Phases and templates in Georgian agreement

Leila Lomashvili, Heidi Harley

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This paper proposes a new analysis of person and number agreement in Georgian, which combines the locality-based syntactic account of Be ́ jar (2000) with the discontinuous bleeding mechanism proposed by Noyer (1997). Following Be ́ jar (2000, 2003); Be ́ jar and Rezac (2003), we argue that phi-feature checking and realization is sensitive both to locality and to markedness of features. Contra these previous approaches, however, we propose that the morphological real- ization of these checking relations is constrained by a morphological template which restricts the number of positions-of-exponence available in the Georgian verb, in the spirit of analyses proposed in Noyer (1997); Carmack (1997); and Hale (2001), and, in a way, by Harris (1981). Our central claim is that the cyclic, phase-dependent nature of Spell-Out interacts with the positions available in the template to produce the complex patterns of blocking observed, without recourse to extrinsic rule-ordering or a presyntactic level of paradigmatic structure (see, e.g. Stewart 2001). This approach easily accounts for the number sensitivity of the first person prefixes, and naturally extends to predict the forms of the inverse paradigm, given certain syntactic assumptions about the location of arguments in the tree structure in the relevant constructions. We also treat the agreement patterns of complex verbs, containing both the verb stem and a dummy auxiliary. We claim that these forms are distinct from the simplex forms in lacking a phase boundary which is present in the simplex forms.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages233-267
    JournalStudia Linguistica
    Volume65
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - 23 Nov 2011

    Fingerprint

    Template
    Jar
    Locality
    Verbs
    Syntax
    First Person
    Person Agreement
    Paradigm
    Extrinsic
    Number Agreement
    Paradigmatics
    Markedness
    Feature Checking
    Prefix
    Verb Stems
    Phi-features

    Cite this

    Lomashvili, L., & Harley, H. (2011). Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica, 65(3), 233-267.
    Lomashvili, Leila ; Harley, Heidi. / Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. In: Studia Linguistica. 2011 ; Vol. 65, No. 3. pp. 233-267.
    @article{8c6c6a1ad1d24f57b3b2ed5ab217fffe,
    title = "Phases and templates in Georgian agreement",
    abstract = "This paper proposes a new analysis of person and number agreement in Georgian, which combines the locality-based syntactic account of Be ́ jar (2000) with the discontinuous bleeding mechanism proposed by Noyer (1997). Following Be ́ jar (2000, 2003); Be ́ jar and Rezac (2003), we argue that phi-feature checking and realization is sensitive both to locality and to markedness of features. Contra these previous approaches, however, we propose that the morphological real- ization of these checking relations is constrained by a morphological template which restricts the number of positions-of-exponence available in the Georgian verb, in the spirit of analyses proposed in Noyer (1997); Carmack (1997); and Hale (2001), and, in a way, by Harris (1981). Our central claim is that the cyclic, phase-dependent nature of Spell-Out interacts with the positions available in the template to produce the complex patterns of blocking observed, without recourse to extrinsic rule-ordering or a presyntactic level of paradigmatic structure (see, e.g. Stewart 2001). This approach easily accounts for the number sensitivity of the first person prefixes, and naturally extends to predict the forms of the inverse paradigm, given certain syntactic assumptions about the location of arguments in the tree structure in the relevant constructions. We also treat the agreement patterns of complex verbs, containing both the verb stem and a dummy auxiliary. We claim that these forms are distinct from the simplex forms in lacking a phase boundary which is present in the simplex forms.",
    author = "Leila Lomashvili and Heidi Harley",
    note = "Reference text: Anagnostopolou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anderson, S. R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:1–32. Aronson, H. 1989. Georgian: a Reading Grammar. The corrected edition. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica publishers. {\'O} The authors 2011. Studia Linguistica {\'O} The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2011. 266 Leila Lomashvili & Heidi Harley Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16:373–416. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, M. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York/Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:291–352. Bejar, S. 2000. Structural markedness in formal features: deriving interpret- ability. Revue Que ́becoise de Linguistique 28.1:47–72. Bejar, S. 2002. Locality, Cyclicity and Markedness in Georgian Verbal mor- phology. Ms. University of Toronto. Bejar, S. 2003. Phi-syntax: a Theory of Agreement. Ph.D dissertation. University of Toronto. Bejar, S. & Rezac, M. 2003. Cyclic agree. Paper presented at Lisbon Workshop on Agreement. Univesidade Nova de Lisboa. Bobaljik, J. 1993. On Ergativity and Ergative Unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. Papers on Case and Agreement II, ed. C. Phillips, 45–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boeckx, C. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54.3:354–380. Bonet, E. 1994. The Person-Case constraint: a morphological approach. The morphology-syntax connection: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, eds. H. Harley & C. Phillips, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carmack, S. 1997. Blocking in Georgian verb morphology. Language 73.2:314– 38. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: the framework. Step by step, eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in Language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenberg, J. 1966. Language Universals, with special reference to feature hier- archies. The Hague: Mouton. Gurevich, O. 2006. Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version. Ph.D. dissertation. UC Berkeley. Hale, K. 2001. Navajo verb stem position and the bipartite structure of the Navajo conjunct sector. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4:678–693. Halle, M. 1994. The Russian Declension: An Illustration of the Theory of Distributed Morphology. Perspectives in Phonology, eds. J. Cole & C. Kisse- berth, 29–60. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed Morphology and pieces of inflec- tion. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvian Bromberger, eds. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harbour, D. 2008. Discontinuous agreement and the syntax-morphology inter- face. Phi-Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, eds. D. Harbour, D. Adger & S. Be ́ jar, 185–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, H. 1994. Hug a Tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, eds. A. Carnie & H. Harley with T. Bures, 289–320. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, H. & Noyer, R. 1999. Distributed Morphology. GLOT International 4:3–31. Harley, H. & Ritter, E. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature- geometric analysis. Language 78.4:482–526. Harris, A. 1981. Georgian Syntax. London: Cambridge University Press. {\'O} The authors 2011. Studia Linguistica {\'O} The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2011. Received June 9, 2008 Accepted March 10, 2010 Leila Lomashvili University of Arizona Department of Linguistics PO BOX 210028 Tucson, AZ 85721 lalomash@email.arizona.edu Heidi Harley University of Arizona Department of Linguistics PO BOX 210028 Tucson, AZ 85721 hharley@email.arizona.edu Phases and templates in Georgian agreement 267 Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369–412. King, T. 1994. SpecAgrP and Case: Evidence from Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, eds. H. Harley & C. Phillips, 91–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marantz, A. 1989. Relations and configurations in Georgian. Ms. University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill. McGinnis, M. 1997. Case and Locality in L-Syntax: evidence from Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, ed. H. Harley, 1–20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. McGinnis, M. 2001. Semantic and morphological restrictions in Experiencer predicates. Proceedings of the 2000 CLA Annual Conference, eds. J. Jensen & G. van Herk, 245–256. Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa. Muller, G. 2004. A Distributed Morpohology Approach to Syncretism in Russian Noun Inflection. Proceedings of FASL 12, eds. O. Amaudova, W. Browne, M. Rivero & D. Stojanovic, 1–23. University of Ottawa. Nash, L. 1994. On Be and Have in Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, eds. H. Harley & C. Phillips, 153–171. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Noyer, R. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D dissertation. MIT. Noyer, R. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland Publishing. Pesetsky, D. 1989. Language-Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms, MIT. Available online at http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/ pesetsky/earliness.pdf Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Pylkkanen, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist syntax. Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rezac, M. 2004. Elements of Cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Toronto. Sigur{\dh}sson, H. A ́ . 2002. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:691–724. Stewart, T. 2001. Georgian Agreement without Extrinsic Ordering. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 56:107–133. Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Woolford, E. 2006. Case and agreement mismatches. Agreement Systems, ed. C. Boeckx, 299–316. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.",
    year = "2011",
    month = "11",
    day = "23",
    language = "English",
    volume = "65",
    pages = "233--267",
    journal = "Studia Linguistica",
    issn = "0039-3193",
    number = "3",

    }

    Lomashvili, L & Harley, H 2011, 'Phases and templates in Georgian agreement', Studia Linguistica, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 233-267.

    Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. / Lomashvili, Leila; Harley, Heidi.

    In: Studia Linguistica, Vol. 65, No. 3, 23.11.2011, p. 233-267.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Phases and templates in Georgian agreement

    AU - Lomashvili, Leila

    AU - Harley, Heidi

    N1 - Reference text: Anagnostopolou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anderson, S. R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:1–32. Aronson, H. 1989. Georgian: a Reading Grammar. The corrected edition. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica publishers. Ó The authors 2011. Studia Linguistica Ó The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2011. 266 Leila Lomashvili & Heidi Harley Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16:373–416. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, M. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York/Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:291–352. Bejar, S. 2000. Structural markedness in formal features: deriving interpret- ability. Revue Que ́becoise de Linguistique 28.1:47–72. Bejar, S. 2002. Locality, Cyclicity and Markedness in Georgian Verbal mor- phology. Ms. University of Toronto. Bejar, S. 2003. Phi-syntax: a Theory of Agreement. Ph.D dissertation. University of Toronto. Bejar, S. & Rezac, M. 2003. Cyclic agree. Paper presented at Lisbon Workshop on Agreement. Univesidade Nova de Lisboa. Bobaljik, J. 1993. On Ergativity and Ergative Unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. Papers on Case and Agreement II, ed. C. Phillips, 45–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boeckx, C. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54.3:354–380. Bonet, E. 1994. The Person-Case constraint: a morphological approach. The morphology-syntax connection: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, eds. H. Harley & C. Phillips, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carmack, S. 1997. Blocking in Georgian verb morphology. Language 73.2:314– 38. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: the framework. Step by step, eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in Language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenberg, J. 1966. Language Universals, with special reference to feature hier- archies. The Hague: Mouton. Gurevich, O. 2006. Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version. Ph.D. dissertation. UC Berkeley. Hale, K. 2001. Navajo verb stem position and the bipartite structure of the Navajo conjunct sector. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4:678–693. Halle, M. 1994. The Russian Declension: An Illustration of the Theory of Distributed Morphology. Perspectives in Phonology, eds. J. Cole & C. Kisse- berth, 29–60. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed Morphology and pieces of inflec- tion. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvian Bromberger, eds. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harbour, D. 2008. Discontinuous agreement and the syntax-morphology inter- face. Phi-Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, eds. D. Harbour, D. Adger & S. Be ́ jar, 185–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, H. 1994. Hug a Tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, eds. A. Carnie & H. Harley with T. Bures, 289–320. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, H. & Noyer, R. 1999. Distributed Morphology. GLOT International 4:3–31. Harley, H. & Ritter, E. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature- geometric analysis. Language 78.4:482–526. Harris, A. 1981. Georgian Syntax. London: Cambridge University Press. Ó The authors 2011. Studia Linguistica Ó The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2011. Received June 9, 2008 Accepted March 10, 2010 Leila Lomashvili University of Arizona Department of Linguistics PO BOX 210028 Tucson, AZ 85721 lalomash@email.arizona.edu Heidi Harley University of Arizona Department of Linguistics PO BOX 210028 Tucson, AZ 85721 hharley@email.arizona.edu Phases and templates in Georgian agreement 267 Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369–412. King, T. 1994. SpecAgrP and Case: Evidence from Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, eds. H. Harley & C. Phillips, 91–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marantz, A. 1989. Relations and configurations in Georgian. Ms. University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill. McGinnis, M. 1997. Case and Locality in L-Syntax: evidence from Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, ed. H. Harley, 1–20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. McGinnis, M. 2001. Semantic and morphological restrictions in Experiencer predicates. Proceedings of the 2000 CLA Annual Conference, eds. J. Jensen & G. van Herk, 245–256. Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa. Muller, G. 2004. A Distributed Morpohology Approach to Syncretism in Russian Noun Inflection. Proceedings of FASL 12, eds. O. Amaudova, W. Browne, M. Rivero & D. Stojanovic, 1–23. University of Ottawa. Nash, L. 1994. On Be and Have in Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, eds. H. Harley & C. Phillips, 153–171. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Noyer, R. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D dissertation. MIT. Noyer, R. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland Publishing. Pesetsky, D. 1989. Language-Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms, MIT. Available online at http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/ pesetsky/earliness.pdf Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Pylkkanen, L. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist syntax. Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rezac, M. 2004. Elements of Cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Toronto. Sigurðsson, H. A ́ . 2002. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:691–724. Stewart, T. 2001. Georgian Agreement without Extrinsic Ordering. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 56:107–133. Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Woolford, E. 2006. Case and agreement mismatches. Agreement Systems, ed. C. Boeckx, 299–316. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    PY - 2011/11/23

