S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
THE ROLE OF THE ABSOLUTIVE
OBJECT IN MORPHOLOGICAL
ACCESSIBILITY
Rebecca Tollan
Astratto: This squib discusses environments in which a subject bears
ergative case in the absence of an absolutive object, contrasting syn-
tactically ergative languages (per esempio., Q’anjob’al) with languages in which
the ergative argument cannot be targeted for (cid:2)-agreement (per esempio., Hindi-
Urdu). In these environments, the parallels between A¯ -movement and
verb agreement with respect to the morphological accessibility hier-
archy (Bobaljik 2008, Deal 2016) break down: in the absence of an
absolutive object, syntactically ergative languages allow for extraction
of the ergative argument, but in absolutive-only (cid:2)-agreement lan-
guages, agreement never targets the ergative argument.
Keywords: accessibility, syntactic ergativity, (cid:2)-agreement, unerga-
tives
1 introduzione
Certain types of noun phrases are more accessible than others with
respect to core syntactic operations (per esempio., Keenan and Comrie 1977,
1979, Moravcsik 1978). Most recently, accessibility has been defined
as a hierarchy of morphological case (Bobaljik 2008, Deal 2016, 2017),
in which unmarked arguments are most accessible for (UN) (cid:2)-agreement
(Bobaljik 2008) E (B) A¯ -movement (Deal 2016, 2017), followed by
dependent-marked arguments and oblique arguments (1).
(1) Morphological case hierarchy
unmarked case (nominative, absolutive) (cid:3) dependent case
(ergative, accusative) (cid:3) lexical/oblique case (dative)
(Bobaljik 2008:303)
The goal of this squib is to demonstrate a previously unnoted
difference between A¯ -movement and (cid:2)-agreement, regarding accessi-
bility of ergative DPs. On the basis of data from ergative languages
Quello, in certain environments, retain ergative marking on subjects in the
absence of an absolutive object, I show that absence of an unmarked
coargument affects the (In)accessibility of a marked (cioè., ergative)
subject with respect to A¯ -movement, but not with respect to (cid:2)-agree-
ment. This has key consequences for theories about the source and
nature of syntactic ergativity, namely, by suggesting that restrictions
on the movement of an ergative DP—in contrast to restrictions on
agreement with an ergative DP—do not arise from the properties of
the ergative directly but are triggered by an absolutive coargument.
The squib is organized as follows. Sezione 2 lays out the back-
ground of morphological accessibility in ergative languages, and sec-
zione 3 presents data from languages in which ergative case is retained
in the absence of an absolutive object, demonstrating a difference
between A¯ -movement and (cid:2)-agreement. Sezione 4 discusses the impli-
cations of this difference.
I am very grateful to Kinza Mahoon for judgments of Hindi-Urdu sen-
tences, and to Saioa Lazarra for judgments of Basque. For helpful feedback
and comments, I thank Susana Be´jar, Lauren Clemens, Diane Massam, IL
reviewers and audience at NELS 48, and three anonymous LI reviewers.
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 52, Numero 3, Estate 2021
640–654
(cid:2) 2020 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00378
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
641
2 Accessibility in Movement and Agreement
In ergative languages, the argument bearing absolutive case is, typo-
logically speaking, most accessible as a target for (cid:2)-agreement. As
discussed by Bobaljik (2008), the ergative subject cannot control ver-
bal agreement in certain languages, such as Hindi-Urdu (2UN); the verb
agrees in (cid:2)-features with the absolutive object instead. Only if the
subject is absolutive—as in the intransitive sentence in (2B)—does it
trigger verbal agreement. Bobaljik (2008) proposes that Hindi-Urdu
agreement is determined by the hierarchy in (1), wherein only un-
marked arguments are accessible as targets of (cid:2)-agreement probes
(per esempio., T0).
(2) Hindi-Urdu
UN. raam-ne
roTii
khayii.
Ram.MASC-ERG bread.FEM.ABS eat.PERF.FEM.3SG
‘Ram ate bread.’
B. siitaa
aayii.
Sita.FEM.ABS arrived.PERF.FEM.3SG
‘Sita arrived.’
(Mahajan 1990:74, 78)
An analogous scenario is observed in A¯ -movement: in a subset of
morphologically ergative languages that exhibit “syntactic ergativity,"
the ergative argument cannot undergo extraction in environments such
as relative clauses and wh-questions, but the absolutive argument can.
Q’anjob’al (Mayan) (3) is one such language.1
(3) Syntactic ergativity in Q’anjob’al
UN. (cid:57) Wh-movement of ABS object
ASP-3ABS 3ERG-see-TV CLS:DET
[naq
y-il-a’
Maktxeli max-(cid:2)
who
winaq] [ti
Uomo
‘Who did the man see?’
