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 L i n g u i s t i c s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984 © Robert S. B e l v i n , 1984 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my• w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . L i n g u i s t i c s The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: October 1984 ABSTRACT Nisgha has been c l a s s i f i e d by at l e a s t three d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t s as s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e (Rigsby, Rood, and T a r p e n t ) . T h i s i s motivated by the f a c t that i n c e r t a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n s the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e n t l y than the p a t i e n t of the t r a n s i t i v e or the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e . A new d e f i n i t i o n of s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y has been proposed r e c e n t l y by Alec Marantz (1981) and i s c a l l e d the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis. The d e f i n i t i o n e s s e n t i a l l y says, given the grammatical f u n c t i o n s [NP,VP] and [NP,S], we w i l l have the f o l l o w i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s of grammatical f u n c t i o n s and thematic r o l e s : S y n t a c t i c a l l y E r g a t i v e S y n t a c t i c a l l y A c c u s a t i v e Language Language Agent-[NP,VP] Agent-[NP,S] Patient-[NP,S] Patient-[NP,VP] M o r p h o l o g i c a l e r g a t i v i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d a d i f f e r e n t phenomenon. I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s ( f o l l o w i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n ) : M o r p h o l o g i c a l l y e r g a t i v e languages mark the s u b j e c t of a t r a n s i t i v e verb, and leave the o b j e c t of a t r a n s i t i v e and the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e unmarked. Given the above d e f i n i t i o n of s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y and s y n t a c t i c a c c u s a t i v i t y , I b e l i e v e Nisgha can be shown to be s y n t a c t i c a l l y a c c u s a t i v e and m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y e r g a t i v e . L e v i n i i (1983) proposes a number of d i a g n o s t i c s f o r s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y , none of which come out " p o s i t i v e " f o r Nishga. Some don't apply, and some show s y n t a c t i c a c c u s a t i v i t y . As well as o u t l i n i n g the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis in Chapter 1, I a l s o present some of the f o u n d a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s of the Government-Binding framework (Chomsky 1981) which w i l l be r e l e v a n t to the subsequent a n a l y s i s of Nisgha. In p a r t i c u l a r , I d i s c u s s the t h e t a - c r i t e r i o n , the P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e , the Case F i l t e r , Government, Proper Government and the Empty Category P r i n c i p l e . Chapter II In Chapter 2 i t i s argued that Nisgha shows s y n t a c t i c a c c u s a t i v i t y because of the p o s i t i o n 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 phrases and a l s o because of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e f l e x i v e anaphors. The p o s i t i o n of p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases suggests movement. I can f i n d no f a c t o r to f o r c e e x t r a p o s i t i o n of the p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase, but there does appear to be a f a c t o r f o r c i n g verb movement, namely the need to provide a means for a s s i g n i n g Case to [NP,S]. If we assume a D - s t r u c t u r e SVO and verb movement to c l a u s e - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n we get c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g both the p o s i t i o n of p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases and that of r e f l e x i v e anaphors. We a l s o e x p l a i n the weak c r o s s o v e r f a c t s i n Nisgha in t h i s way. One of the c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n of verb movement i s that Nisgha c a t e g o r i e s o n l y govern rightward. A f u r t h e r argument for rightward government (based on the s t r u c t u r e of g e n i t i v e s ) i s a l s o presented i i i here. A l s o i n Chapter 2 I d i s c u s s M a r i e - L u c i e Tarpent's a n a l y s i s of Nisgha, which i s the most recent and comprehensive a n a l y s i s of the language. Tarpent (1982) argues that Nisgha i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e . Her arguments fo r e r g a t i v i t y are reviewed i n the l i g h t of the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis and are shown to be non-arguments. Chapter I I I T h i s chapter c o n t a i n s a short d i s c u s s i o n of the l e a r n a b i l i t y i s s u e and how i t might be used as a c r i t e r i o n f o r e v a l u a t i n g competing a n a l y s e s , such as those d i s c u s s e d above. i v Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 1 A. L i s t of 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 Order 5 D. A Summary of the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis 8 E. M o r p h o l o g i c a l E r g a t i v i t y 15 F. The Government-Binding Framework 17 G. Summary of R e s u l t s to be Presented 23 CHAPTER 2 . . . . . .25 A. Arguments A g a i n s t S - E r g a t i v i t y 25 B. Verb Movement 30 C. Tarpent's Arguments 36 D. Coordinate Reduction 42 E. Focusing 45 F. The Imperative C o n s t r u c t i o n 48 G. D e l e t i o n of Recoverable Elements 50 H. I n d i r e c t Causation ( J u s s i v e C o n s t r u c t i o n ) 52 I. P a s s i v e and A n t i p a s s i v e 55 CHAPTER 3 61 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My s i n c e r e s t thanks to my c o n s u l t a n t s Harry Nyce, Carjple Moraes, Sadie S c a r r o t t Angus, W i l l a r d M a r t i n , Ron Stewart, W i l f r e d Stevenson and Sarah P i c a r d . T h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n , i n t e r e s t and pa t i e n c e were i n v a l u a b l e . Thanks a l s o to my s u p e r v i s o r , Michael Rochemont, and the r e s t of my committee from whose comments I b e n e f i t e d g r e a t l y . I am a l s o g r a t e f u l to Don Johnson and Cathy Howett f o r t y p i n g t h i s t h e s i s under l e s s than i d e a l circumstances. F i n a l l y I want to thank my parents f o r t h e i r u n f a i l i n g moral, f i n a n c i a l and s p i r i t u a l support. v i CHAPTER 1 A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMS C-command - a c-commands /3 i f and only i f : ( i ) a does not c o n t a i n /3 ( i i ) Suppose that ' ^ ' • • • ' 7 n i s the maximal sequence such t h a t : (a) 7 n = a (b) 7 . = a j (c) 7^ immediately dominates 7 ^ + 1 Then i f S dominates a, then e i t h e r (I) S dominates 0, or (II) 6 = 7^ and 7 1 dominates /3 conn. - co n n e c t i v e D - s t r u c t u r e - approximately "deep s t r u c t u r e " ; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 1F. D-subject - the D - s t r u c t u r e s u b j e c t . D-object - the D - s t r u c t u r e o b j e c t . DM - determinate marker; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 1B. ERG - e r g a t i v e i n f i x ; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 1B,2C. 3ERG - t h i r d person e r g a t i v e pronominal p r o c l i t i c ; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 2D. FUT - fu t u r e marker. INFL - approximately " i n f l e c t i o n element"; i n Chomsky (1981) INFL i s understood to be the head of S (sentence). 10 - i n d i r e c t o b j e c t . 1 2 JUSS - j u s s i v e morpheme; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 2H. LF - approximately " l o g i c a l form"; understood to be a l e v e l of syntax, as i n Chomsky (1981). ND - non-determinate marker; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 1B. NP - noun phrase. PP - p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase. PRO - pronominal anaphor which cannot be governed ( f o l l o w i n g Chomsky 1981). pro - pronominal anaphor which must be governed ( f o l l o w i n g Chomsky 1982). REL - r e l a t i v e marker; d i s c u s s i o n , s e c t i o n 2E. R-expression - r e f e r e n t i a l e x p r e s s i o n ; f o r the purposes of t h i s , paper t h i s may be understood as a non-pronominal l e x i c a l NP. 3 B. INTRODUCTION Nisgha (msGa 1?) i s spoken i n the Nass R i v e r v a l l e y of western B.C., and i s a member of the Tsimshian Language f a m i l y . I t i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to G i t k s a n , spoken along the Skeena R i v e r , and more d i s t a n t l y to Coast Tsimshian. The purpose of t h i s paper i s (1) to develop a more c o n s t r a i n e d account of Nisgha syntax than has p r e v i o u s l y been o f f e r e d , (2) to determine whether Nisgha i s , as i s claimed, a s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e language, and (3) to determine what the D - s t r u c t u r e word order of the language i s , that i s , the order before any movement has taken p l a c e . Before p r e s e n t i n g any of the work which has been done p r e v i o u s l y on the language, I s h a l l i n t r o d u c e some b a s i c sentence types i n the language, and d i s c u s s c e r t a i n r e c u r r e n t morphemes to f a c i l i t a t e understanding of examples. I n t r a n s i t i v e verb; common noun argument 1 pax- X hanaq' "The woman ran." run ND woman pronominal argument 2 wan fti-tit "They sat down." s i t TOP 3pl (group) 4 c £ k w - a - i s t l t n t s k w - i wan "The hunter shot a deer . " "We saw you . " T rans i t i ve verb; common noun arguments 3 k i l l ERG ND hunter ND deer pronominal arguments 4 k&*- 9 - m n i : - n see ERG 1 p l TOP 2sg pronominal agent 5 y&c - 9 - y - J ''us - y h i t / k i l l ERG 1sg ND dog 1sg pronominal patient 6 s e t 5 : q - e - t n u : - m s a n p 5 : k i t i nv i te ERG 3sg TOP 1 p l chief T rans i t i ve verb with a rec ip ient 7 kinam- e - \ hanaq ' - X ho:n *>& - i l i k i l e p n & give ERG ND woman ND f i s h prep ND someone "The lady gave someone some f i s h . " "I h i t / k i l l e d my dog . " "The ch ief i nv i ted u s . " Note the l a b e l l i n g of cer ta in morphemes ( a l l of the above l a b e l l i n g from Tarpent 1982). "ERG" i n d i c a t e s , according to Tarpent (p. 56, fn . 8) , that the argument immediately fo l lowing i t i s e rgat i ve , that i s to say, i s the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb. Although what Tarpent says i s true d i s t r i b u t i o n a l l y , I w i l l present evidence for a d i f f e r e n t perspect ive on th is morpheme in sect ion 2C. The stem [ n i - ] , l a b e l l e d "TOP" i s sa id to be a t o p i c a l i z e r . For the examples I employ i t could be just as 5 e a s i l y be uderstood as a pronoun stem, but f o r the purposes of my argument t h i s i s i r r e l e v a n t , so I s h a l l continue to use Tarpent's l a b e l l i n g . F i n a l l y , the morpheme l a b e l l i n g "ND" i s one of a set of what are u s u a l l y c a l l e d " c onnectives" i n the Tsimshian l i t e r a t u r e though t h e i r a c t u a l grammatical f u n c t i o n i s more l i k e a s p e c i f i e r . There are three of these morphemes, two determinate markers and one non-determinate marker. Determinate nouns are preceded by the determinate marker [ t ] i f they are the p a t i e n t of a t r a n s i t i v e verb or the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e , and are preceded by the deteminate marker [s] i f they appear in other c o n t e x t s , e.g. agent of a t r a n s i t i v e or i n a PP. Tarpent r e p o r t s that a deteminate noun i s (1) a proper name, (2) k i n s h i p terms r e f e r r i n g to an ascendent, (3) the demonstratives t-gus and t-gun (where [ t ] i s the determinate marker) and (4) the word k' inas: , meaning "so and so" (1981:4). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of these morphemes serves as evidence that Nisgha i s m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y e r g a t i v e . They w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 1E. C. WORD ORDER The word order i n Nisgha i s f a i r l y r i g i d . I t i s p o s s i b l e to focus elements by moving them to the f r o n t of the c l a u s e and making s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the non-focus sentence. V a r i o u s other o p e r a t i o n s can cause elements to appear i n d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s , but b a s i c a l l y , the sentences above d i s p l a y the usual order i n an independent sentence. 6 T h e m a t i c a l l y t h i s order, as can be seen from the above, i s Verb-Agent-Patient ( - R e c i p i e n t ) . 1 At l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t p r o p o s a l s have been made regarding Nisgha's D - s t r u c t u r e word or d e r . Rigsby (1975) proposes Verb-Agent-Patient, while Rood (1977) argues f o r Verb-Patient-Agent. Both argue f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h i n , more or l e s s , an Aspects framework. 