Null arguments in Athabascan

Elly van Gelderen and Mary WillieArizona State University and University

of ArizonaICHL, Osaka, 26 July 2011

Workshop description (line 1):

“Definite referential null arguments are apparently one of the distinctive features of non-configurational languages, see Baker (2001).” (also Luraghi 2010: 213)

And:

“The rise of null objects deserves further investigation.”

Outline- pro-drop and polysynthesis, mainly in

Navajo (Saxon 1989).

- the agreement cycle of non-polysynthetic languages is different from polysynthetic ones.

- Feature change

- Changes in Athabascan object marking: an increase in object polysynthesis.

WALS: Pronominal subjects and subject agreement on the verb

Pronominal subjects are expressed by pronouns in subject position

82 (11.5%)

Pronominal subjects are expressed by affixes on verbs 437 (62%)

Dryer (2011, WALS 101)

Agreement with the object in WALS

No person marking of any argument 82 Person marking of only the A argument 73 Person marking of only the P argument 24 Person marking of the A or P argument 6 Person marking of both the A and P 193  (51%)

total: 378

Siewierska (2011, WALS 102)

Analyses of Polysynthetic languages

a) agreement is basically the same as in IE (Speas 1990, Rice & Saxon 2005)

b) The status of full nominals is non-argumental (e.g. Hale 1983; 2001, Jelinek 1984; 2006, Willie 1992, Baker 1996; 2001ab, Faltz 2000).

c) Mithun (2003: 275) argues that the affixes are arguments but that “does not entail a specific syntactic status on the part of coreferential nominals”.

d) Evans (2002) affixes “saturate” but are not pronouns.

Non-configurational?

Initially, non-configurational languages are defined as having free word order (e.g. Hale 1983, 1989), but later the emphasis shifts away from word order because e.g. Navajo has relatively strict word order and languages with free word order such as German can be accounted for through scrambling. We will therefore use polysynthesis.

Navajo(1) yiniłtsą́�

a. yi-ni-ł-tsą́�it-you-CL-saw

b. pro pro yi-ni-ł-tsą́�pro pro

‘You have seen it.‘

“The morphemes on the verb do not replace conventional argument phrases ... but ... reinforce them" (Baker 1995: 15).

The pro-approach

(4) TP

T'

T VP[u-phi]

pro/DP V'[i-phi]

V pro/DP[u-phi] [i-phi]

Change in this approach

• loss of polysynthesis: the pro in argument position in (4) would be replaced by a nominal. Only, through major language contact?

• rise of polysynthesis: the arguments are reanalyzed as adjuncts and empty pro-elements appear as Goals for the Probes in T and V.

The PAL approach

(6) TP

T'

T VP

[i-phi] V'

V [i-phi]

Change in a PAL approach

• Polysynthetic > non-polysynthetic: [i-phi] is reanalyzed as uninterpretable [u-phi], triggering the need for DPs or pro to provide the interpretable [i-phi] features.

• > a polysynthetic language: loss of the probe and its uninterpretable features. Under this view, what makes languages polysynthetic is the absence of a probe and the adjunct status of the nominal.

Evidence for PAL• (a) nominals (DPs as well as independent

pronouns) are optional but the affixes are not• (b) when subject or object pronouns are present,

they are contrastive focus and have to be left-most

• (c) sentences with more than one nominal are rare

• (d) there are no anaphors and non-referential quantified DPs;

• (e) the so-called agreement can be quite specific for (in)definiteness and genericity

• (f) minimal embedding and no infinitives.

(7) Nanishténa-ni-sh-téaround-you-I-carry.IMPF‘I am carrying you around.’

(8) *Diné bizaad shi yíníshta'Navajo language 1S 3-1-study

(9) (Shi) (diné bizaad) yíníshta'1S Navajo language 3-1-study‘I am studying Navajo.’

(10) a. ji-ni4-say `people say’.

b. a-sh-áͅ!unspec.O-1S-eat `I am eating.’

(11) máͅ'ii ałtso dibé baayijahcoyote all sheep 3-3-ran-away‘The sheep ran away from all the coyotes' or‘All the sheep ran away from the coyotes.’ (Jelinek 2001: 18)

(12) a. Shi-zhé'é kinla'nígóó deesháͅáͅl nízinmy-father Flagstaff-to FUT-1-go 3-want

‘My father wants to go to Flagstaff.’ (Hale 1989: 300)b. doogáͅáͅl ní

3-arrive 3-said (disjoint reference)‘He said that he arrived.’ (Willie 1991: 143)

(13) honeesnáͅ-nígíí yoodláͅ

3.win-NOM 3.believe (free reference)

‘He believes he won/he believes the winner.’ (Willie 1991: 178)

(14) Ma’ii hanii yi-iɫtsáͅ! .

coyote FOC 3-saw

`It wasn’t a coyote that I saw.’