]?
B. (cid:57) Wh-movement of ABS subject
[ti
way-i
]?
ASP-3ABS sleep-ITV
C. Wh-movement of ERG subject
y-il-a’
[ti
] [ix
ASP-3ABS 3ERG-see-TV
CLS:DET
Maktxeli max-(cid:2)
who
‘Who slept?’
*Maktxeli max-(cid:2)
who
ix]?
woman
1 Ergative and absolutive affixes are referred to in Mayanist literature as
“Set A” and “Set B” markers, rispettivamente; Set A marks the subjects of transitive
predicates (as well as the subjects of intransitive predicates under certain cir-
circostanze) and nominal possessors. Following Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Pre-
minger (2014), among many others, I refer to Mayan Set A marking as “erga-
tive” and Set B marking as “absolutive” throughout this squib.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
642
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
‘Who saw the woman?’ (Grammatical as ‘Who did the
woman see?’)
(Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014:192, 193)
Extending Bobaljik’s (2008) account, Deal (2017) proposes that
accessibility with respect to A¯ -movement is also governed by the hier-
archy in (1): in languages that ban extraction of the ergative subject,
such as Q’anjob’al, the syntactic probe triggering A¯ -movement (per esempio.,
C0) can only agree with a goal bearing unmarked (cioè., absolutive) case
caratteristiche, and cannot target a DP bearing marked case (per esempio., ergative,
accusative, or oblique) caratteristiche. Analogously to agreement in Hindi-
Urdu, in which only unmarked arguments can be targeted by agreement
probes, only unmarked arguments can be targeted by A¯ -probes in
languages like Q’anjob’al. Deal’s proposal is advantageous in that it
successfully unites the syntactic mechanisms that give rise to syntactic
ergativity with those that trigger the agreement pattern in (2), thereby
providing an explanation of syntactic ergativity in terms of (1): namely,
that syntactic probes are sensitive to the case-featural properties of
their goal.2
I show, Tuttavia, that despite surface similarities, A¯ -movement
E (cid:2)-agreement are in fact not truly analogous with respect to the
hierarchy in (1). The absolutive object can be shown to play a crucial
role in the restriction on movement of ergative subjects: in syntactically
ergative Mayan languages such as Q’anjob’al, the ergative DP may
be extracted when no absolutive object is present.3 In contrast, IL
absence of an absolutive object does not render the ergative subject
a viable target for (cid:2)-agreement in languages such as Hindi-Urdu. In
the next section, I examine the behavior of ergative subjects in the
absence of an absolutive object; I first discuss A¯ -movement and then
turn to (cid:2)-agreement.
3 Ergatives without Absolutives
This section focuses on a subset of ergative languages that allow erga-
tive marking when absolutive case is absent. This patterning may arise
under a number of circumstances: (UN) where ergative case is retained
when the transitive object is caseless; (B) where ergative case is re-
tained when the transitive object is case-licensed by an alternative
strategy; E (C) in so-called split-S ergative languages, wherein sub-
jects of unergative verbs are marked as ergative (in contrast to subjects
of unaccusatives, which are absolutive). In these environments, differ-
2 This analysis accounts for syntactic ergativity in languages in which
ergative is argued to be assigned configurationally (per esempio., Shipibo; Baker 2014)
as opposed to via inherent Agree (per esempio., Woolford 1997 et seq.).
3 As noted by a reviewer, Q’anjob’al also allows for extraction of 1st and
2nd person ergative subjects in focus-fronting contexts. One possibility is that
such constructions involve a null biclausal copula structure and thus do not
feature ergative extraction at all (see Henderson and Coon 2017 on Kaqchikel).
See Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014 for an alternative, in which 1st/
2nd person agents are base-generated higher than 3rd person agents.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
643
ences in the behavior of the ergative subject offer insight into how its
accessibility is affected by the presence of an absolutive coargument.
I focus first on movement, drawing together several previous observa-
tions from existing Mayanist literature, and then assess the correspond-
ing facts for agreement, introducing novel data from Hindi-Urdu and
Basque.
3.1 Syntactic Ergativity in Mayan
Across many syntactically ergative Mayan languages, ergative case is
retained in the absence of an absolutive-cased object; one such lan-
guage is K’iche’. As observed by Aissen (2011), while ergative sub-
jects cannot extract in the presence of a full DP object (4UN), extraction
is permitted when the object is bare (4B).
(4) Movement of ERG in K’iche’
UN. Movement of ERG with full ABS object
rii uuq?
ASP-3ERG-buy DET cloth
*Jachiin x-u-loq’
who
‘Who bought the cloth?’