2 *Note that i n no case except t h i r d person i s there another l e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n i n the sentence which i s c o r e f e r e n t with the p e r s o n a l s u f f i x e s on the verb. These s u f f i x e s are t h e r e f o r e best analysed as pronominal c l i t i c s and not agreement markers (except i n the case of t h i r d p erson), s i n c e they do not "agree" with any pronominal arguments; they are the arguments. Tarpent analyses the [ t ] i n sentences l i k e (6) as, more or l e s s , a 3sg agreement marker, and I agree with her a n a l y s i s . I t i s needed so that the proper case ( i . e . , e r g a t i v e ) i s assigned to the l e x i c a l agent, s i n c e a pronominal p a t i e n t has moved between i t and the verb. Note that when the pronominal p a t i e n t i s t h i r d person i t does not move. For example, h&c - a - i ^us n i - t "The dog b i t him." b i t e ERG ND dog TOP 3sg Th i s serves as f u r t h e r evidence f o r Tarpent's a n a l y s i s . If the t h i r d person pronominal p a t i e n t d i d move, the sentence would be ambiguous, s i n c e the 3sg [ t ] c o u l d c o r e f e r e i t h e r to the 3sg pronominal or non-pronominal argument. 7 T h e i r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , as one might expect, given t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l model, are extremely powerful, making s t r u c t u r a l changes such as the f o l l o w i n g : 3 8 i x S v \ I n d e f i n i t e NP I n c o r p o r a t i o n —> VP / \ V NP NP I N [-def] gup y ana:x eat 1sg bread ."I ate the bread" '(Rigsby 1975:349) 8 i i S x / V / \ V NP NP x ana:x n i - y eat bread 1sg "I ate bread" Observe some of the changes i n v o l v e d . The verb i t s e l f has changed, and not only do the agent and p a t i e n t exchange t h e i r s u r f a c e o r d e r i n g , but they are a l s o r e l a t e d to the verb d i f f e r e n t l y . In an Aspects framework such changes may be p e r m i s s i b l e , but we wish to apply a more c o n s t r a i n e d theory to the data, s p e c i f i c a l l y the Government-Binding framework (Chomsky 1981), in which a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n such as the above would v i o l a t e a number of p r i n c i p l e s . I w i l l d i s c u s s Rigsby's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and h i s p r o p o s a l of D - s t r u c t u r e word order i n s e c t i o n 1F and i n Chapter 2. I 2 ( c o n t ' d ) 2 " A s p e c t s " r e f e r s to Aspects of the Theory of  Syntax (Chomsky, 1965). 3 I would not d e r i v e ( i i ) from ( i ) at a l l . I f a n y t h i n g , I would analyse noun i n c o r p o r a t i o n as a l e x i c a l p r o c e s s , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e i t i s not f u l l y p r o d u c t i v e . 8 w i l l a l s o b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r Rood's pro p o s a l i n s e c t i o n 1F. Before going on I wish to mention Dunn's (1979) a n a l y s i s of Coast Tsimshian. He d i s c u s s e s the phenomenon of " s p l i t e r g a t i v i t y " wherein c e r t a i n p r e d i c a t e s are more l i k e l y to p r e c i p i t a t e an e r g a t i v e type c o n s t r u c t i o n than o t h e r s . In general t h i s phenomenon i s not found in Nisgha, which seems to be the most c o n s e r v a t i v e of the three major d i a l e c t groups (c_f. Tarpent 1981). There seem to be s u f f i c i e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the languages to c o n s i d e r a comparison of the two to be beyond the scope of t h i s paper. D. A SUMMARY OF THE ERGATIVITY HYPOTHESIS In recent years there has been an i n c r e a s i n g amount of work done on e r g a t i v e languages, i n p a r t i c u l a r on s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e languages. Alec Marantz (1981) has proposed a theory about the assignment of 0 - r o l e s to argument p o s i t i o n s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to grammatical f u n c t i o n s to e x p l a i n the e x i s t e n c e of two b a s i c s y n t a c t i c paradigms found i n the world's languages: the e r g a t i v e and the a c c u s a t i v e . His hypothesis has been expounded upon by Beth L e v i n (1983), whose work I have drawn on e x t e n s i v e l y i n t e s t i n g f o r the s t a t u s of the syntax of Nisgha as e r g a t i v e or a c c u s a t i v e . The E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis (Marantz) r e s t s on the o b s e r v a t i o n that there i s a core c l a s s of verbs which, c r o s s - l i g u i s t i c a l l y , r e g u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e s c e r t a i n 0 - r o l e s with c e r t a i n grammatical f u n c t i o n s . The h y p o t h e s i s 9 e s s e n t i a l l y says t h a t u n i v e r s a l grammar does not f o r c e one p a r t i c u l a r a s s o c i a t i o n of t h e m a t i c r o l e s and g r a m m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n s , but t h a t a g i v e n language may choose one of two o p t i o n s , which a r e shown below: The E r g a t i v i t y H y p o t h e s i s  A c c u s a t i v e E r g a t i v e Agent- [NP,S] f l ( s u b j e c t ) Agent- [NP,VP] ( o b j e c t ) P a t i e n t - [NP,VP] ( o b j e c t ) P a t i e n t - [NP,S] ( s u b j e c t ) I f a language i s a c c u s a t i v e i t w i l l mean t h a t the deep s t r u c t u r e s u b j e c t ( h e n c e f o r t h D - s u b j e c t ) of a t r a n s i t i v e v e r b w i l l be a s s i g n e d the agent 0 - r o l e , w h i l e the D - o b j e c t w i l l be a s s i g n e d the p a t i e n t 0 - r o l e . These same g r a m m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n s and t h e m a t i c r o l e s w i l l h o l d a t s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e (or S - s t r u c t u r e ) , g i v e n a t r a n s i t i v e v e r b . G i v e n an i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b ( s t i l l c o n s i d e r i n g a language w i t h a c c u s a t i v e s y n t a x ) we p o s i t the same c o n f i g u r a t i o n , t h a t i s , [NP,S]-agent, [ N P , V P ] - p a t i e n t . T h i s *[NP,S] r e p r e s e n t s the NP i m m e d i a t e l y dominated by S, w h i l e [NP,VP] r e p r e s e n t s the NP i m m e d i a t e l y dominated by VP i n a s t r u c t u r e such as the f o l l o w i n g (cf_. Chomsky 1965): V NP [NP,S] i s c a l l e d the e x t e r n a l argument and [NP,VP] the i n t e r n a l argument ( W i l l i a m s 1980). 10 means that, not only 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 , at D - s t r u c t u r e , there w i l l be two types of i n t r a n s i t i v e s : those a s s i g n i n g a 0-role to [NP,S] (agent only) and those a s s i g n i n g a 0-role to [NP,VP] ( p a t i e n t o n l y ) . These w i l l be c a l l e d " u n e r g a t i v e " and "unaccusative" verbs, r e s p e c t i v e l y (cf_. B u r z i o 1981, Perlmutter 1978). At S - s t r u c t u r e , however, t h i s s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e d i s a p p e a r s , because the D-object of the una c c u s a t i v e sentence w i l l always move to S-subject p o s i t i o n . The argument f o r t h i s comes from work by B u r z i o , who cl a i m s that any verb which does not a s s i g n a 0-role to D-subject p o s i t i o n (as i s the case with an unaccusative) w i l l a l s o not as s i g n case to i t s D-object. The D-object must t h e r e f o r e move to subj e c t p o s i t i o n to get Case; otherwise the Case F i l t e r i s v i o l a t e d . 5 Thus, although at D - s t r u c t u r e there are two kinds of i n t r a n s i t i v e s , at S - s t r u c t u r e there w i l l appear to be only one. 5The Case F i l t e r r e q u i r e s that any non-empty NP be assign e d Case ( c a p i t a l "c" i n d i c a t e s a b s t r a c t case) by an a p p r o p r i a t e Case a s s i g n e r (Chomsky l981). T h i s p r i n c i p l e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d more f u l l y i n s e c t i o n 1F. Note a l s o that the the fe a t u r e [±T] i s used i n Levin to denote whether a verb a s s i g n s a 0-role to i t s D-subject. [±A] denotes whether a verb a s s i g n s Case to i t s D-object. These f e a t u r e s w i l l be discuss e d f u r t h e r i n connection with the P a s s i v e and A n t i p a s s i v e ( s e c t i o n 21). 11 Now c o n s i d e r what a s s o c i a t i o n s of t 9-roles and s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s we have in a language with e r g a t i v e syntax. The D-subject of a t r a n s i t i v e w i l l be a s s i g n e d the p a t i e n t 0-role while the D-object w i l l be a s s i g n e d the agent 0-role. The same s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s and 0-roles w i l l h o l d at S - s t r u c t u r e , given a t r a n s i t i v e verb. Given an i n t r a n s i t i v e verb, at D - s t r u c t u r e the agent-only verb w i l l be unaccusative (no [NP,S] argument) while the p a t i e n t - o n l y verb w i l l be u n e r g a t i v e (no [NP,VP] argument). Both types of i n t r a n s i t i v e s w i l l , j u s t as i n an a c c u s a t i v e language, appear to be u n e r g a t i v e at S - s t r u c t u r e , again because the i n t e r n a l argument w i l l move i n order to get Case s i n c e by B u r z i o ' s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i t w i l l not r e c e i v e Case i n i t s D - s t r u c t u r e p o s i t i o n . Note that i n the above d e s c r i p t i o n of e r g a t i v i t y we are t a l k i n g about s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y . There i s no mention of case systems; only s t r u c t u r e and 0-roles are r e l e v a n t . Case marking, i t i s claimed, i s a seperate phenomenon, such that a s y n t a c t i c a l l y a c c u s a t i v e language may have e i t h e r an e r g a t i v e or an a c c u s a t i v e case system, as may a s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e language. I w i l l h e n c e f o r t h r e f e r to s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y and a c c u s a t i v i t y as d e f i n e d i n the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis as S - e r g a t i v i t y and S - a c c u s a t i v i t y , and morphological e r g a t i v i t y and a c c u s a t i v i t y ( i . e . r e f e r r i n g to case systems) as M - e r g a t i v i t y and M - a c c u s a t i v i t y . 1 2 With a l i t t l e r e f l e c t i o n , one can see that with the d e f i n i t i o n of S - e r g a t i v i t y d i s c u s s e d above, there w i l l be f a i r l y r a d i c a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s f o r the proper l a b e l l i n g of case systems, at l e a s t i f we r e t a i n the t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of an e r g a t i v e case system. That i s , t h e r e i s p o t e n t i a l f o r a great d e a l of co n f u s i o n and m i s l a b e l l i n g i f we d e f i n e an e r g a t i v e case system as f o l l o w s : the s u b j e c t ( e x t e r n a l argument) of a t r a n s i t i v e verb w i l l be d i s t i n c t l y marked, whereas the o b j e c t ( i n t e r n a l argument) of a t r a n s i t i v e and the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e w i l l have no d i s t i n c t i v e marking. To see why there i s such p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f u s i o n , compare the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s , which show the a s s o c i a t i o n of 0-roles with marked or unmarked arguments (marked by case, that i s ) i n both S - e r g a t i v e and S-acc u s a t i v e languages: S-accusative Languages Verb type: 0-role A c c u s a t i v e Case E r g a t i v e Case Agent-Patient Agt UNMARKED(nom) MARKED(erg) Pat MARKED(accus) UNMARKED(abs) Agent-only Agt UNMARKED(nom) UNMARKED(abs) P a t i e n t - o n l y Pat UNMARKED(nom) UNMARKED(abs) 1 3 S-ergative Languages  Verb type 0-role A c c u s a t i v e Case Agent-Patient Agt MARKED(accus) Pat UNMARKED(nom) Agent Agt UNMARKED(nom) P a t i e n t Pat UNMARKED(nom) ( t a b l e s from L e v i n , p.62) E r g a t i v e Case UNMARKED(abs) MARKED(erg) UNMARKED(abs) UNMARKED(abs) Notice that the S - e r g a t i v e language with a c c u s a t i v e case has e x a c t l y the same the same c o n f i g u r a t i o n of marked and unmarked arguments as does the S-ac c u s a t i v e language with e r g a t i v e case. The same i s true of the S- a c c u s a t i v e language with a c c u s a t i v e case and the S- e r g a t i v e language with e r g a t i v e case ( i . e . by lo o k i n g only at 0- r o l e s and marked arguments, the two are i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e ) . What the above t a b l e p o i n t s to i s the need to determine a language's D- and S - s t r u c t u r e and how they r e l a t e to 0-role assignment and case marking i n order to make an accurate i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the language type. The four p o s s i b l e language types are again schematized below, t h i s time i n c l u d i n g t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s as w e l l as 0- r o l e s and case marking. N o t i c e that i n t h i s t a b l e there are no two paradigms which are i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e : 14 S-accusative Language  Verb S t r u c t u r e R e l a t i o n Case System type 0-role I> Accusat ive E r g a t i v e Agt-Pat Agt D- sub j s- subj UNMARKED(nom) MARKED(erg) Pat D-obj s- obj MARKED(acc) UNMARKED(abs) Agt Agt D-•sub j s-•subj UNMARKED(nom) UNMARKED(abs) Pat Pat D-•obj s-•subj UNMARKED(nom) UNMARKED(abs) S- e r q a t i v e Language  Verb S t r u c t u r e R e l a t i o n Case System type 0-role D- S- A c c u s a t i v e E r g a t i v e Agt-Pat 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) ( t a b l e s from L e v i n p.62) Thus, one must have a l l three types of i n f o r m a t i o n about a given language i n order to be c e r t a i n of what type of language i t i s . L e v i n suggests a number of t e s t s f o r deter m i n i n g a language's s t r u c t u r e and how i t r e l a t e s to the 0-marking of i t s arguments ( p . 