not so f a r as  tests  w h i c h do  apply  tests,  I will  that  1981,1982) have  argue  15  improperly  classified  morphology  ( e . g . see T a r p e n t  E . MORPHOLOGICAL  i t as h a v i n g e r g a t i v e 1982, p . 5 5 ) .  ERGATIVITY  In t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n about  structural  systems I will  the r e a d e r briefly The  i n Chapter  that  distribution paradigm.  PP's a n d c e r t a i n  agent  determinate agents  marking,  Nisgha  accurately.  i s S-accusative. If  accept t h i s ,  I will  of t h e d e t e r m i n a t e m a r k e r s sentence  embedded c o n s t r u c t i o n s ) v e r b i s .preceded  or p a t i e n t s  here  that  I am a r g u i n g t h a t  they  reflect  (as w e l l as  the determinate  by [ s ] , w h i l e  of a s i n g l e  than c l a i m i n g  f o l l o w s an  argument of a  this  reflection (i.e.  i t i s always  [X ] ) .  transitive  t h e Case of t h e  i s f e a t u r e p e r c o l a t i o n . There i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n  verb are  t h e DM's a r e c a s e  argument t h e y p r e c e d e . The f o r m a l mechanism w h i c h allow  here  i s also M-ergative.  by [ t ] , a s a r e d e t e r m i n a t e p a t i e n t s  verb. Rather  and case  a g i v e n language  I n an i n d e p e n d e n t  of a t r a n s i t i v e  preceded  2 that  Nisgha  that information  0-role assignment,  f o r t h e moment w i l l  argue  M-ergative in  relations,  I argued  was n e e d e d t o c l a s s i f y argue  syntax and  would  i s no s u c h  of t h e n o n - d e t e r m i n a t e  Some e x a m p l e s  follow:  marker  16  Intransitives Agent-only: 9  ta:*t-  Mary  t  leave  DM  "Mary  left."  Agent  Patient-only: 10  ku'?usk - t  John  w  fall  'John f e l l  down."  Pat i e n t  DM  Transitives 11  Jamo:m- a - s help  Oblique 12  ERG  case  Lucy  DM  AGENT DM  ERG  "Peter  "Lucy  i ho:n  DM  Agent ND  gave a f i s h  fish  *>a - s nox P r e p DM  of  probably  insufficient  to e s t a b l i s h  [-a-]  later  argue  morpheme, t h e M-ergative independent unmarked.  suggests  indicates  markers alone  concretely that of c e r t a i n  an M - e r g a t i v e  remains  paradigm. That  that  Nisgha  The  interpretation its distribution  of  I  this  is like  [NP,S] ( i n an  the other.arguments  is  ERG  paradigm. Although  i s , i t marks  sentence), while  is  other  morphological e r g a t i v i t y .  for a different  fact  mother-3sg  the d e t e r m i n a t e  M - e r g a t i v e . However t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n morphemes a l s o  - t  t o h i s mother."  distribution  will  Mary."  Patient  The  suffix  helped  (PP)  kinam- a - s P e t e r give  t Mary  are  left  the  17  F.  THE  GOVERNMENT-BINDING  In  this section  c o n c e p t s of which w i l l  the enter  I will  in to  the of  generates a D-structure structure  thematic  of  transformation, "move any  b e c a u s e of  permissible  Chomsky and most p a r t ,  on  p a r a m e t e r i z e d model  following Projection Principle  S-structure), argument of  the  arguments to  the  verb.  constraints  part  of  of  and  general  be  and  Baltin  is feasible  what Move-a are,  S-structures (cf. for  the  grammar, a  1982). p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant the  0 - c r i t e r ion, and  the  in  the  the  Empty  Category  0 - c r i t e r i o n , which e f f e c t i v e l y a p p l i e s the  the  i s as  Theta C r i t e r i o n  a very  1 976  on  universal  Case F i l t e r  syntax  ensures that  this constraint  by  transformation  specifically  l e v e l s of  structure  (c^f. Chomsky  a p p l i c a t i o n of  P r i n c i p l e , the  to a l l three  syntactic  general  principles will  ( E C P ) . The  of  the  (cf_. Chomsky  analysis,  rules  includes  1977). T h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s  p r o p o s e d as  Nisgha.  "Move-a", w h i c h e s s e n t i a l l y s a y s  restrictive  Lasnick  Several  the  anywhere"  and  of  1981)  which p r o v i d e s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  known as  very  key  (Chomsky  X-bar p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e  sentence which  ultimately  some  framework  i s r e l a t e d to S - s t r u c t u r e  category  1981). T h i s  are  a  discuss  subsequent a n a l y s i s  r e l a t i o n s h i p s of  D-structure  briefly  Government-Binding  A base component  the  FRAMEWORK  the  (LF and  D-  and  r e q u i r e m e n t s made by  verb are follows:  satisfied.  The  the  statement  18 Every argument bears one and only one 0 - r o l e , and each 0 - r o l e  i s assigned to one and only one argument.  (Chomsky 1981:36) The P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with the 0-criterion.  It  i s s t a t e d i n f o r m a l l y as  Projection Principle  follows:  6  R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s at each s y n t a c t i c and D- and S - s t r u c t u r e )  level  (i.e.  are p r o j e c t e d from the  LF,  lexicon,  in that they observe the s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r o p e r t i e s ,  lexical  items (Chomsky  of  1981:29).  »j 6  The formal statement of t h i s p r i n c i p l e structural  i s as f o l l o w s :  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of the f o l l o w i n g  an immediate c o n s t i t u e n t (a)  (b)  Given  form where a i s  of 7 :  [7...a...^...] [7.  .  .(3.  . .a. . . ]  then (i)  if  L^,  and y=a, then a 0-marks 0 in 7 .  (ii)  0 i s an immediate c o n s t i t u e n t  if  at  if  (a,b)  a s e l e c t s 0 in 7 as a l e x i c a l p r o p e r t y ,  s e l e c t s p in 7 at (iii)  of 7 in  then a s e l e c t s 0 i n 7  Ly  c o n s i d e r i n g throughout D-structure,  then a  L..  a s e l e c t s /3 in 7 at L^,  where the v a r i a b l e s L^,  at  Lj  range over what we are  to be " s y n t a c t i c  S-structure.  (Chomsky  levels":  1981:38).  LF,  19  From this  these  i t i s only  projection  principles necessary  principle  from e i t h e r  D-structure  to  S-structure, position by  its  that  trace  an  record  element  mentioned  1981  of  see  this,  Indefinite  NP  Incorporation  S-structure.  In  the  is  since  "I"  (0)  at D - s t r u c t u r e ,  While analysis his  this  will  This  Rood's p r o p o s a l  which  work  be  i n most c a s e s  have been moved  the  i s not  (a) w i l l the  NP  be  6>-marking  from  we  changes  would  directly  Government  in  topic  yielding  ( 1 9 7 5 : 2 2 2 ) . The  transformation  that  (i)  Rigsby's framework, further  should  2.  also  be  D-structure  obligatory extraposition  proposes  NP  S-structure.  i n Chapter  a Verb-Agent-Patient he  from  c9-mark t h e  deserves  for a Verb-Patient-Agent  transformation,  say  Binding  word o r d e r  u n d e r g o e s an  places  recoverable  "bread" at  a major  as  Projection  transformation  for D-structure  argues  for  i n h i s d e p i c t i o n of  statement  i n the  will  the  original  transformation,  for Nisgha's D-structure  consideration.  m e n t i o n e d . He  particular  not  suggestion  but  for  example,  [NP,VP] s i m p l y  that D-structure  verb  order  Case and  that  so  the  In  see  t r a c e . It should  violates  [NP,S],  violated,  be  To  )  notice  formal  must  them may  i s the  (Section C),  To  i n order  each c o n s t i t u e n t ' s  f o r example, R i g s b y ' s above  for  "inherit"  Principle.  with  from,  then, can  that  S-structure.  s i n c e any  (c_f. Chomsky  Thus,  or  of  is derived.  D-structure  recoverable  exist,  Move-a; t h a t  noted  LF  some r e c o r d  must  theory  to observe  to hold,  recoverable  be  trace  S-structure  i s depicted  as  20  follows: S  13i  /\  VP / \ V  1 3 i ii NP. Extraposition Agent —  Patient  NP  >  V As Rood no way  formulates  trace  of t h e moved e l e m e n t ,  discussed Case analysis.  in Chapter  or may  capitalization  Case  by  will  a l s o be r e l e v a n t  "Case").  and p r e p o s i t i o n s a r e The  0-marking,  the 0 - c r i t e r i o n problem  so  will  be  including a still  These  be  will  other, be  [-N])  Filter  itself  i n the  subsequent  of t h e grammar w h i c h i s (Chomsky  any m o r p h o l o g i c a l of  (above) t h e r e i s  t o get  for his proposal.  " a b s t r a c t Case"  n o t have  Agent  but t h e r e  i s the subsystem  concerned with  Patient•  2.  Theory w i l l This  and  remedy t h i s  more s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s  VP  at S-structure  both the P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e Rood c o u l d  /  the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  f o r the P a t i e n t  violated.  S  Only  1981:6),  realization [-N]  elements  can a s s i g n  Case.  which  may  (note (verbs,  INFL  enough,  as  7  i s stated, simply  follows:  7  Two p r o p o s e d s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s  the  major  c a t e g o r i e s as  follows:  ([±N],  verbs=[+V,-N],  nouns=[-V,+N], p r e p o s i t i o n s = [ - V , - N ] , Note in  t h a t Rood w i l l  his S-structure  analysis  given  have will  t h e GB  [±V]) d i s t i n g u i s h  difficulty  and  adjectives=[+V,+N].  e x p l a i n i n g how  get Case, a f u r t h e r problem framework.  arguments for his  21  Case  Filter *NP  i f NP  has p h o n e t i c  content  and h a s no C a s e  (Chomsky  1981:49). That  i s , any non-empty  containing of  how  must have C a s e  i t i s t o be g r a m m a t i c a l . T h i s  Case  i s assigned.  elements could only  NP  assign  C a s e . The  g o v e r n s an NP  does  C a s e , where government  raises  I m e n t i o n e d above  p r o c e e d under government.  element  i f the sentence  that  the  question  only  [-N]  a s s i g n m e n t , however, That  t h e [-N]  i s defined  i s , only  when a  element a s s i g n  as  can [-N]  the  NP  follows:  Government In  [ 7 . . . 0 . . . a . . . 0 ] , a governs 0  the c o n f i g u r a t i o n  (i)  7=X  a = X ° , and  n  (i.e.  7  i s an X - b a r  projection  where: a,  of  and (ii) /3,  f o r e a c h maximal  then 5 a l s o  projection  dominates a  8  8,  6#a . I f 6 dominates n  (Chomsky  1981: 164  and  Sproat  1983:268). It  i s hypothesized  that  for  example,  non-empty NP's  an  infinitive  in general,  (see I  8  structure  definition  Sportiche projection syntax.  