B. (cid:57)Movement of ERG with bare caseless object
uuq?
ASP-3ERG-buy cloth
Jachiin x-u-loq’
who
‘Who bought cloth?’
(Aissen 2011:12)
Henderson and Coon (2017) note an analogous pattern with Kaqchikel
light verb constructions of which the complement is a bare nominal
borrowed from Spanish (per esempio., manifestar ‘protest’; Vedere (5B)). Whereas
ergative subjects cannot usually extract in transitive constructions in
Kaqchikel (5UN),4 they can extract in light verb constructions (5B).
(5) Movement of ERG in Kaqchikel
UN. Movement of ERG with ABS complement
*Achike x-u-lo¨q
who
‘Who bought the chicken?’
ri
CPL-3ERG-buy DET chicken
a¨k?
B. (cid:57)Movement of ERG with bare complement
manifestar pa b’ey?
in street
Achike x-u-b’a¨n
who
‘Who protested in the street?’
(Henderson and Coon 2017:154, 158)
CPL-3ERG-do protest
Inoltre, the ban on movement of ergative subjects in Q’anjo-
b’al, as in (3), no longer holds when the object is reflexive (6) (Vedere
discussion in Pascual 2007 and Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger
2014). The ability of the ergative subject to undergo extraction when
4 See Heaton, Deen, and O’Grady 2015 and Henderson and Coon 2017
for further discussion and analysis of variation in Kaqchikel ergative subject
extraction.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
644
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
the object is reflexive is also reported for Q’eqchi (Berinstein 1984),
Popti’ (Craig 1977; see also Ordo´n˜ez 1995), K’iche’ (Mondloch 1981;
see also Stiebels 2006), and Kaqchikel (Henderson and Coon 2017).
(6) (cid:57)Movement of ERG subject in Q’anjob’al reflexives
[ti
s-b’a?
ASP 3ERG-see 3ERG-self
Maktxeli max y-il
who
‘Who saw herself ?’
(compare ungrammaticality of (3C))
(Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014:225)
]?
Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger (2014) propose that reflexive ob-
jects in Mayan are caseless, noting crucially that, whereas word order
in Q’anjob’al is usually strictly VSO, VOS order is obligatory when
the object is reflexive (see also Clemens and Coon 2018); this require-
ment for verb adjacency suggests that the object is a bare NP. Such
an analysis is not straightforward, Tuttavia. Aissen (2017) observes
that reflexive objects do not pattern distributionally with caseless NP
objects; notably, nonfinite clauses, which permit only caseless NPs as
objects (7UN), do not permit reflexive objects (7B).
(7) Q’anjob’al nonfinite complement clauses
UN. Object must be bare
K’am mak x-y-i-toq
NEG who CP-3ERG-take-DIR 3ERG-with seek-INF
(*ixim)
u-etow
[say-oj
ixm].
CLS:DET corn
‘He didn’t take anyone with him to look for (*IL) corn.’
(Pascual 2007, via Aissen 2017:752)
B. Reflexive object not permitted
*Max s-cheq-toq
ix
heb’ naq
winaq
CLS:DET man
s-b’a].
ASP 3ERG-send-DIR PRO:FEM PL
[kol-oj
help-INF 3ERG-self
‘She sent the men to help each other.’
(Aissen 2017:752)
Così, reflexive objects are unlike both absolutive-cased DP ob-
jects (in that they must appear adjacent to the verb) and caseless NP
objects (in that they cannot occur in nonfinite clauses, as in (7)). There
are at least two ways of accounting for these facts, Tuttavia. One
possibility is that reflexives are indeed bare caseless NPs (as in Coon,
Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014), but that (7B) is ruled out on inde-
pendent semantic grounds, wherein Mayan nonfinite clauses require
that objects be predicate-denoting (which reflexives are not).5 A sec-
reflexives are full DPs (as in Aissen
ond possibility is that
2017)—such that they cannot appear in NP-only environments like
(7)—and are thus subject to case-licensing requirements. This then
5 Thanks to the Squibs and Discussion editors for this suggestion.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
645
would leave the question of why VOS order obtains. A possible sce-
nario is that Mayan reflexives are not licensed via assignment of abso-
lutive case; instead, licensing takes place via Morphological Merger
with the verb (Baker 1988, Massam 2001, Coon, Mateo Pedro, E
Preminger 2014, Levin 2015, Van Urk 2019). Morphological Merger
occurs through a process of Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer
2001; see discussion in Van Urk 2019) in which the object incorporates
into V0 at PF and thereby escapes the Case Filter.6 As a result, unlike
absolutive-cased objects, reflexive objects must occur immediately
postverbally (in order for Morphological Merger to apply).7 Crucially
for present purposes, when absolutive case is not assigned—either to
reflexive objects (6) or when the object is bare ((4B), (5B))—the erga-
tive subject can undergo A¯ -movement.