(Perkins 1978: 7)

(15) Díí ga’ chidí nizhóní

this FOC car beautiful

`THIS is the prettiest car.’ (Y&M 369)

Pragmatic, Grammatical, and Semantic roles

• SOV is grammatical• Passive is grammatical

(16) a. yiɫbéézhyi-0-ɫ-béézh3O-3Su-TR-boil, `s/he is boiling it.’ (Y&M 1987)

b. yilbéézhyi-0-l- béézhpeg-3Su-PASS-boil, `It is being boiled’. (Y&M

1987)c. shi’doo’niid

sh-‘-d-w-d-niid1-3i-Q-mode-CL-V`I was told (by someone).’ (Hale 2001: 690)

Agreement cycles and pro-drop

(18) a. Ti te magni sempre Venice

you you eat always

‘You always eat.’

b. Nissun (*el) magnanobody he eats

‘Nobody eats.’ (Poletto 2004)

(19) a. Nisun l'ha dit niente Trentinonobody he-has said nothing‘Nobody said anything.’

b. Tut l'è capita de noteverything it-has happened at night‘Everything happened at night.’ (Brandi & Cordin 1989:118)

(20) a. Tuc i panseva Albosaggia (Lombard N.)Everybody they thought.‘Everybody thought.’

b. Vargù al ruarà tardiSomebody he will-arrive late ‘Somebody will arrive late.’ (Poletto 2007)

French(22) Se je meïsme ne li di Old French

If I myself not him tell

`If I don’t tell him myself.’

(Franzén 1939:20, Cligès 993)

(23) a. Je lis et j'écris Colloquial French

I read and I-write

b. *Je lis et écris

(24) Moi, j’....

(25) une omelette elle est comme ça Swiss

an omelette she is like this

(26) tu vas où Colloquial French

2S go where

(27) nta tu vas travailler Arabic-French

you you go work

(from Bentahila and Davies 1983: 313).

Pronouns/Agreement

English I French jei-phi u-phi(=i-ps) (=u-ps)

s/he il/ellei-phi i-phi(=i-deictic) (=i-deictic)

Pronouns vs. agreement

Theta-role XP or X fixed philanguage

position

Full pronoun yes XP no yes Hindi/Urdu, Japanese

Head pronoun yes X no yes French

Agreement yes X yes yes Navajo

(in polysynthetic languages)

Agreement no X yes no Hindi/Urdu

Grammaticalization =Specifier to Head

Subject Cyclea TP b TPDP T’ DP T’pron T VP pron-T VP

Urdu/Hindi, Japanese Coll French

c TP[DP] T’pro agr-T VP

Italian varieties

Language change and features

Loss of semantic features:

-full verbs such as Old English will [volition, expectation, future] > [future].

-Subject Agreement Cycle, e.g. in French

emphatic > full pronoun > head > agreement

[i-phi] [i-phi] [u-1/2]/[i-3] [u-phi]

Objects in Athabascan:

(28) sú be-k'áͅgoweneli Slave

Q 3S-2S.taste

`Have you tasted it?'

(29) sú tuwele k'áͅgoweneli Slave

Q soup 2S.taste

`Have you tasted the soup?'

More Slave

(30) a. golo! gháͅenda moose 3.see

`S/he sees a moose.’b. ye-gháͅenda

3S-3.see`S/he sees it.’ (Rice 1989: 1016)

(31) dene-ke go-gháͅyedapeople-P 3-see`S/he sees the people‘. (Rice 1989: 1017)

Topicalization in Slave

(32) a. gah tlį nidhą́�ą́� te-ye-déhnde

rabbit dog far 3-3-chased

‘The rabbit, the dog chased it a long way’.

b. tlį nidhą́�ą́� gah te-déhnde

dog far rabbit 3-chased

`The dog chased the rabbit a long way.’ (Rice 1989: 1198)

In Navajo, object agreement and pronouns are not in CD:

(33) 'atoo' yí-ní-dlaa'-ísh

soup3S-2S-eat-Q

`Did you eat the soup?'

(34) yí-ní-dlaa'-ísh

3S-2S-eat-Q,

`Did you eat it?' (Jelinek 2001: 23)

Obligatory agreement(35) (diné bizaad) bí-hoosh’aah

Navajo it-1s.learn`I am learning Navajo/it.’