this  in English  position  explains  being  subject  why  (and C a s e  clause, marked)  i s b a s e d on work by Aoun  (1983). the terms p r o j e c t i o n  and  maximal  i n the sense f a m i l i a r  of  ungoverned  of a t e n s e d  i s governed  o f government  are intended  filter  cannot appear as the s u b j e c t  (14) b e l o w ) . The  should mention,  This  the Case  from X-bar  and  22 by t h e i n f l e c t i o n e l e m e n t INFL  node,  there  this  and  different 14  I p r o p o s e N i s g h a has  seems a r e a s o n a b l e  i s no c l e a r  tensed  (INFL).  distinction  infinitival  assumption  no  considering  i n t h e l a n g u a g e between a  clause.  means f o r a s s i g n i n g  N i s g h a , t h e r e f o r e , must Case  to  use a  [NP,S].  S ^ ^ ^  NP  INFLt  N  VP  flNFL  V  S  governs the  of a t e n s e d  subject  clause.  COMP NP$  V P n  N  Bill  thinks  *"Bill  thinks  (vs.  "Bill  V  John John  thinks  to help to help  It  conditions r e a d s as  (b)  a  Case,  Mary.")  t o be m e n t i o n e d  (as expounded  i n Chomsky  on S - s t r u c t u r e  i s the 1981  which  stipulates  o f moved e l e m e n t s may  appear.  Principle  [±N,±V]  t ^ e ] must be  "properly  g o v e r n s /3 i f f a g o v e r n s  or  i s coindexed with  j3 (Kayne  and  is a  follows:  where a p r o p e r l y a =  has no  Mary."  on where t r a c e s  empty c a t e g o r y  (a)  i s ungoverned  therefore  Empty C a t e g o r y P r i n c i p l e  Empty C a t e g o r y An  and  w h i c h needs  well-formedness c o n d i t i o n the  infinitive  o f an  Mary  John h e l p s  Empty C a t e g o r y P r i n c i p l e 1981). The  $The s u b j e c t NP I N  Another p r i n c i p l e  Kayne  \_  1981:93)  governed", 0 and  23  The binding  last  t h e o r y . An  coindexed If  an  is,  topic  of t h i s element  element  i s not  bound  and  Binding  how  anaphor  not  expound  Nisgha,  factors,  1981:184).  binding theory  government t y p e s of  in i t s governing  i s free on  (Chomsky  and  arguments.  be  seen  RESULTS TO  BE  PRESENTED  argue  category  i n the  1981:188)  i n t h e coming c h a p t e r s t h a t  argue,  i s SVO,  here.  subsequent  analysis.  Nisgha  S - a c c u s a t i v e and M - e r g a t i v e . The  I will  at  S - s t r u c t u r e v i a v e r b movement. E v i d e n c e  for this  from m a n i f o l d s o u r c e s . F o r example,  clause-final  9  o i s the g o v e r n i n g c a t e g o r y  category c o n t a i n i n g both NP  or S  this For  (Chomsky  definition further  see Huang  f o r /3 i f f a i s t h e  0 and  a governor  of  0,  will  t h e y do  discussion (1983).  not  enter  into  this  come  minimal where a i s  1981:188). R e s i d u a l p r o b l e m s r e m a i n but  i s not  D-structure  w h i c h becomes VSO  the  9  category  the b i n d i n g t h e o r y  will  S - e r g a t i v e but of  if i t is  c o n d i t i o n s (on  in i t s governing  i s free  further  i t s use  SUMMARY OF will  w i t h two  i s bound  A R-expression  Examples of  I  (Chomsky  they a p p l y to d i f f e r e n t  (b) A p r o n o m i n a l  will  "bound"  the  Theory  (a) An  (c)  t o be  i t i s " f r e e " . The  a g a i n , a s e t of w e l l - f o r m e d n e s s  binding,  G.  is said  i s b i n d i n g and  w i t h a c-commanding argument  S - s t r u c t u r e ) concerned  I  section  with  discussion.  o f t h e n o t i o n of g o v e r n i n g c a t e g o r i e s  24  position explain  o f PP's r e q u i r e s an SVO(PP) D - s t r u c t u r e the p o s i t i o n  o f PP's s u b c a t e g o r i z e d  (such as i n a sentence Evidence also  forces verb  It will  present  the  internal  an i n d i r e c t  f o r SVO D - s t r u c t u r e  be a r g u e d  movement so t h a t  will  by t h e v e r b  J o h n p u t t h e book on t h e t a b l e . )  from t h e b i n d i n g t h e o r y  be p r e s e n t e d .  argument  like  i n order to  that  Filter  [NP,S] c a n g e t C a s e . F i n a l l y , I  argument  f o r verb  s t r u c t u r e of NP's. I w i l l  f o r SVO D - s t r u c t u r e  t h e Case  will  movement b a s e d on  a l s o present  b a s e d on t h e f a c t s  a  final  o f weak  crossover. I will analysis  argue a g a i n s t  of Nisgha,  identifies  Nisgha  t h e most  recent  t h a t by M a r i e - L u c i e  as s y n t a c t i c a l l y  and comprehensive  Tarpent  e r g a t i v e . I maintain  her  a r g u m e n t s do n o t , i n f a c t ,  show N i s g h a  The  data  some i n t e r e s t i n g  she p r e s e n t s  subcategorization, but  suggests  (1982) w h i c h  t o be S - e r g a t i v e . things  Case making and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  not S - e r g a t i v i t y .  that  about  of pro,  CHAPTER 2  A.  ARGUMENTS AGAINST S~ERGATIVITY N i s g h a has  ergative, reason and  been c l a s s i f i e d  in p a r t i c u l a r  for this  as  i s that  constructions  i n the  verb  intransitive  verb,  patient  transitive.  a  I would but  h i n g e s on  There are  131ff).  be  bound  The  an  0-role  and  S-ergative  since  the  free  language,  [NP,S] t h e  in this  S-ergative  more l i k e  i s not  allow  anaphor  same s t r u c t u r a l  f o r making  Nisgha's S - e r g a t i v i t y  binding* t h e o r y  and  that  referring  recall the  anaphors  not  ( f o r example, an p o s i t i o n as an  i s , [NP,VP], b e c a u s e the  that  an  to appear  in  be  allow  argument  the  sentence, bound. the  R-expression) agent  in  patient that  in a simple not  (Levin,  a n a p h o r s must  implies  position will  25  the  S-ergative,  reasons  1981). Now  language w i l l  occupy  that  an  0-role. This  not  f o r an  sentence,  s i n g l e argument of  [NP,VP] i s a s s i g n e d  antecedent the  the  category,  agent  the  involving  p o s i t i o n as p a t i e n t s  argument  M o r e o v e r , an  of  s t i p u l a t e s that  (Chomsky  language w i l l  same s t r u c t u r a l  Levin  theory  governing  must be  S-ergative  by  The  agent  a number of  a n a p h o r s and  binding  in their  expressions  from t h e  as  operations  seem t o t r e a t  argument a g a i n s t  proposed  reflexive-reciprocal p.  structural  which o f t e n p a t t e r n s  first  a test  language  linguists  ergative.  to propose that Nisgha  S-accusative.  t h i s c l a i m . The  syntactically  differently  like  a number of  a number of  a transitive  of  by  in a in  to  simple this  26 position will  be bound.  We w o u l d anaphors  t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t , i n an S - e r g a t i v e  i n s i m p l e sentences t o appear  s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n as agents, of  anaphors  patients,  t o appear  [NP,VP],  language,  i n t h e same and f o r a n t e c e d e n t s  i n t h e same s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n a s  [ N P , S ] , T h i s i s n o t what we f i n d  i n Nisgha,  h o w e v e r ; i n f a c t we f i n d t h e c o n t r a r y . One common way o f expressing a r e f l e x i v e action 15  16  below:  ( l a p ) q ' o c - a - i k ast k u s l a p - A i - t y  self  c u t ERG ND man t h a t s e l f  "That  guy c u t h i m s e l f . "  TOP 3 s g  (lap) q'oc- a - y - i l a p - n i - y self "I  17  i sexemplified  cut  ERG 1sg ND s e l f TOP 1sg  cut myself."  l u : - k a e ' - a - i hanaq'- i l a p - n i - t y  in  see  ERG ND woman  ND s e l f  •>a - \ c ' am ">aenksu: l a : q a l t k  TOP 3 s g w  P r e p ND i n m i r r o r "The  In is  woman saw h e r s e l f  i n the mirror."  a l l o f t h e above c a s e s t h e r e f l e x i v e anaphor  i n the p o s i t i o n  lapfti-  n o r m a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p a t i e n t , and  the a n t e c e d e n t s of t h e anaphors a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e agent.  are i n the position  normally  27  Thus,  regarding  patterns  like  A second has  anaphor-0-role correspondences  an S - a c c u s a t i v e l a n g u a g e . reason  for claiming  t o do w i t h t h e p o s i t i o n  phrases.  1 0  Nisgha  i s not S - e r g a t i v e  of s u b c a t e g o r i z e d p r e p o s i t i o n a l  I f we assume N i s g h a  Ergativity  Nisgha  i s S-ergative,  H y p o t h e s i s we would  expect  t h e n by t h e  the simple  s e n t e n c e t o have t h e D - s t r u c t u r e i n ( 1 8 ) . T h i s Nisgha's  surface  S-ergative is  ordering  language  i s because  i s V e r b - A g e n t - P a t i e n t a n d i n an  t h e agent  i s [NP,VP] w h i l e t h e p a t i e n t  [NP,S].  18  /  y  S.  VP \^  V  \N P „  .. . Patient  NP Agent X  (Note t h a t  as w e l l  a s b e i n g t h e D - s t r u c t u r e i m p l i e d by  Tarpent's analyses, t h i s  i s also Rigsby's  proposed  D - s t r u c t u r e . ) When t h e r e i s a PP o r i n d i r e c t the s e n t e n c e , although S-initial  either  position  appears  s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t  the r e f l e x i v e  c a n move c e r t a i n  t h e PP c a n n e v e r a p p e a r  or V-Agt-PP-Pat).  which  would  none o f them j e o p a r d i z e  object  (10)  in  s e n t e n c e - f i n a l l y ; and  (though they u s u a l l y  of t h e o t h e r arguments  V-PP-Agt-Pat  It  i t usually  t h e r e a r e o p e r a t i o n s which  preposition),  1 0  transitive  (i.e.,  PP's t o  drop the  between  t h e v e r b and  one c a n n o t  have  F o r example:  t h e r e a r e o t h e r ways o f e x p r e s s i n g be a c c o u n t e d  the v a l i d i t y  f o r d i f f e r e n t l y , but  of t h e above  argument.  28  19  *?uy  - a - s John  I l i t ^awa^a- *  throw ERG DM Agent ND b a l l iku  - fku - m  y  man  "John threw the b a l l *^uyts  to h i s son."  John ^awa^ai i kui kumk a;t iit y  Verb Agent 21  ND  -k £t  small small conn,  20  there  PP  Patient  **?uyts ^awa^a* ikulkumk aet John i i t y  Verb  PP  Notice,  Agent  Patient  however, that PP's are s u b c a t e g o r i z e d  c e r t a i n verbs,  f o r example  by  "put" i n E n g l i s h . One can say  John put the book on the t a b l e , but not *John put the book. The same i s true of some verbs i n Nisgha, i n c l u d i n g the equivalent  22  of "put". Thus we have the f o l l o w i n g :  nimaxt- a - s John put  buk  ^a - X l a x hasni - t o x q x  ERG DM Agent P a t i e n t prep ND on  place  "John put the book on the t a b l e . " 23  *nimaxtas John Verb  buk  Agent  Patient  as w e l l as: 24  *nimaxtas John Verb  25  *nimaxtas Verb  *>ai l a x h a s n i t o x q x  Agent  w  PP  l a x h£enit oxq x  PP  buk Patient  w  John  buk  Agent  Patient  eat  w  29 But we  now  assume  n o t e we  (18),  subcategorized ( 2 6 i ) or 26i  the PP  have a c o n t r a d i c t i o n of S-ergative  should  analysis D-structure,  appear  in that  s t r u c t u r e as  a either  (26ii): S  26ii  VP^  NP  ..  