Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 3, 2017

The Person–Case Constraint and the Inverse Agreement Constraint are manifestations of the same Inverse Topicality Constraint

Katalin É Kiss
From the journal The Linguistic Review

Abstract

This paper first claims that the Inverse Agreement Constraint and the Person–Case Constraint attested in overlapping sets of Uralic languages are manifestations of the same Inverse Topicality Constraint, requiring that the structural hierarchy of topicalized constituents correspond to the ranking of their referents in the Animacy/Topicality Hierarchy. Then it argues that it is the hypothesized Inverse Topicality Constraint that also underlies the Person– Case Constraints restricting the cooccurrence of clitics in ditransitive and ergative–absolutive constructions across languages. It is shown that alternative analyses of the Person–Case Constraint, e.g., those deriving it from the mechanism of multiple Agree, cannot account for the whole range of data attested.

References

Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10. 2–37.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.xSearch in Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 673–711.10.1023/A:1006335629372Search in Google Scholar

Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphology. In Amaya Mendikoetxea & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Theoretical issues on the Morphology-Syntax Interface, 1–34. San Sebastian: ASJU Gehigarriak XL.Search in Google Scholar

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Anagnostopoulou, Elena 2008. Notes on the Person Case Constraint in Germanic. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 15–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Bárány, András. 2015a. Inverse agreement and Hungarian verb paradigms. In Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14, Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference, 37–64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Bárány, András. 2015b. Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Search in Google Scholar

Béjar, Susan & Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Ana Teresa Pérez-Lenoux & Yves Roberge (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquistion, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Béjar, Susan & Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 35–73.10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35Search in Google Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax. PhD. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Search in Google Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia. 2007. The Person-Case constraint and repair strategies. In Roberta d’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Person restrictions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Robert. 1988. Waris case system and verb classification. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 19. 37–80.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica 1. 61–74.Search in Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Den Dikken, Marcel. 2004. Agreement and ‘clause union’. In Katalin É. Kiss & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds.), Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 445–498. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Den Dikken, Marcel, Anikó Lipták & Zsófia Zvolenszky. 2001. On inclusive reference anaphora: New perspectives from Hungarian. In Karine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-El (eds.), WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 137–149. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2005. The inverse agreement constraint in Hungarian − a relic of a Uralic–Siberian Sprachbund? In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Jan Koster, Riny Huybregts & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 108–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2012. Null pronominal objects in Hungarian: A case of exaptation. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44. 192–206.10.1080/03740463.2013.779077Search in Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2013. The Inverse Agreement Constraint in Uralic languages. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2 (1). 2–21.Search in Google Scholar

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2014. The Evolution of Functional Left peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka & Kostas Kazazis. 1980. Clitic pronouns and topicality in Rumanian. Chicago Linguistic Society 16. 75–82.Search in Google Scholar

Forsberg, Ulla-Maija. 2007. Eastern Mansi (Konda) Grammar. http://www.google.hu/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbabel.gwi.unimuenchen.de%2Fmedia%2Fdownloads%2Fgrammar%2FEasternMansi%2FEasternMansiGrammar.pdf&ei=HqDoVIHqC8_KaJq6gvgB&usg=AFQjCNEEQpoC2IktjlPlMPVeYK2zA4mORg&bvm=bv.86475890,d.d2sSearch in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1975. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Gulya, János. 1970. Aktiv, Ergativ und Passiv im Vach-Ostjakischen. In Wolfgang Schlachter (ed.), Symposium über Syntax der uralischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Van den Hoock and Ruprecht.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint. Constructions 2/2004. www.constructions-online.de. urn:nbn:de:0009-4-359.ISSN 1860-2010.Search in Google Scholar

Havas, Ferenc. 2008. Unmarked object in the Uralic languages: A diachronic typological approach. Linguistica Uralica 43(1). 1–33.10.3176/lu.2008.1.01Search in Google Scholar

Honti, László. 2009. Tűnődések tárgyas igeragozásunk kialakulásáról [Reflections on the evolution of our objective conjugation]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 106. 132–146.Search in Google Scholar

Kallulli, Dalina. 2008. Clitic doubling, agreement, and information structure. In Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, 227–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Kallulli, Dalina. 2016. Clitic doubling as Differential Object Marking. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38. 156–166.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3. 75–114.10.5565/rev/catjl.106Search in Google Scholar

Manzini, Maria Rita. 2012. From Romance clitics to case split accusativity and the person case constraint. In Irene Franco, Sara Lusini & Andes Saab (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2010: Selected papers from ‛Going Romance’ Leiden 2010, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Manzini, Maria Rita & Ludovico Franco. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(1). 391–434.Search in Google Scholar

Manzini, Maria Rita, Leonardo M. Savoia & Ludovico Franco. 2015. Ergative case, aspect and person splits: Two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 62(3). 297–351.10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3Search in Google Scholar

Marcantonio, Angela. 1985. On the definite vs. indefinite conjugation in Hungarian: A typological and diachronic analysis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35. 267–298.Search in Google Scholar

Mojmír, Dočekal & Dalina Kallulli. 2012. More on the semantics of clitic doubling: Principal filters, minimal witnesses, and other bits of truth. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, 113–128. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/Search in Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith. 1974. Object–verb agreement. Working papers on language universals 15. Stanford: Committee on Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2). 273–313.10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2Search in Google Scholar

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4). 939–971.10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4Search in Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. Languages of the World/Materials 305. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39. 1–49.10.1515/ling.2001.006Search in Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2002. Possessive affixes in the pragmatic structuring of the utterance: Evidence from Uralic. In Bernard Comrie & Pirkko Suihkonen (eds.), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification. Izhevsk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 315–347.10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9Search in Google Scholar

Pápay, József. 1906–1908. Északi-osztják nyelvtanulmányok [Northern Ostyak linguistic studies]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 36–38. 345–398; 52–79; 164–195; 258–275; 111–150; 313–329.Search in Google Scholar

Rebrus, Péter. 2000. Morfofonológiai jelenségek [Morphophonological phenomena]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia, 763–948. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Search in Google Scholar

Rezac, Milan. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 61–106.10.1007/s11049-008-9032-6Search in Google Scholar

Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sipőcz, Katalin. 2013. Ditranzitív igék a manysiban [Ditransitive verbs in Mansi]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 109. 123–136.Search in Google Scholar

Skribnik, Elena. 2001. Pragmatic structuring in Northern Mansi. In Tönu Seidenthal (ed.), Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-ugristarum. Pars IV. Dissertationes sectionum: Linguistica III. Tartu: Tartu University.Search in Google Scholar

Stegovec, Adrian. 2016. A Person-Case Constraint without Case. Ms. University of Connecticut.Search in Google Scholar

Virtanen, Susanna. 2010. Pragmatic marking of direct objects in Eastern Mansi. Ms. University of Helsinki.Search in Google Scholar

Virtanen, Susanna. 2014. Pragmatic object marking in Eastern Mansi. Linguistics 52(2). 391–413.Search in Google Scholar

Virtanen, Susanna. 2015. Transitivity in Eastern Mansi. PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki.Search in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1. 43–81.10.1080/07268608108599266Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-10-3
Published in Print: 2017-10-26

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston