Loading…
Ergative gender agreement in Dargwa ˋˋbackward control'' or feature sharing?
Dargwa languages have two types of agreement at clause level: gender and person agreement. In the general case, person agreement is hierarchical (speech act participants prefered to 3rd persons), while gender agreement is with the absolutive (S/P) argument. Two exceptions to this pattern have been o...
Saved in:
Published in: | Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar 2016-12 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar |
container_volume | |
creator | Belyaev, Oleg |
description | Dargwa languages have two types of agreement at clause
level: gender and person agreement. In the general case, person
agreement is hierarchical (speech act participants prefered to 3rd
persons), while gender agreement is with the absolutive (S/P)
argument. Two exceptions to this pattern have been observed in some
dialects: first, some auxiliary verbs have a gender agreement slot
which can be controlled by both ergative and absolutive arguments;
second, adverbials agreeing in gender can agree with either ergative
or absolutive if they are located at clause edges. A proposed
explanation of this behaviour is through effectively splitting each
clause into two layers, with the top layer having its own zero
absolutive position, coreferential with either the subject or the
direct object of the lower layer. In this way, the general rule that
gender agreement is with the absolutive can be preserved. In this
paper, I argue that the data of Ashti Dargwa do not support the
Backward Control theory. Peripheral adverb agreement and auxiliary
gender agreement are independent phenomena, while auxiliary agreement
can be explained by splitting the 3rd person based on topicality, as
in proximateobviative systems. This allows us to preserve the
conventional account of clause structure while framing the data of
Dargwa in a wider typological context. |
doi_str_mv | 10.21248/hpsg.2016.5 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_21248_hpsg_2016_5</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_21248_hpsg_2016_5</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c755-a8d5da4f131fb4bebfc12a46a8a17930ead4fb0f587b86d19f2af14a471b1ed93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkL1OwzAUhS0EElXpxgN460JCbmIn6YRQKT9SBUt36zq-TgNtUl0HKp6hj9aXggADZzln-nT0CXEJSZxCqsrr9S7UcZpAHusTMQKd6QiKWXb6b5-LSQivyXe0ylWpR-J5wTX2zQfJmlpHLLFmoi21vWxaeYdc71EeD8eDxeptj-xk1bU9d5vpVHYsPWH_ziTDGrlp65sLceZxE2jy12Oxul-s5o_R8uXhaX67jKpC6whLpx0qDxl4qyxZX0GKKscSh5cJoVPeJl6XhS1zBzOfogeFqgAL5GbZWFz9YivuQmDyZsfNFvnTQGJ-bJjBhhlsGJ19Aet3VTw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ergative gender agreement in Dargwa ˋˋbackward control'' or feature sharing?</title><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Belyaev, Oleg</creator><creatorcontrib>Belyaev, Oleg</creatorcontrib><description>Dargwa languages have two types of agreement at clause
level: gender and person agreement. In the general case, person
agreement is hierarchical (speech act participants prefered to 3rd
persons), while gender agreement is with the absolutive (S/P)
argument. Two exceptions to this pattern have been observed in some
dialects: first, some auxiliary verbs have a gender agreement slot
which can be controlled by both ergative and absolutive arguments;
second, adverbials agreeing in gender can agree with either ergative
or absolutive if they are located at clause edges. A proposed
explanation of this behaviour is through effectively splitting each
clause into two layers, with the top layer having its own zero
absolutive position, coreferential with either the subject or the
direct object of the lower layer. In this way, the general rule that
gender agreement is with the absolutive can be preserved. In this
paper, I argue that the data of Ashti Dargwa do not support the
Backward Control theory. Peripheral adverb agreement and auxiliary
gender agreement are independent phenomena, while auxiliary agreement
can be explained by splitting the 3rd person based on topicality, as
in proximateobviative systems. This allows us to preserve the
conventional account of clause structure while framing the data of
Dargwa in a wider typological context.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1535-1793</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-1793</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2016.5</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 2016-12</ispartof><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-8032-566X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Belyaev, Oleg</creatorcontrib><title>Ergative gender agreement in Dargwa ˋˋbackward control'' or feature sharing?</title><title>Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar</title><description>Dargwa languages have two types of agreement at clause
level: gender and person agreement. In the general case, person
agreement is hierarchical (speech act participants prefered to 3rd
persons), while gender agreement is with the absolutive (S/P)
argument. Two exceptions to this pattern have been observed in some
dialects: first, some auxiliary verbs have a gender agreement slot
which can be controlled by both ergative and absolutive arguments;
second, adverbials agreeing in gender can agree with either ergative
or absolutive if they are located at clause edges. A proposed
explanation of this behaviour is through effectively splitting each
clause into two layers, with the top layer having its own zero
absolutive position, coreferential with either the subject or the
direct object of the lower layer. In this way, the general rule that
gender agreement is with the absolutive can be preserved. In this
paper, I argue that the data of Ashti Dargwa do not support the
Backward Control theory. Peripheral adverb agreement and auxiliary
gender agreement are independent phenomena, while auxiliary agreement
can be explained by splitting the 3rd person based on topicality, as
in proximateobviative systems. This allows us to preserve the
conventional account of clause structure while framing the data of
Dargwa in a wider typological context.</description><issn>1535-1793</issn><issn>1535-1793</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkL1OwzAUhS0EElXpxgN460JCbmIn6YRQKT9SBUt36zq-TgNtUl0HKp6hj9aXggADZzln-nT0CXEJSZxCqsrr9S7UcZpAHusTMQKd6QiKWXb6b5-LSQivyXe0ylWpR-J5wTX2zQfJmlpHLLFmoi21vWxaeYdc71EeD8eDxeptj-xk1bU9d5vpVHYsPWH_ziTDGrlp65sLceZxE2jy12Oxul-s5o_R8uXhaX67jKpC6whLpx0qDxl4qyxZX0GKKscSh5cJoVPeJl6XhS1zBzOfogeFqgAL5GbZWFz9YivuQmDyZsfNFvnTQGJ-bJjBhhlsGJ19Aet3VTw</recordid><startdate>20161216</startdate><enddate>20161216</enddate><creator>Belyaev, Oleg</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8032-566X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20161216</creationdate><title>Ergative gender agreement in Dargwa ˋˋbackward control'' or feature sharing?</title><author>Belyaev, Oleg</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c755-a8d5da4f131fb4bebfc12a46a8a17930ead4fb0f587b86d19f2af14a471b1ed93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Belyaev, Oleg</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Belyaev, Oleg</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ergative gender agreement in Dargwa ˋˋbackward control'' or feature sharing?</atitle><jtitle>Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar</jtitle><date>2016-12-16</date><risdate>2016</risdate><issn>1535-1793</issn><eissn>1535-1793</eissn><abstract>Dargwa languages have two types of agreement at clause
level: gender and person agreement. In the general case, person
agreement is hierarchical (speech act participants prefered to 3rd
persons), while gender agreement is with the absolutive (S/P)
argument. Two exceptions to this pattern have been observed in some
dialects: first, some auxiliary verbs have a gender agreement slot
which can be controlled by both ergative and absolutive arguments;
second, adverbials agreeing in gender can agree with either ergative
or absolutive if they are located at clause edges. A proposed
explanation of this behaviour is through effectively splitting each
clause into two layers, with the top layer having its own zero
absolutive position, coreferential with either the subject or the
direct object of the lower layer. In this way, the general rule that
gender agreement is with the absolutive can be preserved. In this
paper, I argue that the data of Ashti Dargwa do not support the
Backward Control theory. Peripheral adverb agreement and auxiliary
gender agreement are independent phenomena, while auxiliary agreement
can be explained by splitting the 3rd person based on topicality, as
in proximateobviative systems. This allows us to preserve the
conventional account of clause structure while framing the data of
Dargwa in a wider typological context.</abstract><doi>10.21248/hpsg.2016.5</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8032-566X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1535-1793 |
ispartof | Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 2016-12 |
issn | 1535-1793 1535-1793 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_21248_hpsg_2016_5 |
source | EZB Electronic Journals Library |
title | Ergative gender agreement in Dargwa ˋˋbackward control'' or feature sharing? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T13%3A00%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ergative%20gender%20agreement%20in%20Dargwa%20%CB%8B%CB%8Bbackward%20control''%20or%20feature%20sharing?&rft.jtitle=Proceedings%20of%20the%20International%20Conference%20on%20Head-Driven%20Phrase%20Structure%20Grammar&rft.au=Belyaev,%20Oleg&rft.date=2016-12-16&rft.issn=1535-1793&rft.eissn=1535-1793&rft_id=info:doi/10.21248/hpsg.2016.5&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_21248_hpsg_2016_5%3C/crossref%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c755-a8d5da4f131fb4bebfc12a46a8a17930ead4fb0f587b86d19f2af14a471b1ed93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |