28.981, Review: Dido; Tonga; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Polinsky (2016)

The LINGUIST List linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Thu Feb 23 17:15:51 UTC 2017


LINGUIST List: Vol-28-981. Thu Feb 23 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.981, Review: Dido; Tonga; Morphology; Syntax; Typology: Polinsky (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:15:46
From: Robin Meyer [robin.meyer at ling-phil.ox.ac.uk]
Subject: Deconstructing Ergativity

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36218657


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-2014.html

AUTHOR: Maria  Polinsky
TITLE: Deconstructing Ergativity
SUBTITLE: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Robin Meyer, University of Oxford

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

Since Dirr’s 1928 survey of 35 Caucasian languages, the term ‘ergative’ has
been used to describe a morphosyntactic alignment pattern in which the subject
of intransitive verbs (S) and objects of transitive verbs (O) are marked in
one common way, but different marking is applied to the agent of transitive
verbs (A); numerous descriptions of languages exhibiting ergative alignment to
some extent have emerged over the course of the twentieth century (Verbeke
2013 on Indo-Aryan; Haig 2008 on Iranian; Grinevald and Peake 2012 on Mayan;
Paul and Travis 2006 on Austronesian; to name but a few), but insufficient
attention has been paid to the phenomenon of syntactical ergativity, displayed
by a small subset of ergative languages, in which various coreferentiality
constraints apply in complex sentences (e.g. constraints against
S-A-coreference in co- or subordination, or against relativisation of ergative
arguments; cf. Dixon 1994:143–180 for an overview).

Maria Polinsky’s monograph ‘Deconstructing Ergativity. Two Types of Ergative
Languages and Their Features’ seeks to rectify this neglect in suggesting a
new and systematic aetiology of syntactical ergativity: based on a set of
diagnostic syntactic comparisons, it proposes that all languages exhibiting
syntactic ergativity employ prepositional phrases (PP) as ergative subjects,
contrasting with other morphologically ergative languages which have
determiner phrase (DP) subjects. The contrast between DP-ergative and
PP-ergative languages is explored in some depth, both theoretically in a
transformational framework and by means of copious examples from, inter alia,
Niuean, Samoan, Chuckhi, Q’anjob’al, Archi, Avar, and Circassian; ̥more than a
third of the book is dedicated to a detailed discussion of two paradigm
languages, Tongan (PP-ergative) and Tsez (DP-ergative).

The first part of the book establishes the necessary theoretical background
and hypotheses for this investigation, the latter of which are then tested
against corpus data. In the introduction (Chapter 1), ergative alignment and
its manifestations in the languages of the world are discussed with a view to
their syntactic peculiarities. Here, syntactically ergative languages are
narrowly defined as the subset of morphologically ergative languages in which
the ergative argument cannot undergo A-bar movement (e.g. in relativisation,
wh-questions, or topicalisation) with a gap, whereas absolute arguments may.
Forgoing a discussion of languages like Dyirbal, whose status as syntactically
ergative is disputed, Polinsky sets out to provide a principled syntactic
analysis and differentiation of ergative languages based on their constraints
on A-bar movement. In this process, a number of other potential correlations
between types of ergativity and other syntactic properties are proposed (see
below, ch. 6). A brief appendix outlines strategies used by syntactically
ergative languages to overcome this constraint, discussing, among others,
antipassives, resumption of the moved argument, and nominalisation.

The specific reasoning for a differentiation between DP-ergative and
PP-ergative languages is presented in Chapter 2. Owing to the diachronic
origins of most ergative patterns in passive or possessive constructions, many
transitive agents find expression in PPs. In syntactically ergative languages,
some characteristics of these agentive PPs are maintained despite reanalysis
or loss of an overt adposition; most prominent among these characteristics is
the constraint against subextraction of the agent out of a PP in A-bar
movement. Consequently, while the ergative is analysed as a structural case in
DP-ergative languages, assigned by a functional head in vP (or higher), it is
proposed that PP-ergative languages have an inherent ergative case in the
external argument position of transitive verbs. Licensing here occurs in two
places: the verbal head assigns theta role, the (potentially silent)
adposition ergative case. Syntactic ergativity is, therefore, expected in
ergative languages in which adposition stranding or pied-piping does not
occur. Not all PP-ergative languages exhibit the latter constraint, however,
making PP-ergative arguments a necessary but not sufficient for syntactic
ergativity.