5 8 f f ) . Some of these I w i l l mention i n the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s , but most of them have been omitted because they d i d not apply to Nisgha, at l e a s t not so f a r as I c o u l d t e l l . On the b a s i s of these t e s t s which do apply to Nisgha, as w e l l as c e r t a i n other t e s t s , I w i l l argue that recent a n a lyses of Nisgha (Tarpent 1981,1982) have 15 improperly c l a s s i f i e d i t as having e r g a t i v e syntax and morphology (e.g. see Tarpent 1982, p.55). E. MORPHOLOGICAL ERGATIVITY In the preceding s e c t i o n I argued that i n f o r m a t i o n about s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s , 0-role assignment, and case systems was needed to c l a s s i f y a given language a c c u r a t e l y . I w i l l argue i n Chapter 2 that Nisgha i s S - a c c u s a t i v e . I f the reader f o r the moment w i l l accept t h i s , I w i l l here b r i e f l y argue that Nisgha i s a l s o M - e r g a t i v e . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the determinate markers f o l l o w s an M-ergative paradigm. In an independent sentence (as w e l l as in PP's and c e r t a i n embedded c o n s t r u c t i o n s ) the determinate agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb i s .preceded by [ s ] , while determinate agents or p a t i e n t s of a s i n g l e argument verb are preceded by [ t ] , as are determinate p a t i e n t s of a t r a n s i t i v e verb. Rather than c l a i m i n g here that the DM's are case marking, I am arguing that they r e f l e c t the Case of the argument they precede. The formal mechanism which would allow t h i s i s f e a t u r e p e r c o l a t i o n . There i s no such r e f l e c t i o n i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the non-determinate marker ( i . e . i t i s always [X ] ) . Some examples f o l l o w : 16 I n t r a n s i t i v e s Agent-only: 9 t a : * t - t leave DM  P a t i e n t - o n l y : 10 ku'?usk w- t f a l l DM T r a n s i t i v e s Mary Agent John Pat i e n t Lucy t Mary AGENT DM P a t i e n t "Mary l e f t . " 'John f e l l down." 11 Jamo:m- a - s h e l p ERG DM Oblique case (PP) 12 kinam- a - s Peter i ho:n *>a - s nox - t give ERG DM Agent ND f i s h Prep DM mother-3sg "Peter gave a f i s h to h i s mother." "Lucy helped Mary." The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the determinate markers alone i s probably i n s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h c o n c r e t e l y t h a t Nisgha i s M-ergative. However the d i s t r i b u t i o n of c e r t a i n other morphemes a l s o suggests morphological e r g a t i v i t y . The ERG s u f f i x [-a-] i n d i c a t e s an M-ergative paradigm. Although I w i l l l a t e r argue f o r a d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s morpheme, the f a c t remains that i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s l i k e the M-ergative paradigm. That i s , i t marks [NP,S] ( i n an independent sentence), while the other.arguments are l e f t unmarked. 1 7 F. THE GOVERNMENT-BINDING FRAMEWORK In t h i s s e c t i o n I w i l l b r i e f l y d i s c u s s some key concepts of the Government-Binding framework (Chomsky 1981) which w i l l enter i n to the subsequent a n a l y s i s of Nisgha. A base component of X-bar p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s generates a D - s t r u c t u r e which pro v i d e s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the s t r u c t u r e of a sentence which i n c l u d e s the s y n t a c t i c and thematic r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the arguments to the verb. D - s t r u c t u r e i s r e l a t e d to S - s t r u c t u r e by a very g e n e r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , known as "Move-a", which e s s e n t i a l l y says "move any category anywhere" (c^f. Chomsky 1 976 and B a l t i n 1981). T h i s u l t i m a t e l y general t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s f e a s i b l e because of very r e s t r i c t i v e c o n s t r a i n t s on what S - s t r u c t u r e s are p e r m i s s i b l e and on the a p p l i c a t i o n of Move-a ( c f . Chomsky and Lasnick 1977). These c o n s t r a i n t s are, f o r the most p a r t , proposed as part of u n i v e r s a l grammar, a parameterized model (cf_. Chomsky 1982). S e v e r a l p r i n c i p l e s w i l l be p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t i n the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s , s p e c i f i c a l l y the 0 - c r i t e r i o n , the P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e , the Case F i l t e r and the Empty Category P r i n c i p l e (ECP). The 0 - c r i t e r ion, which e f f e c t i v e l y a p p l i e s to a l l three l e v e l s of the syntax (LF and D- and S - s t r u c t u r e ) , ensures that the requirements made by the argument s t r u c t u r e of the verb are s a t i s f i e d . The statement of t h i s c o n s t r a i n t i s as f o l l o w s : Theta C r i t e r i o n 18 Every argument bears one and only one 0 - r o l e , and each 0 - ro le i s assigned to one and only one argument. (Chomsky 1981:36) The Pro ject ion P r i n c i p l e i s c lose l y assoc iated with the 0 - c r i t e r i o n . It i s stated informal ly as fo l lows : Pro ject ion P r i n c i p l e 6 Representations at each syntact ic l e v e l ( i . e . LF , and D- and S -s t ructure) are projected from the l e x i c o n , in that they observe the subcategor izat ion proper t ies of , l e x i c a l items (Chomsky 1981:29). »j 6 The formal statement of t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s as fo l lows : Given s t ruc tu ra l conf igurat ions of the fol lowing form where a i s an immediate const i tuent of 7 : (a) [ 7 ...a...^...] (b) [ 7 . . .(3. . . a . . . ] then ( i) i f 0 i s an immediate const i tuent of 7 in (a,b) at L^, and y=a, then a 0-marks 0 in 7 . ( i i ) i f a se lec ts 0 in 7 as a l e x i c a l property , then a se lec ts p in 7 at L . . ( i i i ) i f a se lec ts /3 in 7 at L^, then a se lec ts 0 in 7 at Ly where the var iab les L^, Lj range over what we are consider ing throughout to be "syntact ic l e v e l s " : LF, D -s t ructure , S - s t r u c t u r e . (Chomsky 1981:38). 19 From these p r i n c i p l e s t r a c e theory i s d e r i v e d . To see t h i s i t i s only necessary to observe that i n order f o r the p r o j e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e to hold, D - s t r u c t u r e must be r e c o v e r a b l e from e i t h e r LF or S - s t r u c t u r e . In order f o r D - s t r u c t u r e to be r e c o v e r a b l e from, f o r example, S - s t r u c t u r e , some r e c o r d of each c o n s t i t u e n t ' s o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n must e x i s t , s i n c e any of them may have been moved by Move-a; that r e c o r d then, i s the t r a c e . I t should be noted that an element can " i n h e r i t " Case and 6>-marking from i t s t r a c e (c_f. Chomsky 1981 ) Thus, f o r example, Rigsby's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , as mentioned above ( S e c t i o n C), v i o l a t e s the P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e . To see t h i s , n o t i c e that i n h i s d e p i c t i o n of I n d e f i n i t e NP I n c o r p o r a t i o n [NP,VP] simply changes p l a c e s with [NP,S], so that D - s t r u c t u r e i s not r e c o v e r a b l e from S - s t r u c t u r e . In the formal statement we would say that ( i ) i s v i o l a t e d , s i n c e the verb (a) w i l l d i r e c t l y c9-mark the NP " I " (0) at D - s t r u c t u r e , but the NP "bread" at S - s t r u c t u r e . While t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n Rigsby's a n a l y s i s w i l l not work i n the Government B i n d i n g framework, h i s suggestion f o r Nisgha's D - s t r u c t u r e deserves f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h i s w i l l be a major t o p i c i n Chapter 2. Rood's p r o p o s a l f o r D - s t r u c t u r e word order should a l s o be mentioned. He argues f o r a Verb-Patient-Agent D - s t r u c t u r e which in most cases undergoes an o b l i g a t o r y e x t r a p o s i t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , y i e l d i n g a Verb-Agent-Patient S - s t r u c t u r e (1975:222). The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n he proposes i s d e p i c t e d as 20 f o l l o w s : 1 3 i S 1 3 i i  S /\ VP NP. / \ Agent E x t r a p o s i t i o n NP P a t i e n t • V P a t i e n t — > VP Agent / V As Rood formulates the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (above) there i s no way f o r the P a t i e n t at S - s t r u c t u r e to get 0-marking, so both the P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e and the 0 - c r i t e r i o n w i l l be v i o l a t e d . Rood c o u l d remedy t h i s problem by i n c l u d i n g a t r a c e of the moved element, but there w i l l s t i l l be other, more s e r i o u s problems f o r h i s p r o p o s a l . These w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 2. Case Theory w i l l a l s o be r e l e v a n t i n the subsequent a n a l y s i s . T h i s i s the subsystem of the grammar which i s concerned with " a b s t r a c t Case" (Chomsky 1981:6), which may or may not have any morphological r e a l i z a t i o n (note c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of "Case"). Only [-N] elements (verbs, INFL and p r e p o s i t i o n s are [-N]) can a s s i g n Case. 7 The Case F i l t e r i t s e l f i s s t a t e d , simply enough, as f o l l o w s : 7Two proposed s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s ([±N], [±V]) d i s t i n g u i s h the major c a t e g o r i e s as f o l l o w s : verbs=[+V,-N], nouns=[-V,+N], p r e p o s i t i o n s = [ - V , - N ] , and adjectives=[+V,+N]. Note that Rood w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y e x p l a i n i n g how arguments in h i s S - s t r u c t u r e w i l l get Case, a f u r t h e r problem f o r h i s a n a l y s i s given the GB framework. 21 Case F i l t e r *NP i f NP has phonetic content and has no Case (Chomsky 1981:49). That i s , any non-empty NP must have Case i f the sentence c o n t a i n i n g i t i s to be grammatical. T h i s r a i s e s the q u e s t i o n of how Case i s a s s i g n e d . I mentioned above that only [-N] elements c o u l d a s s i g n Case. The assignment, however, can only proceed under government. That i s , only when a [-N] element governs an NP does the [-N] element a s s i g n the NP Case, where government i s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : Government In the c o n f i g u r a t i o n [ 7 . . . 0 . . . a . . . 0 ] , a governs 0 where: ( i ) a=X°, and 7=X n ( i . e . 7 i s an X-bar p r o j e c t i o n of a, and ( i i ) f o r each maximal p r o j e c t i o n 8, 6#a n. If 6 dominates /3, then 5 a l s o dominates a 8 (Chomsky 1981: 164 and Sproat 1983:268). I t i s hypothesized that the Case f i l t e r e x p l a i n s why fo r example, non-empty NP's cannot appear as the s u b j e c t of an i n f i n i t i v e i n g e n e r a l , t h i s p o s i t i o n being ungoverned (see s t r u c t u r e (14) below). The su b j e c t of a tensed c l a u s e , I should mention, i n E n g l i s h i s governed (and Case marked) 8 T h i s d e f i n i t i o n of government i s based on work by Aoun and S p o r t i c h e (1983). the terms p r o j e c t i o n and maximal p r o j e c t i o n are intended i n the sense f a m i l i a r from X-bar syntax. 22 by the i n f l e c t i o n element (INFL). I propose Nisgha has no INFL node, t h i s seems a reasonable assumption c o n s i d e r i n g there i s no c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n i n the language between a tensed and i n f i n i t i v a l c l a u s e . Nisgha, t h e r e f o r e , must use a d i f f e r e n t means f o r a s s i g n i n g Case to [NP,S]. 14 S ^ ^ ^ NP INFLt VP f l N F L governs the subject S of a tensed c l a u s e . N V COMP NP$ V P n \ _ $The s u b j e c t of an N V NP i n f i n i t i v e i s ungoverned I N and t h e r e f o r e has no Case, B i l l t h i n k s John to h e l p Mary * " B i l l t h i n k s John to h e l p Mary." (vs. " B i l l t h i n k s John helps Mary.") Another p r i n c i p l e which needs to be mentioned i s the Empty Category P r i n c i p l e (as expounded i n Chomsky 1981 and Kayne 1981). The Empty Category P r i n c i p l e i s a well-formedness c o n d i t i o n on S - s t r u c t u r e which s t i p u l a t e s the c o n d i t i o n s on where t r a c e s of moved elements may appear. It reads as f o l l o w s : Empty Category P r i n c i p l e An empty category t^e] must be " p r o p e r l y governed", where a p r o p e r l y governs /3 i f f a governs 0 and (a) a = [±N,±V] or (b) a i s coindexed with j3 (Kayne 1981:93) 23 The l a s t t o p i c of t h i s s e c t i o n i s b i n d i n g and the b i n d i n g theory. An element i s s a i d to be "bound" i f i t i s coindexed with a c-commanding argument (Chomsky 1981:184). If an element i s not bound i t i s " f r e e " . The b i n d i n g theory i s , a gain, a set of well-formedness c o n d i t i o n s (on S - s t r u c t u r e ) concerned with two f a c t o r s , government and b i n d i n g , and how they apply to d i f f e r e n t types of arguments. Bindi n g Theory (a) An anaphor i s bound in i t s governing c a t e g o r y 9 (b) A pronominal i s fre e i n i t s governing category (c) A R-expression i s f r e e (Chomsky 1981:188) I w i l l not expound f u r t h e r on the b i n d i n g theory here. Examples of i t s use w i l l be seen i n the subsequent a n a l y s i s . G. SUMMARY OF RESULTS TO BE PRESENTED I w i l l argue i n the coming chapters that Nisgha i s not S - e r g a t i v e but S-accusative and M-ergative. The D - s t r u c t u r e of Nisgha, I w i l l argue, i s SVO, which becomes VSO at S - s t r u c t u r e v i a verb movement. Evidence f o r t h i s w i l l come from m a n i f o l d sources. For example, the c l a u s e - f i n a l 9 o i s the governing category f o r /3 i f f a i s the minimal category c o n t a i n i n g both 0 and a governor of 0, where a i s NP or S (Chomsky 1981:188). R e s i d u a l problems remain with t h i s d e f i n i t i o n but they do not enter i n t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . For f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of the n o t i o n of governing c a t e g o r i e s see Huang (1983). 