South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and Lingering...

South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and

Lingering Mysteries

Steven Foley • UC Santa Cruz

[email protected]

Georgian agreement

• Infamously complex

•Person (π) and number (#) agreement for Subjects and Objects

•Templatic slots, morpheme complementarity

• ‘Inverse agreement’

•Testing ground for many theories (Anderson 1992, Halle & Marantz 1993, Béjar & Rezac 2009, Blix 2016…)

Georgian agreement

•Optimization in morphology (Trommer 2000, Caballero & Inkelas 2013, Foley to appear)

•One way to formalize blocking relationships

•Balancing competing morphological constraints

• Drive to express as many features as possible

• An aversion towards redundancy (multiple exponence)

The dataπ-prefix Stem TAM-suffix #-suffix

v– ‘1.SUBJ’

m– ‘1SG.OBJ’

gv– ‘1PL.OBJ’g– ‘2.OBJ’

nax ‘see’

…–e ‘AOR:1/2’

–a ‘AOR:3SG’

–es ‘AOR:3PL’

…

–t ‘PL’

The data

1SG.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 3SG.OBJ 1PL.OBJ 2PL.OBJ 3PL.OBJ

1SG.SUBJ — g-nax-e v-nax-e — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e

2SG.SUBJ m-nax-e — nax-e gv-nax-e — nax-e

3SG.SUBJ m-nax-a g-nax-a nax-a gv-nax-a g-nax-a-t nax-a

1PL.SUBJ — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t — g-nax-e-t v-nax-e-t

2PL.SUBJ m-nax-e-t — nax-e-t gv-nax-e-t — nax-e-t

3PL.SUBJ m-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es gv-nax-es g-nax-es nax-es

π-prefix Stem TAM-suffix #-suffix

v– ‘1.SUBJ’

m– ‘1SG.OBJ’


nax ‘see’

…–e ‘AOR:1/2’

–a ‘AOR:3SG’

–es ‘AOR:3PL’

…

–t ‘PL’

The data









v– ‘1.SUBJ’

m– ‘1SG.OBJ’


nax ‘see’

…–e ‘AOR:1/2’

–a ‘AOR:3SG’

–es ‘AOR:3PL’

…

–t ‘PL’

Observation 1: g–

wins out over v–.

The data









v– ‘1.SUBJ’

m– ‘1SG.OBJ’


nax ‘see’

…–e ‘AOR:1/2’

–a ‘AOR:3SG’

–es ‘AOR:3PL’

…

–t ‘PL’

The data









v– ‘1.SUBJ’

m– ‘1SG.OBJ’


nax ‘see’

…–e ‘AOR:1/2’

–a ‘AOR:3SG’

–es ‘AOR:3PL’

…

–t ‘PL’

Observation 2: 3PL

SUBJs don’t get –t.

The data









v– ‘1.SUBJ’

m– ‘1SG.OBJ’


nax ‘see’

…–e ‘AOR:1/2’

–a ‘AOR:3SG’

–es ‘AOR:3PL’

…

–t ‘PL’

Observation 3: 1PL

OBJs don’t get –t.

Optimization

• These peculiarities can be explanatorily derived as morphological optimization

• Competing constraints

• MAX[MSF]: Express as many morphosyntactic features as possible

• *MULTIPLEEXPONENCE: Don’t expone a morphosyntactic feature more than once

Optimization

MAX[MSF] is the morphological throttle.

Input: (s)he saw you.PL MAX[MSF]

☞a. g-nax-a-t

b. g-nax-a-t w

c. g-nax-a-t w

d. g-nax-a-t w

Optimization

But there are cases where we need brakes, too.

*MultExp prevents morphological redundancy.

Input: (s)he saw us MAX[MSF]

a. gv-nax-a-t

b. gv-nax-a-t w

c. gv-nax-a-t w

d. gv-nax-a-t w

Optimization


*MULTEXP prevents morphological redundancy.

Input: (s)he saw us *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. gv-nax-a-t W L

☞b. gv-nax-a-t

c. gv-nax-a-t w

d. gv-nax-a-t w w

Optimization



Input: (s)he saw us *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. gv-nax-a-t W L

☞b. gv-nax-a-t

c. gv-nax-a-t w

d. gv-nax-a-t w w

✓Observation 3:

1PL OBJs don’t get –t.

