Different approaches to argument licensing in Niuean Lauren Clemens September 24, 2014

1

Overview • Where are Niuean’s core arguments generated? Looking only at transitive clauses... – Traditional approach Transitive subjects are generated in spec,vP; objects as sister to V0 . (Massam 2001; Clemens 2014) – High argument approach Transitive subjects and objects are generated in spec,vP; there are no VP-internal arguments, or vP-external arguments, i.e. EPP on T0 attracts the predicate. (Massam 2013; Longenbaugh and Polinsky 2014) • How are absolutive and ergative case assigned? – vP-internal Both ergative and absolutive case are assigned vP-internally. This is alternatively represented as either 1) two vP-internal case assigning heads, i.e. ErgP and AbsP or 2) or one case assigning head (v0 ) that assigns ergative case to the higher of two arguments. (Massam 2001, 2006, inter alia) – ABS = DEF T assigns nominative case to intransitive subjects and v assigns accusative case to the object of a transitive clause. Both nominative and accusative case are realized with the morphological default ABS. Ergative case is licensed by the v that introduces the external argument. (Legate 2008)

2

Niuean Morphosyntax • Case properties – Head-initial, dependent-marking, ergative language – Different case-marking paradigms for common nouns and proper nouns/pronouns Common nouns Proper nouns/pronouns

Ergative he e

Absolutive e a 1

• Constituent order – VSOX: Discourse Particles – Predicate – Core Arguments – Non-Core Arguments (1) Transitive clause a. Kua kitia he tama e maukoloa he fale koloa haana. pfv see erg child abs shopkeeper loc shop poss ‘The child saw the shopkeeper at his shop.’ b. Kua kitia e Sione a Peleni he fale koloa haana. pfv see erg Sione abs Peleni loc shop poss ‘Sione saw Peleni at his shop.’ (2) Intransitive clause a. To fano e k¯amuta ke he taone apogipogi. fut go abs carpenter gl loc town tomorrow ‘The carpenter will go to town tomorrow.’ b. To fano a Sione ke he taone apogipogi. fut go abs Sione gl loc town tomorrow ‘Sione will go to town tomorrow.’ • Predicate Structure – Preverbal particles, etc. TAM—Neg—Restructuring verbs – Postverbal particles, etc. Man/Dir—Appl—∀—Loc/T RP—Asp Adv—Emph—pfv—Interr • Niuean’s post-verbal particles surface in the opposite order of their scope. – Surface order Man/Dir—Appl—∀—Loc/T RP—Asp Adv—Emph—pfv—Interr – Scope order Interr > pfv > Emph(?) > Asp Adv > Loc/T RP > ∀ > Appl > Man/Dir

3

Location of core arguments

3.1

Traditional approaches

• Massam (2001) – Subjects of transitive clauses are generated in the (most) external specifier of vP. – Objects of transitive clauses (and all intransitive subjects) start off as sister to V0 . – DP objects are licensed by AbsP ex situ, NP objects stay in VP.

2

(3) Transitive clause, Massam (2001:163) IP I’

VPx V

ti

vmax

I DP(erg)

v’ AbsP

v

DPi (abs)

Abs’ K(abs)

tV Px

– The evacuation of DP objects is connected to how Massam derives Niuean PNI and predicate-initiality more generally. • Basic characteristics of PNI (Seiter 1980 & Massam 2001): – The incorporated object surfaces immediately to the right of the verb. – Postverbal particles, etc. follow the incorporated object. – The incorporated object is not preceded by any overt functional morphology. – The incorporated object can be complex. (4) VSO/PNI pair, PNI-abs a. Na h¯ı hake e Sione e lima haana ki luga. pst raise dir erg Sione abs hand poss loc top ‘Sione raised his hand.’ b. Na h¯ı lima hake a Sione ki luga. pst raise hand dir abs Sione loc top ‘Sione raised his hand.’ (5) VSO/PNI pair, PNI-inst a. Kua fakahu¯ he ekekafo e tohi he vakalele. pfv send erg doctor abs letter loc airplane ‘The doctor sent the letter on the airplane.’ b. Kua fakahu¯ vakalele he ekekafo e tohi. pfv send airplane erg doctor abs letter ‘The doctor sent the letter on the airplane.’ (6) PNI with complex objects a. Na t¯o talo mo e tau fiti e magafaoa. pst plant taro comtv abs pl flower abs family ‘The family planted taro and flowers.’ 3

b. To kai titipi mo e huki he kuki e vala povi he fale kai. fut eat knife comtv abs fork erg cook abs piece beef cl kitchen ‘The woman will eat the beef with a knife and fork in the kitchen.’ • Massam’s analysis of PNI – Objects receive case in VP-external positions; when the VP moves, it only contains V0 . (7) VSO TP T’

VP Verb tObj

T

vP Sub

vP DP

v’ v

Obj

tV P

– Incorporated elements are NPs. – NPs do not need case; so they are VP-internal when the VP raises. (8) PNI-abs TP VP Verb

T’ NP

T

vP Sub

Obj

v’ v

tV P

– Instrumental PNI is derived in the same way as absolutive PNI. – Absolutive objects are not the only type of argument that can start off as sister to V0 . (9) PNI-inst TP T’

VP Verb

NP Inst

T

vP Sub

v’ v tV P

4

– What happens when a PNI-inst structure also has an absolutive object? – Sister to V0 is not the only place where an absolutive object can start off. (10)

a. Kua fakahu¯ vakalele he ekekafo e tohi . pfv send airplane erg doctor abs letter ‘The doctor sent the letter on the airplane.’ b. PNI-inst with absolutive object TP T’