Still more evidence that A¯ -movement is not conditioned by case
marking comes from Ixil. Along with several other Mayan languages
in the Yucatecan, Cholan, and Poqom subbranches (see Zavala Maldo-
nado 2017), Ixil exhibits a split-ergative pattern: whereas an ergative-
absolutive alignment is observed in the perfective aspect, nonperfec-
tive aspects yield a so-called extended ergative pattern (Dixon 1979),
wherein all subjects—transitive (8UN) and intransitive (8B)—are in-
dexed on the verb by the same prefix.
(8) Ixil imperfective
UN. Transitive
In w-il
axh.
DUR 1ERG-see 2ABS
‘I am seeing you.’
B. Intransitive
In w-ok-e’.
DUR 1ERG-enter-SUF
‘I am entering.’
(Ayres 1981:129)
6 This would then raise the question of why reflexive objects are licensed
via Morphological Merger as opposed to via absolutive case assignment. Here
there are at least two possibilities. One is that licensing by Morphological
Merger occurs due to the manner in which reflexive predicates are de-
rived—namely, by a lexical operation that links the internal (cid:4)-role to the exter-
nal (cid:4)-role and consequently reduces a two-place predicate to a one-place predi-
cate. This blocks the mapping of the reflexive onto object position (Vedere
Chierchia 2004, Reinhart and Siloni 2005), such that it cannot be targeted for
absolutive case assignment. A second possibility is that Morphological Merger
is a special licensing strategy used to prevent the reflexive object from entering
into an Agree relation with a higher probe, per the widely attested anaphor
agreement effect (per esempio., Rizzi 1990, Woolford 1999). Infatti, Mayan languages
would not be alone in licensing reflexives via an alternative strategy: Yuan
(2018) argues that reflexive objects in Inuktitut are also not assigned absolutive
case, but are instead projected as oblique PPs to prevent them from being
targeted in Agree configurations.
7 Bare objects such as those in (7UN) are not subject to licensing require-
ments at all; Tuttavia, they must remain adjacent to the verb for the purposes
of prosodic well-formedness (Clemens and Coon 2018).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
646
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
There is debate in Mayanist literature about the status of the “ergative”
prefixes in (8), Tuttavia. Among other analyses, Coon (2013) argues
that they are genitive prefixes, and Zavala Maldonado (2017) analyzes
them as nominative prefixes. For present purposes, the crucial point
is that a contrast obtains between transitive and intransitive predicates
with respect to subject extraction: the transitive subject in (8UN) cannot
be extracted, as in (9UN), but the intransitive subject in (8B) can, as in
(9B) (see also Assmann et al. 2015).
(9) Fronting in Ixil imperfective
UN. Fronting of transitive subject
*Ye’l in in w-il
ex.
NEG 1SG IMP 1ERG-see 2ABS.PL
‘I’m not seeing you (pl.).’
B. (cid:57)Fronting of intransitive subject
Ye’l in in w-ok-e’.
NEG 1SG IMP 1ERG-enter-SUF
‘I’m not entering.’
(Ayres 1981:130)
Taken at face value, the Mayan facts seemingly cannot be tied
to the notion of extraction as regulated by the case-featural properties
of the subject, per (1), and thereby call instead for a theory of syntactic
ergativity that ties A¯ -movement of the ergative subject to properties
of the object (per esempio., Coon, Mateo Pedro, and Preminger 2014, Assmann
et al. 2015). Tuttavia, it is also possible that morphological mark-
edness per (1) is determined on a relational as opposed to absolute
basis. This would mean that an ergative DP is treated as “marked” for
the purposes of featural accessibility only if an unmarked competitor
argument is also present (within some domain). Conversely, in the
absence of an absolutive DP, the ergative—now the least-marked
DP—is treated as featurally “unmarked” (and is therefore accessible).
The scenario outlined above establishes a key prediction regard-
ing (cid:2)-agreement: if morphological markedness is relational with re-
gard to (1), then the availability of ergative DP extraction in the pres-
ence versus absence of an absolutive object should be paralleled in
the agreement patterns in languages such as Hindi-Urdu (Vedere (2)). In
other words, the absence of an absolutive object should allow for the
ergative DP to trigger (cid:2)-agreement. As I will now discuss, Tuttavia,
this is not the case.
