Senaya (Neo-Aramaic): Structural Person Case Constraint Effects in Progressives

12 Pages·2012·0.31 MB·English

Senaya (Neo-Aramaic): Structural Person Case
Constraint Effects in Progressives
Laura Kalin and Laura McPherson
UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles
1. Introduction
We present novel data from Senaya (fieldwork by Laura McPherson and Kevin Ryan), a Neo-
Aramaic language originally spoken in Iran, that reveal an intriguing pattern of person-restrictionsin
progressivetransitives. In particular, objectagreementin progressivesis limited to third person when
thisagreementappearsontheprogressiveauxiliary,asseenin(1)–(2),withobjectagreementbolded.1
(1) OBJECT AGREEMENT ON VERBBASE: X3RD PERSON,X1ST/2NDPERSON
a. Ooyaon talmiidemolp-aa-luu=∅-lee.
she thestudentsteach.IMPF-3SGF.S-3PL.L=be-DFLT.L
‘Sheisteachingthestudents.’
b. Ooyamolp-aa-lii=∅-lee.
she teach.IMPF-3SGF.S-1SGF.L=be-DFLT.L
‘Sheisteachingme.’
(2) OBJECT AGREEMENT ON AUXILIARY: X3RD PERSON, *1ST/2NDPERSON
a. Ooyaon talmiidemolp-aa-lee=∅-luu.
she thestudentsteach.IMPF-3SGF.S-DFLT.L=be-3PL.L
‘Sheisteachingthestudents.’
b. *Ooyamolp-aa-lee=∅-lii/an.
she teach.IMPF-3SGF.S-DFLT.L=be-1SGF.L/S
Intended:‘Sheisteachingme.’
Ignoringforthemomentthecomplexityoftheverbalcomplex,therearetwocrucialobservationshere.
First, object agreement in a progressive transitive can appear either on the verb base, (1), or on the
progressiveauxiliary,(2).Second,objectagreementontheauxiliaryisrestrictedtothirdperson,asseen
bytheungrammaticalityof(2b); objectagreementontheverbbasehasnosuchrestriction,asseenby
thegrammaticalityofbothsentencesin(1).
WearguethatthisrestrictiononobjectagreementontheauxiliaryisattributabletothePersonCase
Constraint(PCC),wherebyafirstorsecondpersonargumentisungrammaticalincertainconfigurations,
crucially involvingthe presence of anotherargumentin the same domain (Bonet, 1991). Specifically,
weaimtoshowthatthePCCeffectseenin(2)ariseswhenadefectiveintervener(thetransitivesubject)
blocksaparticularlicenser(theϕ-probeontheprogressiveauxiliary‘be’)fromperson-licensingalower
DP(thetransitiveobject).
∗ ThankyoutoByronAhn,AmyRoseDeal,AnoopMahajan,OmerPreminger,CarsonSchütze,CoppevanUrk,
and the audience at WCCFL30for helpful discussions about this research, as well as Kevin Ryan, whose initial
fieldworkandmorphologicalanalysisofSenayawiththesecondauthormadethisresearchpossible.Wewouldalso
liketothankourSenayaconsultantPaulCaldaniforsharinghislanguagewithus. Bothauthorsaresupportedby
NationalScienceFoundationGraduateResearchFellowships.
1 Wemakeuseofthefollowingabbreviations: 1,2,3=first,second,thirdperson,ACC=accusative,DAT=dative,
DFLT=default, F=female, FUT=future, HIJ=hijacked, IMPF=imperfective, L=L-suffix,M=male, PERF=
perfective,PL=plural,S=S-suffix,SG=singular.
© 2012 Laura Kalin and Laura McPherson. Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, ed. Nathan Arnett and Ryan Bennett, 173-183. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
174
The main implication of our analysis is that PCC effects can be entirely divorced from both
ditransitivesandthepresenceofaDATintervener.Rather,PCCeffectsariseinacertainabstractstructural
configuration,givenin(3a),regardlessoftheparticularheadsandargumentsinvolved,asshownin(3b)
forthePCCconfigurationinSenayaand(3c)forcanonicalditransitivePCCconfigurations.