Optimization



Input: they saw me *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. m-nax-es-t W L

☞b. m-nax-es-t

c. m-nax-es-t w w

d. m-nax-es-t w

Optimization



Input: they saw me *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. m-nax-es-t W L

☞b. m-nax-es-t

c. m-nax-es-t w w

d. m-nax-es-t w

✓Observation 2: 3PL

SUBJs don’t get –t.

Optimization

However, multiple exponence does occur!

Input: I saw him/her *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. v-nax-e W L

b. v-nax-e

c. v-nax-e

Optimization

However, multiple exponence does occur!

MAX[π]: Express as many person features as possible

Input: I saw him/her MAX[π] *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

☞a. v-nax-e

b. v-nax-e W L W

c. v-nax-e W L W

Optimization

This simple constraint interaction captures (almost) all of the agreement system

Input: I saw you MAX[π] *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. v-nax-e W

☞b. g-nax-e

Optimization

This simple constraint interaction captures (almost) all of the agreement system

Input: I saw you MAX[π] *MULTEXP MAX[MSF]

a. v-nax-e W

☞b. g-nax-e

✓Observation 1:

g– wins out over v–.

Interim conclusion

•New perspective on Georgian agreement

•Permitting vs blocking multiple exponence

•Morphology in general

• Optimizing exponence: more explanatory analyses

• Sleeker grammar: post-syntactic operations less (not?) necessary

• Parallels to OT phonology: conspiracies, Emergence of the Unmarked, positional faithfulness

Lingering questions

Tricky South Caucasian agreement phenomena

•3PL marking

•Root suppletion & preverb alternations

• Information structure effects

•Person ~ number interaction

Lingering questions

3PL DOs typically don’t trigger number agreement

(1) a. kal-ma bavšv-eb-i nax-awoman-ERG child-PL-NOM see-AOR:3SG

‘The woman saw the children’

b. kal-ma bavšv-eb-i *nax-eswoman-ERG child-PL-NOM *see-AOR:3PL

c. kal-ma bavšv-eb-i *nax-a-twoman-ERG child-PL-NOM *see-AOR:3SG-PL

Lingering questions

Except for some speakers in DAT-subject constructions?

(2) a. kal-s bavšv-eb-i u-qvar-swoman-DAT child-PL-NOM 3.DAT-love-PRES:3SG

‘The woman loves the children’

b. kal-s bavšv-eb-i %u-q var-nanwoman-DAT child-PL-NOM %3.DAT-love-PRES:3PL

‘The woman loves the child’

Lingering questions

Except for some speakers in DAT-subject constructions?

(2) a. kal-s bavšv-eb-i u-qvar-swoman-DAT child-PL-NOM 3.DAT-love-PRES:3SG


b. kal-s bavšv-eb-i %u-q var-nanwoman-DAT child-PL-NOM %3.DAT-love-PRES:3PL


Lingering questions

Does this extend to the PERF & PLU?

(3) a. kal-s bavšv-eb-i u-nax-av-enwoman-DAT child-PL-NOM 3.DAT-love-TH-PERF:3SG

‘The woman apparently saw the children’

b. kal-s bavšv-eb-i unda e-nax-eswoman-DAT child-PL-NOM MOD APPL-love-PLU:3PL

‘The woman should have seen the children.’

Lingering questions

However, 3PL DOs do trigger PVB & root alternations.

(4) a. monadire-m irem-i mo-kl-ahunter-ERG deer-NOM PVBSG-killSG-AOR:3SG

‘The hunter killed the deer.SG’

b. monadire-m irm-eb-i da-xoc-ahunter-ERG deer-PL-NOM PVBPL-killPL-AOR:3SG

‘The hunter killed the deer.PL’

Lingering questions

However, 3PL DOs do trigger PVB & root alternations.

(4) a. monadire-m irem-i mo-kvl-ahunter-ERG deer-NOM PVBSG-killSG-AOR:3SG

‘The hunter killed the deer.SG’

b. monadire-m irm-eb-i da-xoc-ahunter-ERG deer-PL-NOM PVBPL-killPL-AOR:3SG

‘The hunter killed the deer.PL’

Is this agreement?

Lingering questions

Apparently 3PL.DATs can trigger –t… but not if there’s a 1/2 person.