3.2 (cid:2)-Agreement in Unergatives
This section assesses agreement in languages in which ergative sub-
jects cannot trigger agreement and that have “split-S” alignments,
wherein subjects of both transitive and unergative verbs are marked
ergative. Like many Indo-Aryan languages,8 Hindi-Urdu meets these
8 Nepali is an exception, allowing for agreement with all ERG and ABS
subjects (Bickel and Ya¯dava 2000).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
647
criteria: ergative subjects do not trigger agreement (see again (2)),
and—in perfective aspects—ergative case can mark unergative sub-
jects (10). Tuttavia, agreement in such constructions is always 3SG
masculine, regardless of the (cid:2)-features of the subject; the 3SG feminine
subjects in (10) do not trigger feminine agreement.
(10) Default agreement in Hindi-Urdu unergatives
UN. anya-ne
chiikh-aa/*-ii.
Anya.FEM-ERG scream-MASC/*-FEM
‘Anya screamed.’
B. anya-ne
muskurah-aa/*-ii.
Anya.FEM-ERG smiled-MASC/*-FEM
‘Anya smiled.’
(Kinza Mahoon, pers. comm.)
As is the case in many languages, 3SG masculine agreement in Hindi-
Urdu is the agreement default (Bhatt 2005), arising through the failure
of an agreement probe to target any nominal whatsoever (see Pre-
minger 2011, 2014). The masculine agreement marking in (10) can
therefore be taken to indicate lack of agreement. The most straightfor-
ward conclusion to be drawn is that ergative unergative subjects in
Hindi-Urdu are not targets for (cid:2)-agreement. Tuttavia, there is an
alternative possibility: namely, that the 3SG masculine verbal morphol-
ogy in (10) does not reflect default agreement; Piuttosto, it reflects agree-
ment with a covert absolutive cognate object (Vedere, per esempio., Hale and
Keyser 1993). This alternative seems unlikely, Tuttavia, since the cog-
nate objects of the verbs in (10) are themselves feminine: when these
are overt, as in (11), feminine agreement surfaces.
(11) Overt FEM cognate objects
UN. anya-ne
(bhurhi awaz se)
chiikh
voice with) scream.FEM.ABS
Anya.FEM-ERG (big
chiikh-ii/*-aa.
scream-FEM/*-MASC
‘Anya screamed a (loud) scream.’
B. anya-ne
(xuubsuurat sii) muskuraahat
con) smile.FEM.ABS
Anya.FEM-ERG (beauty
muskuraa-ii/*-aa.
smiled-FEM/*-MASC
‘Anya smiled a (beautiful) smile.’
(Kinza Mahoon, pers. comm.)
Così, if the verbal agreement in (10) were agreement with a covert
cognate object, we would expect it to be feminine as opposed to mascu-
line. The masculine agreement that surfaces on unergative verb forms
can therefore be taken to be true default agreement. Di conseguenza, IL
absence of an absolutive object in Hindi-Urdu does not render the
single ergative argument a viable target for agreement.
The pattern for Hindi-Urdu, wherein ergative unergative subjects
do not trigger agreement, is widespread among Indo-Aryan languages,
as exemplified by Kashmiri (12) and Marathi (13): notice that, while
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
648
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
the verbs in (12UN) E (13UN) (cid:2)-agree with nominative subjects, Essi
do not (cid:2)-agree with ergatives (Vedere (12B), (13B)). Infatti, Bhatt (2007:
19) notes that “agreement with ergative subjects . . . as a last resort”
is unattested in Indo-Aryan.
(12) Agreement in Kashmiri unergatives9
UN. NOM subject: (cid:2)-agreement
nots-us.
bI
1SG.NOM dance.PST-1SG
‘I danced.’
B. ERG subject: No (cid:2)-agreement
nots.
me
1SG.ERG dance.PST
‘I danced.’
(Wali and Koul 1997:153)
(13) Agreement in Marathi unergatives
UN. NOM subject: (cid:2)-agreement
hUsl-i.
lili
Lili.FEM.NOM laugh.PERF-FEM
‘Lili laughed.’
B. ERG subject: No (cid:2)-agreement
hUsaw-U.
lili-ne
Lili.FEM-ERG laugh.DESI-NEUT
‘Lili should laugh.’
(Dhongde and Wali 2009:181, 182)
Finalmente, consider Basque. Unlike ergative arguments in Indo-
Aryan, those in Basque generally do trigger agreement. In transitive
constructions such as (14), the clause-final auxiliary (cid:2)-agrees with
both the ergative subject and the absolutive object. Both unmarked
and dependent-marked arguments are thus (simultaneously) accessible
for absolutive and ergative agreement, rispettivamente.
(14) Agreement in Basque transitives
aurkitu h-ind-u-da-n.
Ni-k hi
I-ERG you.ABS find
‘I found you.’