24 p o s i t i o n of PP's r e q u i r e s an SVO(PP) D - s t r u c t u r e i n order to e x p l a i n the p o s i t i o n of PP's s u b c a t e g o r i z e d by the verb (such as i n a sentence l i k e John put the book on the t a b l e . ) Evidence from the b i n d i n g theory f o r SVO D - s t r u c t u r e w i l l a l s o be presented. It w i l l be argued that the Case F i l t e r f o r c e s verb movement so that [NP,S] can get Case. F i n a l l y , I w i l l present an i n d i r e c t argument f o r verb movement based on the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of NP's. I w i l l a l s o present a f i n a l argument f o r SVO D - s t r u c t u r e based on the f a c t s of weak c r o s s o v e r . I w i l l argue a g a i n s t the most recent and comprehensive a n a l y s i s of Nisgha, that by Ma r i e - L u c i e Tarpent (1982) which i d e n t i f i e s Nisgha as s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e . I maintain that her arguments do not, i n f a c t , show Nisgha to be S - e r g a t i v e . The data she prese n t s suggests some i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s about s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , Case making and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of pro, but not S - e r g a t i v i t y . CHAPTER 2 A. ARGUMENTS AGAINST S~ERGATIVITY Nisgha has been c l a s s i f i e d by a number of l i n g u i s t s as e r g a t i v e , i n p a r t i c u l a r as s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e . The reason f o r t h i s i s that a number of s t r u c t u r a l o p e r a t i o n s and c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the language seem to t r e a t the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb d i f f e r e n t l y from the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e verb, which o f t e n p a t t e r n s more l i k e the p a t i e n t of a t r a n s i t i v e . I would l i k e to propose that Nisgha i s not S - e r g a t i v e , but S - a c c u s a t i v e . There are a number of reasons f o r making t h i s c l a i m . The f i r s t argument a g a i n s t Nisgha's S - e r g a t i v i t y hinges on a t e s t proposed by Levin i n v o l v i n g r e f l e x i v e - r e c i p r o c a l anaphors and the binding* theory ( L e v i n , p. 131ff). The b i n d i n g theory s t i p u l a t e s that anaphors must be bound in t h e i r governing category, and t h a t r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n s must be f r e e (Chomsky 1981). Now r e c a l l t h a t i n an S - e r g a t i v e language, [NP,VP] i s ass i g n e d the p a t i e n t 0-role and [NP,S] the agent 0 - r o l e . T h i s i m p l i e s that an S - e r g a t i v e language w i l l not allow anaphors to appear in the same s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n as p a t i e n t s in a simple sentence, s i n c e the argument i n t h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l not be bound. Moreover, an S - e r g a t i v e language w i l l not a l l o w the antecedent f o r an anaphor ( f o r example, an R-expression) to occupy the same s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n as an agent i n a simple sentence, that i s , [NP,VP], because the argument i n t h i s 25 26 p o s i t i o n w i l l be bound. We would 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 language, anaphors i n s i m p l e sentences t o appear i n the same s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n as ag e n t s , [NP,VP], and f o r a n t e c e d e n t s of anaphors t o appear i n the same s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n as p a t i e n t s , [NP,S], T h i s i s not what we f i n d i n N i s g h a , however; i n f a c t we f i n d the c o n t r a r y . One common way of e x p r e s s i n g a r e f l e x i v e a c t i o n i s e x e m p l i f i e d below: 15 ( l a p ) q'oc- a - i k yast kus l a p - A i - t s e l f c u t ERG ND man t h a t s e l f TOP 3sg "That guy c u t h i m s e l f . " 16 ( l a p ) q'oc- a - y - i l a p - n i - y s e l f c u t ERG 1sg ND s e l f TOP 1sg "I c u t m y s e l f . " 17 lu:-k yae'- a - i hanaq'- i l a p - n i - t i n see ERG ND woman ND s e l f TOP 3sg •>a - \ c ' am ">aenksu: l a : q a l t k w Prep ND i n m i r r o r "The woman saw h e r s e l f i n the m i r r o r . " In a l l of the above cases the r e f l e x i v e anaphor l a p f t i -i s i n the p o s i t i o n n o r m a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p a t i e n t , and the a n t e c e d e n t s of the anaphors a r e i n the p o s i t i o n 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 agent. 27 Thus, r e g a r d i n g anaphor-0-role correspondences Nisgha p a t t e r n s l i k e an S-accusative l a n g u a g e . 1 0 A second reason f o r c l a i m i n g Nisgha i s not S - e r g a t i v e has to do with the p o s i t i o n 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 phrases. If we assume Nisgha i s S - e r g a t i v e , then by the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis we would expect the simple t r a n s i t i v e sentence to have the D - s t r u c t u r e i n (18). T h i s i s because Nisgha's s u r f a c e o r d e r i n g i s Verb-Agent-Patient and i n an S-e r g a t i v e language the agent i s [NP,VP] while the p a t i e n t i s [NP,S]. 18 S. / \ VP NP„ .. . y \^ P a t i e n t V NP X Agent (Note that as w e l l as being the D - s t r u c t u r e i m p l i e d by Tarpent's a n a l y s e s , t h i s i s a l s o Rigsby's proposed D - s t r u c t u r e . ) When there i s a PP or i n d i r e c t o b j e c t (10) i n the sentence, i t u s u a l l y appears s e n t e n c e - f i n a l l y ; and although there are o p e r a t i o n s which can move c e r t a i n PP's to S - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n (though they u s u a l l y drop the p r e p o s i t i o n ) , the PP can never appear between the verb and e i t h e r of the other arguments ( i . e . , one cannot have V-PP-Agt-Pat or V-Agt-PP-Pat). For example: 1 0 I t should be noted that there are other ways of e x p r e s s i n g the r e f l e x i v e which would be accounted f o r d i f f e r e n t l y , but none of them j e o p a r d i z e the v a l i d i t y of the above argument. 28 19 *?uy - a - s John I l i t ^ awa^a- * throw ERG DM Agent ND b a l l there ND iku - fku - m -k y£t small small conn, man "John threw the b a l l to his son." 20 *^uyts John ^awa^ai i kui kumkya;t iit Verb Agent PP Patient 21 **?uyts ^awa^a* ikulkumkyaet John i i t Verb PP Agent Patient Notice, however, that PP's are subcategorized by certain verbs, for example "put" in English. One can say John put the book on the table, but not *John put the book. The same is true of some verbs in Nisgha, including the equivalent of "put". Thus we have the following: 22 nimaxt- a - s John buk ^a - X lax hasni - t x o x q w put ERG DM Agent Patient prep ND on place eat "John put the book on the table." 23 *nimaxtas John buk Verb Agent Patient as well as: 24 *nimaxtas John *>ai lax hasnit xoxq w buk Verb Agent PP Patient 25 *nimaxtas lax h£enitxoxqw John buk Verb PP Agent Patient 29 But now note we have a c o n t r a d i c t i o n of s t r u c t u r e s . If we assume (18), the S - e r g a t i v e a n a l y s i s D - s t r u c t u r e , a s u b c a t e g o r i z e d PP should appear in that s t r u c t u r e as e i t h e r (26i) or ( 2 6 i i ) : 26i S 2 6 i i S VP^ NP 0 . . . VP NP„ .. ^ P a t i e n t y ^ P a t i e n t V NP, . PP V PP NP. Agent Agent However, unless the PP were extraposed, the above D - s t r u c t u r e s would y i e l d Verb-Agent-PP-Patient or Verb-PP-Agent-Patient S - s t r u c t u r e s . But these are ungrammatical, as shown by (20, 21, 24, 25) above. Thus, to maintain D - s t r u c t u r e (18) we must maintain that some f a c t o r f o r c e s PP's always to extrapose. In f a c t , we would have to show that some f a c t o r can 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 , as seen by the p o s i t i o n of the PP's i n a sentence l i k e (27) below: 27 k wan nimaxt- 9 - s Donna i qoltammascaeqale lax JUSS put ERG DM Agent 1 ND vase on x w hasnit oxq *>a - s Mary t a b l e Prep DM A g e n t 2 "Donna had a vase put on the t a b l e by Mary." But there i s no such f a c t o r . L o g i c a l l y , then, there i s no way of m a i n t a i n i n g D - s t r u c t u r e (18). Moreover, s i n c e (18) must be abandoned, so must the c l a i m of S - e r g a t i v i t y , s i n c e (18) i s the only c o n c e i v a b l e 30 D - s t r u c t u r e f o r Nisgha which would e n t a i l the correspondences Agent-[NP,VP], P a t i e n t - [ N P , S ] . B. VERB MOVEMENT The f a c t s about the p o s i t i o n of the PP, making standard t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions about s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n (c_f. Chomsky 1965), do seem to suggest there i s some k i n d of movement going on. Since there seems to be no f a c t o r f o r c i n g PP e x t r a p o s i t i o n , another o p t i o n should be e x p l o r e d , namely verb movement. Verb movement, i t w i l l be seen, not only e x p l a i n s the p o s i t i o n of PP, but accounts f o r a number of other phenomena as w e l l . Verb movement would be d e p i c t e d as f o l l o w s : 28i S 2 8 i i S N P A g e n t J\ V~move V i / \ V NP„ .. . — > NP„ . VP P a t i e n t Agent y t. NP„ .. 1 P a t i e n t U n l i k e P P - e x t r a p o s i t i o n there are f a c t o r s which can f o r c e verb movement. S p e c i f i c a l l y , [NP,S] (the agent) r e q u i r e s Case, and i n cases of NP-movement the t r a c e of NP r e q u i r e s proper government as w e l l . Verb movement p r o v i d e s the means by which Case marking and proper government are ass i g n e d . I w i l l d i s c u s s these i s s u e s and some r a m i f i c a t i o n s of verb movement i n 2C. Before going on, l e t me p o i n t out that the verb movement a n a l y s i s e x p l a i n s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the r e f l e x i v e 31 a n a p h o r a s w e l l a s t h e p o s i t i o n o f P P ' s , w h i l e a s s u m i n g t h a t N i s g h a i s S - a c c u s a t i v e . T h a t i s , i f we p o s i t a D - s t r u c t u r e s u c h a s ( 2 8 i ) , s e n t e n c e s w i t h a r e f l e x i v e a n a p h o r s u c h a s ( 1 5 - 1 7 ) a b o v e w o u l d h a v e t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e a f t e r v e r b movement. 29 S / \ v. s 1 / \ NP . VP 3 / \ t . NP 1 { [ l s p f t i - ] j I n s u c h a s t r u c t u r e , t h e b i n d i n g t h e o r y i s not- v i o l a t e d . [ N P , S ] , b e i n g e i t h e r a p r o n o m i n a l o r r e f e r r i n g e x p r e s s i o n , i s f r e e . [ N P , V P ] , b e i n g an a n a p h o r , i s bound i n i t s g o v e r n i n g c a t e g o r y , w h i c h i n t h i s c a s e i s S. B u t n o t e a g a i n t h a t t h e a b o v e s t r u c t u r e , s u g g e s t e d by t h e p o s i t i o n o f PP a n d t h a t o f t h e a n a p h o r , f o r c e s an S - a c c u s a t i v e s y n t a x ; t h a t i s a s y n t a x w h i c h a s s i g n s [NP,VP] t h e p a t i e n t 0 - r o l e a nd [NP,S] t h e a g e n t 0 - r o l e . T h e r e i s a n o t h e r d i a g n o s t i c f o r e r g a t i v i t y b a s e d on t h e phenomenon o f "weak c r o s s o v e r " w h i c h s u g g e s t s t h e v e r b movement a n a l y s i s o v e r t h e e r g a t i v e . Weak c r o s s o v e r i s t h e t e r m u s e d t o d e s c r i b e a r a n g e o f phenomena i n v o l v i n g s t r u c t u r e s s u c h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g : 30 Who. l o v e s h i s . m o t h e r ? I 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 a s f o l l o w s : 32 32 § / \ COMP S. / \ NP VP V NP I / WhCK l o v e h i s ^ mother "Who. l o v e s h i s . m o t h e r ? " l I Who^ do h i s ^ mother l o v e *"Who. does h i s . mother l o v e ? " I I In (32) the t r a c e c-commands the c o i n d e x e d pronoun, w h i l e 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 . In g e n e r a l , i n or d e r f o r a pronoun 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 (as i t does i n ( 3 2 ) ) , i t must be c-commanded by i t s a n t e c e d a n t , i n t h i s case the t r a c e (Evans 1980:347; a l s o Higgenbottom 1980). T h i s i s not the case w i t h ( 3 3 ) . Under the s - e r g a t i v e a n a l y s i s of Nisgha* we would have the f o l l o w i n g two s t r u c t u r e s as e q u i v a l e n t s t o the E n g l i s h s t r u c t u r e s ( 3 2 , 3 3 ) : 33 "WhCKdoes h i s ^ o t h e r love t ^ ? " "Who^t^loves h i s ^ o t h e r ? " In the above structures we would expect to be able to get the bound var iab le reading from (34), s ince the trace c-commands the pronoun, whereas we would not expect to get th is reading for (35). That i s , i f we assume Nisgha is ergat ive and has a VOS D -s t ructure , we would expect to f ind exact ly the opposite judgements about weak crossover that we f ind in E n g l i s h . We would expect to f ind equivalents to the fol lowing Eng l i sh sentences with the judgements g iven: 36 *"Who. t . loves h i s . mother?" i i l 37 "Who. does h i s . mother love t . ? " i i I The equivalents in Nisgha to these sentences ( respect ive ly ) are as fo l lows: 38 nas - t *>asn-sip' an- s noxw - t Who 3ERG REL love DM mother 3sg "Who- loves h i s . . mother?" 