A formal characterization of person-based alignment The case of Paraguayan Guaraní

We put forth a formal analysis within the Minimalist framework of argument alignment in languages with one type of direct/inverse system. Our proposal involves the cyclical application of a phase-edge Person constraint, which ensures that a [+Participant] argument (when present) is promoted from the verbal (vP) to the inflectional (IP) domain. We illustrate the proposed analysis with Paraguayan Guaraní, a language with direct/inverse alignment whose morpho-syntax has received little attention from a formal perspective. Paraguayan Guaraní does not mark tense morphologically in Infl(ection); instead, the overt realization of Infl varies depending on the person specification of the arguments. We refer to languages of this type as Generalized P(erson)-languages, in contrast to Restricted P-languages, whose direct/inverse system is limited to the vP domain and whose Infl encodes tense (e.g., Hungarian and Kashmiri). Building on insights in Ritter and Wiltschko (2014) on the anchoring function of Infl, we link the distinction between the two types of language to the presence vs. absence of an interpretable tense feature and its complementary interpretable person feature in the Infl node of the clausal structure.

[1]  Benjamin Bruening,et al.  The Algonquian Inverse is Syntactic: Binding in Passamaquoddy , 2005 .

[2]  Katalin É. Kiss,et al.  The Inverse Agreement Constraint in Uralic Languages , 2013 .

[3]  S. Wechsler Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction , 2011 .

[4]  Maura Velázquez-Castillo,et al.  The Grammar of Possession: Inalienability, incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní , 1996 .

[5]  Hiroyuki Ura,et al.  Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting , 1998 .

[6]  James Mccloskey,et al.  On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish , 1984, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

[7]  Judith Tonhauser,et al.  Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language , 2011 .

[8]  Lynn Nichols,et al.  The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena: clues from languages with and without morphological case , 2001 .

[9]  Noam Chomsky Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[10]  M. Řezáč,et al.  Person Licensing and the Derivation of PCC Effects , 2003 .

[11]  J. Zwart The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[12]  C. Barker Possessives and relational nouns , 2008 .

[13]  Bonet i Alsina,et al.  Morphology after syntax : pronominal clitics in romance , 1991 .

[14]  Elizabeth Coppock,et al.  The objective conjugation in Hungarian: agreement without phi-features , 2012 .

[15]  R. Pancheva,et al.  A note on the syntax of possession in Paraguayan Guaraní , 2017 .

[16]  Valentina Bianchi,et al.  On the syntax of personal arguments , 2006 .

[17]  Monica Macaulay,et al.  Prominence Hierarchies , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[18]  S. Wechsler,et al.  A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian , 2000 .

[19]  Ellen Woolford,et al.  More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[20]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure , 2002 .

[21]  Scott Delancey,et al.  An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns , 1981 .

[22]  M. Velázquez-Castillo Guaraní causative constructions , 2002 .

[23]  David Adger,et al.  Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint , 2007 .

[24]  Milan Rezac,et al.  Cyclic Agree , 2009, Linguistic Inquiry.

[25]  H. Harley,et al.  Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis , 2002 .

[26]  Omer Preminger,et al.  Towards a Unified Account of PersonSplits , 2012 .

[27]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[28]  Byron T. Ahn,et al.  Giving Reflexivity a Voice: Twin Reflexives in English , 2014 .

[29]  E. Coppock A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement , 2013 .

[31]  Heather Bliss,et al.  The Blackfoot configurationality conspiracy : parallels and differences in clausal and nominal structures , 2013 .

[32]  G. Bossong The Typology of Tupi-Guarani as Reflected in the Grammars of Four Jesuit Missionaries: Anchieta (1595), Aragona (c.1625), Montoya (1640) and Restivo (1729) , 2009 .

[33]  Martina Wiltschko,et al.  Decomposing Pronouns , 2002, Linguistic Inquiry.

[34]  David M. Perlmutter Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax , 1973 .

[35]  Ellen Woolford,et al.  Two types of portmanteau agreement: Syntactic and morphological , 2016 .

[37]  E. Bonet,et al.  The person-case constraint: a morphological approach , 1994 .

[38]  Benjamin Bruening,et al.  Syntax at the edge : cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of passamaquoddy , 2001 .

[39]  Martina Wiltschko,et al.  The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology , 2014 .

[40]  Mélanie Jouitteau,et al.  Deriving the Complementarity Effect: Relativized minimality in Breton agreement , 2006 .

[41]  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.

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

[43]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Word Formation in Generative Grammar , 1979 .