(Ferna´ndez and Albizu 2000:106)
2SG.ABS-EP-have-1SG.ERG-PAST
Tuttavia, Basque exhibits a pattern known as “ergative displacement”
(Vedere, per esempio., Laka 1993), in which a morphosyntactically ergative DP
exceptionally triggers absolutive agreement (15). Ergative displace-
ment arises when (UN) tense is nonpresent, (B) the ergative DP is 1st
or 2nd person, E (C) the absolutive DP is 3rd person. Così, under
these conditions the ergative argument can be said to be inaccessible
9 The distribution of verb agreement in Kashmiri differs from that of
pronominal enclitics, which cross-reference absolutive, ergative, and dative
arguments (see Wali and Koul 1997 for discussion and examples).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
649
for ergative agreement and is indexed by absolutive agreement in-
stead.10
(15) Ergative displacement in Basque
aurkitu n-(cid:2)-u-en/
1SG.ABS-3SG.ABS-have-PAST/
Ni-k hura
I-ERG he/she.ABS find
*z-(cid:2)-u-t-en.
*PREF-3SG.ABS-have-1SG.ERG-PAST
‘I found him/her.’
(Ferna´ndez and Albizu 2000: 4, Saioa Lazarra, pers. comm.)
Basque also exhibits a split-S alignment: subjects of unergative verbs
bear ergative case marking and typically trigger normal ergative agree-
ment, as in (16).11
(16) Unergatives in Basque
UN. Ni-k dantzatu d-u-t.
I-ERG dance
‘I dance.’
PREF-have-1SG.ERG
B. Ni-k abestu d-u-t.
PREF-have-1SG.ERG
I-ERG sing
‘I sing.’
(Saioa Lazarra, pers. comm.)
On the basis of long-distance agreement phenomena, iterative con-
structions, and absence of certain cognate DPs, Preminger (2012) ar-
gues that unergative verbs in Basque lack implicit objects: by this
analysis, the sentences in (16) are not covertly transitive. Now consider
displaced agreement again: if the lack of ergative agreement in con-
structions such as (15) is dependent on the presence of an absolutive
coargument, then ergative displacement should not apply to subjects
of unergative verbs. Tuttavia, absence of an absolutive object makes
no difference in this regard: a 1st/2nd person unergative subject in a
nonpresent tense still cannot trigger regular ergative agreement (17).
Invece, the same 3rd person absolutive agreement prefix surfaces as
for the transitive subject in (15).
(17) Unergative ergative displacement
UN. Ni-k dantzatu n-u-en/
1SG.ABS-have-PAST/
I-ERG dance
*z-u-t-en.
*PREF-have-1SG.ERG-PAST
‘I danced.’
B. Ni-k abestu n-u-en/
I-ERG sing
1SG.ABS-have-PAST/
10 See Albizu and Eguren 2000 for arguments that ergative DPs that trigger
“displaced” agreement behave as morphosyntactically ergative DPs, as opposed
to absolutive DPs.
11 Specifically, western and central dialects have split-S alignments; sub-
jects of unergative verbs in eastern dialects (usually) receive absolutive case,
like other intransitive subjects.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
650
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
*z-u-t-en.
*PREF-have-1SG.ERG-PAST
‘I sang.’
(Saioa Lazarra, pers. comm.)
Così, ergative displacement is triggered even in the absence of an
absolutive coargument. The agreement facts in Basque hereby yield
the same conclusion drawn from Indo-Aryan: absence of an absolutive
coargument does not affect accessibility of an ergative argument for
ergative agreement. Following from these observations, the strong ty-
pological generalization to be made is that no language should exhibit
verbal (cid:2)-agreement with ergative arguments, only in the absence of an
absolutive-cased object. This generalization contrasts with the Mayan
movement data in section 3.1, in which the absence of an absolutive-
cased object allows for A¯ -movement of the ergative. I turn now to the
implications of this contrast.
4 Implications for Accessibility Theories and Preliminary
Conclusions
The contrast between A¯ -movement and (cid:2)-agreement in ergative lan-
guages—whereby absence of an absolutive DP renders an otherwise
inaccessible ergative DP accessible for A¯ -movement (as in Mayan)
but not for (cid:2)-agreement (as in Indo-Aryan and Basque)—minimally
suggests that A¯ -movement and (cid:2)-agreement are not analogous with
respect to morphological case.12 Regarding how best to formally char-
acterize these facts, there are three options. One is that A¯ -movement
E (cid:2)-agreement are parameterized differently with respect to the mor-
phological case hierarchy in (1): extraction—at least, for the Mayan
languages discussed in section 3.113—is regulated on a morphologi-
cally relational basis, and agreement is regulated on an absolute basis.
