Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
AbstractApart from common cases of differential argument marking, referential hierarchies affect argument marking in two ways: (a) through hierarchical marking, where markers compete for a slot and the competition is resolved by a hierarchy, and (b) through co-argument sensitivity, where the marking of one argument depends on the properties of its co-argument. Here we show that while co-argument sensitivity cannot be analyzed in terms of hierarchical marking, hierarchical marking can be analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity. Once hierarchical effects on marking are analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity, it becomes possible to examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in exactly the same way as one can examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in cases of differential argument marking and indeed any other condition on alignment (such as tense or clause type). As a result, instances of hierarchical marking of any kind turn out not to present a special case in the typology of alignment, and there is no need for positing an additional non-basic alignment type such as “hierarchical alignment”. While hierarchies are not needed for descriptive and comparative purposes, we also cast doubt on their relevance in diachrony: examining two families for which hierarchical agreement has been postulated, Algonquian and Kiranti, we find only weak and very limited statistical evidence for agreement paradigms to have been shaped by a principled ranking of person categories.
Highlights
Alignment is understood here as the way in which the generalized semantic argument roles S, A, and P1 are treated alike by case assignment, agreement marking, and other morphosyntactic operations
If there is no detectable systematic trend, this would suggest that hierarchies are obsolete artifacts for the purpose of describing and comparing languages, and for explaining their diachronies. We address this issue by way of a case study of Algonquian and Kiranti verbal paradigms because they are rich in co-argument sensitive markers that could be, and sometimes are, analyzed in terms of hierarchies (Hockett 1966; DeLancey 1981; Michailovsky 1988; Dahlstrom 1991; Ebert 1991; Bickel 1995; LaPolla 2003; Zúñiga 2006)
In this paper we showed that apart from differential argument marking, referential properties affect argument marking in two ways: (a) through hierarchical marking, where markers compete for a slot and the competition is resolved by a hierarchy, and (b) through co-argument sensitivity, where the marking of one argument depends on the properties of a co-argument
Summary
Alignment is understood here as the way in which the generalized semantic argument roles S, A, and P1 are treated alike by case assignment, agreement marking, and other morphosyntactic operations. The three roles S, A, and P yield five logically possible alignment types: nominative-accusative (subsetting roles as {S, A} vs {P}), ergative-absolutive ({S, P} vs {A}), tripartite ({S} vs {A} vs {P}), horizontal ({S} vs {A, P}), and neutral ({S, A, P}). These five basic types have figured prominently in typological research and haven proven useful for descriptive purposes as well. It has often been noted that not all cases of argument marking can be straightforwardly characterized in terms of these basic alignment types because the way in which case or agreement aligns argument roles is often subject to various conditions. The characterization and analysis of such systems is straightforward and is not different in principle from well-established alignment conditions based on clausal properties such as tense, aspect, or subordination, which frequently result in alignment splits
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