0  .  However, u n l e s s D-structures  the  V PP  Verb-PP-Agent-Patient  maintain  as  f o r c e s PP's show t h a t  S - s t r u c t u r e s . But  (18)  (20, we  21,  the  can  position  Patient  the  above  24,  these 25)  must m a i n t a i n  always to extrapose.  some f a c t o r  s e e n by  y ^ PP NP. Agent  ..  Verb-Agent-PP-Patient  shown by  D-structure  NP„  were e x t r a p o s e d ,  would y i e l d  ungrammatical,  S  VP  ^ Patient V NP, . PP Agent  as  s t r u c t u r e s . If  In  fact,  or are  a b o v e . Thus, that  we  some  to  factor  w o u l d have  to  f o r c e m u l t i p l e PP e x t r a p o s i t i o n ,  of  the  PP's  in a  sentence  like  (27)  below: 27  k an w  n i m a x t - 9 - s Donna  JUSS  put x  ERG  DM  Agent  ND  1  vase  lax on  w  hasnit oxq  *>a - s Mary  table  P r e p DM  "Donna had  a v a s e put  But  there  way  of m a i n t a i n i n g  i s no  Moreover, claim  i qoltammascaeqale  such  Agent on  factor.  2  the  Logically,  D-structure  since  (18)  must  of S - e r g a t i v i t y , s i n c e  t a b l e by  Mary."  then,  there  is  no  (18). be  (18)  abandoned, i s the  only  so must  the  conceivable  30 D-structure  f o r Nisgha  correspondences  w h i c h would e n t a i l t h e  Agent-[NP,VP],  Patient-[NP,S].  B. VERB MOVEMENT The  facts  traditional  about  the p o s i t i o n  a s s u m p t i o n s about  1965), do seem t o s u g g e s t going  on. S i n c e  extraposition,  there another  o f t h e PP, making  s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n (c_f. Chomsky  there  i s some k i n d o f movement  seems t o be no f a c t o r option  should  other  the p o s i t i o n  forcing  be e x p l o r e d ,  v e r b movement. V e r b movement, i t w i l l explains  standard  be s e e n ,  o f PP, b u t a c c o u n t s  PP  namely  not o n l y  f o r a number o f  phenomena a s w e l l . V e r b movement w o u l d be d e p i c t e d a s  follows: 28i N P  S  28ii  J\  Agent  V  V  N P „ .. . Patient  ~  move  V  —>  S  i  /  \  NP„ . VP Agent y t. 1  Unlike force  PP-extraposition there are f a c t o r s  v e r b movement. S p e c i f i c a l l y ,  r e q u i r e s Case, and i n c a s e s r e q u i r e s proper  of  o f NP-movement  t h e t r a c e of NP  government a s w e l l . V e r b movement  I will  v e r b movement Before  which can  [NP,S] ( t h e a g e n t )  t h e means by w h i c h Case m a r k i n g and p r o p e r assigned.  N P „ .. Patient  going  d i s c u s s these  provides  government a r e  i s s u e s and some r a m i f i c a t i o n s  i n 2C. on, l e t me p o i n t o u t t h a t  movement a n a l y s i s e x p l a i n s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  the verb of the r e f l e x i v e  31  anaphor Nisgha such  as w e l l  as the p o s i t i o n  i s S - a c c u s a t i v e . That  as  (28i),  (15-17)  sentences  above would  with  have  of PP's, w h i l e assuming  i s , i f we p o s i t a reflexive  the following  that  a D-structure  anaphor  structure  such  as  after  verb  movement. 29  S /  \  v.  s  /\  1  NP . 3  VP  / \ t. 1  In  NP { [lspfti-]j  such  a structure,  the binding  [NP,S],  being either  a pronominal  is  free.  [NP,VP],  governing that and is  that  structure,  of the anaphor,  a syntax which  [NP,S] t h e agent There phenomenon  used  i s another o f "weak  30  Who. I  such  i s S.  in  i t s  But note  by t h e p o s i t i o n  again  o f PP  an S - a c c u s a t i v e s y n t a x ;  a s s i g n s [NP,VP] t h e p a t i e n t  diagnostic  that  0 - r o l e and  for ergativity  c r o s s o v e r " which  over  the ergative.  t o d e s c r i b e a range  structures  case  suggested forces  i s bound  0-role.  movement a n a l y s i s term  in this  i s not- v i o l a t e d .  or r e f e r r i n g expression,  b e i n g an anaphor,  category, which  t h e above  theory  as the  suggests  based  on t h e  the verb  Weak c r o s s o v e r i s t h e  of phenomena  involving  following:  l o v e s h i s . mother? I  31 *Who^ d o e s h i s ^ m o t h e r l o v e ? The s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s e s e n t e n c e s  i s as  follows:  32  32  §  / COMP  \ S.  NP  /  \  VP  V  NP  I  WhCK  /  love  "Who. l  loves  Who^ do  h i s ^ mother  h i s . mother?" I  h i s ^ mother  *"Who. d o e s h i s . m o t h e r I  I  In while  love love?"  ( 3 2 ) t h e t r a c e c-commands t h e c o i n d e x e d p r o n o u n ,  i n (33) i t does n o t . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s s a i d t o  account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y . order it  In general, i n  f o r a p r o n o u n t o r e c e i v e a bound v a r i a b l e r e a d i n g ( a s  d o e s i n ( 3 2 ) ) , i t must be c-commanded by i t s a n t e c e d a n t ,  in t h i s case t h e t r a c e 1980). T h i s  ( E v a n s 1980:347; a l s o H i g g e n b o t t o m  i s not t h e case w i t h ( 3 3 ) .  Under t h e s - e r g a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f N i s g h a * we w o u l d h a v e the  f o l l o w i n g two s t r u c t u r e s a s e q u i v a l e n t s  structures  (32,33):  t o the English  33  "WhCKdoes h i s ^ o t h e r  love  In the above s t r u c t u r e s the bound v a r i a b l e  t ^ ? " "Who^t^loves  we would expect  reading from (34),  his^other?"  to be a b l e to  s i n c e the  get  trace  c-commands the pronoun, whereas we would not expect  to  this  we assume Nisgha  is  we would expect  to  reading f o r  ergative exactly  (35).  That  is,  if  and has a VOS D - s t r u c t u r e , the o p p o s i t e  judgements about weak c r o s s o v e r  f i n d in E n g l i s h . We would expect following  E n g l i s h sentences with the judgements  36 *"Who. t . i  37  loves h i s .  i  i  mother love  (respectively)  in Nisgha to these sentences  are as  follows:  *>asn-sip' a n - s nox  Who 3ERG REL love "Who39 nse - q a t  loves h i s . i ti  (ii)  t  . mother?"  - s i p ' a n - s nox  w  -  t  DM mother 3sg  *"Who^ does his^ mother "Who. does h i s -  -  w  DM mother 3sg  Who one ND foe love (i)  t.?" I  The e q u i v a l e n t s  t  mother?"  mother  love?" love?"  find  that we to  given:  l  i  "Who. does h i s .  38 nas -  to f i n d e q u i v a l e n t s  get  the  34  Note t h a t and  that  reading  the the  equivalent  to to  ( i . e . (39i)) . This  patterning not  equivalent  like  the  p a t t e r n i n g an  support  argument  for ergativity last  from t h e  topic  arguments  D-structure  i s not  starred ( i . e . (38)),  i s , given  suggests  that  the  i n Nisgha  is exactly like  S-ergative  VOS  Rood e x p l i c i t l y  above  obligatory,  i s the  viability  mentioned  s t a t e s he  m u l t i p l e PP  has  Rigsby  before  becomes  in Chapter  i s working  thus the  he  Tarpent;  will  phenomenon d i s c u s s e d  what h i s model would p r e d i c t as  VSO first  that  by  can  the  verb  motivate  must  an  he  will  face  namely, he  will  be  impossible a l s o be  that  Aspects  extraposition rule, and  reviewing  1. Note  i n an  Thus, u n l e s s  shown above t o be  Rood's p r o p o s a l crossover  VOS  of Rood's p r o p o s a l  to p r e d i c t a V-PP-Agent-Patient  been  and  i s weakened.  I wish to to address  i n t h e VP.  same dilemma as forced  English,  language with  Framework, w h e r e i n e l e m e n t s s u b c a t e g o r i z e d contained  the  judgements, w h i l e  (Verb-Patient-Agent)  (Verb-Agent-Patient)  be  coreferent  would h a v e . T h e , v e r b movement a n a l y s i s  receives  Tarpent's  (37)  of weak c r o s s o v e r  D-structure  One  (36)  S-structure, in  which  Nisgha.  t r o u b l e d by  a b o v e . To  the  see  S-structures  the this for  weak consider (38,39):  35  40 COMP' NP.  / VP N P Det / \ V NP  N  WhOj l o v e t ^ t j , h i s j  mother,  Who.  l o v e t . h i s . mother t .  V  1  Extjraposition  I  Wh-movement  l o v e s h i s - mother?"  antecedant,  (naeqat  w  i tisip'sns  i s n o t c-commanded by ty  so the sentence  proposal  t o account  he c a n n o t  extraposition  simply (which  hisanalysis  arguments  case-marking. neccesary;  s a y Wh-movement invalidate  extraposition  in their  correct  must  this  argument  the  s h o u l d be Thus Rood's facts.  Note  before  my a r g u m e n t )  because  t o p u t t h e two  for receiving  the verb w i l l  ergative  case,  the r u l e  o r d e r would have t o be E x t r a p o s i t i o n  Wh-movement, w h i c h p r o d u c e s  But a s  i s why e x t r a p o s i t i o n i s  argument a f t e r  t h e second  occurs  occur  positions  (He c l a i m s t h a t  the f i r s t  w  i n (41)  f o r t h e weak c r o s s o v e r  would  nox t)  s h o u l d be u n g r a m m a t i c a l .  b u t i t i s n o t , a s shown by ( 3 9 i ) .  fails  love?"  t h e pronoun's  i s c-commanded by t ^ , s o t h e s e n t e n c e  grammatical,  that  does h i s ^ mother  by ( 3 8 ) , i t i s n o t . On t h e o t h e r hand,  pronoun  in  nox t)  (40) t h e p r o n o u n  seen  "Who^  I  (nset •'asnsip'ans  In  1  Extraposition  Wh-movement "Who.  ^  1  1  nominative  (40,41).  receive  case.)  Thus  f o l l o w e d by  36  C. TARPENT'S ARGUMENTS In  this  section  a number o f a r g u m e n t s w h i c h have  marshalled  f o r Nisgha's  presented.  In some c a s e s t h e d a t a on w h i c h  are  based  will  ergativity  (Tarpent  be r e a n a l y s e d i n l i g h t  been  1982) w i l l these  be  arguments  o f my p r o p o s a l o f v e r b  movement. The  Ergative Tarpent  Infix (1982:56) d i s c u s s e s what she c a l l s  "ergative  infix"  ergative.  The d i s t r i b u t i o n  called  as p a r t  a suffix) will  agent  of the v e r b  constructions  i s the f i r s t  markers  the s u f f i x  in  the ergative verb only  In  appears,  verb  from  intransitive  i s , i t sets  the p a t i e n t  ( t h e r e may  immediately suffix  does n o t  an  o f f the agent  or the s i n g l e  v e r b , when t h e a g e n t  i fthe  a n d i f NP- o r Wh-  seems t o have a t l e a s t  that  infix  intransitive  out o f i t s p o s i t i o n  Thus, t h e morpheme  transitive  (more p r o p e r l y  the v e r b , then a g a i n t h e e r g a t i v e  M-ergative d i s t r i b u t i o n ,  the  never  Nisgha i s  s u c e e d i n g argument  intervening).  