(3) a. ABSTRACTPCC b. SENAYAPCC c. CANONICALPCC
PROBE Aux v
DPA DPB ... DPsubj DPobj ... DPDAT DPACC ...
Thispaperislaidoutasfollows. In§2,wegiveabriefoverviewofthePCC. In§3,weintroduce
basicSenayagrammarandpresentthesyntacticstructuresproposedbyKalin&vanUrk(2012b).§4lays
outthecrucialdatainvolvingprogressivesandarguesforaPCCanalysisofthesefacts. §5concludes.
2. The PersonCaseConstraint
Itiswell-knowncross-linguisticallythatfirstandsecondpersonDPsmaybehavedifferentlyfrom
thirdpersonDPs,especiallyinbeingmorerestricted(see,e.g.,Nichols(2001),Rezac(2011)).Onesuch
restrictiononfirst/secondpersonDPsisthePCC,awidelyattestedempiricalphenomenon(seenin,e.g.,
Basque,Finnish,andGeorgian),statedbyBonet(1991)asfollows:
(4) STRONGPCC:FortwoargumentsinadomainX,thelowerargumenthastobethirdperson.
Typically,PCCeffectsarefoundintheinteractionbetweenthetwointernalargumentsofaditransitive,
restrictingthedirectobject(thelowerinternalargument)tothirdperson,ascanbeseeninFrench:
(5) Lucillela/*nous leur présentera.
Lucy her.ACC/*us.ACCthem.DATintroduce.3SG.FUT
‘Lucywillintroduceher/*ustothem.’
TheACC(directobject)cliticcanbethirdperson,e.g.,la,butcannotbenon-thirdperson,e.g.,nous.
A common thread among many theoretical accounts of the PCC (e.g., Anagnostopoulou (2003),
Béjar&Rezac(2003),Nevins(2007))isthatPCCeffectsariseinconfigurationswherealicenser(usually
v)isseparatedfromaDPthatneedslicensing(usuallyaccusative)byanotherDP(usuallydative). The
interveningDPisreferredtoasthe‘defectiveintervener’,becauseitinteractsenoughwiththeprobeto
blockfulllicensingofthelowerDP,butdoesnotitselfgetlicensedbythatprobe.
WehoneinonthespecificdetailsofBéjar&Rezac’s(2003)accountoftheStrongPCC.ForBéjar
andRezac(buildingonworkbyChomsky(2000)andAnagnostopoulou(2003)),ϕ-probesdecompose
into a separate personprobe, [π], and numberprobe, [#], with personprobingfirst. In ditransitivesin
languagesthathavecliticdoubling,theprobesmayagreewithdifferentDPs,asillustratedin(6).
(6)
v
[π][#] DP
DAT
DP ...
ACC
[π] probes first and finds the highest argument, DP . [π] clitic doubles DP , rendering DP
DAT DAT DAT
invisibleto furtherprobing. When[#]probes,it probespastthe theinvisibleDP andfindsDP ,
DAT ACC
instantiatinganagreerelation.NoticethattheDP ,thelowerargument,onlyagreesfornumber.
ACC
Inorderto explainwhythe lowerDP(the onethatonlyagreesfornumber)mustbe thirdperson,
BéjarandRezacproposethefollowingcondition(2003:53):
(7) PERSON LICENSING CONDITION (PLC): An interpretable1st/2ndpersonfeaturemust
belicensedbyenteringintoanAgreerelationwithafunctionalcategory.
175
Since the lower argument(DP in (6)) agreesonly with a numberprobe, that DP can only be third
ACC
person. If the lower DP were first or second person, the derivationwould violate the PLC and crash,
sincethe DPhasnotagreedwitha personprobe.2 Thus,duetothePLC, the StrongPCCariseswhen
“twoelements[enter]intoasyntacticrelationwithasingleAGRhead,thefirstoneforpersonandthe
secondfornumber”(Béjar&Rezac,2003:49).
AfteranintroductiontoSenayainthefollowingsection,wewillseedatain§4thatarereminiscent
oftheStrongPCC,butappearinprogressivetransitives. WewillarguethatthisisindeedaPCCeffect,
amenabletotreatmentsimilartothatofthecanonicalditransitivePCCeffectsdiscussedinthissection.