39 nse -qat i t i - s i p ' a n - s noxw - t Who one ND foe love DM mother 3sg ( i ) *"Who^ does his^ mother love?" ( i i ) "Who. does h i s - mother love?" 34 Note that the e q u i v a l e n t to (36) i s not s t a r r e d ( i . e . (38)), and that the e q u i v a l e n t to (37) i s , given the c o r e f e r e n t reading ( i . e . ( 3 9 i ) ) . T h i s suggests that i n Nisgha the p a t t e r n i n g of weak cro s s o v e r i s e x a c t l y l i k e E n g l i s h , and not l i k e the p a t t e r n i n g an S - e r g a t i v e language with VOS D - s t r u c t u r e would have. The,verb movement a n a l y s i s thus r e c e i v e s support from the above judgements, while the argument f o r e r g a t i v i t y i s weakened. One l a s t t o p i c I wish to to address b e f o r e reviewing Tarpent's arguments i s the v i a b i l i t y of Rood's p r o p o s a l that D - s t r u c t u r e VOS (Verb-Patient-Agent) becomes VSO (Verb-Agent-Patient) mentioned in Chapter 1. Note f i r s t that Rood e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s he i s working i n an Aspects Framework, wherein elements s u b c a t e g o r i z e d by the verb must be c o n t a i n e d i n the VP. Thus, unless he can motivate an o b l i g a t o r y , m u l t i p l e PP e x t r a p o s i t i o n r u l e , he w i l l face the same dilemma as Rigsby and Tarpent; namely, he w i l l be f o r c e d to p r e d i c t a V-PP-Agent-Patient S - s t r u c t u r e , which has been shown above to be impossible i n Nisgha. Rood's proposal w i l l a l s o be t r o u b l e d by the weak crossover phenomenon d i s c u s s e d above. To see t h i s c o n s i d e r what h i s model would p r e d i c t as S - s t r u c t u r e s f o r (38,39): 35 40 C O M P ' N P . / V P N P Det N / \ V N P WhOj love t ^ t j ,hisj mother, E x t j r a p o s i t i o n Wh-movement Who. love t. h i s . mother t. 1 V1 1 ^ 1 E x t r a p o s i t i o n Wh-movement "Who. loves h i s - mother?" I I (nset •'asnsip'ans n o x w t ) "Who^ does h i s ^ mother l o v e ? " (naeqat i t i s i p ' s n s n o x w t ) In (40) the pronoun i s not c-commanded by ty the pronoun's antecedant, so the sentence should be ungrammatical. But as seen by (38), i t i s not. On the other hand, i n (41) the pronoun i s c-commanded by t ^ , so the sentence should be grammatical, but i t i s not, as shown by ( 3 9 i ) . Thus Rood's proposal f a i l s to account f o r the weak c r o s s o v e r f a c t s . Note that he cannot simply say Wh-movement occurs before e x t r a p o s i t i o n (which would i n v a l i d a t e my argument) because in h i s a n a l y s i s e x t r a p o s i t i o n must occur to put the two arguments i n t h e i r c o r r e c t p o s i t i o n s f o r r e c e i v i n g case-marking. (He cl a i m s that t h i s i s why e x t r a p o s i t i o n i s neccesary; the f i r s t argument a f t e r the verb w i l l r e c e i v e e r g a t i v e case, the second argument nominative case.) Thus the r u l e order would have to be E x t r a p o s i t i o n f o l l o w e d by Wh-movement, which produces (40,41). 3 6 C. TARPENT'S ARGUMENTS In t h i s s e c t i o n a number of arguments which have been marshalled f o r Nisgha's e r g a t i v i t y (Tarpent 1982) w i l l be presented. In some cases the data on which these arguments are based w i l l be reanalysed i n l i g h t of my p r o p o s a l of verb movement. The E r g a t i v e I n f i x Tarpent (1982:56) d i s c u s s e s what she c a l l s the " e r g a t i v e i n f i x " as part of her c l a i m that Nisgha i s e r g a t i v e . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s i n f i x (more p r o p e r l y c a l l e d a s u f f i x ) she r e p o r t s as f o l l o w s : the e r g a t i v e i n f i x [-s-] w i l l be present on the t r a n s i t i v e verb only i f the agent of the verb i s the f i r s t suceeding argument (there may be determinate markers i n t e r v e n i n g ) . In i n t r a n s i t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s the s u f f i x never appears, and i f NP- or Wh-movement moves the agent out of i t s p o s i t i o n immediately succeeding the verb, then again the e r g a t i v e s u f f i x does not appear. Thus, the morpheme seems to have at l e a s t an M-ergative d i s t r i b u t i o n , that i s , i t se t s o f f the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb from the p a t i e n t or the s i n g l e argument of the i n t r a n s i t i v e verb, when the agent i s l e x i c a l l y present in s i t u . T r a n s i t i v e (Arguments i n s i t u ) 42 fsmo:m- a - s Lucy t Mary h e l p ERG DM Agent DM P a t i e n t "Lucy helped Mary" 37 I n t r a n s i t i v e 43 Agent o n l y : taw! - t Mary leave DM Agent Mary l e f t . 44 P a t i e n t only: k w u l t a w J - t L i s a f a i n t DM P a t i e n t L i s a f a i n t e d . Note that i n the context of the Verb movement hypothesis there i s a p r i n c i p l e d way of e x p l a i n i n g the above p a t t e r n , given c e r t a i n assumptions. R e c a l l that we are asssuming Nisgha has no i n f l e c t i o n element because of the lack of d i s t i n c t i o n between a tensed and i n f i n i t i v a l verb. The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s assumption i s that [NP,S] (given s t r u c t u r e (28i) above) w i l l not be as s i g n e d Case as i t i s i n a language with an i n f l e c t i o n element (where INFL governs and Case marks [NP,S]). R e c a l l a l s o that Case i s mandatory for a l l non-empty NP's. Thus a s y n t a c t i c Case a s s i g n e r i s needed to a s s i g n Case to [NP,S]. That i s , I c l a i m , what Tarpent has analysed as the " e r g a t i v e i n f i x " [ - a - ] . 1 1 We might venture a step f u r t h e r and a n a l y s e [ - a - ] not only as a s y n t a c t i c Case a s s i g n e r but as the same morpheme 1 1 T h e r e i s a great deal of evidence that ERG [ - a - ] i s not simply a p h o n o l o g i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d e p e n t h e t i c vowel. For example, when i t s u f f i x e s to a v o w e l - f i n a l verb stem, [y] i s i n s e r t e d , presumably to keep the morphology t r a n s p a r e n t . ERG [ - a - ] can a l s o appear between consonants where ep e n t h e s i s would never occur, e.g. i n stop+s# sequences. 38 as the p r e p o s i t i o n normally t r a n s c r i b e d [*>a-]. P h o n o l o g i c a l l y t h i s i s p l a u s i b l e s i n c e there are no examples (to my knowledge) of n u l l onset i n Nisgha. That i s , what p h o n o l o g i c a l l y 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 • ' - i n i t i a l . At best i t can be s a i d the d i s t i n c t i o n between a v o w e l - i n i t i a l and a " " - i n i t i a l lexeme i s minimal, so the p r e p o s i t i o n [*>9-] may be / a / phonemically. Moreover t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound, t h i s idea b e a r i n g a s t r i k i n g resemblence to Kayne's (1981) a n a l y s i s of Empty Category P r i n c i p l e e f f e c t s . He proposes that p r e p o s i t i o n s cannot p r o p e r l y govern unless they are governed by V. If we vary t h i s idea s l i g h t l y we can get e x a c t l y the r i g h t r e s u l t s in Nisgha. Suppose that i n a d d i t i o n to sa y i n g that the verb must l i c e n s e p r e p o s i t i o n s to be proper governors we a l s o say that i n Nisgha the verb (or i t s t r a c e ) must l i c e n s e p r e p o s i t i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g the morpheme [ - a - ] ) to a s s i g n Case. In order to l i c e n s e [ - 3 - ] , however, the verb must govern i t . I w i l l argue that i n Nisgha government can only be to the r i g h t . Assuming t h i s to be t r u e , then i t folows that the verb must move to the f r o n t of the sentence i n order to govern [ - a - ] , l i c e n s i n g i t to govern and Case-mark [ N P , S ] . 1 2 1 2 In subordinate c l a u s e s [ - a - ] i s not present on the verb even when the agent immediately f o l l o w s . However, there i s always a pronominal p r o c l i t i c on the verb which e i t h e r represents or agrees with the t r a n s i t i v e agent. I have not 39 Note that such a formulation w i l l enable us to make e x p l i c i t the r u l e s of case assignment i n Nisgha: (A) NP governed by [+V] gets a b s o l u t i v e Case (B) NP governed by [-N] ( [ - e - ] ) gets e r g a t i v e Case (C) NP governed by [+N] (nouns) get g e n i t i v e Case There i s a precedent f o r arguing f o r verb movement i n a f a s h i o n s i m i l a r to the way I have argued. R i c h a r d Sproat (1983) argues that i n some languages (not i n c l u d i n g E n g l i s h ) c a t e g o r i e s can only govern (and t h e r e f o r e Case mark) rightward. In Sproat's a n a l y s i s of Welsh he argues that t h i s i s the reason f o r verb movement i n that language (Welsh has VSO S - s t r u c t u r e and SVO D - s t r u c t u r e ) . Although Welsh has an an i n f l e c t i o n element, i t cannot govern the [NP,S] because i t i s to l e f t of INFL, so INFL moves to the l e f t of that NP, to where i t can govern and Case mark [NP,S]. Since INFL elements can only a f f i x to a verb, the verb must a l s o move l e f t of [NP,S], g i v i n g VSO from SVO o r d e r . 1 2 ( c o n t ' d ) y e t been able to determine with any degree of c e r t a i n t y why, e x a c t l y , [-e-] should be absent, but then again, no one e l s e has e i t h e r . In the framework I am employing we might say that when the c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r the appearance of the p r o c l i t i c are present we can have an empty p r e p o s i t i o n (that i s , an empty s y n t a c t i c Case a s s i g n e r ) , but j u s t why t h i s should be so I am not prepared to say. 40 Notice f i r s t o f f the s i m i l a r i t y of h i s a n a l y s i s to that I have given f o r Nisgha verb movement. The d i f f e r e n c e i s that Nisgha has no INFL node. Thus, verb movement i s not to enable INFL to a f f i x to something, but r a t h e r so t h a t the Case a s s i g n e r (hypothesised to be the p r e p o s i t i o n [*"©-]) can be governed and t h e r e f o r e l i c e n s e d to Case mark [NP,S]. What i s the same about Nisgha and Welsh, I propose, i s t h a t c a t e g o r i e s can only govern rightward. T h i s i s f i r s t l y shown by verb movement. I f Nisgha c a t e g o r i e s c o u l d govern both d i r e c t i o n s t h e r e i s no reason the verb c o u l d not r a i s e out of VP to a p o s i t i o n s t i l l to the r i g h t of [NP,S]. The morpheme [-a-] c o u l d s t i l l Case mark [NP,S], s i n c e [-a-] would s t i l l be governed by the r a i s e d V. That i s , we would have an S - s t r u c t u r e as f o l l o w s : But t h i s i s not what happens. The verb moves to the l e f t of [NP,S] and [-a-], implying the a b i l i t y of [-a-] and V to govern only rightward. But beyond t h i s , we can look f o r evidence of r i g h t w a r d government i n other s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s i s because i t i s not j u s t INFL or V that can govern only r i g h t w a r d but a l l c a t e g o r i e s . 1 3 45 VP / N t. I Prep N NP 1 3 Let me r e i t e r a t e that i n E n g l i s h c a t e g o r i e s are not l i m i t e d to rightward government (at l e a s t not [+N] 41 One category i n which we might look f o r t h i s s t r u c t u r e i s the NP. Sproat proposes that "the a b i l i t y to a s s i g n g e n i t i v e case i s a f e a t u r e of the head of an NP" (p.254). The s t r u c t u r e of NP's i s g e n e r a l l y assumed to be as f o l l o w s , where N (the head) governs and a s s i g n s case l e f t w a r d s : 46 [gNP[jjN. . . ] ] (Sproat,p.255) T h i s would be the s t r u c t u r e a s s i g n e d an E n g l i s h NP such as "John's book", where book governs and a s s i g n s case to John. In a rightward governing language, however, such a s t r u c t u r e w i l l be impossible s i n c e N w i l l not be able to govern l e f t w a r d . Thus, e i t h e r movement w i l l p o s i t i o n the head N to the l e f t of the g e n i t i v e case marked NP, or the N w i l l be base-generated t h e r e . At any r a t e the S - s t r u c t u r e of a g e n i t i v e N w i l l have the head noun to the l e f t of the g e n i t i v e case-marked NP, so the case can be a s s i g n e d rightward. T h i s w i l l r e s u l t i n an S with the case marked NP (the possesor) to the r i g h t of the head N (the possesed) ( c f . Sproat,p.254). T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what i s found i n Nisgha (as w e l l as Welsh and A r a b i c , both of which are VSO languages). 47 ceek w- a - $ - X nox w - X fku -smsx k i l l ERG 1sg ND mother ND dimin bear "I (had to) k i l l the bear cub's mother." 1 3 (cont' d)categor i e s , cf_. Sproat 1983) . Thus, e.g., E n g l i s h INFL governs l e f t w a r d . 42 48 k wen kYj£' (©)- t'sn - I bot - s Robin l o : - y JUSS see c a u s a t i v e ND boat DM 10 1sg "Show me Robin's boat." 49 h ie - B - i wiek^ -k w- s John i k w i l & ^ - s Mary send ERG ND brother p i DM ND blanket Prep DM "John's b r o t h e r s sent the blanket to Mary." Sproat (1983:254) g i v e s examples from Welsh and A r a b i c as shown below: 49a Welsh: ty Sion "John's house" house John 49b A r a b i c : baytu r - r a j u l i "the man's house" house the-man (gen) The f a c t that g e n i t i v e NP's have t h i s s t r u c t u r e , then, serves to strengthen the verb movement h y p o t h e s i s i n s o f a r as i s strengthens the hypothesis that Nisgha c a t e g o r i e s only govern rightward. D. COORDINATE REDUCTION Tarpent argues that a t e s t of s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y i s to see which argument d e l e t e s i n a t r a n s i t i v e c l a u s e when i t i s c o o r d i n a t e d with a preceding i n t r a n s i t i v e (1982:62). That i s , given sentences such as ( i - i i i ) below: 43 50 ( i ) c ' i n - t Fred it Fred came i n . tt come i n DM Agt ( i i ) humc'ax- a - s Fred t Mary tt Fred k i s s e d Mary. tt k i s s ERG DM Agt DM Pat ( i i i ) humc'ax- a - s Mary t Fred it Mary k i s s e d F r e d . tt k i s s ERG DM Agt DM Pat a s y n t a c t i c a l l y a c c u s a t i v e language w i l l c o o r d i n a t e ( i ) and ( i i ) and i n the process drop the agent of ( i i ) ("Fred came in and k i s s e d Mary"). On the other hand, a s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e language w i l l c o o r d i n a t e ( i ) and ( i i i ) and i n the process drop the p a t i e n t of ( i i i ) , ("Fred came i n and Mary k i s s e d ( h im)"). Tarpent claims Nisgha behaves l i k e the s y n t a c t i c a l l y e r g a t i v e language i n commonly c o o r d i n a t i n g ( i ) and ( i i i ) : 1 * 1"Note the morpheme l a b e l e d "3ERG". T h i s i s one of a set of "pronominal p r o c l i t i c s " which appear on the t r a n s i t i v e verb to represent or c o r e f e r to the agent i n su b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s , as mentioned i n the footnote 12. I b e l i e v e t h i s morpheme i s the same as the t h i r d s i n g u l a r (3sg) s u f f i x and simply i n d i c a t e s t h i r d person. I t i s i n t e r p r e t e d as s i n g u l a r unless followed by the morpheme [ti«t]. 