Some languages showing morphological ergativity in case and/or agreement also show ergative patterns in core syntactic domains—syntactic ergativity. The most-studied type of syntactic ergativity is a ban on the Ā movement of ergative subjects; an additional type concerns the distribution of absolutives in nonfinite clauses. This article first presents the standard view of syntactic ergativity, which is closely connected to the treatment of ergative as an inherent case. Evidence from Shipibo suggests that a ban on ergative Ā extraction does not require inherent ergative. This points to a view of syntactic ergativity centered around morphological case discrimination. One consequence is that pure head-marking languages cannot feature a true ban on ergative extraction, because ergative morphological case is not in use. This conclusion highlights the challenging tasks of diagnosing extraction restrictions in pure head-marking languages, as in the Mayan and Salish families, and of distinguishing extraction restrictions from instances where extraction merely interacts with agreement. A variety of crosslinguistic evidence suggests that agreement/extraction interactions are fully possible in morphologically ergative languages, and not only for ergative arguments. Special morphology in the context of transitive subject extraction is therefore not necessarily evidence of syntactic ergativity.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Aissen J. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan Handbook of Ergativity J Coon, D Massam, L Travis Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldridge E. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y 850 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldridge E. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2:966–95 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldridge E. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122:192–203 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson S. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. Subject and Topic C Li 1–23 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  6. Assmann A, Georgi D, Heck F, Müller G, Weisser P. Ergatives move too early. Syntax Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  7. Ayres G. 1983. The antipassive “voice” in Ixil. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 49:20–45 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker M, Vinokurova N. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 28:593–642 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker MC. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguist. Inq. 45:341–379 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker MC. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Berinstein A. 1985. Evidence for Multiattachment in K'ekchi Mayan New York: Garland [Google Scholar]
  12. Bhatt R. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 23:757–807 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bickel B. 1995. Relatives à antécédent interne, nominalisation et focalisation: entre syntaxe et morphologie en bélharien. Bull. Soc. Linguist. Paris 90:391–427 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bittner M. 1994. Case, Scope and Binding Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  15. Bittner M, Hale K. 1996. Ergativity: toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguist. Inq. 27:531–604 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bobaljik JD. 2008. Where's Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. Phi Theory D Harbour, D Adger, S Béjar 295–328 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Bok-Bennema R. 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit Dordrecht, Neth: Foris [Google Scholar]
  18. Campana M. 1992. A movement theory of ergativity PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., McGill Univ., Montreal, Can 206 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chierchia G. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se. Semantics and Contextual Expressions R Bartsch, J van Benthem, P van Emde Voas 1–31 Dordrecht, Neth: Foris [Google Scholar]
  20. Chomsky N. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal Syntax P Culicover, T Wasow, A Akmajian 71–132 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  21. Chung S, Georgopoulos C. 1988. Agreement with gaps in Chamorro and Palauan. Agreement in Natural Languages: Approaches, Theories, and Descriptions M Barlow, CA Ferguson 251–67 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  22. Clements GN, McCloskey J, Maling J, Zaenen A. 1983. String-vacuous rule application. Linguist. Inq. 14:1–17 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cole P. 1987. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 5:277–302 [Google Scholar]
  24. Comrie B. 1979. Degrees of ergativity: some Chukchee evidence. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations F Plank 219–40 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  25. Coon J, Mateo Pedro P, Preminger O. 2015. The role of Case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: evidence from Mayan. Linguist. Var. 14:179–242 [Google Scholar]
  26. Davis H, Brown J. 2011. On A′ -dependencies in Gitksan. Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages J Lyon, J Dunham 43–80 Vancouver: Univ. B.C. Work. Pap. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  27. Deal AR. 2010. Topics in the Nez Perce verb PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Mass., Amherst 460 [Google Scholar]
  28. Deal AR. 2015. Ergativity. Syntax—Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook A Alexiadou, T Kiss 1654–707 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  29. Deal AR. Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses Linguist. Inq. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  30. Dixon RMW. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Dixon RMW. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59–138 [Google Scholar]
  32. Erlewine MY. 2015. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory. In press [Google Scholar]
  33. Finer DL. 1997. Contrasting A′-dependencies in Selayarese. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 15:677–728 [Google Scholar]
  34. Foley S. 2013. The syntax of Georgian relative clauses BA honors thesis, Dep. Linguist., NYU [Google Scholar]
  35. Georgopoulos C. 1991. Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and A′ Binding in Palauan Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hualde JI, Ortiz de Urbina J. 2003. A Grammar of Basque Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  37. Johns A, Massam D, Ndayiragije J. 2006. Ergativity: Emerging Issues Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  38. Kazenin K. 1994. Split syntactic ergativity: toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypol. Universalienforsch. 47:78–98 [Google Scholar]
  39. Landau I. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9:153–170 [Google Scholar]
  40. Larsen T, Norman W. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations F Plank 347–70 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  41. Legate JA. 2002. Warlpiri: theoretical implications PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge 299 [Google Scholar]
  42. Legate JA. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguist. Inq. 39:55–101 [Google Scholar]
  43. Legate JA. 2012. Types of ergativity. Lingua 122:181–91 [Google Scholar]
  44. Levin T, Preminger O. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary?. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 33:231–50 [Google Scholar]
  45. Manning C. 1994. Ergativity: argument structure and grammatical relations PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif 234 [Google Scholar]
  46. Marantz A. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics G Westphal, B Ao, HR Chae 234–53 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Linguist. Club [Google Scholar]
  47. McFadden T. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: a study on the syntax–morphology interface PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Pa., Philadelphia 368 [Google Scholar]
  48. Moravcsik EA. 1974. Object–verb agreement. Work. Pap. Lang. Univers. 15:25–140 [Google Scholar]
  49. O'Herin B. 2002. Case and Agreement in Abaza Dallas, TX: SIL Int. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ordóñez F. 1995. The antipassive in Jacaltec: a last resort strategy. Catalan Work. Pap. Linguist. 4:329–43 [Google Scholar]
  51. Otsuka Y. 2006. Syntactic ergativity in Tongan: resumptive pronouns revisited. See Johns et al. 2006 79–107
  52. Otsuka Y. 2010. DP ellipsis in Tongan: Is syntactic ergativity real?. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 28:315–42 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ouhalla J. 1993. Subject-extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 11:477–518 [Google Scholar]
  54. Polinsky M. 2015. Tsez syntax: a description Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., Harvard Univ. [Google Scholar]
  55. Polinsky M. Syntactic ergativity The Companion to Syntax M Everaert, H van Riemsdijk New York: Wiley-Blackwell Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  56. Preminger O. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Queixalos F. 2010. Grammatical relations in Katukina-Kanamari. Ergativity in Amazonia S Gildea, F Queixalos 235–83 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  58. Rezac M, Albizu P, Etxepare R. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 32:1273–330 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sadock J. 1984. West Greenlandic. Interrogativity: A Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology, and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse Languages W Chisholm, LT Milic, JAC Greppin 189–214 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  60. Seiter W. 1980. Studies in Niuean Syntax New York: Garland [Google Scholar]
  61. Sheehan M. 2014. Towards a parameter hierarchy for alignment. Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31) RE Santana-LaBarge 399–408 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  62. Stiebels B. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 24:501–70 [Google Scholar]
  63. Valenzuela PM. 2002. Relativization in Shipibo-Konibo: A Typologically-Oriented Study Munich: LINCOM [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error