3. Senaya: Basicsyntax
In this section, we introduce basic Senaya grammar and show that ϕ-agreement is a necessary
componentofargumentlicensingin Senaya. We thenpresentthe structuresproposedby Kalin & van
Urk(2012b)fortheperfectiveandimperfective,whichweadoptandexpanduponin§4.
3.1.Aspectualbasesandϕ-agreement
Senaya is an SOV language which, characteristic of Semitic languages, uses ‘root and pattern’
morphology.Therearetwobasicaspectualbases,theperfectiveandtheimperfective. Forexample,the
triliteralrootfor‘sleep’,dmx,isrealizedasdmexintheperfectiveanddaamxintheimperfective.
Additional(concatenative)morphologythatcanbeaddedontotheseverbbasesincludesagreement
markingandtheauxiliary‘be’(inprogressives,§4).Agreementtrackssubjectsanddefinite/pronominal
objects, and has a (superficial, at least) NOM/ACC alignment in both the perfective and imperfective,
inthatthesamesetofsuffixesmarksbothtransitiveandintransitivesubjects,whileobjectsaretreated
uniquely.Therearetwosetsofagreementmorphemes–theso-calledS-suffixesandL-suffixes:
(8) a. S-SUFFIXSERIES b. L-SUFFIXSERIES
1SGM -en 1PL -ox 1SG -lii 1PL -lan
1SGF -an 2SGM -lox 2PL -looxon
2SGM -et 2PL -iiton 2SGF -lax
2SGF -at 3SGM -lee 3PL -luu/lun
3SGM -Ø 3PL -ii 3SGF -laa
3SGF -a
TherearenocasedistinctionsonDPsinSenaya,soagreementisourwindowintoargumentalignment.
Theagreementparadigmsinteractinafixedmannerwiththebase’saspect,resultinginaninteresting
aspect-basedagreementsplit(Kalin&vanUrk,2012). Ontheperfectiveverbbase,thereisexactlyone
slotforagreement,anL-suffixslot,markingthetransitiveorintransitivesubject(agreementbolded):
(9) a. Axniidmex-lan. INTRANSITIVE PERF.
we sleep.PERF-1PL.L
‘Weslept.’
b. Axniixa ksuutaksuu-lan. TRANSITIVE PERF., INDEF. OBJ.
we onebook write.PERF-1PL.L
‘Wewroteabook.’
Theimperfectivebasehastwopotentialslotsforagreement,anS-suffixslotfollowedbyanL-suffix
slot. SubjectsarenowmarkedwithS-suffixes,(10a-b),whileobjectsaremarkedwithL-suffixeswhen
theyaredefinite/pronominal,(10b):
(10) a. Axniidamx-ox. INTRANSITIVE IMPERF.
we sleep.IMPF-1PL.S
‘Wesleep.’
2 OtherplacesthePLChasbeeninvokedareinaccountsofperson-basedsplit-ergativityandperson-conditioned
auxiliary selection (Coon & Preminger, 2011) as well as properties of the Kichean Agent-Focus construction
(Preminger,2011).
176
b. Axniioo ksuutakasw-ox-laa. TRANSITIVE IMPERF., DEF. OBJ.
we thatbook write.IMPF-1PL.S-3SGF.L
‘Wewritethatbook(fem.).’
Senaya’saspect-basedagreementsplitisschematizedin(11):3,4
(11) AGREEMENTALIGNMENT
Intheperfective,subjectstriggeragreementasanL-suffix. Intheimperfective,L-suffixesmarkobjects
insteadofsubjects. Finally,theS-suffixseriessurfacesuniquelytomarksubjectsintheimperfective.
InSenaya,ϕ-agreementseemstoberequiredforargument-licensing.Theperfectiveverbbase,with
itssingleagreementslot,cannotgrammaticallyappearwithadefiniteobject,nomatterhowonetriesto
restructuretheagreementmorphologyontheperfectivebase:
(12) *Axniioo ksuutaksuu(-laa/-a)-lan(-laa/-a).
we thatbook write.PERF(-3SGF.L/S)-1PL.L(-3SGF.L/S)
‘Wewrotethatbook(fem.).’