The similarities between PPs and ergative subjects in syntactically ergative
languages form the core of this argument; to corroborate this point, Chapter 3
details the diagnostic criteria according to which both syntagmata must be
compared to establish a correlation, and in which they differ from DPs.
Polinsky’s findings show that PPs in subject position are inaccessible to
A-movement, cannot serve as pivots for clefts, tails of control chains, or
binders for anaphora or depictives; where A-bar movement is permitted,
resumptive pronouns are required at the extraction site. This negative
definition, largely by lack of abilities or functionality, contrasts with the
characteristics of DPs, which are not subject to such restrictions.

These qualities of PPs are tested against the evidence from syntactically
ergative languages in Chapter 4 in order to show that an analysis of ergative
agents as PPs is indeed appropriate. The specific cause of syntactic
ergativity, it is argued, results from a constraint against stranding and
pied-piping of non-overt (or null) prepositional heads of ergative agents. The
discussion emphasises again that where an overt preposition heads the phrase
containing an ergative agent, syntactic ergativity may but need not obtain,
depending on restrictions on PPs in general. The permissibility of pied-piping
PPs in particular is dependent on the phonological nature of the operator; the
data and analysis presented suggest that only overt operators can license
extraction and thus avoid syntactical ergativity at least partly. A
syntactically ergative language therefore has to be a) morphologically
ergative, and b) either lack an overt adposition licensing the ergative or,
failing this, lack the ability to pied-pipe PPs.

A further concomitant characteristic of PP-ergative agents, namely their
inability to bind anaphors and to occur in raising or control structures, is
discussed succinctly in Chapter 5. True raising and control in these languages
are either limited to intransitive embedded clauses (with absolutive
subjects), or do not exist at all; syntactically similar patterns do, however,
occur. As far as binding is concerned, dedicated anaphors do not seem to
appear in this type of ergative languages; their function is fulfilled either
by reinforced pronouns, or through reflexive or reciprocal marking on the verb
itself. With this evidence, Polinsky concludes that the similarities between
PPs in general and ergative subjects in a subset of morphologically ergative
languages allow for the latter’s analysis as PP-agents. 

While the discussion in the previous chapters focussed on arguing for a
differentiation between DP-ergative and PP-ergative languages, Chapter 6
illustrates further consequences of operating with PP-ergative agents as
regards word order, expletive subjects, and non-canonical subjects. Statistics
suggest that there may be a non-trivial correlation between verb-initial
languages and syntactic ergativity; Polinsky tentatively hypothesises that the
raising of the ergative PP may be the result of its failure to otherwise
satisfy subjecthood conditions (as per the extended projection principle). A
brief discussion of expletive subjects offers the conclusion that their
absence is expected in verb-initial syntactically ergative languages, but
cannot make further predictions about other language types or specific
correlations to the PP-nature of ergative agents; a similar caveat applies to
the prediction about the absence of non-canonical subjects in these languages.

By way of contrast with the main topic of the argument thus far, Chapter 7
presents the flip-side of ergative languages: those with DP-ergatives.
Distinguished most distinctly by their lack of syntactical ergativity, the
languages cited here (among which Georgian, Walpiri, and Hindi/Urdu) show all
the features lacking in PP-ergative languages, including (but not limited to)
the extraction of the ergative agent with a gap (rather than a resumptive
pronoun), the ability to bind anaphors, license depictives, float quantifiers,
have discontinuous core arguments, and to be the controllee in control
patterns.

