The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez

In ergative constructions, the agent of a transitive verb is in the ergative case and the theme is in the absolutive case. By contrast, in biabsolutive constructions, both the agent and theme of a transitive verb appear in the absolutive case. This paper presents and analyzes the biabsolutive construction in two Nakh-Dagestanian languages, Lak and Tsez. Despite many surface similarities, the biabsolutive constructions in Lak and Tsez call for different syntactic analyses. We argue that the biabsolutive construction in Lak is an instance of restructuring in the presence of an aspectual head bearing a progressive (imperfective) feature. Tsez biabsolutive constructions, on the other hand, are biclausal; we argue that the theme and the lexical verb are contained in a PP complement selected by a light verb. Related languages may be classified as “Lak-type” or “Tsez-type” based on the behavior of their biabsolutives. The existence of two underlying structures for one surface pattern in Nakh-Dagestanian poses a learnability problem for a child acquiring a language with biabsolutive constructions. We outline a set of strategies used by a learner who must compare the available input data with a set of structural hypotheses.

[1]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Form and Function in Syntax , 1999 .

[2]  Omer Preminger,et al.  Agreement and Its Failures , 2014 .

[3]  Monika Rathert,et al.  Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization , 2008 .

[4]  Raffaella Folli,et al.  Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v , 2007, Linguistic Inquiry.

[5]  Jochen Trommer,et al.  “Case suffixes”, postpositions, and the phonological word in Hungarian , 2008 .

[6]  Masahiko Takahashi,et al.  On restructuring infinitives in Japanese: Adjunction, clausal architecture, and phases , 2012 .

[7]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Word learning as Bayesian inference. , 2007, Psychological review.

[8]  Florian Schäfer,et al.  On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes : the case of ( Greek ) derived nominals , 2007 .

[9]  Željko Bošković,et al.  On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory , 2007 .

[10]  Jae Jung Song,et al.  Case, typology, and grammar : in honor of Barry J. Blake , 1998 .

[11]  Diane Massam,et al.  Noun Incorporation: Essentials and Extensions , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[12]  Julie Anne Legate,et al.  Morphological and Abstract Case , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[13]  Bernard Comrie.  Valency-changing derivations in Tsez , 2000 .

[14]  Marcus Kracht,et al.  On the Semantics of Locatives Marcus Kracht , 2002 .

[15]  J. Bobaljik.  Agreement as a post-syntactic operation , 2006 .

[16]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Long-Distance Agreement And Topic In Tsez , 2001 .

[17]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Statistical insensitivity in the acquisition of Tsez noun classes , 2014 .

[18]  Barry Taylor,et al.  Tense and continuity , 1977, Linguistics and Philosophy.

[19]  H. Harley.  The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP , 2009 .

[20]  R. Larson.  Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff , 1990 .

[21]  Shin Fukuda,et al.  Two Syntactic Positions for EnglishAspectual Verbs , 2008 .

[22]  Jessica Coon,et al.  TAM Split Ergativity, Part II , 2013, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[23]  Ashwini Deo,et al.  Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains , 2009 .

[24]  Frank Vlach,et al.  The semantics of the progressive , 1981 .

[25]  Morris Halle,et al.  Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection , 1993 .

[26]  Hamida Demirdache,et al.  The primitives of temporal relations , 2000 .

[27]  Guglielmo Cinque,et al.  Issues in adverbial syntax , 2004 .

[28]  Rena Torres Cacoullos.  Grammaticalization through inherent variability: The development of a progressive in Spanish , 2012 .

[29]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Constraints on reflexivization in Tsez , 2003 .

[30]  David Denison,et al.  English Historical Syntax , 1993 .

[31]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[32]  Ž. Bošković.  Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis , 2014, Linguistic Inquiry.

[33]  Lena Osterhagen,et al.  Word Meaning And Montague Grammar , 2016 .

[34]  Edith Aldridge,et al.  Generative Approaches to Ergativity , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[35]  Diana Forker.  The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian , 2012 .

[36]  Bernard Comrie.  Vowel length and dialect variation in Tsez , 2001 .

[37]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Possessor raising in a language that does not have any , 1999 .

[38]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Backward Control , 2002, Linguistic Inquiry.

[39]  R. Larson.  On the double object construction , 1988 .

[40]  Omer Preminger,et al.  Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by Their Failures , 2009, Linguistic Inquiry.

[41]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Reflexivity in Tsez , 1999 .

[42]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Noun Classes Grow on Trees: Noun Classification in the North-East Caucasus , 2011 .

[43]  D. Massam.  Pseudo Noun Incorporation In Niuean , 2001 .

[44]  eljko Bokovi.  On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory , 2007, Linguistic Inquiry.

[45]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Subject preference and ergativity , 2012 .

[46]  Susi Wurmbrand,et al.  Two types of restructuring—Lexical vs. functional , 2004 .

[47]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax , 2002 .

[48]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective , 1995 .

[49]  Nina V. Radkevich,et al.  On Location: The Structure of Case and Adpositions , 2010 .

[50]  Anna Asbury,et al.  The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions , 2008 .

[51]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World , 1994 .

[52]  BERNARD COMRIE.  Spatial Cases in Daghestanian Languages , 1999 .

[53]  Zeno Vendler,et al.  Verbs and Times , 1957, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[54]  O. Jespersen.  A modern English grammar on historical principles , 1928 .

[55]  A. Belletti,et al.  Psych-verbs and θ-theory , 1988 .

[56]  Jessica Coon.  Aspects of Split Ergativity , 2013 .

[57]  Andrew Spencer,et al.  Does Hungarian have a case system , 2008 .

[58]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  The great Daghestanian case hoax , 1998 .

[59]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  A Grammar of Lezgian , 1994 .

[60]  E. Aldridge.  Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages , 2004 .

[61]  Michael Darnell.  Functionalism and formalism in linguistics , 1999 .

[62]  Konstantin I. Kazenin.  On Patient Demotion in Lak , 1998 .

[63]  Emmon Bach.  Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics , 1981 .

[64]  I. Laka.  Deriving Split Ergativity in the Progressive , 2006 .

[65]  Jessica Coon,et al.  Complementation in Chol (Mayan) : a theory of split ergativity : , 2010 .

[66]  Omer Preminger.  Agreement as a fallible operation , 2011 .

[67]  Jessica Coon.  TAM Split Ergativity, Part I , 2013, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[68]  Henriëtte de Swart,et al.  Aspect shift and coercion , 1998 .

[69]  Asya Pereltsvaig.  Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure (review) , 2004 .

[70]  E. Woolford,et al.  Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure , 2006, Linguistic Inquiry.