44 51 c ' i n - t F r e d ^ i : - t humc'ax- s Mary come i n DM Agt and 3ERG k i s s DM Agt "Fred came i n and Mary k i s s e d (him)." Tarpent notes, c o r r e c t l y , that the above sentence i s a c t u a l l y ambiguous and can a l s o mean "Fred came i n and k i s s e d Mary." though, she c l a i m s , only i f the context f o r c e s t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i f the main s t r e s s f a l l s on "Mary" rat h e r than " k i s s " (humc'ex) (Tarpent 1982:63, fn.13b). The speakers I have asked made i t l e s s c l e a r t h a t the f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s the obvious one, though one might argue they have been more a f f e c t e d by E n g l i s h . However, Tarpent claims the normal way of e x p r e s s i n g the second sentence i s not the same as (51) above, and yet t h i s i s e x a c t l y what I have e l i c t e d from two d i f f e r e n t speakers. For example: 52 memq - t Mary t i : - t sayt smile DM Agt and 3ERG together ludemdam - i k ' u b e t k ' i f k w hug(pl.Pat) ND c h i l d r e n "Mary s m i l e d and hugged the c h i l d r e n . " 53 w i y i t k w - t Mary t i t - t k ' i l t ' i s John cr y DM Agt and 3ERG punch Pat "Mary c r i e d and punched John." But beyond t h i s , i t should be r e c o g n i s e d that Tarpent's t e s t , even i f i t d i d g i v e the r e s u l t s she c l a i m s , does not r e a l l y bear on S - e r g a t i v i t y , f o r r e c a l l that S - e r g a t i v i t y 45 r e q u i r e s [NP,S]-Patient, [NP,VP]-Agent. Demonstrating that in some cases an i n t a n s i t i v e agent p a t t e r n s with a t r a n s i t i v e p a t i e n t (which i s what Tarpent's t e s t would do i f i t went through) in no way evidences the grammatical f u n c t i o n — 0 - r o l e correspondences c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of S-e r g a t i v e languages. E. FOCUSING Tarpent r e p o r t s that e i t h e r of the arguments of a t r a n s i t i v e verb can be t o p i c a l i s e d as can the s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e (1982:63). 1 5 Only i n the case of i n t r a n s i t i v e s , however, i s the treatment of two t h e m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r n e t arguments the same. In sentences with i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs, the s i n g l e argument (both agent-only and p a t i e n t - o n l y ) i s moved to the f r o n t of the c l a u s e , and the 1 5 A l t h o u g h Tarpent presents no argument f o r i d e n t i f y i n g these f r o n t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s as focused, i n the t e c h n i c a l sense of the word, there i s evidence she i s c o r r e c t . E.g., to the q u e s t i o n nasi iamo:mas Mary ("Who d i d Mary help?") one may answer John iamo:mas Mary ("It was John whom Mary helped."), but not Mary '?antiam6:ms John ("It was Mary who helped John."). More data would be needed t o be c e r t a i n , but the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 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 to my argument so I have not pursued such data. For d i s c u s s i o n of f o c u s i n g and i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s see Rochemont (to appear). 46 s u f f i x [-at] i s added to the verb s t e m : 1 6 I n t a n s i t i v e s 54 Agent-only, focused Mary i t a : w l - at Agt ND leave REL 55 Non-focused ta:wt- t Mary leave DM Agt 56 P a t i e n t - o n l y , focused L i s a i ( d i ) k wultaw*- at Pat ND Foe f a i n t REL 57 Non-focused k wultaw''- t L i s a f a i n t DM Pat " I t was Mary who l e f t . " "Mary l e f t . " " I t was L i s a who f a i n t e d . " " L i s a f a i n t e d . " T r a n s i t i v e sentences t r e a t f o c u s i n g of e i t h e r argument (agent or p a t i e n t ) d i f f e r e n t l y from the above, and a l s o from one another. In the sentence with a focused agent, the agent i s f r o n t e d and the p r e f i x [^an-] i s added to the verb along with the 3ERG [ ~ t - ] ; the ERG s u f f i x [ - a - ] a l s o d i s a p p e a r s . When the p a t i e n t i s focused, the only r e a l d i f f e r e n c e from 1 6 T a r p e n t argues that the REL s u f f i x [-at] cannot be decomposed i n t o ERG [-a-] followed by 3sg or DM [ - t ] , s i n c e the l a t t e r sequence i s always preceded by [y] when f o l l o w i n g a vowel f i n a l stem, [ - a t ] , on the other hand, becomes [-t] when preceded by a vowel f i n a l stem (1982:65). 4 7 the non-focused c l a u s e i s t h a t the p a t i e n t i s f r o n t e d . No m o r p h o l o g i c a l changes t a k e p l a c e w i t h the 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 the moved argument. T r a n s i t i v e s 58 Focused Agent Lucy ''an- t -iamorm- s Mary Agt ERG 3ERG h e l p DM Pat REL 59 Non-focused lam6:m- a - s Lucy t Mary h e l p ERG DM Agt DM Pat 60 Focused P a t i e n t Mary i Jam6:m- a - s Lucy Pat ND h e l p ERG DM Agt Non-focused " I t was Lucy t h a t h e l p e d Mary." "Lucy h e l p e d Mary. " I t was Mary t h a t Lucy h e l p e d . " e x a c t l y as (59) above Tarpent argues t h a t the f o c u s e d p a t i e n t of a t r a n s i t i v e i s e s s e n t i a l l y b e i n g t r e a t e d the same as the f o c u s e d s i n g l e argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e (agent or p a t i e n t ) , but because of s u r f a c e m o r p h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s (as w e l l as o t h e r reasons) the [-at] i s not p r e s e n t on the t r a n s i t i v e v e r b (1982:64£f). One of the o t h e r reasons she g i v e s i n a r g u i n g f o r the non-appearance of [-at] i n t r a n s i t i v e s i s t h a t i t would d e s t r o y the s u r f a c e s i m i l a r i t y of s e n t e n c e s l i k e (54,56) t o t r a n s i t i v e s e n t e n c e s w i t h 3sg p r o n o m i n a l a gents 48 and preposed p a t i e n t s as i n (61) below: 61 Mary \ Iam6:m- a - t " I t was Mary that ' Pat ND help ERG 3sg she helped." In s p i t e of Tarpent's e x p l a n a t i o n s , the f a c t remains that the c o r r e c t p a t t e r n i s not r e a d i l y apparent. That i s , e x t r a c t i o n of p a t i e n t s from t r a n s i t i v e s i s not e x a c t l y the same as e x t r a c t i o n of agents or p a t i e n t s from i n t r a n s i t i v e s . In f a c t , from a c e r t a i n p e r s p e c t i v e , j u s t the c o n t r a r y i s t r u e , i n that the agents of t r a n s i t i v e s and the s i n g l e arguments of i n t r a n s i t i v e s e x t r a c t only with s p e c i a l marking on the verb ( i . e . ''an- and -at r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Thus there i s no argument from f o c u s i n g f o r S - e r g a t i v i t y , beyond an i n d i c a t i o n that e x t r a c t i o n of s u b j e c t s , whether t r a n s i t i v e or i n t r a n s i t i v e , i s i n some cases e x c e p t i o n a l and so i n need of e x p l a n a t i o n . F. THE IMPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION Tarpent (1982:61) cl a i m s imperative sentences are t r u n c a t e d complex sentences which have an "understood" i t i s  good that ('>a:m i dam) at t h e i r beginning. The reason she c l a i m s t h i s i s that imperatives seem to share s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s with embedded sentences. What i s s i g n i f i c a n t about imperative c o n s t r u c t i o n s i s that i n only one case i s an argument omitted, and that i s when i t i s the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb. Tarpent argues t h i s to be a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of Nisgha's s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y . Examples of t h i s 49 c o n s t r u c t i o n are shown below: I n t r a n s i t i v e 1 7 62 Agent-only Go! " ye: - n walk 2sg 63 P a t i e n t - o n l y F a l l down and d i e ! !? t k w a n t k w - ( e ) n t i i t nuw-(e)n "Drop dead!") f a l l down 2sg and d i e 2sg T r a n s i t i v e 64 fam6:m- s Mary it Help Mary!" he l p DM P a t i e n t I do not in t e n d to present an a n a l y s i s of the above under the verb movement hyp o t h e s i s , but l e t me simply p o i n t out that t h i s phenomenon i s not an argument f o r S - e r g a t i v i t y . E s s e n t i a l l y , a l l these data show i s that the Agent of an Agent-Patient verb i s t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from other arguments. N o t i c e that these data cannot even be used to make the c l a i m that the s i n g l e argument of an 1 7 Some of these examples are from Tarpent 1982. She in c l u d e s p a r e n t h e t i c a l m a t e r i a l she b e l i e v e s i s u d e r l y i n g l y present. Thus, e.g. (20) above i s as f o l l o w s : (''a^ i tern) ye: - n " ( I t i s good good ND FUT walk 2sg that you) go!" It i s not c o n v i n c i n g that such u n d e r l y i n g m a t e r i a l c o u l d be present i n an imp e r a t i v e . 50 i n t r a n s i t i v e patterns with the patient of a t r a n s i t i v e . One cannot r e a l l y use th is as an argument for the S - e r g a t i v i t y of Nisgha any more than one can use (65 i - i i i ) below as an argument for the e r g a t i v i t y of E n g l i s h : 65 ( i ) Into the park walked John. ( i i ) *Into the park walked John the dog. ( i i i ) *Into the park walked the dog John. Just because the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e i s t reated d i f f e r e n t l y from the s ing le argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e in the above sentences w i l l c e r t a i n l y never be adduced as an argument for an ergat ive Engl ish syntax. G. DELETION OF RECOVERABLE ELEMENTS In an independent sentence the pat ient of a t r a n s i t i v e verb or the s ingle argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e can be omitted i f i t i s poss ib le to infer i t s referent from the context . The agent of a t r a n s i t i v e , however, cannot be de leted . For example: In t rans i t i ve 66 Agent-only ( i ) Question: nta - t Mary "Where's Mary?" where DM ( i i ) Answer: taw* "(She) l e f t . " leave 51 67 P a t i e n t - o n l y ( i ) Question: *>agu- X huwil s Mary "What d i d what DM do DM Mary do?" ( i i ) Answer: s k w a ' e y t k w "(She) r e s t e d . " r e s t 68 T r a n s i t ive ( i ) Question: w i l a : x - a - n i sam - ''alk^ax- a know ERG 2sg ND r e a l t a l k Q "Do you know Nisgha?" ( i i ) Answer: wtla:x- a - y "Yes." know ERG 1sg ( l i t . "I know.") ( i i i ) Answer: *w i l a x - i sam - ''alk^ax "Yes." know ND r e a l t a l k ( l i t . "know Nisgha.") Note again, however, that there i s not a p e r f e c t correspodence between the above paradigm and the 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 language. The E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis p r e d i c t s on the one hand a D- s t r u c t u r e p a t t e r n i n g together of the agent of an i n t r a n s i t i v e with the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e , and on the other hand of a p a t i e n t of an i n t r a n s i t i v e with the p a t i e n t of a t r a n s i t i v e . A l l that can r e a l l y be s a i d from examining the above data i s that the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e n t l y from other arguments. In the S-accusative a n a l y s i s (my a n a l y s i s ) the above data show the sub j e c t of a dual argument v e r b being t r e a t e d d i s t i n c t l y . One a n a l y s i s t h i s suggests i s t h a t the mis s i n g 52 argument i s the empty category pro, that i s , the governed e q u i v a l e n t of PRO. We can argue that ( 6 8 i i i ) i s bad because pro i s l e f t ungoverned, the verb having expended i t s governing and Case a s s i g n i n g p r o p e r t i e s on the D - o b j e c t . 1 8 One might o b j e c t on the grounds that there would then be no reason why the s y n t a c t i c Case a s s i g n e r [ -a - ] c o u l d not be i n s e r t e d to govern pro, f o r c i n g us to p r e d i c t the ungrammatical sentence *wcla:x - a-j' sam *>alk yax. However, we c o u l d respond that Case must be l e x i c a l l y r e a l i s e d , and s i n c e pro i s not l e x i c a l , the sentence i s i m p o s s i b l e . H. INDIRECT CAUSATION (JUSSIVE CONSTRUCTION) Tarpent r e p o r t s that "when an agent gets something done through someone e l s e (by t e l l i n g t h a t person to do something), the p r o c l i t i c [g w an] i s used i n f r o n t of the verb." (1982:72) The a d d i t i o n of [g w an] (/kwan/) always r e s u l t s i n a t r a n s i t i v e verb. I f the verb i s i n t r a n s i t i v e to begin with, the s i n g l e argument ( e i t h e r agent or p a t i e n t ) w w i l l , with the k an verb, come to occupy the p o s i t i o n that the p a t i e n t of a simple t r a n s i t i v e verb i n an independent sentence u s u a l l y o c c u p i e s . The new argument n e c e s s i t a t e d by 1 8 N o t e we are d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between government p r o p e r t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with d i r e c t Case assignment and those a s s o c i a t e d with l i c e n s i n g other elements to a s s i g n Case. The government of pro, then, must be the government p r o p e r t y a s s o c i a t e d with d i r e c t Case assignment. 