Even with reflexives, there can be –y-, or reflexive.

(36) Á-woo’ hayoot’á̂ͅha-y-oo-d-’á̂ͅ

refl-tooth up-3-3-CL-’á̂ͅ`S/he pulled his own tooth.’ (Faltz 370)

Except with ji-/ho-

(37) a. *tó ho-ditá !

water areal-deep

b. ho-ditá !

`the area is deep.’

c. (tó) ditá !

`(the water), it is deep.’

(Willie 1991: 104)

Objects cannot double in:

(38) a. meganehtan Kaska

me-ga-ne-0-h-tan

3S-at-ASP-3S-CL-look

`He looks at her’.

b. ayudeni ganehtangirl at-ASP-3S-CL-look

`He looks at the girl(s)’.

and Salcha:

(39) šos ðəłæšos ð--ł-æbear Q-3S-CL-kill `He kills a

black bear’(40) i-ðəłæ

3S- `He kills it’ (Tuttle 1996: 106)

Unless they are non-arguments/topics.

Babine-Witsuwit'en

(41) a. dinï hida nilh'ën

man moose at.3.look

‘The man is looking at a moose.’

b. hida dinï yi-nilh'ën

moose man 3-at.3.look

‘The moose is looking at the man.’ (Gunlogson 2001: 374)

Changes Northern > Southern

• Increase of polysynthesis: object MUST be marked on the verb

• Loss of Noun Incorporation, see Rice (2008)

• Where does object polysynthesis start?

Subject cycles

(42) (shí éiyáͅ)Elly yinishyé Navajo

I TOP Elly 1S-called

`I am called Elly'.

From grammaticalization, we know first and second first, then `deictic third’ person because of their positions in the grid.

disjunct conjunct cl stem

DO deictic Su .... Subject

Object cycles

Human first (43) dene-ke go-gháͅyeda Slave

people-P 3-see`S/he sees the people‘.

and that may be because of topicalization:(44) lį ɂehkee kayįhshu

dog boy 3-bit `the dog bit the boy’(45) ɂehkee lį ka-ye-yįhshu

boy dog 3O `the boy, a dog bit him.’

(Rice 1989: 1197)

Other incorporated objects

(46) guyéndíh Kaskagu-yé-n-Ø-díh1P-about-2S-CL-know`You know (about) us’.

(47) men ts'i‘ ayal Kaskamen ts'i‘ Ø-Ø-ayal.lake to 3SCLwalk`She is walking to the lake’.

Navajo and Dene Suline/Chipewyan:

(48) b-í-na-bi-ni-sh-tin

3-against-ASP-3-Q-1S-handle

`I teach it to him’ (Y&M 1980: 223)

(49) be-gháͅ-yé-n-i-ł-tį

3S-to-3S-ASP-1S-CL-handle

`I have given her to him’

(Li 1946: 419 Rice 1998: 102)

Here too CD in N. Athabascan

(50) a. Bee hé táͅdįhwee Slave

knife with 2S.IMP.cut

`Cut it with a knife.’

b. Be-hé táͅdįhwee

3-with cut

c. *Bee behé táͅdįhwee/ *hé táͅdįhwee

(Saxon 1989: 388, as in Tuttle, n.d.)

Not in Navajo

(51) a. Béeso bi-k’é naashnishmoney 3-for 1S.work

`I work for money.’

b. Bi-k’é naashnish

3-for 1S.work

c. *Béeso k’é naashnish

d. *k’é naashnish

Not true with adverbials

(52) a. sháͅdí k’eh yáͅníɫti’ Navajo

1S.older.sister like 2S.talk

b. *sháͅdí bi-k’eh yáͅníɫti’

1S.older.sister 3S-like 2S.talk

‘You talk like my older sister.’

c. bi-k’eh yáͅníɫti’

`You talk like her.’ (Tuttle n.d.: 19)

Conclusion

`Pro-drop’ need not mean there is pro! The status of null arguments in polysynthetic languages is not necessarily clear.

There are languages where pro-drop is an intermediate stage in a cycle from pronoun to agreement marker (e.g. Italian varieties) but there are also languages that do not have arguments outside the verbal complex and no pro.

No sign that Navajo is following Italian and French in the cycle.

There is a move towards more polysynthesis in the Southern languages.

That still leaves us with the puzzle as to why polysynthetic languages are so different.

References: e-mail ellyvangelderen@asu.edu