While both DP- and PP-ergative languages can have different origins, it is
possible for PP-ergatives to be reanalysed, and for the language to change
subsequently into the DP-ergative type; such diachronic developments and other
questions regarding the relationships between ergative language types are
discussed in Chapter 8. Niuean, a Polynesian language closely related to
syntactically ergative Tongan (see Chapter 10), is discussed as an instance of
change in progress: the reanalysis of the ergative adposition as a case marker
has triggered syntactic realignment, most obvious in the ability of ergative
agents to undergo A-bar movement; other DP-ergative features, such as anaphor
binding, however, have not yet been implemented. Another case of transition is
that of Adyghe, a Caucasian language, which has progressed further towards
DP-ergative status; only resumption of ergative arguments in relative clauses
remains as a putative sign of their former PP-ergative status. The conclusions
drawn from these languages are that, unsurprisingly, alignment change does not
happen all at once, and that the prepositional head of the ergative agent must
have been lost, either through sound change or reanalysis, for this
development to commence.

Before proceeding to give a closer overview of two paradigm ergative
languages, Polinsky considers alternatives to her explanation of syntactical
ergativity, independent of the notion of a PP-DP-dichotomy. Her approach, it
is argued, is preferable to COMP-trace (e.g. Perlmutter 1971), criterial
freezing (Wexler and Culicover 1980), phase-based (Coon et al. 2014), and
processing analyses in being relatively theory-neutral and requiring the
fewest assumptions. In particular, the processing approach, suggesting that
structures imposing a heavy load on language processing are avoided, is
tentatively rejected; experimental data on the acquisition of extraction in
ergative languages, a supposedly resource intensive and thus dispreferred
process, contradict expectations, but are as yet too few to be authoritative. 

The two long chapters, which form Part 2 of the monograph, each deal with a
paradigm language: Tongan, representing PP-ergative language (Chapter 10), and
Tsez for the DP-ergative languages (Chapter 11). In both instances, an
introduction to the basic morphological and syntactic structures of the
language is given. In the case of Tongan, Polinsky proceeds to systematically
discuss in some detail the manifestations of all the characteristics of
PP-ergative languages outlined above; it is noted that only in two cases do
ergative and absolutive subjects behave alike, namely in their ability to be
associated with subject clitics, and to be expressed as null pronominals. It
is further observed that, apart from the A-bar movement of absolutives, there
are no other movement operations in Tongan.

Tsez, presented in a more concise fashion, shows all the signs of a
DP-ergative language in not being subject to the restrictions imposed on
languages of the PP-ergative type. Here the presence of all the structures
discussed in previous chapters is exemplified, and discussed on a more
theoretical level, e.g. as concerns the nature of Tsez clause structure.

EVALUATION

Polinsky provides a new and systematic approach to describing ergative
languages that offers attractively simple categories, clearly defined and
empirically testable conditions, and data from a set of relevant languages to
back up the suggestions made. The dichotomy between PP-ergative and
DP-ergative languages proposed is essentially theory-neutral and makes a
number of interesting observations awaiting further testing.

As such, this monograph will be of interest to anyone working on ergative
languages, particularly on syntactical ergativity, and to typologists in
general. Certain parts (esp. Chapter 8) may also be of interest to historical
linguists. The analytical methods used and proposals made concerning specific
languages may further be relevant for linguists working in transformational
syntax or on Polynesian and Caucasian languages.