movement moves t h e agent  appear.  infix  be p r e s e n t on t h e t r a n s i t i v e  determinate  succeeding  of t h i s  that  she r e p o r t s a s f o l l o w s :  [-s-]  be  of her c l a i m  the  of a  argument o f  is lexically  present  situ. Transitive 42  (Arguments  fsmo:m- a - s L u c y help  in situ) t Mary  ERG DM Agent DM P a t i e n t  "Lucy  h e l p e d Mary"  37  Intransitive 43  Agent  taw!  only:  - t Mary  leave 44 P a t i e n t  only:  k ultawJ-  hypothesis pattern,  DM  Patient  i n the context  there  given  The  a  Lisa  fainted.  i s a p r i n c i p l e d way o f e x p l a i n i n g  c e r t a i n assumptions. R e c a l l  of d i s t i n c t i o n  (28i)  element  that  t h e above  we a r e  because of the  between a t e n s e d and i n f i n i t i v a l  i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s  structure  left.  o f t h e V e r b movement  a s s s u m i n g N i s g h a h a s no i n f l e c t i o n lack  Mary  t Lisa  w  faint  Note t h a t  DM Agent  assumption  above) w i l l  i s that  [NP,S]  n o t be a s s i g n e d  l a n g u a g e w i t h an i n f l e c t i o n  element  [NP,S]). R e c a l l a l s o  (given  Case as i t i s i n  (where INFL  C a s e marks  for  a l l non-empty NP's. Thus a s y n t a c t i c C a s e a s s i g n e r i s  Tarpent  has a n a l y s e d  We m i g h t only  1 1  as the " e r g a t i v e  venture a step  further  as a s y n t a c t i c Case a s s i g n e r  There  simply  i s a great  [-a-]  conditioned  epenthetic  ERG  i t s u f f i x e s to a vowel-final t o keep t h e m o r p h o l o g y  verb  e . g . i n stop+s#  i s not  vowel. For stem,  [y]i s  transparent.  c a n a l s o a p p e a r between c o n s o n a n t s where occur,  not  b u t a s t h e same morpheme  a phonologically  would n e v e r  1 1  [-a-]  and a n a l y s e  that  presumably  , what  [-a-].  infix"  of evidence  inserted,  i s mandatory  i s , I claim  deal  example, when  [-a-]  Case t o [ N P , S ] . T h a t  Case  governs  and  needed t o a s s i g n  that  verb.  sequences.  epenthesis  ERG  38  as  the p r e p o s i t i o n  Phonologically (to  normally  this  i s plausible since  my knowledge) o f n u l l  phonologically •'-initial.  preposition  onset  there  a r e no examples  i n Nisgha. That  i t c a n be s a i d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n  and a " " - i n i t i a l  lexeme  i s minimal,  i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound, t h i s  striking  resemblence  t o Kayne's  idea  cannot p r o p e r l y  in  idea  govern slightly  (1981) a n a l y s i s  license  a  o f Empty  prepositions  they a r e governed  we c a n g e t e x a c t l y  Nisgha  license  in addition  prepositions the verb  (including  Assuming  by V. I f we  the r i g h t r e s u l t s  t o be p r o p e r  (or i t s trace)  t o be t r u e ,  must  license  to assign  then  even when t h e a g e n t  [-a-]  immediately  always a p r o n o m i n a l p r o c l i t i c  prepositions to  i t . I will  be t o t h e r i g h t .  i n order  i t t o g o v e r n and Case-mark  say t h a t  Case. In order  i t folows that  of the sentence  In s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s  t h e v e r b must  g o v e r n o r s we a l s o  however, t h e v e r b must g o v e r n  move t o t h e f r o n t  represents  that  i n N i s g h a government c a n o n l y  this  licensing  to saying  t h e morpheme [ - a - ] )  [-3-],  argue that  1 2  unless  this  Nisgha. Suppose t h a t  in  so t h e  bearing  C a t e g o r y P r i n c i p l e e f f e c t s . He p r o p o s e s t h a t  this  between a  [*>9-] may be / a / p h o n e m i c a l l y . M o r e o v e r  analysis  vary  i s , what  may be v o w e l - i n i t i a l i s p h o n e t i c a l l y  At best  vowel-initial  [*>a-].  transcribed  t h e v e r b must  t o govern  [NP,S].  [-a-],  1 2  i s not present  on t h e v e r b  f o l l o w s . However, t h e r e i s  on t h e v e r b w h i c h  or agrees with the t r a n s i t i v e  agent.  either I have n o t  39 Note the  that  such a f o r m u l a t i o n  will  rules  of c a s e a s s i g n m e n t  in Nisgha:  (A) NP  governed  by  [+V]  gets a b s o l u t i v e  (B) NP  governed  by  [-N]  ([-e-]) gets ergative  (C) NP  governed  by  [+N]  (nouns)  There fashion  similar  c a t e g o r i e s can rightward.  t o t h e way  Case  get g e n i t i v e  i n some l a n g u a g e s  only  govern  (and t h e r e f o r e  and  SVO  i n that  Case  language  element,  i t cannot  it  i s to l e f t  o f INFL,  so INFL moves t o t h e l e f t  to  where i t can g o v e r n and Case mark  1 2  [NP,S], g i v i n g  (cont'd)yet  certainty again,  been  why,  no one  e m p l o y i n g we the  else  say.  but  VSO  from SVO  [-e-]  why  [NP,S]  has  has an  because  of t h a t  [NP,S]. S i n c e  NP,  INFL  order.  In t h e framework  when t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t we  i s , an empty this  degree  s h o u l d be a b s e n t , but  of t h e p r o c l i t i c  just  the  t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h any  say t h a t  (that  (Welsh  this  t o a v e r b , t h e v e r b must a l s o move  has e i t h e r .  might  appearance  assigner),  able  exactly,  empty p r e p o s i t i o n  to  affix  English)  he a r g u e s t h a t  inflection  elements can o n l y  Sproat  D - s t r u c t u r e ) . A l t h o u g h Welsh govern  in a  mark)  an  of  Case  (not i n c l u d i n g  In S p r o a t ' s a n a l y s i s o f W e l s h  S-structure  left  Case  I have a r g u e d . R i c h a r d  t h e r e a s o n f o r v e r b movement  VSO  explicit  i s a p r e c e d e n t f o r a r g u i n g f o r v e r b movement  (1983) a r g u e s t h a t  is  e n a b l e us t o make  syntactic  s h o u l d be  so I am  I  of then  am  required for c a n have  an  Case not p r e p a r e d  40  Notice  first  I have g i v e n that  f o r Nisgha  Nisgha  enable  o f f the s i m i l a r i t y verb  of h i s a n a l y s i s t o t h a t  movement. The d i f f e r e n c e i s  h a s no INFL node. Thus, v e r b  INFL t o a f f i x  Case a s s i g n e r  movement  t o something, but r a t h e r  (hypothesised  g o v e r n e d and t h e r e f o r e  is  t h e same a b o u t N i s g h a and W e l s h , I p r o p o s e ,  This  categories could the  verb  the  right  mark  could  l i c e n s e d t o C a s e mark  govern  is firstly  not r a i s e  [-a-]  since  r a i s e d V. T h a t  [ N P , S ] . What i s that  movement. I f N i s g h a  both d i r e c t i o n s there  i s no  reason  o u t o f VP t o a p o s i t i o n s t i l l  o f [ N P , S ] . The morpheme  [NP,S],  [*"©-]) c a n  rightward.  shown by v e r b  govern  so t h a t t h e  t o be t h e p r e p o s i t i o n  be  c a t e g o r i e s can only  i s not t o  [-a-]  would s t i l l  could  still  to  Case  be g o v e r n e d by t h e  i s , we would have an S - s t r u c t u r e  as f o l l o w s :  45 VP  /  Prep N But  t.  I  this  N  NP  i s n o t what h a p p e n s . The v e r b  [NP,S] and [ - a - ] , govern only But  i n other  we c a n l o o k  L e t me  limited  o f [-a-]  and V t o  f o r evidence  structures. This  INFL o r V t h a t c a n g o v e r n o n l y  categories.  1 3  the a b i l i t y  of  rightward.  beyond t h i s ,  government just  implying  moves t o t h e l e f t  of  i s because rightward  rightward  i t i s not  but a l l  1 3  reiterate  to rightward  that  i n E n g l i s h c a t e g o r i e s are not  government  (at l e a s t  n o t [+N]  41  One  c a t e g o r y i n which  the  NP.  case  Sproat proposes  i s a feature  structure where N 46  o f NP's  might that  [gNP[jjN. . . ] ]  "John's  look for t h i s  "the a b i l i t y  of t h e head  o f an NP"  i s generally  ( t h e head) g o v e r n s  T h i s would be  In  we  and  the  structure  and  N will  genitive  case-marked  NP,  will  position  result  (cf.  Sproat,p.254).  This  NP  such to  as  John.  structure  govern t h e head  or the N w i l l  N to be  t h e S - s t r u c t u r e of a  noun t o t h e  so t h e c a s e c a n  possesor) to the r i g h t  (as w e l l  n o t be a b l e t o  rate  have t h e head  (the  Nisgha  follows,  a s s i g n s case  c a s e marked NP,  t h e r e . A t any  genitive  rightward. This  The  however, s u c h a  movement w i l l  of t h e g e n i t i v e  base-generated  genitive  leftwards:  a s s i g n e d an E n g l i s h  impossible since N w i l l  left  as  is  (Sproat,p.255)  l e f t w a r d . Thus, e i t h e r the  (p.254).  a s s i g n s case  book", where book g o v e r n s  be  to assign  assumed t o be  a r i g h t w a r d g o v e r n i n g language,  will  structure  left  of  the  be a s s i g n e d  i n an S w i t h t h e c a s e marked of t h e head  is precisely  a s W e l s h and  Arabic,  N  what  (the  NP  possesed)  i s found i n  both of which  are  VSO  languages). 47  ceek - a - $ - X kill "I  1 3  nox  w  ERG  1sg ND  - X  mother ND  (had t o ) k i l l  f k u -smsx dimin  the bear cub's  (cont' d ) c a t e g o r i e s ,  INFL g o v e r n s  w  leftward.  cf_. S p r o a t  bear mother."  1983).  T h u s , e.g.,  English  42  48  k en  k j£' ( © ) - t ' s n  w  JUSS s e e  c a u s a t i v e ND b o a t DM  "Show me R o b i n ' s 49  hie -  B -  i  wiek^  "John's b r o t h e r s  shown 49a  - k - s John w  p i DM  10  sent  i  1sg  k il&  ^  w  ND b l a n k e t  the blanket  (1983:254) g i v e s examples  - s Mary  P r e p DM  t o Mary."  from W e l s h and A r a b i c a s  below:  Welsh: t y  Sion  house 49b  lo:- y  boat."  send ERG ND b r o t h e r  Sproat  - I bot - s Robin  Y  "John's  house"  John  A r a b i c : baytu  r-rajuli  " t h e man's h o u s e "  house the-man (gen)  The  fact  serves is  t h a t g e n i t i v e NP's have t h i s  to strengthen  strengthens  govern  structure,  t h e v e r b movement h y p o t h e s i s  the hypothesis  then, i n s o f a r as  that Nisgha c a t e g o r i e s  only  rightward.  D. COORDINATE REDUCTION Tarpent  argues  that a test  to  s e e w h i c h argument d e l e t e s  is  coordinated  is,  given  with  sentences  of s y n t a c t i c  in a transitive  a preceding  intransitive  such as ( i - i i i )  below:  ergativity i s clause  when i t  (1982:62).  That  43  50 c ' in  (i)  come (ii)  - t Fred  ERG DM A g t  kiss  in  kissed  language w i l l  1  coordinate  (him)"). Tarpent  (iii):  "Note  k i s s e d Mary. tt  it  Mary  kissed  drop the agent  drop the p a t i e n t of ( i i i ) ,  syntactically and  Fred  language w i l l  and k i s s e d M a r y " ) . On t h e o t h e r  process  tt  1  F r e d . tt  DM P a t  accusative  and i n t h e p r o c e s s  ergative  came i n . tt  DM P a t  ERG DM A g t  syntactically  (ii)  t Mary  humc'ax- a - s Mary t F r e d kiss  a  Fred  i n DM A g t  humc'ax- a - s F r e d  (iii)  it  claims  (i)  syntactically  ( i ) a n d ( i i i ) and i n t h e ( " F r e d came behaves  i n commonly  i n and Mary l i k e the  coordinating ( i )  *  t h e morpheme  l a b e l e d "3ERG". T h i s  i s one o f a s e t o f  "pronominal p r o c l i t i c s " which appear  on t h e t r a n s i t i v e  to  in subordinate  represent  as m e n t i o n e d the  or c o r e f e r t o the agent i n the footnote  same a s t h e t h i r d  indicates  and  o f ( i i ) ( " F r e d came  hand, a  Nisgha  e r g a t i v e language  coordinate  f o l l o w e d by t h e morpheme  clauses,  12. I b e l i e v e t h i s morpheme i s  singular  t h i r d person.  verb  (3sg) s u f f i x  and  simply  I t i s i n t e r p r e t e d as s i n g u l a r [ti«t].  unless  44  51  c'in  - t Fred  ^ i : -  come i n DM  Agt  " F r e d came  i n and  Tarpent actually  and  notes,  than  speakers  "kiss"  the  the  a l s o mean claims,  i f t h e main  obvious  one,  ti:- t  s m i l e DM  and  Agt -  hug(pl.Pat)  i ND  "Mary s m i l e d w  cry  DM  "Mary c r i e d  But test, really  beyond  even  Agt and  3ERG  i f the  and  context  stress falls  on  forces  "Mary"  1982:63, f n . 1 3 b ) .  clear  that  t h o u g h one  the  the  second  this  The  first  might  argue  Tarpent  sentence  is  i s e x a c t l y what I  speakers.  For  example:  together w  children hugged the t i t -t and  3ERG p u n c h  punched  this,  children."  k'ilt'is  John Pat  John."  i t should  i f i t d i d g i v e the  b e a r on  came i n  is  sayt  k'ubetk'ifk  and  w i y i t k - t Mary  yet  different  memq - t Mary  sentence  E n g l i s h . However,  above, and  two  above  "Fred  only  of e x p r e s s i n g  (51)  from  the  (humc'ex) ( T a r p e n t  i s the  same a s  ludemdam  53  and  n o r m a l way  have e l i c t e d 52  she  Agt  (him)."  that  have been more a f f e c t e d by  claims not  can  DM  I have a s k e d made i t l e s s  interpretation they  3ERG k i s s  Mary k i s s e d  a m b i g u o u s and  interpretation  rather  humc'ax- s Mary  correctly,  k i s s e d Mary." t h o u g h , this  t  be  recognised  results  she  S - e r g a t i v i t y , for r e c a l l  that  Tarpent's  c l a i m s , does  not  that S - e r g a t i v i t y  45 requires in  [NP,S]-Patient,  [NP,VP]-Agent. D e m o n s t r a t i n g  some c a s e s an i n t a n s i t i v e  transitive it  patient  went t h r o u g h )  patterns with a  i s what T a r p e n t ' s  i n no way e v i d e n c e s  function—0-role S-ergative  (which  agent  correspondences  that  test  would do i f  the grammatical  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of  languages.  E . FOCUSING Tarpent transitive  reports that  either  v e r b c a n be t o p i c a l i s e d  argument o f an i n t r a n s i t i v e of  intransitives,  however,  intransitive  verbs, the s i n g l e  Although  argument  fronting  sense  o f t h e word, t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e  may answer John helped."),  c o n s t r u c t i o n s as f o c u s e d ,  iamo:mas Mary  iamo:mas Mary  b u t n o t Mary  i n the case  o f two with  ( b o t h a g e n t - o n l y and  of t h e c l a u s e , and t h e  p r e s e n t s no argument  these  t o t h e q u e s t i o n nasi  Only  a r g u m e n t s t h e same. I n s e n t e n c e s  i s moved t o t h e f r o n t  Tarpent  1 5  i s the treatment  differnet  patient-only)  as can the s i n g l e  (1982:63).  thematically  1 5  of the arguments of a  for identifying i n the t e c h n i c a l  she i s c o r r e c t . E . g . ,  ("Who  d i d Mary h e l p ? " ) one  ( " I t was J o h n  '?antiam6:ms John  whom Mary  ( " I t was Mary who  h e l p e d J o h n . " ) . More d a t a would be needed t o be c e r t a i n , b u t the  identification  of these c o n s t r u c t i o n s i s not c r u c i a l t o  my argument  s o I have n o t p u r s u e d  of  and i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  focusing  appear).  such d a t a . F o r d i s c u s s i o n see Rochemont ( t o  46  suffix  [ - a t ] i s added  to the v e r b  stem:  1 6  Intansitives 54 A g e n t - o n l y , f o c u s e d  was  Mary who  left."  i t a : w l - at  Mary  Agt ND 55  "It  leave  REL  Non-focused  "Mary  left."  t a : w t - t Mary l e a v e DM  Agt  56 P a t i e n t - o n l y , i  Lisa Pat 57  ND  who  w  Foe  faint  faint  DM  t  one  Lisa  fainted."  "Lisa  fainted."  Lisa  Pat  Transitive (agent  was  REL  Non-focused w  sentences treat  or p a t i e n t ) d i f f e r e n t l y  focusing  of e i t h e r  from t h e a b o v e ,  and  a n o t h e r . In t h e s e n t e n c e w i t h a f o c u s e d a g e n t , fronted  with  and  t h e 3ERG  the p r e f i x [~t-];  When t h e p a t i e n t  argues  decomposed  into  the  sequence  latter  a vowel  final  [^an-] i s added  t h e ERG  that ERG  stem,  t h e REL  [-a-]  real  suffix  followed  [-at],  when p r e c e d e d by a vowel  stem  [ - t ] , since  [ y ] when  (1982:65).  from  be  following  on t h e o t h e r hand, becomes  final  from  the agent  difference  3sg o r DM  i s a l w a y s p r e c e d e d by  also  disappears.  [-at] cannot  by  argument  to the verb along  suffix[-a-] also  i s f o c u s e d , the o n l y  Tarpent  1 6  "It  ( d i ) k ultaw*- at  k ultaw''-  is  focused  [-t]  47  the non-focused c l a u s e morphological  i s t h a t t h e p a t i e n t i s f r o n t e d . No  changes take p l a c e w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of  d e l e t i o n of the d e t e r m i n a t e  marker a d j a c e n t  t o t h e moved  argument. Transitives 58 F o c u s e d A g e n t  " I t was L u c y t h a t  Lucy  ''an- t  -iamorm- s Mary  Agt  ERG 3ERG h e l p  helped  Mary."  DM P a t  REL "Lucy h e l p e d  59 N o n - f o c u s e d lam6:m- a - s L u c y help  ERG DM A g t  t Mary DM P a t  60 F o c u s e d P a t i e n t  " I t was M a r y t h a t  Mary i Jam6:m- a - s L u c y P a t ND h e l p  Mary.  Lucy  helped."  ERG DM A g t  Non-focused e x a c t l y as (59) above  Tarpent  argues t h a t the focused p a t i e n t of a  is e s s e n t i a l l y being  t r e a t e d t h e same a s t h e f o c u s e d  a r g u m e n t o f an i n t r a n s i t i v e of s u r f a c e m o r p h o l o g i c a l reasons)  (agent  or p a t i e n t ) ,  single  but because  c o n s t r a i n t s (as w e l l as other  the [-at] i s not present  (1982:64£f). One o f t h e o t h e r  on t h e t r a n s i t i v e  reasons  would d e s t r o y t h e s u r f a c e s i m i l a r i t y sentences  verb  she g i v e s i n a r g u i n g  for the non-appearance of [-at] i n t r a n s i t i v e s  (54,56) t o t r a n s i t i v e  transitive  i s that i t  of sentences  w i t h 3sg p r o n o m i n a l  like agents  48  and  p r e p o s e d p a t i e n t s as  61  Mary ' Pat  ND  In that  \  same as In  help  she  i s not  on  the  verb  no  argument  indication  the  the  intransitives ( i . e . ''anfrom  that  or  intransitive,  of  explanation.  and  i s not  focusing  just  transitives  exactly  contrary  the  with  is  single  special  marking  r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Thus t h e r e  f o r S - e r g a t i v i t y , beyond  e x t r a c t i o n of  the  intransitives.  the  and  extract only -at  remains  s u b j e c t s , whether  i s i n some c a s e s  exceptional  is  an  transitive  and  so  i n need  IMPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION  Tarpent  (1982:61) c l a i m s  imperative  truncated  complex  s e n t e n c e s w h i c h have an  good t h a t  ('>a:m i  dam)  claims  fact  apparent. That i s ,  from t r a n s i t i v e s  a g e n t s of  that  helped."  readily  from a c e r t a i n p e r s p e c t i v e ,  in that  THE  3sg  of T a r p e n t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n s ,  of p a t i e n t s  a r g u m e n t s of  F.  ERG  Mary  e x t r a c t i o n of a g e n t s or p a t i e n t s f r o m  fact,  true,  " I t was  correct pattern  extraction  below:  Iam6:m- a - t  spite  the  i n (61)  this  i s that  features with imperative argument  of N i s g h a ' s  their  imperatives  constructions  verb.  and  i s that  that  Tarpent  The  seem t o s h a r e What  one  i s when i t i s t h e  syntactic ergativity.  reason  t o be  a  Examples of  it is she  structural  is significant  in only  argues t h i s  are  "understood"  beginning.  embedded s e n t e n c e s .  omitted,  transitive  at  sentences  case agent  about  i s an of  a  manifestation this  49  construction Intransitive 62  a r e shown below: 1 7  Agent-only ye:  Go! "  - n  walk 2 s g 63  Patient-only tk antk w  fall  -(e)n  w  !? down a n d d i e !  Fall  down 2 s g  t i i t  nuw-(e)n  and  d i e 2sg  "Drop  dead!")  Transitive 64  itH e l p  fam6:m- s Mary help  DM  Patient  I do n o t i n t e n d under out  to present  this  S-ergativity.  Essentially,  arguments. N o t i c e  t o make t h e c l a i m  1 7  that  a l l these data verb  that  i s treated  differently  t h e s i n g l e argument  parenthetical material  present.  T h u s , e . g . (20) above i tern) y e : - n  good ND FUT walk i s not c o n v i n c i n g  present  i n an  point  show i s t h a t t h e  these data cannot  includes  It  b u t l e t me s i m p l y  Some o f t h e s e e x a m p l e s a r e from T a r p e n t  (''a^  o f t h e above  phenomenon i s n o t an argument f o r  Agent o f an A g e n t - P a t i e n t other  an a n a l y s i s  t h e v e r b movement h y p o t h e s i s ,  that  Mary!"  2sg that  imperative.  e v e n be u s e d  o f an  1982. She  she b e l i e v e s i s as  from  i s uderlyingly  follows: " ( I t i s good that  such u n d e r l y i n g  you) go!" material  could  be  50 intransitive  p a t t e r n s with the p a t i e n t  cannot r e a l l y  of a t r a n s i t i v e .  use t h i s as an argument f o r  the  S-ergativity  of Nisgha any more than one can use (65 i - i i i ) argument for 65 ( i )  the e r g a t i v i t y of  One  below as an  English:  Into the park walked John.  (ii)  *Into the park walked John the dog.  (iii)  *Into the park walked the dog John.  