(5) a. man mat is mi-s-c-a-(%t)3SG.ERG 3PL.DAT 3SG.NOM PVB-3.IO-give-AOR:3SG-(%PL)

‘S/he gave it to them’

b. me mat is mi-v-ec-i-(*t)1SG.ERG 3PL.DAT 3SG.NOM PVB-1.SUBJ-give-AOR:1/2-(*PL)

‘I gave it to them’

Lingering questions

This extends to 3PL.DAT SUBJs.

(5) a. bavšv-eb-s kal-i u-qvar-tchild-PL-DAT woman-NOM 3.DAT-love-PL

‘The children love the woman’

a. bavšv-eb-s šen u-q var-xar-(*t)child-PL-DAT 2SG 3.DAT-love-PRES.2-(*PL)

‘The children love you’

Lingering questions

Though Nash (p.c.) suggests the picture may be more complicated — information structure effects?

(6) ici ninos da datos velaparake gušin da mivxvdi, rom sektemberši…‘You know, I talked to Nino and Dato yesterday and I realized that in Sept…’

a. … pro3PL pro2SG ar u-nax-i-xar-tNEG 3.DAT-see-TH-PERF.2-PL

‘…[they] didn’t talk to [you]’

b. … magat pro2SG ar u-nax-i-xar-(t)3PL.DAT NEG 3.DAT-see-TH-PERF.2-(PL)

‘…they didn’t talk to [you]’

Lingering questions

Info. Struc. affects agreement in Laz, too (Öztürk 2016)

(7) a. si ma g-a-cer-u2SG 1SG 2.OBJ-APPL-believe-PAST:3SGDEF

‘You believe me’

b. si MA v-a-cer-i2SG 1SG 1.SUBJ-APPL-believe-PAST:1

‘You believe ME [not someone else]’

Lingering questions

Some tantalizing observations about π~# interaction

Georgian: 3PL>2PL — no –t!

(8) a. man tkven g-nax-a-t3SG.ERG 2PL 2.OBJ-see-AOR:3PL-PL

‘S/he saw you.PL’

b. mat tkven g-nax-es-(*t)3PL.ERG 2PL 2.OBJ-see-AOR:3PL-(*PL)

‘They saw you.PL

Lingering questions


Svan (Palmaitis 1986): The pattern is more general

x saw y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ

1SG.SUBJ v-nax-e g-nax-e g-nax-e-t

3SG.SUBJ nax-a g-nax-a g-nax-a-t

1EX.SUBJ v-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t g-nax-e-t

3PL.SUBJ nax-es g-nax-es g-nax-es-∅

Lingering questions



SUBJ>1/2PL or 1/2PL>OBJ → –t3PL>OBJ → –es

(with a few exceptions)






Lingering questions



x prepares y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ

1SG.SUBJ xw-amāre ǰ-amāre-∅ ǰ-amāre

3SG.SUBJ amāre ǰ-amāre ǰ-amāre-x

1EX.SUBJ xw-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d

3PL.SUBJ amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x






Lingering questions



1/2PL>OBJ → –d3PL>OBJ → –x3SG/PL>1/2PL → –x

x prepares y 3.OBJ 2SG.OBJ 2PL.OBJ

1SG.SUBJ xw-amāre ǰ-amāre-∅ ǰ-amāre

3SG.SUBJ amāre ǰ-amāre ǰ-amāre-x

1EX.SUBJ xw-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d ǰ-amāre-d

3PL.SUBJ amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x ǰ-amāre-x

Conclusion

Standard Georgian agreement has shaped many morphological and syntactic theories.

But there’s still more to understand—Especially in Laz, Mingrelian, Svan, and non-standard Georgian!

ReferencesAnderson, S. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press.Béjar, S. & M. Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.Blix, H. 2016. South Caucasian agreement: A Spanning account. Master’s Thesis,

University of Vienna.Caballero, G., and S. Inkelas. 2013. Word construction: tracing an optimal path

through the lexicon. Morphology 23: 103–143.Foley, S. To appear. Morphological conspiracies in Georgian an Optimal Vocabulary

Insertion. In Proceedings of CLS 52, eds. J. Kantarovich, V. Truong, & O. Xherija.Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of

inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111–176. MIT Press.

Öztürk, Balkız. Applicatives in Pazar Laz. Paper presented at the South Caucasian Chalk Circle. Paris, 22 Sept 2016.

Palmaitis, M. 1986. Upper Svan: Grammar and Texts. Vilnius.Trommer, J. 2001. Distributed optimality. PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.

South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and Lingering...

Documents

Transcript of South Caucasian Agreement: Optimization and Lingering...