    Y1 - 2011/11/23

    N2 - This paper proposes a new analysis of person and number agreement in Georgian, which combines the locality-based syntactic account of Be ́ jar (2000) with the discontinuous bleeding mechanism proposed by Noyer (1997). Following Be ́ jar (2000, 2003); Be ́ jar and Rezac (2003), we argue that phi-feature checking and realization is sensitive both to locality and to markedness of features. Contra these previous approaches, however, we propose that the morphological real- ization of these checking relations is constrained by a morphological template which restricts the number of positions-of-exponence available in the Georgian verb, in the spirit of analyses proposed in Noyer (1997); Carmack (1997); and Hale (2001), and, in a way, by Harris (1981). Our central claim is that the cyclic, phase-dependent nature of Spell-Out interacts with the positions available in the template to produce the complex patterns of blocking observed, without recourse to extrinsic rule-ordering or a presyntactic level of paradigmatic structure (see, e.g. Stewart 2001). This approach easily accounts for the number sensitivity of the first person prefixes, and naturally extends to predict the forms of the inverse paradigm, given certain syntactic assumptions about the location of arguments in the tree structure in the relevant constructions. We also treat the agreement patterns of complex verbs, containing both the verb stem and a dummy auxiliary. We claim that these forms are distinct from the simplex forms in lacking a phase boundary which is present in the simplex forms.

    AB - This paper proposes a new analysis of person and number agreement in Georgian, which combines the locality-based syntactic account of Be ́ jar (2000) with the discontinuous bleeding mechanism proposed by Noyer (1997). Following Be ́ jar (2000, 2003); Be ́ jar and Rezac (2003), we argue that phi-feature checking and realization is sensitive both to locality and to markedness of features. Contra these previous approaches, however, we propose that the morphological real- ization of these checking relations is constrained by a morphological template which restricts the number of positions-of-exponence available in the Georgian verb, in the spirit of analyses proposed in Noyer (1997); Carmack (1997); and Hale (2001), and, in a way, by Harris (1981). Our central claim is that the cyclic, phase-dependent nature of Spell-Out interacts with the positions available in the template to produce the complex patterns of blocking observed, without recourse to extrinsic rule-ordering or a presyntactic level of paradigmatic structure (see, e.g. Stewart 2001). This approach easily accounts for the number sensitivity of the first person prefixes, and naturally extends to predict the forms of the inverse paradigm, given certain syntactic assumptions about the location of arguments in the tree structure in the relevant constructions. We also treat the agreement patterns of complex verbs, containing both the verb stem and a dummy auxiliary. We claim that these forms are distinct from the simplex forms in lacking a phase boundary which is present in the simplex forms.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 65

    SP - 233

    EP - 267

    JO - Studia Linguistica

    T2 - Studia Linguistica

    JF - Studia Linguistica

    SN - 0039-3193

    IS - 3

    ER -

    Lomashvili L, Harley H. Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica. 2011 Nov 23;65(3):233-267.