Just because the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e differently  is  treated  from the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e  the above sentences w i l l c e r t a i n l y argument f o r an e r g a t i v e  English  in  never be adduced as an syntax.  G. DELETION OF RECOVERABLE ELEMENTS In an independent sentence the p a t i e n t of a verb or the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e omitted i f context.  it  i s p o s s i b l e to i n f e r  The agent of a t r a n s i t i v e ,  its  referent  however,  transitive  can be from the  cannot be  d e l e t e d . For example: Intransitive 66 A g e n t - o n l y (i)  Q u e s t i o n : nta  -  t Mary  "Where's Mary?"  where DM (ii)  Answer:  taw* leave  "(She)  left."  51  67 P a t i e n t - o n l y (i)  *>agu- X h u w i l  Question:  (ii)  Answer:  what DM  do  sk a'eytk  w  w  s Mary  "What d i d  DM  Mary d o ? " "(She) r e s t e d . "  rest 68 T r a n s i t i v e (i)  Question:  i  wila:x- a - n know  sam  - ''alk^ax- a  ERG 2sg ND r e a l  talk  Q  "Do y o u know (ii)  Answer:  wtla:xknow  (iii)  Answer:  *wilaxknow  Note a g a i n , correspodence  a - y ERG i  "Yes."  1sg  ( l i t . "I know.")  sam - ''alk^ax  ND r e a l  Nisgha?"  talk  however, t h a t t h e r e  "Yes."  ( l i t . "know  Nisgha.")  i s not a p e r f e c t  between t h e above p a r a d i g m a n d t h e p r e d i c t i o n s  the E r g a t i v i t y  Hypothesis  makes f o r an S - e r g a t i v e  The  Hypothesis  p r e d i c t s on t h e one h a n d a  Ergativity  D-structure intransitive other of  patterning together with  above d a t a  differently  A l l t h a t can r e a l l y  i s t h a t the agent  from o t h e r  a n d on t h e  with  be s a i d  the patient  from  of a t r a n s i t i v e  examining patterns  a n a l y s i s (my a n a l y s i s ) t h e above  show t h e s u b j e c t o f a d u a l  distinctly.  o f an  arguments.  In t h e S - a c c u s a t i v e data  of a t r a n s i t i v e ,  hand o f a p a t i e n t o f an i n t r a n s i t i v e  a transitive.  the  the agent  of the agent  language.  One a n a l y s i s t h i s  argument v e r b  suggests  i s that  being  treated  the missing  52  argument  i s the  equivalent pro  of  is left  empty c a t e g o r y  PRO.  and  One  object  r e a s o n why inserted  can  the  the  (68iii)  properties  grounds t h a t  f o r c i n g us  s e n t e n c e * w c l a : x - a - j ' sam  could  that  s i n c e pro  H.  i s not  Case must be  lexical,  INDIRECT CAUSATION Tarpent  reports  something), verb."  the  the  sentence  D-object.  1 8  would t h e n be  [-a-]  could  not  no  be  the  *>alk ax. However,  we  y  lexically  "when an telling  proclitic  r e a l i s e d , and  is  impossible.  [g an]  [g an]  something to  i n f r o n t of  the  always  w  verb  done  do  (/k an/)  w  I f the  s i n g l e argument  gets  i s used  w  verb.  agent  that person  a d d i t i o n of  in a t r a n s i t i v e  with,  because  (JUSSIVE CONSTRUCTION)  (by  (1982:72) The  results begin  the  the  that  t h r o u g h someone e l s e  governed  i s bad  to p r e d i c t  ungrammatical respond  on  there  s y n t a c t i c Case a s s i g n e r  to govern pro,  i s , the  v e r b h a v i n g expended i t s  Case a s s i g n i n g on  that  argue that  u n g o v e r n e d , the  governing might  We  pro,  is intransitive  ( e i t h e r agent  or  to  patient)  w will, the  with  k an  the  patient  of  verb,  a simple  transitive  sentence u s u a l l y occupies.  1 8  N o t e we  are  associated with  with  with  direct  t h e n , must be  direct  The  new  verb  the  position  i n an  argument  Case  Case a s s i g n m e n t  elements to a s s i g n the  government  assignment.  and  that  independent  necessitated  d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between government  l i c e n s i n g other  of p r o ,  come t o o c c u p y  properties  those  C a s e . The  property  by  associated government  associated  53 the  s e m a n t i c s o f t h e j u s s i v e morpheme w i l l  the  position  usually  held  by t h e a g e n t  come t o a p p e a r i n  in a  simple  t r a n s i t i v e sentence: Intransitives 69 A g e n t - o n l y : w k an c ' i n  - a - s Donna  JUSS come i n ERG  t Mary  DM A g e n t DM  "Patient"  "Donna had Mary come i n . " 70  Patient-only:  i  (k'^ax)  k an s k a ' e y t k - a - s John  Intensifier  JUSS  w  w  w  rest  ERG  DM  t Mary  A g e n t DM  Patient  "John had Mary r e s t . / J o h n a s k e d M a r y t o r e s t . " If w of  the verb i s t r a n s i t i v e to begin w i t h ,  h a v e two e f f e c t s . F i r s t ,  will  either  will  be a new  o r i g i n a l patient example:  Transitive:  Jam6:m- a - s L u c y help  ERG  t Mary  DM A g e n t DM  "Lucy h e l p e d Mary."  Patient  There will  o c c u p i e d by t h e o r i g i n a l  s t a y s i n t h e same p o s i t i o n  Transitive  71  be d e l e t e d .  a g e n t , t h e a g e n t o f t h e k an v e r b , w h i c h  same c a s e . F o r  Simple  the o r i g i n a l agent  be moved i n t o a PP o r i t w i l l  occupy the p o s i t i o n p r e v i o u s l y  a g e n t . The the  addition  •  k an w i l l  now  the  with  54  Jussive: 72 k an lam6:m- a w  JUSS h e l p  s Donna  t Mary ( "?a -  ERG DM Agent DM Pat  "Donna had Lucy helped (by  s Lucy  )  Prep DM Agent  Mary)."  The important t h i n g to n o t i c e about the above i s the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e same as the p a t i e n t of a t r a n s i t i v e , treated d i f f e r e n t l y  verb  is treated  this  i n t e r n a l argument s l o t transitive  verb  a transitive is directly  there  in the s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  there  is,  "mediator" such as p r e p o s i t i o n .  There never  0-role  indirectly  i s other evidence for  to d a t i v e  the  shift  in N i s g h a . That  for example, e q u i v a l e n t  even  subject  with is,  to the f o l l o w i n g  John threw the b a l l to h i s son. John threw h i s son the  which  t h i s c l a i m i n that one  English sentences:  (ii)  for  from the VP.)  e x p r e s s i o n s of goal or d u r a t i o n  73 ( i )  entry  0-marking v i a a  (Note that  f i n d s anything e q u i v a l e n t  nothing,  in the l e x i c a l  assigned a 0 - r o l e by the verb i t s e l f ,  its  it  frame of a  i s only one argument p o s i t i o n  though there may be others r e c e i v i n g  receives  What  i s only one "non-mediated"  in N i s g h a . That  verb,  verb.  kind of argument does not  n e c e s s a r i l y bear on the q u e s t i o n of S - e r g a t i v i t y . does demonstrate i s that  the  and these are both  from the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e  Again n o t i c e that  that  ball.  there  pairs  of  is  55  74  ( i ) Wendy t a l k e d (ii)  where or  Wendy t a l k e d an h o u r .  t h e 10 c a n r e c e i v e  from t h e v e r b  exactly  this  additional  i t s case e i t h e r v i a the p r e p o s i t i o n  itself.  Thus, t o r e t u r n  its  f o r an h o u r ,  feature  argument  t o the J u s s i v e  of the l e x i c o n manifested; i s added t o a c o n s t r u c t i o n  argument p o s i t i o n s  full,  m e d i a t e d p o s i t i o n . The f a c t a  transitive  when an w i t h a l l of  one o f them must that  we s e e  move i n t o a  i t i s the o r i g i n a l  agent of  i s o f no p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g  whether N i s g h a  i s S-ergative.  The J u s s i v e understood  construction,  construction,  as a l e x i c a l  I would s u g g e s t ,  rule rather  i s best  than a s y n t a c t i c one.  w The  r u l e would a f f i x  verb.  In t h e c a s e o f t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e  verb created, 3 argument there  while  verb,  Tarpent  agent-only.  positions  we have a  i s moved i n t o a PP, s i n c e  t9-marked and C a s e marked  by t h e  ANTIPASSIVE  describes  both a Passive  and an  i n Nisgha. Both c o n s t r u c t i o n s  intransitive,  patient-only  we have a 2 argument  alone.  I . PASSIVE AND  construction  a compound  i n t h e case of the t r a n s i t i v e  so one argument  a r e no o t h e r  v e r b o r VP  verb  k an t o t h e v e r b t o c r e a t e  verb,  but w h i l e  the Passive  the A n t i p a s s i v e  The A n t i p a s s i v e  allows  Antipassive  make a  transitive  intransitive  intransitive the patient  i s an t o be  isa  expressed allows  the agent  suffixed velar  (optionally)  i n a PP, w h i l e t h e P a s s i v e  t o be e x p r e s s e d a t a l l .  by t h e morpheme  stops),  never  The P a s s i v e  verb  [ - k ] ( w i t h a l l o p h o n e [-s] a f t e r w  the A n t i p a s s i v e  v e r b by t h e morpheme  [-'?sk ] w  Passive 75  q'6c- k cut  - t John  w  PASS DM  Patient  "John was/got c u t . " 76  *q'oc-  k -  t John  w  cut  ^a - s H a r r y  PASS DM P a t i e n t  "John  P r e p DM  Agent  was c u t by H a r r y . "  Active Counterpart 77  q'oc- a - s Harry cut  ERG DM A g e n t  t John DM  Patient  "Harry c u t John." Antipassive 78  kipa-'>sk - t L u c y w  wait  AP  ( *>a - s Mary  DM Agent  P r e p DM  "Lucy w a i t e d a r o u n d  )  Patient  (for Mary)."  Active Counterpart 79  kipa-(y)await  s Lucy  ERG DM Agent  t Mary DM  Patient  "Lucy w a i t e d f o r Mary."  Tarpent productive, always been.  observes that  the A n t i p a s s i v e  while the Passive She g i v e s  i s relatively  i s not, or at l e a s t  some e v i d e n c e t h a t  has not  t h e P a s s i v e has  57  been g a i n i n g English  r e c e n t l y as a r e s u l t  (1982:74). Tarpent  Passives past  ground  (1982:83,84) r e p o r t s  have t r a d i t i o n a l l y  participle  verb,  the  function  main v e r b  of  the A n t i p a s s i v e  be  evidence  though  clauses)  an E n g l i s h  than  t h e y have as  i t seems t o have been  r e c e n t l y . Tarpent  as a p r o d u c t i v e  takes  assuming  the existence  construction  f o r the s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y  with  that  been u s e d more l i k e  (e.g. i n r e l a t i v e  a main c l a u s e  of c o n t a c t  i n Nisgha to  of the language  (1982:79). Levin generally particular (p.29ff). 0-role  associated  assign  with  the v e r b a l  whether  features  a 0-role  i n general, will  because the s u b j e c t associated  (Levin, p.20).  