12 This squib has focused solely on the contrast between (cid:2)-agreement and
A¯ -movement with respect to the morphological case hierarchy, leaving aside
the patterning of A-movement. On the one hand, one might expect A-movement
to pattern with A¯ -movement, since both involve dependency formation. On
the other hand, A-movement might pattern with (cid:2)-agreement, since both are
syntactic A-processes. As it turns out, there is strong evidence in favor of the
latter scenario: Preminger (2014:185) observes that languages such as French
(see McGinnis 1998), which prohibit dative DPs from undergoing A-movement
to subject position, do so whether a nominative coargument is present or not,
just as a ban on (cid:2)-agreement with an ergative DP holds whether an absolutive
object is present or absent. Therefore, a strong conclusion to draw from this
would be that the observed distinction between A¯ -movement and (cid:2)-agreement
with respect to morphological case is in fact representative of a more general
distinction between A¯ -processes and A-processes.
Thanks to a reviewer for bringing to my attention the question of how A-
movement patterns.
13 Since no split-S languages are also known to be syntactically ergative
(see Sheehan 2014), the Mayan data presented in section 3.1 offer the best
parallel test case for extraction possibilities of ergative arguments in the absence
of an absolutive object.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
651
This might seem reasonable in view of a key contrast between the
languages discussed in section 3.1 and those discussed in section 3.2:
the syntactically ergative languages in section 3.1 are head-marking,
while the absolutive-only agreement languages in section 3.2 are de-
pendent-marking.14 According to Coon (2017), Tuttavia, the syntactic
mechanisms that give rise to ergative head-marking in Mayan are the
same as those that give rise to ergative dependent-marking in languages
like Hindi-Urdu (cioè., are a reflex of an inherent Agree relation between
v0 and an external argument15). In view of this, it seems unlikely that
accessibility would differ according to whether an ergative alignment
is manifested via head- or dependent-marking.
A more promising approach is one in which the hierarchy in (1)
governs only one of A¯ -movement or (cid:2)-agreement. I spell out the two
options in (18).
(18) UN. Option A
The morphological case hierarchy regulates A¯ -move-
ment (cioè., is relational), E (cid:2)-agreement is not regulated
by morphological accessibility.
B. Option B
The morphological case hierarchy regulates (cid:2)-agreement
(cioè., is absolute), and A¯ -movement is not regulated by
morphological accessibility.16
I leave the choice between these two options open for future research.
Riferimenti
Aissen, Judith. 2011. On the syntax of agent focus in K’ichee’. In
Proceedings of FAMLi 1: Formal Approaches to Mayan Lin-
guistics, ed. by Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Jes-
sica Coon, 1–16. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63. Camera-
ponte, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Aissen, Judith. 2017. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan. In Oxford
handbook of ergativity, ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam,
and Lisa deMena Travis, 737–758. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Albizu, Pablo, and Luis Eguren. 2000. An optimality theoretic account
for “ergative displacement” in Basque. In Morphological anal-
14 Thanks to a reviewer for raising this issue.
15 For an overview of various alternative approaches to ergative case, Vedere
Deal 2016.
16 Option B leaves open the question of how languages that are syntacti-
cally ergative only in a subset of A¯ -environments (per esempio., in wh-questions but
not in relative clauses, or vice versa) may be accounted for (Vedere, per esempio., Polinsky
2016, Deal 2017, Douglas, Ranero, and Sheehan 2017); see also footnote 4. It
is possible that some types of (apparent) A¯ -movement involve a covert biclausal
structure, as proposed by Henderson and Coon (2017) for certain types of wh-
questions in Kaqchikel. In this way, instances of partial syntactic ergativity
may arise due to structural differences across different types of A¯ -constructions,
such that movement does not actually take place in all relevant environments.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
652
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
ysis in comparison, ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E.
Pfeiffer, Markus A. Po¨chtrager, and John R. Rennison, 1–23.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Assmann, Anke, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Mu¨ller, E
Philipp Weisser. 2015. Ergatives move too early: On an in-
stance of opacity in syntax. Syntax 18:343–387.
Ayres, Glenn. 1981. On ergativity and aspect in Ixil. Journal of Mayan
Linguistica 2:128–145.
Baker, Segno. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function
changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Segno. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its
derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45:341–379.
Berinstein, Ava. 1984. Absolutive extractions: Evidence for clause-
internal multiattachment in K’ekchi. In Cornell University
working papers in linguistics 5, ed. by Carol Rosen and Laurie
Zaring, 1–65. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of
Linguistica.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 23:757–807.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2007. Ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages. Paper pre-
sented at the MIT Ergativity Seminar. Cambridge, MA, 14
novembre.