53 the s e m a n t i c s of the j u s s i v e morpheme w i l l come t o appear i n the p o s i t i o n u s u a l l y h e l d by the agent i n a s i m p l e t r a n s i t i v e s e n t e n c e : I n t r a n s i t i v e s 69 A g e n t - o n l y : w k an c ' i n - a - s Donna t Mary JUSS come i n ERG DM Agent DM " P a t i e n t " "Donna had Mary come i n . " 70 P a t i e n t - o n l y : i (k'^ax) k wan s k w a ' e y t k w - a - s John t Mary I n t e n s i f i e r JUSS r e s t ERG DM Agent DM P a t i e n t "John had Mary r e s t . / John asked Mary t o r e s t . " I f the v e r b i s t r a n s i t i v e t o b e g i n w i t h , the a d d i t i o n w • of k an w i l l have two e f f e c t s . F i r s t , the o r i g i n a l agent w i l l e i t h e r be moved i n t o a PP or i t w i l l be d e l e t e d . There w i l l be a new agent, the agent of the k an v e r b , which w i l l now occupy the p o s i t i o n p r e v i o u s l y o c c u p i e d by the o r i g i n a l agent. The o r i g i n a l p a t i e n t s t a y s i n the same p o s i t i o n w i t h the same c a s e . For example: T r a n s i t i v e S i m p le T r a n s i t i v e : 71 Jam6:m- a - s Lucy t Mary h e l p ERG DM Agent DM P a t i e n t "Lucy h e l p e d Mary." 54 Juss ive : 72 k wan lam6:m- a - s Donna t Mary ( "?a - s Lucy ) JUSS help ERG DM Agent DM Pat Prep DM Agent "Donna had Lucy helped (by Mary) ." The important thing to not ice about the above i s that the s ing le argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e verb i s t reated the same as the pat ient of a t r a n s i t i v e , and these are both treated d i f f e r e n t l y from the agent of a t r a n s i t i v e verb. Again not ice that th i s kind of argument does not necessar i l y bear on the question of S - e r g a t i v i t y . What i t does demonstrate i s that there i s only one "non-mediated" in terna l argument s lo t in the subcategor izat ion frame of a t r a n s i t i v e verb in Nisgha. That i s , in the l e x i c a l entry for a t r a n s i t i v e verb, there i s only one argument p o s i t i o n which i s d i r e c t l y assigned a 0 - ro le by the verb i t s e l f , even though there may be others rece iv ing 0-marking v i a a "mediator" such as p repos i t ion . (Note that the subject receives i t s 0 - ro le i n d i r e c t l y from the VP.) There is other evidence for th i s c la im in that one never f inds anything equivalent to dative s h i f t with expressions of goal or duration in Nisgha. That i s , there is nothing, for example, equivalent to the fo l lowing pa i rs of Eng l ish sentences: 73 ( i ) John threw the b a l l to h is son. ( i i ) John threw his son the b a l l . 55 74 ( i ) Wendy t a l k e d f o r an hour, ( i i ) Wendy t a l k e d an hour. where the 10 can r e c e i v e 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 or from the verb i t s e l f . Thus, to r e t u r n to the J u s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , we see e x a c t l y t h i s f e a t u r e of the l e x i c o n manifested; when an a d d i t i o n a l argument i s added to a c o n s t r u c t i o n with a l l of i t s argument p o s i t i o n s f u l l , one of them must move i n t o a mediated p o s i t i o n . The f a c t that i t i s the o r i g i n a l agent of a t r a n s i t i v e i s of 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 determining whether Nisgha i s S - e r g a t i v e . The J u s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , I would suggest, i s best understood as a l e x i c a l r u l e r a t h e r than a s y n t a c t i c one. w The r u l e would a f f i x k an to the verb to c r e a t e a compound verb. In the case of the i n t r a n s i t i v e we have a 2 argument verb c r e a t e d , while i n the case of the t r a n s i t i v e we have a 3 argument verb, so one argument i s moved i n t o a PP, s i n c e there are no other p o s i t i o n s t9-marked and Case marked by the verb or VP alone. I. PASSIVE AND ANTIPASSIVE Tarpent d e s c r i b e s both a Pa s s i v e and an A n t i p a s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Nisgha. Both c o n s t r u c t i o n s make a t r a n s i t i v e verb i n t r a n s i t i v e , but while the Pas s i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e i s a p a t i e n t - o n l y verb, the A n t i p a s s i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e i s an agent-only. The A n t i p a s s i v e allows the p a t i e n t to be expressed ( o p t i o n a l l y ) i n a PP, while the P a s s i v e never allows the agent to be expressed at a l l . The P a s s i v e verb s u f f i x e d by the morpheme [-k w] (with allophone [-s] a f t e r v e l a r s t o p s ) , the A n t i p a s s i v e verb by the morpheme [-'?skw] Passive 75 q'6c- k w - t John cut PASS DM P a t i e n t "John was/got c u t . " 76 *q'oc- k w- t John ^a - s Harry cut PASS DM P a t i e n t Prep DM Agent "John was cut by Harry." A c t i v e Counterpart 77 q'oc- a - s Harry t John cut ERG DM Agent DM P a t i e n t "Harry cut John." A n t i p a s s i v e 78 kipa-'>sk w- t Lucy ( *>a - s Mary ) wait AP DM Agent Prep DM P a t i e n t "Lucy waited around ( f o r Mary)." A c t i v e Counterpart 79 k i p a - ( y ) a - s Lucy t Mary wait ERG DM Agent DM P a t i e n t "Lucy waited f o r Mary." Tarpent observes that the A n t i p a s s i v e i s r e l a t i v e l y p r o d u c t i v e , while the Passive i s not, or at l e a s t has not always been. She g i v e s some evidence that the P a s s i v e has 57 been g a i n i n g ground r e c e n t l y as a r e s u l t of c o n t a c t with E n g l i s h (1982:74). Tarpent (1982:83,84) r e p o r t s t h a t P a s s i v e s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been used more l i k e an E n g l i s h past p a r t i c i p l e (e.g. i n r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s ) than they have as a main c l a u s e verb, though i t seems to have been assuming the main verb f u n c t i o n r e c e n t l y . Tarpent takes the e x i s t e n c e of the A n t i p a s s i v e as a p r o d u c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Nisgha to be evidence f o r the s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y of the language (1982:79). Le v i n ( f o l l o w i n g B u r z i o , 1981) d i s c u s s e s f e a t u r e s g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with the P a s s i v e and A n t i p a s s i v e , i n p a r t i c u l a r the v e r b a l f e a t u r e s [±d-obj],[±T] and [±A] ( p . 2 9 f f ) . [±d-obj] i n d i c a t e s whether the verb a s s i g n s a 0-role to an NP (which w i l l always be the D - o b j e c t ) . [±T] i n d i c a t e s whether the verb r e q u i r e s the VP i t heads to a s s i g n a 0-role to i t s s u b j e c t , and [±A] i n d i c a t e s whether the verb a s s i g n s Case t o i t s D-object ( L e v i n , p.20). B u r z i o s t a t e s as a p r i n c i p l e of u n i v e r s a l grammar that [-T]<—>[-A]. Thus, i n ge n e r a l , when a verb has the f e a t u r e [-A], the D-object w i l l move to sub j e c t p o s i t i o n i n order to get Case. I t can do t h i s without v i o l a t i n g the 0 - c r i t e r i o n because the su b j e c t p o s i t i o n to which i t moves w i l l have no 0-role a s s o c i a t e d with 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 i s always a s s o c i a t e d with e i t h e r the feat u r e [-A] or [-T], and because of Bu r z i o ' s g e n e r a l i s a t i o n , the Passive i s e f f e c t i v e l y always a s s o c i a t e d 58 with both [-A] and [ -T] . The Ant ipass ive , on the other hand, cannot be assoc iated with the feature [ -T] , since i t is the D-object which moves into an oblique Case, the D-subject staying in subject pos i t ion and gett ing 0-marked by the VP. Marantz (1984) proposes that , in the AP, the feature [-A] is added to verb without necess i ta t ing the addi t ion of the feature [ -T] , so that we end up with a verb which i s [-A][+T][+d-obj] (p.200, and Lev in , p .93) . Notice that , i f we accept Burz io ' s genera l i sa t ion , the Ant ipassive w i l l have to. be considered a marked const ruct ion , s ince i t i s both [-A] and [+T]. Note a lso that , although the D-object gets i t s 0 - ro le d i r e c t l y from the verb, i t must receive i t s Case some other way, for example, from a p repos i t i on . If we now consider the p r o f i l e of these two construct ions regarding case marking, 0 - r o l e , and D- and S -structure r e l a t i o n s we see there i s a great po ten t ia l for ambiguity and m i s l a b e l l i n g of the two const ruc t ions : S -accusat ive Languages (Levin, p.89,94) Passive 0 - ro le D-st ructure S -s t ructure Accusative CM Ergat ive CM Patient D-object S-subject NOM ABS Agent D-subject Oblique OBL OBL Ant ipassive 0 - ro le D-s t ructure S -s t ructure Accusative CM Ergat ive CM Patient D-object Oblique OBL OBL Agent D-subject S-subject NOM ABS 59 S -erqat ive Languages (Levin, p.89,97) Passive fl-role D-structure S -s t ructure Accusative CM Ergat ive CM Patient S-subject Oblique OBL OBL Agent D-object S-subject NOM ERG Ant ipassive fl-role D-structure S -s t ructure Accusative CM Ergat ive CM Patient D-subject S-subject NOM ABS Agent D-object Oblique OBL OBL Given Nisgha's two construct ions c a l l e d Passive and Ant ipass ive , we can conceive of two poss ib le analyses . One would be that Nisgha is S -ergat ive and M-accusat ive . Under t h i s analys is the construct ion Tarpent c a l l s the Passive i s ( in the context of the E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis) analysed as an Ant ipass ive , and what she c a l l s the Ant ipass ive i s anlysed as a Pass ive . The second poss ib le ana lys is i s that Nisgha is S -accusat ive and M-ergat ive. Under t h i s ana lys i s the construct ion Tarpent c a l l s the Passive is anlaysed as a Passive and what she c a l l s the Ant ipassive i s analysed as an Ant ipass ive . Take good note, however, that the labe ls Passive and Ant ipass ive carry a d i f fe ren t import than they do when Tarpent uses them. There i s no l o g i c a l necessi ty for one to assume Nisgha is S -ergat ive because i t has an Ant ipass i ve . Both S -ergat ive and S-accusat ive languages can, under the above in te rpretat ion of the const ruct ions , have an Ant ipass ive . In f a c t , in the actual a t tes ta t ions of these 60 c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the world's languages, L e v i n c l a i m s i t i s mostly i n languages with 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 t h a t we f i n d the true A n t i p a s s i v e (p.95). L e v i n comments that i n a number of cases the A n t i p a s s i v e seems to p l a y an important r o l e i n the syntax i n that i t enables the agent NP to be sub j e c t to s y n t a c t i c processes which operate only on a b s o l u t i v e arguments (p.92). Whether t h i s i s the case i n Nisgha I am not prepared to say, but that i s not c r u c i a l to my argument. The main p o i n t i s that the e x i s t e n c e of an A n t i p a s s i v e i s Nisgha does not earmark the language as S - e r g a t i v e . I f anything, a c c o r d i n g to L e v i n , i t makes i t a good candidate f o r being analysed as s y n t a c t i c a l l y a c c u s a t i v e with e r g a t i v e case, e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of arguments I have advanced e a r l i e r about and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of determinate markers. CHAPTER 3 It has been argued above that there are s e r i o u s flaws i n some p r e v i o u s analyses of Nisgha, even i f we adopt the same t h e o r e t i c a l framework that these analyses were formulated i n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Rigsby's and Rood's accounts f a i l w i t h i n an Aspects (Chomsky 1965) framework because of the p o s i t i o n of su 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 phrases. Moreover, given a newer framework and a new d e f i n i t i o n of s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y , Rigsby's and Rood's a n a l y s e s f a i l i n a number of other ways, as w e l l as having the problem with subc a t e g o r i z e d PP's. Rood's a n a l y s i s f a i l s to account f o r the f a c t s of weak c r o s s o v e r , while Rigsby's f a i l s to account for not only weak c r o s s o v e r , but f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e f l e x i v e anaphors as w e l l . C e r t a i n l y , these r e s e a r c h e r s c o u l d not have been expected to c o n s i d e r these l a s t two f a c t o r s f i v e y e ars before the t h e o r e t i c a l framework appeared. Nonetheless, given t h i s framework, n e i t h e r of t h e i r p r o p o s a l s seems to be workable. It has a l s o been argued that the case p r e s e n t e d by Tarpent f o r the s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y of Nisgha does not hold up, given the d e f i n i t i o n of s y n t a c t i c e r g a t i v i t y from Marantz's E r g a t i v i t y Hypothesis and given the Government-Binding framework. A l l the arguments mustered from l o o k i n g at Nisgha from the l a t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e seem in s t e a d to p o i n t toward s y n t a c t i c a c c u s a t i v i t y . I hope i t i s obvious that I b e l i e v e there to be some advantage i n employing t h i s new framework beyond j u s t being 61 62 able to show that the analyses of p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s