The book’s overall goal, that is to provide a principled analysis and
aetiology of syntactic ergativity and to outline the structural diversity of
ergative languages, has clearly been achieved. Yet, owing to the survey’s
purposed limitation to a small number of languages and the narrow definition
of syntactic ergativity (both given above), the proposed characteristics of
PP-ergative languages in particular will require further testing. While the
core argument, viz. the existence of two types of ergative languages, is
presented clearly, consistently, and with great attention to detail, the fact
that PP-ergatives are defined largely negatively by the absence of specific
characteristics—as admitted by Polinsky (p. 56)—raises the question whether
the similarities between certain ergative agents and PPs are sufficient for an
unambiguous definition of this group, and how languages transitioning from one
type to the other ought to be classified. Similarly, a brief discussion of
languages such as Dyirbal, which have been explicitly excluded from initial
consideration owing to debates about their status as ergative languages, and
their place in this theory would be of interest, and might have helped to
either corroborate or show issues with the dichotomy proposed.

To appreciate the book’s argument and presentation in their entirety, a
thorough grounding in (and acceptance of) transformational grammar is
advantageous, since analyses rely strongly on the tenets propounded and
terminology used therein. Although each chapter offers a more general summary
of the topics discussed, a less theoretically inclined audience may have
appreciated more descriptive analyses at the side of theoretical
considerations. In particular, some readers may take issue with the use and
proposal of phonologically zero or non-overt elements, e.g. the prepositional
heads or operators mentioned (esp. Chapter 4). Nonetheless, since terms and
concepts potentially unfamiliar to the reader are explained and referenced
clearly, the overall argumentation remains comprehensible, even when expressed
in framework-specific terms. 

As far as the structure of the overall argument is concerned, some choices may
be rather surprising. For instance, a discussion of previous approaches to and
explanations of syntactic ergativity is provided only in Chapter 9; it may
have served as a smoother point of departure than the immediate proposal of a
new theory. The proposal itself (Chapter 2) is arrived at somewhat abruptly,
with too little context, and mainly on the basis of theoretical
considerations; an initial presentation of the data used in chs. 4 and 5 would
introduce the reader to the issues arising more naturally, as well as
advocating a data-driven approach to linguistic analysis. In spite of these
choices, the book shows great internal coherence and, with the caveats
mentioned, a clear line of argumentation.

The detailed discussion of Tongan (Chapter 10), which takes up almost a third
of the monograph, lacks focus in places; it provides too much information
specific to the language discussed, but only partly relevant to the discussion
of ergativity. The section on deriving Tongan clause structure (10.3), for
example, explores the issue of word order, termed a secondary correlate of
some PP-ergative languages in Chapter 6, in more detail than necessary here;
similarly, a briefer discussion of raising-like structures in Tongan would not
have diminished the argument’s force.

Polinsky’s proposal will have to stand the test not of time but rather of new
data; her approach is appealing and will provide both theoretical and
historical linguists as well as researchers working on specific languages with
a new theory to explore. Especially the insights gained from applying the
proposed criteria to supposedly syntactical languages not included in the
present definition, and to those languages in the process of alignment change
should reveal whether the latter are indeed sufficient. 

REFERENCES

Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Omar Preminger. 2014. The role of case in
A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14(2).
179–242.

Dirr, Adolf. 1928. Einführung in das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen.
Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major.

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grinevald, Colette & Marc Peake. 2012. Ergativity and Voice in Mayan
languages: a functional-typological approach. In Authier, Gilles & Katharina
Haude (eds.), Ergativity, Valency and Voice (Empirical Approaches to Language
Typology 48), 15–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Haig, Geoffrey L. J. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A
Construction Grammar Approach (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 37).
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Paul, Ileana & Lisa Travis. 2006. Ergativity in Austronesian Languages. In
Johns, Alana, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging
Issues (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 65), 315–335.
Dordrecht: Springer.

Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York:
Rinehart & Winston.

Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages
(Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 51). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Wexler, Kenneth & Peter W. Culicover. 1980. Formal principles of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Robin Meyer is a doctoral student at the University of Oxford, working on
diachronic syntax and language contact. His research focus lies on Old and
Middle Iranian languages and Armenian, but he also works on Greek and Latin.
His dissertation explores contact-induced language change in early Classical
Armenian, specifically as regards alignment change.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-981	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/








More information about the LINGUIST mailing list