Burzio  that  when a v e r b h a s t h e f e a t u r e p o s i t i o n i n order  violating  p o s i t i o n t o which  with  [±T]  and [±A] i n d i c a t e s w h e t h e r  move t o s u b j e c t without  a  t h e VP i t h e a d s t o  o f u n i v e r s a l grammar  C a s e . I t c a n do t h i s  0-role  the verb a s s i g n s  Case t o i t s D - o b j e c t  the D-object  and A n t i p a s s i v e , i n  a l w a y s be t h e D - o b j e c t ) .  to i t ssubject,  [ - T ] < — > [ - A ] . Thus,  features  [ ± d - o b j ] , [ ± T ] and [±A]  the verb r e q u i r e s  s t a t e s as a p r i n c i p l e  get  the P a s s i v e  (which w i l l  verb assigns  [-A],  1981) d i s c u s s e s  [±d-obj] i n d i c a t e s whether  t o an NP  indicates  the  (following Burzio,  to  the 0 - c r i t e r i o n  i t moves w i l l  have no  i t , because of the i m p l i c a t i o n  [ - A ] — >[-T]. Thus, P a s s i v e feature  i s always a s s o c i a t e d  [-A] o r [ - T ] , and b e c a u s e o f  generalisation,  the Passive  with  e i t h e r the  Burzio's  is effectively  always  associated  58 with both [-A]  and [ - T ] .  The A n t i p a s s i v e ,  cannot be a s s o c i a t e d with the f e a t u r e D-object staying  [-T],  which moves i n t o an o b l i q u e Case, i n subject  Marantz [-A]  p o s i t i o n and g e t t i n g  (1984) proposes t h a t ,  since i t  i s the  the D - s u b j e c t  0-marked by the VP.  i n the AP, the f e a t u r e  i s added to verb without n e c e s s i t a t i n g the a d d i t i o n of  the f e a t u r e  [-T],  [-A][+T][+d-obj]  so that we end up with a verb which i s ( p . 2 0 0 , and L e v i n , p . 9 3 ) .  we accept B u r z i o ' s  generalisation,  [-A] and [+T]. Note a l s o t h a t , 0-role directly  Notice t h a t ,  if  the A n t i p a s s i v e w i l l have  to. be c o n s i d e r e d a marked c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  its  on the other hand,  since i t  i s both  although the D - o b j e c t  from the v e r b ,  i t must r e c e i v e  gets  i t s Case  some other way, f o r example, from a p r e p o s i t i o n . If  we now c o n s i d e r the p r o f i l e  constructions structure  of these two  r e g a r d i n g case marking, 0 - r o l e ,  r e l a t i o n s we see there  and D- and S -  i s a great p o t e n t i a l f o r  ambiguity and m i s l a b e l l i n g of the two c o n s t r u c t i o n s : S - a c c u s a t i v e Languages ( L e v i n ,  p.89,94)  Passive 0-role  D-structure  S-structure  A c c u s a t i v e CM E r g a t i v e CM  Patient D-object  S-subject  NOM  ABS  Agent  Oblique  OBL  OBL  D-subject  Antipassive 0-role  D-structure  S-structure  A c c u s a t i v e CM E r g a t i v e CM  Patient D-object  Oblique  OBL  OBL  Agent  S-subject  NOM  ABS  D-subject  59  S-erqative  Languages ( L e v i n ,  p.89,97)  Passive fl-role  D-structure  S-structure  A c c u s a t i v e CM  E r g a t i v e CM  Patient S-subject  Oblique  OBL  OBL  Agent  S-subject  NOM  ERG  D-object  Antipassive fl-role  D-structure  S-structure  A c c u s a t i v e CM  E r g a t i v e CM  P a t i e n t D-subject  S-subject  NOM  ABS  Agent  Oblique  OBL  OBL  D-object  Given N i s g h a ' s two c o n s t r u c t i o n s Antipassive,  we can conceive of two p o s s i b l e a n a l y s e s . One  would be that Nisgha i s S - e r g a t i v e t h i s a n a l y s i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n (in  the context  Antipassive,  c a l l e d P a s s i v e and  and M - a c c u s a t i v e .  Tarpent  c a l l s the P a s s i v e  of the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis)  as a P a s s i v e . The second p o s s i b l e a n a l y s i s  construction  Tarpent  is  a n a l y s e d as an  and what she c a l l s the A n t i p a s s i v e  S - a c c u s a t i v e and M - e r g a t i v e .  Under  is  anlysed  i s that Nisgha  Under t h i s a n a l y s i s  is  the  c a l l s the Passive i s a n l a y s e d as a  Passive and what she c a l l s the A n t i p a s s i v e  i s a n a l y s e d as an  Antipassive. Take good n o t e , Antipassive carry Tarpent  however,  a different  uses them. There  In  import than they do when  because i t  necessity  for  one to  has an A n t i p a s s i v e .  and S - a c c u s a t i v e languages c a n , under  above i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Antipassive.  the l a b e l s P a s s i v e and  i s no l o g i c a l  assume Nisgha i s S - e r g a t i v e Both S - e r g a t i v e  that  fact,  of  the c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  the  have an  in the a c t u a l a t t e s t a t i o n s  of  these  60 constructions mostly  i n the world's  i n languages with  that  we  find  that  i n a number  important  the true  role  t o be s u b j e c t absolutive Nisgha  languages, L e v i n  Antipassive  i n the syntax  (p.95).  i n that  to s y n t a c t i c processes (p.92).  I am n o t p r e p a r e d  Whether  i s that  this  S-ergative.  If anything,  accusative  with  analysed  e r g a t i v e case,  distribution  of determinate  the agent on  i s not c r u c i a l t o o f an  i t makes  syntactically  about  markers.  only  NP  i s the case i n  to Levin, as  an  the language as  especially  a r g u m e n t s I have a d v a n c e d e a r l i e r  seems t o p l a y  the e x i s t e n c e  i s N i s g h a does n o t earmark  f o r being  is  comments  which o p e r a t e  Antipassive  according  Levin  i t enables  t o say, but t h a t  my a r g u m e n t . The main p o i n t  good c a n d i d a t e  it  S - a c c u s a t i v i t y and M - e r g a t i v i t y  of c a s e s the A n t i p a s s i v e  arguments  claims  i n l i g h t of and the  ita  CHAPTER 3 It in  h a s been a r g u e d  above t h a t  there are serious  some p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s o f N i s g h a ,  same t h e o r e t i c a l formulated fail  framework t h a t  in. Specifically,  within  the p o s i t i o n  an A s p e c t s  i f we a d o p t t h e  t h e s e a n a l y s e s were  Rigsby's  (Chomsky  and Rood's  ergativity,  of  phrases.  framework and a new d e f i n i t i o n o f  R i g s b y ' s and Rood's a n a l y s e s f a i l  number o f o t h e r ways, a s w e l l a s h a v i n g subcategorized  accounts  1965) framework b e c a u s e  of subcategorized p r e p o s i t i o n a l  M o r e o v e r , g i v e n a newer syntactic  even  flaws  P P ' s . Rood's a n a l y s i s  the problem  fails  with  t o account f o r  the  facts  for  n o t o n l y weak c r o s s o v e r , but f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  reflexive could  five  appeared. their  Tarpent  Nonetheless,  has a l s o  been a r g u e d  given the d e f i n i t i o n Ergativity  Government-Binding looking  instead I  hope  advantage  t o account  these r e s e a r c h e r s last  two  framework  framework, n e i t h e r o f  workable. that  t h e c a s e p r e s e n t e d by  ergativity  of Nisgha  of s y n t a c t i c  does not h o l d  ergativity  from  H y p o t h e s i s and g i v e n t h e  framework. A l l t h e a r g u m e n t s  a t Nisgha  to point  fails  to consider these  given this  f o r the s y n t a c t i c  Marantz's  Certainly,  y e a r s before the t h e o r e t i c a l  p r o p o s a l s seems t o be It  from  as w e l l .  n o t have been e x p e c t e d  factors  up,  o f weak c r o s s o v e r , w h i l e R i g s b y ' s  anaphors  in a  toward  from  syntactic  i t i s obvious  i n employing  the l a t t e r  that  this  p e r s p e c t i v e seem  accusativity.  I believe  t h e r e t o be some  new framework b e y o n d  61  mustered  just  being  62  able  t o show t h a t  problematic attempt  the  a n a l y s e s of  when t e s t e d  against  t o o u t l i n e what  employing  this  previous  such a  I consider  frequently,  model o v e r a n o t h e r ,  or  framework. I w i l l  a major advantage  arguing  even one  model o v e r a n o t h e r , c a n n o t  be  f o r one  any  model can  and  d e s c r i p t i v e l y adequate,  made t o a c c o u n t  for  the  language  To  be  observable  done by  achieve  s h o u l d be  allowing  explanatory  derivable  explanatorily  a d e q u a t e , as  descriptively  adequate,  is  only One  accepted grammar question given  criterion a valid  the  a certain  possible  formulation  motivating  constraining grammars t o  the  issue of  learn  factor  factor  fewest  devices  t o an  be  cases  to  f a c t s of  m o d e l . I f one  the  model  is  and  analysis  for  which  have  a d e q u a c y of  1965). The  central  is essentially  a grammar, w i l l  grammar? T h i s  i n the  formulation i n f a c t , has  seeking  be issue of  has  the  largely  t o d e v e l o p a more  i s , one  possible  this:  it  that  grammar, t h a t devices  researchers  explanatory  framework. T h i s ,  universal the  to  i n many  the  be  i s , can  observationally  (c_f. Chomsky  learnability  Government-Binding  as  use  made t o  that  a  d e s c r i p t i v e l y adequate.  measure of  for children  hoc  adequacy,  w h i c h a number of  been a c e n t r a l g u i d i n g  been t h e  or  is learnability of  ad  from t h e  well  be  f a c t s ; but  i t is superior  observationally  as  of  p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n of  observationally  multiply.  now  theoretical  done e m p i r i c a l l y . To  Chomsky's t e r m i n o l o g y , a l m o s t  only  are  framework.  Note t h a t ,  t h i s can  researchers  which  needed  to  limits account  a  63  for  a l l the  observable  transformational and  powerful  what a g i v e n  to  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n can  i n e x p l a i n i n g how  analysis  words, what we  of  the  syntax  grammar can  do  be  be more v a r i a b i l i t y  in  and  they  of  will  more p o t e n t i a l  S-structure  c o n v e r g e , more or  less,  can  see  illustrated  by  Indefinite  claims  that  [  nothing  to  is  for  related  possible  Chomsky  analyses  w  of  (1965),  [  ^- ^^ t  vp n  as  w e l l on  model the  the  reader  [  t h e r e was  v  framework  no  above w i t h  note  only  here  i s s u e was  s e r i o u s attempt wind up  nothing  with  given  Rigsby  V NP,- . . .] Patient  number of o t h e r should  analyses  w h i c h have been  (c_f. (8) a b o v e ) .  learnability  way  grammar.  Aspects  between any  of  community  V NP„ . . . ] NP. . —> Patient Agent the  of  particular I f our  speech  accounts  framework. Hence we  such  are  t o c h o o s e between not  a n a l y s e s . The  in that  we  n  but  importance  then  on a s i n g l e  Incorporation  f o r c e us  one  language.  in a given  differing  Agent*  i s a theory  p r o b l e m of m u l t i p l e p e r m i s s i b l e  Rood has  possibilities,  us  V NP. .3 N P ,. . —> Agent Patient  vp  n  N P  the NP  NP. . while Agent Patient''  the  ideally  f o r c e on  this,  children  We  want  of a g i v e n  t o e x p l a i n i n g how  it  do,  a given  grammar w h i c h w i l l  universal  the  transformations  D-structure.  universal  N P  the  t h e more d i f f i c u l t  i s because t h e r e w i l l  In o t h e r  of  a  f o r example, t h e more numerous  grammar t o be,  learn. This  ambiguity  framework  of a l a n g u a g e . W i t h i n  u n i v e r s a l grammar a l l o w s  a particular to  facts  [  there these  V  v  is two  logically that  although  recognized to  in  accomodate  conflicting  i n t h e model t o h e l p  us  64  decide of  between  i n Chomsky  ability  them. U n i v e r s a l (1981),  to deal  Universal  grammar,  is significantly  with the questions grammar,  Government-Binding  of  as i t i s  more a d v a n c e d  as i t i s c o n c e i v e d  framework, c o n s i s t s  discussed included  language  at l e a s t four  in  its  learnability. of i n the  i n part  p a r a m e t e r s w h i c h a r e f i x e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r way encounters natural  conceived  (c_f. Chomsky  of a s e t of as the c h i l d  1981 ). I have  f a c t o r s i n Nisgha which might  among t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s . T h e s e  four  be  f a c t o r s a r e as  follows: (1) D i r e c t i o n o f Government  (Sproat  1982:255)  (a)  a l l categories  rightward.  (b)  [-N] c a t e g o r i e s  rightward,  other  (Marantz  1984).  1 9  categories  free. (2)  (3)  S-Ergative (a)  S-Accusativity.  (b)  S-Ergativity.  P r e s e n c e o r Absence o f INFL  (4) M - E r g a t i v e  1 9  This  M-Accusativity.  (b)  M-Ergativity.  s i t u a t i o n may  configuration f o r VSO,  Parameter  (a)  t h a n one p a r a m e t e r ;  (a)  Parameter  be more complex, and may Sproat  only  s p e c i f i e s that  f o r VSO and SVO S - s t r u c t u r e (b) f o r SVO).  involve this  more  i s the  languages ( i . e .  65  V e r b movement parameters be  since  taken as  that the  we  an  i s not  i t i s derived  want t h e  f a c t s of  nevertheless,  can  the  etc.).  suffix,  The  1981,  Baker  not  they  are  fixed  say  now  earlier,  t o be  derivable  really  be  phenomenon w h i c h  i t i s often  p o s i t i v e evidence  i s , children learn a life,  told  an  only  four  verb PP,  language  the  a  (Chomsky  encounter  explicitly  above  from  called  u n i v e r s a l grammar, by  could  that i s ,  p o s i t i o n of  by  which right  does and  f a c t o r s , then,  u n i v e r s a l grammar, must be  briefly  a v a i l a b l e t o the  d i s c u s s what  child  I have d e s c r i b e d .  factors;  my  statement  (1) c o u l d  I am  be  (2) c o u l d  be  reflexive.  Since  binding  universal  grammar, t h e governing  (unconsciously,  i n no  should  genitives;  the  s o r t of  l e a r n i n g the  regarding  comments h e r e  Parameter  their  (3). This  if  fixed  by  evidence.  a definitive  in  other  ( f o r example  t h i n g s . The  p a r a m e t e r s of  I will  grammar  language  i t in day-to-day  to  positive  be  be  the  n a t u r a l l y involve being  wrong way  and  these  the  1979). T h a t  encountering  (1)  movement c a n ' t  be  p a r a m e t e r s of  assumed, must  from  a number of  movement e x p l a i n s [-9-]  i n c l u d e d among  example of what I m e n t i o n e d  model. A l t h o u g h v e r b  fact,  t o be  the be  fixed  fixed  by  the  theory  information  category  of c o u r s e ) .  segment  way  of  l e a r n i n g of  the  as  four  exploratory.  s t r u c t u r e of  i s considered  of  the  the  a part  anaphors are  i s a v a i l a b l e to Because the  t o make  the  distribution  that  would  the  attempting  taken  by  evidence  bound  child  reflexive  of  anaphor  66 appears  in the  position  must  patient to  the  position be  i s the  the  internal  internal  (a) v a l u e ,  Once t h e  a s s o c i a t e d with  that  argument p o s i t i o n .  argument, p a r a m e t e r  parameter  there w i l l  be  positive  evidence  (a s u b c a t e g o r i z e d  separated  verb  the agent  also  serve The  as  M-ergative  a p p e a r a n c e of of  the  determinate s c o p e of  this  the  presence  of  pre-set  the  in  2 0  through  position  verb  (a of  the  [-3-],  evidenced by  the  p o s s i b l y other  PP  these  w h i c h can  will  the  distribution beyond  concerned  implicit  parameters be  by  phenomena  parameter  a question  are  for  movement.  I f so,  then  having  a negative  the  the  subcategorized  21  way  a b s e n c e of p o s i t i v e  Presumably  set  r e s e t by  with  i n the  above  arbitrarily positive  i s , i s t h e r e a d e f a u l t or unmarked v a l u e  of as  t h e mind of  The  d i s c u s s i o n . The  INFL r a i s e s  parameters?  conceived the  Case a s s i g n e r  Specifically,  That  be  argument) i s  argument  p a r a m e t e r c o u l d be  in a c e r t a i n  evidence?  2 0  for verb  m a r k e r s , and  the  discussion.  by  argument).  evidence  the  i s set f o r  patient  non-subcategorized  Since  (2) w i l l  movement s i n c e t h e from t h e  this  i s , S-accusativity.  S-ergative  S-accusativity,  the p a t i e n t ,  child  the  INFL p a r a m e t e r m i g h t  evidence,  grammar b e i n g  would have no  i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t VP  arguments  be  d e f a u l t v a l u e . That the  INFL  must  i s , in  formed  category.  2 1  contain  is also available  to the  child  This  follows  u n i v e r s a l grammar.  Chomsky  (1981)  has  INFL as  t h e head of S.  for  67  But  to return  learnability, be  I believe  t o any o t h e r  model was  learnability a valid  I have g i v e n In a d d i t i o n  to t h i s ,  (cont'd)from  universal  predicate  which  framework c a n  since  from  probably i t s inception  the backdrop of the the l e a r n a b i l i t y  analyses,  then  i t fair  positively.  t o s a y t h e model makes  predictions.  that  the f o l l o w i n g  rewrite  of the elements o b v i o u s l y  i s made b e c a u s e o f i t s a n a l o g y  S —>  that  t o semantic  that  NP INFL VP.  a l l I am p r o p o s i n g  i s , the f o l l o w i n g :  (ii)  S —>  NP  (INFL) VP.  i s that  rule i s  v a r i e s ) an  structure:  Note, then,  i s s u e as  the account  s y n t a x would be e v a l u a t e d  h i s claim  (i)  optional,  against  I think  (the order  assumption  model  for evaluating  of Nisgha  t h e c r i t e r i o n of  m o d e l , and i n f a c t  i s s u e . I f one a c c e p t s  some good e m p i r i c a l  2 1  current  formulated  criterion  given  the Government-Binding  shown t o be an a c c e p t a b l e  superior the  t o t h e main p o i n t ,  INFL i s  68  REFERENCES Aoun Y. and D o m i n i q u e S p o r t i c h e . Theory B a k e r , C.L.  of Government."  M.  L.  Inquiry,  (1982) "A L a n d i n g  Linguistic Burzio,  The L i n g u i s t i c  the Formal  Review,  2:3.  (1979) " S y n t a c t i c T h e o r y and t h e P r o j e c t i o n  Problem." L i n g u i s t i c Baltin,  (1983) "On  Inquiry,  10:4.  S i t e T h e o r y o f Movement  13:1.  (1981) " I n t r a n s i t i v e V e r b s and  Auxiliaries."  Rules."  D i s s . Massachusetts  Italian  I n s t i t u t e of  Technology. Chomsky, Noam A.  (1965) A s p e c t s o f t h e T h e o r y o f S y n t a x .  C a m b r i d g e , MA.:  MIT  Press.  (1976) " C o n d i t i o n s Analysis,  on R u l e s of Grammar."  Linguistic  2:4.  (1981) L e c t u r e s Dordrecht, Holland:  on Government  and  Binding.  Foris Publications.  (1982) Some C o n c e p t s and C o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e T h e o r y of Government Chomsky, N.A.  C a m b r i d g e , MA.:  and Howard L a s n i k  Control."  Linguistic  Dunn, John A s h e r Tsimshian Series,  and B i n d i n g .  (1977) " F i l t e r s  Inquiry,  Language." N a t i o n a l  Press.  and  8:3.  (1979) "A R e f e r e n c e Grammar  55, O t t a w a : N a t i o n a l  MIT  f o r the Coast  Museum of Man Museums of  Mercury  Canada.  Evans, G a r e t h  (1980) " P r o n o u n s . " L i n g u i s t i c  Inquiry,  Higgenbotham,  J . (1980) "Pronouns and Bound  Variables."  Linguistic Huang, C.T.  Inquiry,  11:4.  (1983) "A Note on t h e B i n d i n g  Theory."  11:2.  69  Linguistic  Inquiry,  Kayne, R i c h a r d  14:3.  (1981) "ECP  Extensions." L i n g u i s t i c  Inquiry,  12:1. Levin,  Beth C a r o l  (1983) "On  the Nature  Diss. Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e Marantz,  Alec  P.  Relations."  (1981) "On  Perlmutter,  MA.:  D.M.  Ergativity."  Technology.  the Nature  of  Grammatical  D i s s . Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e  (1984) On Cambridge  of  of  t h e N a t u r e of G r a m m a t i c a l MIT  of  Technology.  Relations.  Press.  (1978) " I m p e r s o n a l  P a s s i v e s and  U n a c c u s a t i v e H y p o t h e s i s . " i n J . J . J a e g e r and  the A.C.  Woodbury, e d s , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e B e r k e l e y L i n g u i s t i c Society, Rigsby,  4.  Bruce  Syntax."  (1975) "Nass G i t k s a n International  Journal  : An  Analytic  of A m e r i c a n  Ergative  Linguistics,  41:4. Rochemont, M i c h a e l ( t o a p p e a r ) F o c u s  i n G e n e r a t i v e Grammar.  Amsterdam: J . Benjamins. Rood, D a v i d S.  (1977) " A g a i n s t  Artificial  A n o t h e r Look a t Nass G i t s k a n Journal Sproat,  of American  Richard  Configurationality."  Syntax."  Linguistics,  (1983) "VSO MIT  Tree  Languages Working  Branches:  International  43:3. and  Welsh  Papers  in L i n g u i s t i c s ,  5. Tarpent,  M a r i e - L u c i e (1982) " E r g a t i v e  single  and A c c u s a t i v e  R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of G r a m m a t i c a l  Evidence  from N i s g h a . " Working  Relations  Papers of the  : A  with  Linguistic  70  Circle  of V i c t o r i a , (1981)  Victoria, Williams,  E.  2:1.  "Major F e a t u r e s of N i s g h a S y n t a x . "  B.C. (1980)  (Mimeographed). "Predication." Linguistic  Inquiry,  11:1.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096319/manifest

Comment

Related Items