are problematic when t e s t e d a g a i n s t such a framework. I w i l l now attempt to o u t l i n e what I c o n s i d e r a major advantage of employing t h i s framework. Note t h a t , f r e q u e n t l y , a rguing f o r one t h e o r e t i c a l model over another, or even one p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n of a model over another, cannot be done e m p i r i c a l l y . To use Chomsky's terminology, almost any model can be made to be o b s e r v a t i o n a l l y and d e s c r i p t i v e l y adequate, that i s , can be made to account f o r the observable f a c t s ; but i n many cases t h i s can only be done by a l l o w i n g ad hoc d e v i c e s t o m u l t i p l y . To achieve explanatory adequacy, the f a c t s of the language should be d e r i v a b l e from the model. If one model i s e x p l a n a t o r i l y adequate, as w e l l as o b s e r v a t i o n a l l y and d e s c r i p t i v e l y adequate, i t i s s u p e r i o r to an a n a l y s i s which i s only o b s e r v a t i o n a l l y or d e s c r i p t i v e l y adequate. One c r i t e r i o n which a number of r e s e a r c h e r s have accepted as a v a l i d measure of the e x p l a n a t o r y adequacy of a grammar i s l e a r n a b i l i t y (c_f. Chomsky 1965). The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n of the l e a r n a b i l i t y i s s u e i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h i s : given a c e r t a i n f o r m u l a t i o n of a grammar, w i l l i t be p o s s i b l e f o r c h i l d r e n to l e a r n that grammar? T h i s i s s u e has been a c e n t r a l g u i d i n g f a c t o r i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of the Government-Binding framework. T h i s , i n f a c t , has l a r g e l y been the m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r f o r seeking to develop a more c o n s t r a i n i n g u n i v e r s a l grammar, that i s , one which l i m i t s grammars to the fewest d e v i c e s p o s s i b l e needed to account 63 f o r a l l the observable f a c t s of a language. Within a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l framework for example, the more numerous and powerful u n i v e r s a l grammar all o w s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of a p a r t i c u l a r grammar to be, the more d i f f i c u l t they w i l l be to l e a r n . T h i s i s because there w i l l be more v a r i a b i l i t y i n what a given t r a n s f o r m a t i o n can do, and more p o t e n t i a l f o r ambiguity i n e x p l a i n i n g how a given S - s t r u c t u r e i s r e l a t e d to D - s t r u c t u r e . In other words, what we want i d e a l l y i s a theory of u n i v e r s a l grammar which w i l l f o r c e on us one p a r t i c u l a r  a n a l y s i s of the syntax of a given language. If our model of u n i v e r s a l grammar can do t h i s , then we are w e l l on the way to e x p l a i n i n g how c h i l d r e n i n a given speech community converge, more or l e s s , on a s i n g l e grammar. We can see the problem of m u l t i p l e p e r m i s s i b l e analyses i l l u s t r a t e d by the d i f f e r i n g accounts which have been given of I n d e f i n i t e NP I n c o r p o r a t i o n (c_f. (8) above). Rigsby c l a i m s that [ V NP. .3 NP n , . . — > [ V NP,- . . . ] vp Agent P a t i e n t v P a t i e n t NP. n. while Rood has [ V NP„ . . . ] NP. . — > [ V Agent vp P a t i e n t Agent v N P P a t i e n t ' ' N P A g e n t * w^- t^^ n the Aspects framework there i s nothing to f o r c e us to choose between not only these two p o s s i b i l i t i e s , but between any number of other l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e a n a l y s e s . The reader should note here that although the importance of the l e a r n a b i l i t y i s s u e was r e c o g n i z e d i n Chomsky (1965), there was no s e r i o u s attempt to accomodate i t i n t hat framework. Hence we wind up with c o n f l i c t i n g analyses such as above with nothing i n the model to h e l p us 64 decide between them. U n i v e r s a l grammar, as i t i s conceived of i n Chomsky (1981), i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more advanced i n i t s a b i l i t y to deal with the questions of l e a r n a b i l i t y . U n i v e r s a l grammar, as i t i s conceived of i n the Government-Binding framework, c o n s i s t s i n p a r t of a set of parameters which are f i x e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r way as the c h i l d encounters n a t u r a l language (c_f. Chomsky 1981 ). I have d i s c u s s e d at l e a s t four f a c t o r s i n Nisgha which might be i n c l u d e d among these parameters. These four f a c t o r s are as f o l l o w s : (1) D i r e c t i o n of Government (Sproat 1982:255) 1 9 (a) a l l c a t e g o r i e s rightward. (b) [-N] c a t e g o r i e s rightward, other c a t e g o r i e s f r e e . (2) S - E r g a t i v e Parameter (Marantz 1984). (a) S - A c c u s a t i v i t y . (b) S - E r g a t i v i t y . (3) Presence or Absence of INFL (4) M-Ergative Parameter (a) M - A c c u s a t i v i t y . (b) M - E r g a t i v i t y . 1 9 T h i s s i t u a t i o n may be more complex, and may i n v o l v e more than one parameter; Sproat only s p e c i f i e s that t h i s i s the c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r VSO and SVO S - s t r u c t u r e languages ( i . e . (a) for VSO, (b) f o r SVO). 65 Verb movement i s not to be i n c l u d e d among these parameters s i n c e i t i s d e r i v e d from (1) and ( 3 ) . T h i s c o u l d be taken as an example of what I mentioned e a r l i e r , that i s , that we want the f a c t s of the language to be d e r i v a b l e from the model. Although verb movement can't r e a l l y be c a l l e d a f a c t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , a number of other phenomenon which verb movement e x p l a i n s can be ( f o r example the p o s i t i o n of PP, the [-9-] s u f f i x , e t c . ) . The parameters of u n i v e r s a l grammar, i t i s o f t e n assumed, must be f i x e d by p o s i t i v e evidence only (Chomsky 1981, Baker 1979). That i s , c h i l d r e n l e a r n a language by encountering i t i n day-to-day l i f e , an encounter which does not n a t u r a l l y i n v o l v e being t o l d e x p l i c i t l y the r i g h t and wrong way to say t h i n g s . The above four f a c t o r s , then, i f they are parameters of u n i v e r s a l grammar, must be f i x e d by p o s i t i v e evidence. I w i l l now b r i e f l y d i s c u s s what s o r t of evidence would be a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d l e a r n i n g the segment of the grammar I have d e s c r i b e d . I am in no way attempting to make a d e f i n i t i v e statement regarding the l e a r n i n g of the four f a c t o r s ; my comments here should be taken as e x p l o r a t o r y . Parameter (1) c o u l d be f i x e d by the s t r u c t u r e of g e n i t i v e s ; (2) c o u l d be f i x e d by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the r e f l e x i v e . Since the b i n d i n g theory i s c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t of u n i v e r s a l grammar, the i n f o r m a t i o n that anaphors are bound in t h e i r governing category i s a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d ( u n c o n s c i o u s l y , of c o u r s e ) . Because the r e f l e x i v e anaphor 66 appears in the p o s i t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with the p a t i e n t , t h i s p o s i t i o n must be the i n t e r n a l argument p o s i t i o n . Since the p a t i e n t i s the i n t e r n a l argument, parameter (2) w i l l be set to the (a) v a l u e , that i s , S - a c c u s a t i v i t y . Once the S - e r g a t i v e parameter i s set f o r S - a c c u s a t i v i t y , there w i l l be p o s i t i v e evidence f o r verb movement s i n c e the p a t i e n t (a s u b c a t e g o r i z e d argument) i s separated from the verb by the agent argument (a non-subcategorized a r gument). 2 0 The p o s i t i o n of the PP w i l l a l s o serve as evidence f o r verb movement. The M-ergative parameter c o u l d be evidenced by the appearance of the Case a s s i g n e r [-3-], by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of determinate markers, and p o s s i b l y other phenomena beyond the scope of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . The parameter concerned with the presence of INFL r a i s e s a q u e s t i o n i m p l i c i t i n the above d i s c u s s i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , are these parameters a r b i t r a r i l y p r e - s e t i n a c e r t a i n way which can be r e s e t by p o s i t i v e evidence? That i s , i s there a d e f a u l t or unmarked value f o r the parameters? If so, then the INFL parameter might be conceived of as having a negative d e f a u l t v a l u e . That i s , i n the absence of p o s i t i v e evidence, the grammar being formed i n the mind of the c h i l d would have no INFL c a t e g o r y . 2 1 2 0Presumably the i n f o r m a t i o n that VP must c o n t a i n s u b c a t e g o r i z e d arguments i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d through u n i v e r s a l grammar. 2 1Chomsky ( 1 9 8 1 ) has INFL as the head of S. T h i s f o l l o w s 6 7 But to r e t u r n to the main p o i n t , given the c r i t e r i o n of l e a r n a b i l i t y , I b e l i e v e the Government-Binding framework can be shown to be an acc e p t a b l e model, and i n f a c t probably s u p e r i o r to any other c u r r e n t model s i n c e from i t s i n c e p t i o n the model was formulated a g a i n s t the backdrop of the l e a r n a b i l i t y i s s u e . I f one accepts the l e a r n a b i l i t y i s s u e as a v a l i d c r i t e r i o n f o r e v a l u a t i n g a n a l y s e s , then the account I have given of Nisgha syntax would be e v a l u a t e d p o s i t i v e l y . In a d d i t i o n to t h i s , I think i t f a i r to say the model makes some good e m p i r i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s . 2 1 (cont'd)from h i s c l a i m that the f o l l o w i n g r e w r i t e r u l e i s u n i v e r s a l (the order of the elements o b v i o u s l y v a r i e s ) an assumption which i s made because of i t s analogy to semantic p r e d i c a t e s t r u c t u r e : ( i ) S — > NP INFL VP. Note, then, that a l l I am proposing i s that INFL i s o p t i o n a l , that i s , the f o l l o w i n g : ( i i ) S — > NP (INFL) VP. 68 REFERENCES Aoun Y. and Dominique S p o r t i c h e . (1983) "On the Formal Theory of Government." The L i n g u i s t i c Review, 2:3. Baker, C.L. (1979) " S y n t a c t i c Theory and the P r o j e c t i o n Problem." L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 10:4. B a l t i n , M. (1982) "A Landing S i t e Theory of Movement Rules." L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 13:1. B u r z i o , L. (1981) " I n t r a n s i t i v e Verbs and I t a l i a n A u x i l i a r i e s . " D i s s . Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology. Chomsky, Noam A. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. (1976) "Con d i t i o n s on Rules of Grammar." L i n g u i s t i c A n a l y s i s , 2:4. (1981) L e c t u r e s on Government and B i n d i n g . Dordrecht, H o l l a n d : F o r i s P u b l i c a t i o n s . (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and B i n d i n g . Cambridge, MA.: MIT P r e s s . Chomsky, N.A. and Howard Lasnik (1977) " F i l t e r s and C o n t r o l . " L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 8:3. Dunn, John Asher (1979) "A Reference Grammar f o r the Coast Tsimshian Language." N a t i o n a l Museum of Man Mercury S e r i e s , 55, Ottawa: N a t i o n a l Museums of Canada. Evans, Gareth (1980) "Pronouns." L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 11:2. Higgenbotham, J . (1980) "Pronouns and Bound V a r i a b l e s . " L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 11:4. Huang, C.T. (1983) "A Note on the Bindi n g Theory." 69 L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 14:3. Kayne, Ri c h a r d (1981) "ECP E x t e n s i o n s . " L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 12:1. L e v i n , Beth C a r o l (1983) "On the Nature of E r g a t i v i t y . " D i s s . Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology. Marantz, Alec P. (1981) "On the Nature of Grammatical R e l a t i o n s . " D i s s . Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical R e l a t i o n s . Cambridge MA.: MIT Press. P e r l m u t t e r , D.M. (1978) "Impersonal P a s s i v e s and the Unaccusative Hypothesis." i n J . J . Jaeger and A.C. Woodbury, eds, Proceedings of the Berkeley L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , 4. Rigsby, Bruce (1975) "Nass Gitksan : An A n a l y t i c E r g a t i v e Syntax." I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of American L i n g u i s t i c s , 41:4. Rochemont, Michael (to appear) Focus i n G e n e r a t i v e Grammar. Amsterdam: J . Benjamins. Rood, David S. (1977) "Against A r t i f i c i a l Tree Branches: Another Look at Nass Gitskan Syntax." I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of American L i n g u i s t i c s , 43:3. Sproat, R i c h a r d (1983) "VSO Languages and Welsh C o n f i g u r a t i o n a l i t y . " MIT Working Papers i n 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 and A c c u s a t i v e : A s i n g l e R e presentation of Grammatical R e l a t i o n s with Evidence from Nisgha." Working Papers of the L i n g u i s t i c 70 C i r c l e of V i c t o r i a , 2:1. (1981) "Major Features of Nisgha Syntax." V i c t o r i a , B.C. (Mimeographed). W i l l i a m s , E. (1980) " P r e d i c a t i o n . " L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , 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