Subject agreement in Kalmyk: Implications for nominative case assignment
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper investigates the nature of nominative case assignment and its relationship to agreement and finiteness in Kalmyk Oirat (or Kalmyk), a variety of the Oirat language (Mongolic) spoken in the Republic of Kalmykia, Russia and in diasporic communities in the US and Europe. Subject agreement in Kalmyk exhibits a puzzling relationship with nominative case assignment: while φ-agreement can only be with nominative subjects, we also find nominative subjects in environments where φ-agreement is not possible. This challenges theories of case assignment which take nominative case and subject agreement to always go together as the result of a single Agree operation (Chomsky 2000, 2001). I propose that this set of facts can be accounted for under a view where nominative case assignment does not depend on Agree with finite T0, and φ-agreement is the result of an Agree operation that is sensitive to the nominal’s case value (Bobalijk 2008; Preminger 2014).
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2021. Rethinking the nature of nominative case. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.), Syntactic architecture and its consequences III: Inside syntax, 69–93. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4680302.
Aravind, Athulya. 2021. Successive Cyclicity in DPs: Evidence from Mongolian Nominalized Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 52(2). 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00373.
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295186.
Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 593–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.
Binnick, Robert I. 2012. The past tenses of the Mongolian verb: meaning and use (Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory 1). Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Birtalan, Ágnes. 2003. Oirat. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, 210–228. London: Routledge.
Birtalan, Ágnes. 2020. Oirat and Kalmyk, the Western Mongolic languages. In The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages, 350–369. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804628.003.0023.
Bläsing, Uwe. 2003. Kalmuck. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, 229–247. London: Routledge.
Bobalijk, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: phi-features across modules and interfaces (Oxford Linguistics 16), 295–328. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fong, Suzana. 2019. Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian. Glossa 4(1). 30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.667.
George, Leland M. & Jaklin Kornfilt. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Frank Henry (ed.), Binding and Filtering, 105–129. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Gong, Zhiyu Mia. 2022. Issues in the Syntax of Movement: Cross-Clausal Dependencies, Reconstruction, and Movement Typology. Cornell University PhD dissertation. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/111960. (28 January, 2023).
Gong, Zhiyu Mia. 2023a. Case in Wholesale Late Merger: Evidence from Mongolian Scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00494.
Gong, Zhiyu Mia. 2023b. A/Ā-Operations at the Mongolian Clausal Periphery. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 32(4). 413–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-023-09268-4.
Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2016. Differential Case Marking in Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc770sp.
Heusinger, Klaus von, Udo Klein & Dolgor Guntsetseg. 2011. The case of accusative embedded subjects in Mongolian. Lingua 121(1). 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.006.
Indjieva, Elena. 2009. Oirat Tones and Break Indices (O-Tobi): Intonational Structure of the Oirat Language. University of Hawai’i at Manoa PhD dissertation.
Jang, Youngjun. 2009. Relative clauses in Kalmyk. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 17(3). 25-37.
Janhunen, Juha. 2003. The Mongolic Languages. London: Routledge.
Janhunen, Juha. 2012. Mongolian. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Janhunen, Juha. 2020. The differential diversification of Mongolic. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6(2). 20190014. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsl-2019-0014.
Klein, Udo, Dolgor Guntsetseg & Klaus von Heusinger. 2012. Case in Conflict: Embedded Subjects in Mongolian. In Monique Lamers & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, Word Order and Prominence (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics), vol. 40, 43–64. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_3.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Subject Case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information. Berlin, Boston: DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110904758.129.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2006. Agreement: The (unique and local) syntactic and morphological licenser of subject Case. In João Costa & Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.), Studies on agreement (Linguistik Aktuell = Linguistics Today v. 86), 141–171. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Omer Preminger. 2014. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph & Esra Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 76). Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
Lim, Jun Jie. 2022. Dependent accusative case in Khalkha Mongolian: Evidence from converbal adjuncts. Poster at LSA 2022. Poster, Washington D.C.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), 234–253.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation. University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.
McFadden, Thomas & Sandhya Sundaresan. 2011. Nominative case is independent of finiteness and agreement. Manuscript.
McFadden, Thomas & Sandhya Sundaresan. 2014. Finiteness in South Asian languages: an introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9215-7.
Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.). 2007. Finiteness: theoretical and empirical foundations (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2010. Typology of Finiteness. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(12). 1176–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00253.x.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2012. Unpacking finiteness. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 99–122. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0005.
Peters, Andrew. 2020. Scrambling for case: Accusative in Mongolian. In Angelica Hernández & M.Emma Butterworth (eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15. Online.
Peters, Sable Andrew. 2024. Dependent Case for Mongolian: Unifying accusative subjects. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.8842.
Poppe, Nicholas. 1960. Buriat grammar (Uralic and Altaic Series). Vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press.
Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18(1). 85–109.
Rouveret, Alain. 2023. Nonfinite Inquiries: Materials for a Comparative Study of Nonfinite Predicative Domains. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110769289.
Schütze, Carson Theodore Robert. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2009. Towards the typology of raising: A functional approach. In Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), New Challenges in Typology, 269–294. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219067.4.269.
Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2012. Raising in Altaic languages: Syntactic criteria. Handout presented at the Syntax of the World’s Languages V, University of Zagreb, in Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Sundaresan, Sandhya & Thomas McFadden. 2009. Subject Distribution in Tamil and Other Languages: Selection vs. Case.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009. Overt Nominative Subjects in Infinitival Complements Cross-linguistically: Data, Diagnostics, and Preliminary Analyses. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 1–55.
Wang, Ruoan. 2023. Honorifics without [hon]. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41(3). 1287–1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09563-0.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling & Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in Tiers. Language 63(2). 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/415655.