1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Lexicon–Syntax Interface
  4. Chapter

Markedness and syncretism in Kashmiri differential argument encoding

image of Markedness and syncretism in Kashmiri differential argument encoding

The pronominal clitic system in Kashmiri takes the form of set of verbal suffixes conditioned by the case of the coreferent DP. This system interacts in unexpected ways with differential argument encoding (DAE) in Kashmiri, in which the case-marking of objects in non-perfective aspects is dependent on a person hierarchy. I will follow in spirit Aissen’s (2003) approach to DAE as adapted to Kashmiri in Sharma (2001), however I will argue that the particulars of the Kashmiri clitic system force us to adopt an account couched not in the syntax, but in the post-syntactic component of the grammar. Keine and Müller (2008) propose that DAE is a phenomenon of the morphology-syntax interface, employing harmonic alignment of scales within framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, 1994). I argue here that an otherwise mysterious set of clitic syncretisms in Kashmiri, including the overlap in the marking of ergative subjects and accusative objects, find explanation if we consider Kashmiri DAE not as an instance of differential marking in the narrow syntax, but instead as a as a non-zero/non-zero alternation resulting from the interaction of morphological processes and a system of optimization at the morphology-syntax interface.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Vermont

References

  1. Aissen, Judith
    1999 Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711. doi: 10.1023/A:1006335629372
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006335629372 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. doi: 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhatt, Rakesh
    1999. Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri . Kluwer: Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9279‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9279-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1967 Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To Honor Roman Jakobson (ed.), vol. 1, 239–270, The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Calabrese, Andrea
    2008 On the shyness of the first person: Investigations on markedeness and under specification in morphology. MUMSA Conference , Harvard University, March 1–3, 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Greenberg, Joseph
    1966  Language Universals . The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hale, Ken
    1972 A new perspective on American Indian linguistics. In: New Perspectives on the Pueblos , Alfonso Ortiz (ed.), 87–103. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1994 Some key features of distributed morphology. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology , Andrew Carnie , Heidi Harley & Tony Bures (eds), Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 21, 275–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Halle, Morris
    1997 Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Interface , Benjamin Bruening , Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics30: 425–449.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hook, Peter Edwin & Koul, Omkar N
    1984 Pronominal suffixes and split ergativity in Kashmiri. In Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics , Omkar N. Koul & Peter Edwin Hook (eds), 123–135. Delhi: Bahri.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hook, Peter
    1987 Poguli syntax in the light of Kashmiri: A preliminary report. In Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 17(1): 63–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Jakobson, Roman
    1936 Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240–288, reprinted 1966 In Readings in Linguistics II, Eric Hamp, Fred Householder & Robert Austerlitz (eds), 51–89, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Keine, Stefan
    2007 Reanalysing Hindi split ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In 1 2 Many , Jochen Trommer & Andreas Opitz (eds), Universität Leipzig, Linguistische Arbeitsberichte85, 1–2.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Keine, Stefan & Müller, Gereon
    2008 Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Scales , M. Richards & A. Malchukov (eds), 83–136. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Legate, Julie Anne
    2008 Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101. doi: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55 [Google Scholar]
  17. Manetta, Emily
    2006 Peripheries in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu. PhD dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 Peripheries in Hindi-Urdu and Kashmiri. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Sharma, Devyani
    2001 Kashmiri case clitics and person hierarchy effects. In Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimal Theoretic Syntax , Peter Sells (ed.), 225–256. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages , R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Subbarao, Kārumūri V
    2001 Agreement in south Asian languages and minimalist inquiries: The framework. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages , P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (eds), 457–492. London/New Delhi: Sage Publications/Thousand Oaks.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Wali, Kashi & Koul, Ashok
    1994 Kashmiri clitics: The role of case and CASE. Linguistics 32: 969–994. doi: 10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.969
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.969 [Google Scholar]
  23. Wali, Kashi & Koul, Omkar N
    1997  Kashmiri . New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Woolford, Ellen
    2001 Case Patterns. In Optimality-Theoretic Syntax . Eds. Geraldine Legendre , Jane Grimshaw , and Sten Vikner . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 509–543.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Aissen, Judith
    1999 Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711. doi: 10.1023/A:1006335629372
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006335629372 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. doi: 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhatt, Rakesh
    1999. Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri . Kluwer: Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9279‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9279-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1967 Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To Honor Roman Jakobson (ed.), vol. 1, 239–270, The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Calabrese, Andrea
    2008 On the shyness of the first person: Investigations on markedeness and under specification in morphology. MUMSA Conference , Harvard University, March 1–3, 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Greenberg, Joseph
    1966  Language Universals . The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hale, Ken
    1972 A new perspective on American Indian linguistics. In: New Perspectives on the Pueblos , Alfonso Ortiz (ed.), 87–103. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1994 Some key features of distributed morphology. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology , Andrew Carnie , Heidi Harley & Tony Bures (eds), Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 21, 275–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Halle, Morris
    1997 Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Interface , Benjamin Bruening , Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics30: 425–449.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hook, Peter Edwin & Koul, Omkar N
    1984 Pronominal suffixes and split ergativity in Kashmiri. In Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics , Omkar N. Koul & Peter Edwin Hook (eds), 123–135. Delhi: Bahri.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hook, Peter
    1987 Poguli syntax in the light of Kashmiri: A preliminary report. In Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 17(1): 63–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Jakobson, Roman
    1936 Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240–288, reprinted 1966 In Readings in Linguistics II, Eric Hamp, Fred Householder & Robert Austerlitz (eds), 51–89, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Keine, Stefan
    2007 Reanalysing Hindi split ergativity as a morphological phenomenon. In 1 2 Many , Jochen Trommer & Andreas Opitz (eds), Universität Leipzig, Linguistische Arbeitsberichte85, 1–2.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Keine, Stefan & Müller, Gereon
    2008 Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Scales , M. Richards & A. Malchukov (eds), 83–136. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Legate, Julie Anne
    2008 Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101. doi: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55 [Google Scholar]
  17. Manetta, Emily
    2006 Peripheries in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu. PhD dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 Peripheries in Hindi-Urdu and Kashmiri. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Sharma, Devyani
    2001 Kashmiri case clitics and person hierarchy effects. In Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimal Theoretic Syntax , Peter Sells (ed.), 225–256. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages , R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Subbarao, Kārumūri V
    2001 Agreement in south Asian languages and minimalist inquiries: The framework. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages , P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (eds), 457–492. London/New Delhi: Sage Publications/Thousand Oaks.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Wali, Kashi & Koul, Ashok
    1994 Kashmiri clitics: The role of case and CASE. Linguistics 32: 969–994. doi: 10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.969
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.969 [Google Scholar]
  23. Wali, Kashi & Koul, Omkar N
    1997  Kashmiri . New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Woolford, Ellen
    2001 Case Patterns. In Optimality-Theoretic Syntax . Eds. Geraldine Legendre , Jane Grimshaw , and Sten Vikner . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 509–543.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270825-la.209.11man
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270825-la.209.11man
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270825
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error