Bickel, Balthasar, and Yogendra P. Ya¯dava. 2000. A fresh look at
grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110:343–373.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-
syntactic operation. In Phi theory: Phi-features across inter-
faces and modules, ed. by Daniel Harbour, David Adger, E
Susana Be´jar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syn-
tactic consequences. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explora-
tions of the syntax-lexicon interface, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou,
Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 22–59. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Clemens, Lauren, and Jessica Coon. 2018. Deriving verb-initial word
order in Mayan. Language 94:237–280.
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. New York: Oxford
Stampa universitaria.
Coon, Jessica. 2017. Little-v agreement and templatic morphology in
Ch’ol. Syntax 20:101–137.
Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. IL
role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from
Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14:179–242.
Craig, Colette Grinevald. 1977. The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: Uni-
versity of Texas Press.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Syntactic ergativity: Analysis and identifica-
zione. Annual Review of Linguistics 2:165–185.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Syntactic ergativity as case discrimination. In
WCCFL 34, ed. by Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda K.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
653
McCarvel, and Edward J. Rubin, 141–150. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Dhongde, Ramesh Vamen, and Kashi Wali. 2009. Marathi. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59–138.
Douglas, Jamie, Rodrigo Ranero, and Michelle Sheehan. 2017. Two
kinds of syntactic ergativity in Mayan. Negli Atti di
GLOW in Asia XI, Volume 2, ed. by Michael Yoshitaka Erle-
wine, 41–56. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 85. Camera-
ponte, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after
syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32:555–595.
Ferna´ndez, Beatriz, and Pablo Albizu. 2000. Ergative displacement
and the division of labor between syntax and morphology. In
Chicago Linguistic Society 36. Vol. 2, The Panels, ed. by John
Boyle and Arika Okrent, 103–117. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago, Chicago Linguistic Society.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure
and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view
from Building 20: A festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by
Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–110. Cambridge,
MA: CON Premere.
Heaton, Raina, Kamil Deen, and William O’Grady. 2015. An investi-
gation of relativization in Kaqchikel Maya. Lingua 170:35–
46.
Henderson, Robert, and Jessica Coon. 2017. Adverbs and variability
in Kaqchikel agent focus: A reply to Erlewine (2016). Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 36:149–173.
Keenan, Edoardo, and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibil-
ity and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63–99.
Keenan, Edoardo, and Bernard Comrie. 1979. Noun phrase accessibil-
ity revisited. Language 55:649–664.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that
assign accusative. In Papers on case and agreement, ed. by
Jonathan David Bobaljik and Colin Phillips, 149–172. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 18. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Levin, Theodore. 2015. Licensing without case. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement the-
ory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 19:153–197.
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral disserta-
zione, MIT.
Mondloch, James. 1981. Voice in Quiche-Maya. Doctoral dissertation,
SUNY Albany.
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. Object-verb agreement. Working Papers on
Language Universals 15:25–40.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
654
S Q U I B S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
Ordo´n˜ez, Francesco. 1995. The antipassive in Jacaltec: A last resort
strategy. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4:329–343.
Barcelona: Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona.
Pascual, Ada´n F. 2007. Transitividad y dependencia sinta´ctica y dis-
cursive en Q’anjob’al. Master’s thesis, Centro de Investigacio´n
y Estudios Superiores en Antropologı´a Social, Mexico.
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Preminger, Omer. 2012. The absence of an implicit object in unerga-
tives: New and old evidence from Basque. Lingua 122:
278–288.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA:
CON Premere.
Polinsky, Maria. 2016. Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of erga-
tive languages and their features. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter:
Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry
36:389–436.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Lin-
guistica 2:27–42.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Towards a parameter hierarchy for align-
ment. In WCCFL 31, ed. by Robert E. Santana-LaBarge,
399–408. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 24:501–570.
van Urk, Coppe. 2019. Object licensing in Fijian and the role of adja-
cency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38:313–364.
Wali, Kashi, and Omkar N. Koul. 1997. Kashmiri: A cognitive-de-
scriptive grammar. London: Routledge.
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative,
objective and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 15:181–227.
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguis-
tic Inquiry 30:257–287.
Yuan, Michelle. 2018. Lexical case as an anaphor agreement effect:
The view from Inuktitut. Paper presented at NELS 49, Cornell
Università, Ithaca, NY, 5–7 October.
Zavala Maldonado, Roberto. 2017. Alignment patterns. In The Mayan
languages, ed. by Judith Aissen, Nora England, and Roberto
Zavala Maldonado, 226–258. London: Routledge.
Rebecca Tollan
Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science
University of Delaware
rtollan@udel.edu
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
2
3
6
4
0
1
9
2
6
6
7
4
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
3
7
8
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Scarica il pdf