VP Verb

NP

T

vP

Inst

Sub

vP DP Obj

v’ v

tV P

– PNI-abs structures can co-occur with instrumental PPs. (11)

a. Kua fakahu¯ tohi e ekekafo he vakalele . pfv send letter abs doctor loc airplane ‘The doctor sent the letter on the airplane.’ b. PNI-abs with instrumental PP TP T’

VP Verb

NP

T

vP

Obj PP

vP Sub

v’ v

Inst

tV P

– The syntactic analysis of PNI is incompatible with the long-standing tradition that thematic relationships are structurally encoded (Perlmutter & Postal 1984; Baker 1988, 1997 (UTAH); Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002, a.o.). – In Massam’s account, there is a one-to-many and many-to-one correlation between θ-role and structural position. • Clemens (2014), an aside: – Accounts for verb-intiality via X0 -raising and for OS/SO alternations at PF. 5

– This allows for a one-to-one correspondence between θ-role and structural position. – However, in this account, something extra needs to be said about the general predicateinitial nature of Niuean. – This analysis is compatible with both the Massam’s (2006) and Legate’s (2008) approach to Niuean case assignment.

3.2

High argument approaches

• Massam (2010, 2013), following Rackowski and Travis (2000), accounts for Niuean’s inverse scope with a series of successive roll-up movements. – Postverbal particles are base-generated in the order of their scope. – The first postverbal particle merges with VP and is embedded under a v0 . – The VP moves into the specifier of Appl’s vP, which orients Appl to the verb’s right. – The next postverbal particle merges with Appl’s vP, and the process continues. – Once all the postverbal particles are accounted for, the rolled-up vP moves to the specifier of TP to satisfy T0 ’s [EPP-pred] feature. (12) Maeke e fakatinoi ke t¯a aki oti e Lemani e tau malala ei . possible abs picture Dep.T draw appl ∀ erg Lemani abs pl charcoal ‘It’s possible Lemani drew the picture with all the charcoals’ (Seiter 1983:332) (13) Roll-up movement with the Appl and quantificational (∀) particles vP∀

vPAppl VP V

DP

v’ v’

v ApplP

v

∀P

∀ tvPAppl

Appl tV P

– Many consider movement out of a moved-constituent to be illicit (see, Londahl 2011 for a recent discussion); Massam (2010) agrees. – Massam (2010) decides in favor of “High Argument Merge” with one of two implementations (contra Massam 2001; Massam 2013 is less decisive) * DP arguments are adjuncts that are coindexed with null pronominals in standard thematic positions (Baker 1996; Jelinek 1984). * Merge “internal” arguments directly into a specifier of a VP-external functional head (Borer 2005). 6

* We can superimpose these two scenarios on the tree in (3). • Longenbaugh and Polinsky (2014) – Merge “internal” arguments directly into the specifier of vP. – This is useful in accounting for the fact that Niuean raising constructions (copyraising, in their account) do not appear to differentiate between subjects and objects. – Since they are both in specifiers of vP, they are equally accessible to raising. (14) Subject-subject a. To maeke ke lagomatai he ekekafo a Sione. fut possible Dep.T help erg doctor abs Sione “It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.” b. To maeke e ekekafo ke lagomatai a Sione. fut possible abs doctor Dep.T help abs Sione “It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.” (15) Object-subject a. To maeke ke lagomatai he ekekafo a Sione. fut possible Dep.T help erg doctor abs Sione “It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.” b. To maeke a Sione ke lagomatai he ekekafo. fut possible abs Sione Dep.T help erg doctor “It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.” (16) Subject-object a. To nakai toka e au ke kai he pusi e ika. fut neg let erg 1.sg Dep.T eat erg cat abs fish “I won’t let the cat eat the fish.” b. To nakai toka e au e ika ke kai he pusi. fut neg let erg 1.sg abs fish Dep.T eat erg cat “I won’t let the cat eat the fish.” • Concerns for the High Argument Approaches – Isolating morphology and relatively strict word order – A typical array of subject and object asymmetries, including a lack of subject incorporation and reflexives in subject position. – Argument/adjunct asymmetries with respect to the formation of relative clauses, raising constructions, and their scope relative to the postverbal particle oti

7

4

Case assignment

4.1

vP-internal case assignment (Massam 2006)

• Main point: “neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative” • Instead: both cases are assigned internal to vP – No case is associated with an external head in Niuean (e.g., I0 ) – Ergative is assigned to the external agent argument. – Absolutive is assigned to internal arguments. – External and internal are not independently defined.

4.2

ABS = DEF (Legate 2008)

• Niuean is a language where absolutive is a morphological default. – Hanging-topic left-dislocation constructions bear absolutive case. – Absolutive subjects in nonfinite contexts should not be available. – Absolutive should be ubiquitous.

5

Conclusions • In terms of case assignment the sticking point is whether there are absolutive subjects in nonfinite contexts. • In terms of the location of ergative and absolutive arguments the trick is to make both arguments “equally accessible” to certain types of constructions, while maintaining asymmetric c-command.

References Clemens, L. (2014). Prosodic Noun Incorporation and Verb-Initial Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University. Legate, J. (2008). Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55–101. Longenbaugh, N. and M. Polinsky. (2014). On the approximate parity of subject and object in Niuean: a case study in copy-raising. Ms., Harvard University. Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 153–197. Massam, D. (2006). Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. Ergativity Springer: 27-46. Massam, D. (2013). Nuclear complex predicates in Niuean. Lingua 135, 56–80. Seiter, W. (1980). Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland.

8