Itisnotgrammaticalfora definiteobjecttosimplynottriggeragreement,norcanagreementwith the
object surface as an S- or L-suffix either before or after subject agreement, -lan (1pl.L). It is also not
possibleforthesingleagreementmorphemetomarktheobjectinsteadofthesubject(notshownhere).5
Theungrammaticalityofusingtheperfectivebasewithadefiniteobjectseemstoreducetothefact
that the perfectivebase cannothost agreementwith an object. The imperfectivebase appearsin stark
contrast–itcanagreewithanobject,andaccordinglyitcanappearwithadefiniteobject,aswasseen
in(10b). Wepursuethisfurtheronatheoreticallevelinthefollowingsection.6
3.2.Thesyntaxoftheperfectiveandimperfective
To account for the fact that subjects and definite objects must trigger agreement to be licensed
(establishedabove),weproposethatthefollowingconditionholdsinSenaya:
3 ThisfigurewasinspiredbyKevinRyan.
4 The transitive perfective thus construed looks like an antipassive (since the object seems to be demoted, i.e.,
mustbeindefiniteandcannottriggeragreement),whilethetransitiveimperfectiveistheregular(non-antipassive)
configuration. However,thiscannotbeso,sincetheagreementconfigurationchangesfromtheimperfectivetothe
perfectiveinintransitivesaswell;intransitivesshouldn’tbeabletobeantipassivized.TheagreementsplitinSenaya,
then,isnottheresultofantipassivizationfromtheimperfectivetotheperfective.
5 How,then,doesaspeakerexpressperfectivesentencesthathaveadefiniteobject? Thelanguageallowsforthe
imperfectivebasetobeusedinjustthesecases,sinceitcanhostobjectagreement. Aperfectiveinterpretationof
theimperfectivebaseisachievedthroughtheprefixtm-,whichseemstoindicatethattheimperfectivestructurehas
been‘hijacked’bytheperfectiveforargument-licensing(hencetheglossHIJbelow).Thisisshownin(i),cf.(10b):
(i) Axniioo ksuutatm-kasw-ox-laa.
we thatbook HIJ-write.IMPF-1PL.S-3SGF.L
‘Wewrotethatbook(fem.).’
Anaccountofthisconstructionisbeyondthescopeofthispaper.
6 WefollowKalinandvanUrk(2012)inassumingthatindefiniteobjectspseudo-incorporateintotheverbasNPs
(Dayal,2011;Massam,2001),andthereforeareexemptfromthelicensingrequirementsonDPs.
177
(13) ARGUMENT-LICENSING CONDITION (ALC): Every argumentDP must enter into an
Agreerelationwithauniqueϕ-probe.
ApplyingtheALC,theremustbeexactlyoneϕ-probeintheperfective(sinceonlyoneargumentDPcan
belicensed),andintheimperfective,theremustbetwoϕ-probes(twoargumentDPscanbelicensed).7
A syntactic account of the perfective and imperfective that is compatible with our proposal is
presented in Kalin & van Urk (2012b). Kalin and van Urk derive Senaya’s aspect split by positing
thatthereis a single ϕ-probein theperfective,whichis onT andwhosespell-outis anL-suffix, (14).
Intheimperfective,(15),thereis anadditionalϕ-probe,whichisonAspandwhosespell-outisanS-
suffix. Inaddition,KalinandvanUrkpositamovementsteptospec-TPintheimperfectivetoallowT
toprobetheobjectunhindered(followingsimilarproposalsbyHolmberg&Hróarsdóttir(2003),Anand
&Nevins(2006),Legate(2008),Preminger(2011),i.a.). Thestructurestheyproposeareshownbelow.
(14) PERFECTIVE (15) IMPERFECTIVE
TP TP
T AspP
ϕ-probe DPsubj T’
(L-suffix)
Asp vP
T AspP
DPsubj v′ (ϕL--spuroffibxe)
Asp vP
v VP ϕ-probe
(S-suffix) t v′
V (NP) subj
v VP
V DPobj
Intheperfective,thesubjectDPsatisfiestheALC,(13),byagreeingwithT;agreementwiththesubjectis
thereforespelledoutasanL-suffix;therecanbenoDPobjectintheperfective,sincethereisnoϕ-probe
to license it. In the imperfective, the subject DP satisfies the ALC by agreeing with Asp; agreement
withthesubjectisthereforespelledoutasanS-suffix. Finally,thesubjectraisestospec-TP,makingit
possibleforTtoagreewiththeobjectDPandresultinginanL-suffixmarkingobjectagreement.
Inthenextsection,wepresentthecomplexitiesoftheprogressiveandshowthatthemovementof
thesubjecttospec-TP(positedbyKalin&vanUrk(2012))makesthecorrectpredictionswithrespect
tothedefectiveinterventionthatarisesintheprogressive.
4. Senaya: Progressives
ProgressivesinSenayarevealanalternationinvolvingthepositionofobjectagreementintheverbal
complex.Wearguethattheperson-basedrestrictionsonthisalternationaresymptomaticofthePCC.
4.1.Personrestrictionsinprogressives
Progressivesdisplayacomplexagreementpattern. Toformaprogressive,theimperfectivebaseis
usedplusanencliticauxiliary‘be’(-y/ii/∅)8whichcomeswithitsownagreementslot,paradigmin(16).
Thisparadigmisunusualbecausefornon-thirdperson,theauxiliaryinflectswithS-suffixes(unbolded
forms),andforthirdperson,theauxiliaryinflectswithL-suffixes(boldedforms).
7 Weincludethespecificationof“unique”in(13)toruleoutasingleϕ-probelicensingmorethanoneargument,
àlaMultipleAgree(Anagnostopoulou(2005),Nevins(2007),i.a.),whichwouldmakeitveryhardtoexplainthe
inabilityoftheperfectiveverbbasetolicenseagreementwithadefiniteobject,(12).
8 We take the auxiliary to be -y underlyingly, but in the third person it is vocalized to -ii, since it is before a
consonant,andthisdeletesfollowingavowel.
178
(16) AUXILIARY + INFLECTION
1SGM y-en 1PL y-ox
1SGF y-an
2SGM y-et 2PL y-iiton
2SGF y-at
3SGM (ii)-lee 3PL (ii)-luu
3SGF (ii)-laa
Inprogressiveintransitives(ortransitiveswithanindefiniteobject),thesubjectagreestwice–once
ontheimperfectiveverbbase(withanS-suffix,asusual),andonceontheauxiliary(suffixfrom(16)).
(17) a. Axniidamx-ox=y-ox.
we sleep.IMPF-1PL.S=be-1PL.S
‘Wearesleeping.’
b. Aaniixa ksuutakasw-ii=∅-luu.
they onebook write.IMPF-3PL.S=be-3PL.L
‘Theyarewritingabook.’
Dueto(16),thetwoinstancesofsubjectagreementmatchinnon-thirdpersonbutnotinthirdperson.
Inprogressivetransitives(withadefiniteobject),therearethreewaysfortheverbalcomplextobe
structured.First,thesubjectcanagreetwice(justlikeitdidin(17)),whileobjectagreementisaddedto
theverbbaseandismarkedwithanL-suffix,asisnormalontheimperfectivebase;thisisshownin(18a).
Second, differingminimally fromthe previousstructure, the auxiliarymay host a defaultthird person
agreementmorpheme(-lee,3SGM.L)insteadofsubjectagreement;thisisshownin(18b).Finally,again
differingminimallyfromthepreviousstructure,thedefaultagreementmorphemeandobjectagreement
canswitchplaces,suchthatobjectagreementappearsontheauxiliaryanddefaultagreementappearson
theverbbase,intheL-suffixslot,(18c). (Inthefollowingexamples,subjectagreementisbolded,object
agreementisboldedanditalicized,anddefaultagreementisplainitalicized.)
(18) a. Aanamaxy-an-aa=y-an.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-3SGF.L=be-1SGF.S
‘I(fem.)amhittingher.’
b. Aanamaxy-an-aa=∅-lee.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-3SGF.L=be-DFLT.L
c. Aanamaxy-an-ee=∅-laa.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-DFLT.L=be-3SGF.L
Thethreeverbalcomplexesin(18)areinfreevariation,anddonotgenerallyeffectachangeinmeaning.9
However,thevariationintheverbalcomplexisrestrictedwithanon-thirdpersonobject.Comparing
withtheutterancesin(18),respectively,wehavethefollowingexampleswithanon-thirdpersonobject:
(19) a. Aanamaxy-an-ax=y-an.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-2SGF.L=be-1SGF.S
‘I(fem.)amhittingyou(fem.).’
b. Aanamaxy-an-ax=ii-lee.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-2SGF.L=be-DFLT.L
c. *Aanamaxy-an-ee=y-at/lax.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-DFLT.L=be-2SGF.S/L
Just as with a third person object, (19a)and (19b)are grammatical, where objectagreementis on the
verbbaseandsubjectagreementiseitherdoubled,(19a),orappearsonlyontheverbbasewhiledefault
agreement appears on the auxiliary, (19b). Interestingly, however, (19c) – the variant where object
9 Ourconsultantsometimestellsusthatthedifferentversionsof(18)and(19)conveyadifferentamountofspeaker
certainty. However,wehavefounditdifficulttofindaconsistentgeneralizationaboutwheremore/lesscertaintyis
conveyed;itseemstovaryidiosyncratically. Wethereforeputthisissueasideforthepurposesofthispaper.
179
agreementappearsontheauxiliary–isungrammatical.(Thiswasalsoshownin(1)intheintroduction.)
Thegeneralizationthatarisesisthatnon-thirdpersonobjectscannottriggeragreementontheauxiliary.
Beforewe moveontoasyntacticaccountofthisphenomenon,letusreviewthecrucialempirical
observations. First, DP arguments must trigger ϕ-agreement to be licensed (§3.1), as reflected in the
ALC,(13). DPobjectscan,in principle,triggeragreementeitherontheverbbaseorontheauxiliary:
(18b) and (18c). Crucially, the progressive auxiliary is able to host first or second person agreement,
so long as it is agreement with a subject: (17), (18a), and (19a). However, the auxiliary cannot host
non-thirdpersonagreementwithanobject:(27)/(2b).
4.2.Syntacticinterventionintheprogressive
The big puzzle we seek to explain is why a non-third person object cannot trigger agreement on
the progressive auxiliary. A purely morphological account of this restriction would not be able to
adequately explain why the auxiliary can morphologically host non-third person agreement (namely,
with a subject), but not non-third person object agreement; this would be especially hard to explain
morphologically given that both subject and object agreement on the auxiliary draw from a single
morphological paradigm, (16). It is therefore more likely that there is a syntactic, structural reason
forthisrestriction,whichisexactlytheideapursuedinthissection.
Giventhattheprogressivebuildson theimperfectivebase(includingits twoagreementslots – an
S-suffixslotforsubjectagreementwhichisfollowedbyanL-suffixslotwhenthereisanobjectDP),we
takethestructureoftheimperfectiveasproposedbyKalin&vanUrk(2012)in(15)toformthebasis
oftheprogressive. Webuildonthisstructurebyaddinganotherfunctionalheadwithaϕ-probe,which
wecallAuxP.WeaddthissyntacticallyontopoftheimperfectiveTPsincetheauxiliaryappearsoutside
theimperfectiveverbbaseandallofitsassociatedmorphology.
Webeginbypresentingthestructureforanintransitiveprogressive. WebuildtheimperfectiveTP
asusual,thenaddAux/AuxP,whichcarriesaϕ-probe.10
(20) INTRANSITIVE PROGRESSIVE
AuxP
Aux ...
ϕ-probe
... TP
DPsubj T’
T AspP
ϕ-probe
(L-suffix) Asp vP
ϕ-probe
t v′
(S-suffix) subj
v VP
V
Thesubjectagreeswith Asp whilein spec-vP,thenraisesto spec-TPandagreesagainwith Aux. Itis
clearfromthisderivationthatwhileagreementisanecessarycomponentofargument-licensing,asper
theALC,agreementcanalsooccursuperfluously(i.e.,whennotrequiredforlicensing): thesubjectin
(20)satisfieditsneedtoagreeinspec-vPbutalsoagreesinitsraisedposition,spec-TP.
10 Wedonotpursueananalysiswherethesubjectisgeneratedinspec-AuxP(andcontrolsalowerPRO)orraisesto
spec-AuxPbecausewealreadyhaveevidencethatAuxcanagreedownwardswithalowerargument,e.g.,thedirect
object,(18c).Further,thesubjectservesasanintervenerintheprobingofAux,aswillbediscussedbelow.
180
By adopting Béjar & Rezac’s (2003) proposal (§2) that ϕ-probes split into separate person and
number probes, we can make a generalization about the mixed agreement paradigm of the auxiliary,
(16). Taking non-third person features to be privative (following Béjar & Rezac (2009), Preminger
(2011),i.a.),wecansaythatif[π]agreeswithaDPthatcarriesa[participant]feature(trueoffirstand
secondpersonDPsonly),thenagreementspellsoutasanS-suffix;otherwise,agreementspellsoutasan
L-suffix.Wetakethistohavenofurtherconsequencesinthesyntax.
Weturnnowtoprogressivetransitives,whicharesignificantlymorecomplex.Theverbalcomplexin
progressivetransitivescanberealizedinthreewaysforthirdpersonobjects,aswasseenin(18):(i)with
doubledsubjectagreement,(18a);(ii)withobjectagreementontheverbbase,anddefaultagreementon
Aux,(18b);(iii)withobjectagreementonAux,anddefaultagreementontheverbbase,(18c).
Thefirstofthese(doubledsubjectagreement),(18a)/(19a),hasthefollowingverbalcomplex:
(21) V.IMPF-AGR.S(SUBJ)-AGR.L(OBJ)=AUX-AGR(SUBJ).
Thisisrelativelyeasytoaccountfor:thestructurelooksjustlikethatoftheintransitivein(20),withthe
additionofanobjectthattriggersagreementontheimperfectiveverbbasejustasitdidin(15).
(22) TRANSITIVE, DOUBLED SUBJECT AGREEMENT
AuxP
Aux ...
ϕ-probe
... TP
DPsubj T’
T AspP
ϕ-probe
(L-suffix)
Asp vP
ϕ-probe
(S-suffix) t v′
subj
v VP
V DPobj
ThesubjectagreeswithAspandAux;theobjectagreeswithanunhinderedprobeonT,justlikeinan
imperfective.Thereisnorestrictiononthepersonoftheobject,justasthereisnotinaplainimperfective.
Toderivethesecondtwopossibilities–bothofwhichinvolvetheappearanceofadefaultagreement
morpheme,-lee(3SGM.L)–weneedanadditionalstipulation: Senayaallowsforadummyϕ-probeto
mergeonTandAuxinprogressivetransitives,preventingthatheadfromprobing.11 Withthisstipulation
inplace,wecanseethattheϕ-probeonAuxin(22)isnot,strictlyspeaking,requiredforlicensing;the
DPthatAuxagreeswith–thesubject–hasalreadysatisfiedtheALCbyagreeingwithAsp.
SinceAuxisnotneededforlicensing,-leecanmergeonAux(preventingitfromprobing)tocreate
theverbalcomplexin(23)(from(18b)/(19b)),derivedsyntacticallyin(24).
(23) V.IMPF-AGR.S(SUBJ)-AGR.L(OBJ)=AUX-AGR(DFLT)
11 WewouldliketothankAmyRoseDealforsuggestingthispossibilitytous.Whatisneededhereisamechanism
forstoppingtheprobingofAuxorTinjustthosecaseswheredefault-leesurfaces.Itwouldnotbesufficienttosay
that-leesurfaceswhenAuxorTprobesandfindsnothingtoagreewith,sinceweseeempiricallythatarguments
thathavealreadybeenagreedwithcanbere-probed,e.g.,inthecaseofdoubledsubjectagreementin(18a).BothT
andAuxc-commandatleastoneDPin(24)/(26),soiftheyweretoprobe,theywouldfindaDPtoagreewith.
181
(24) TRANSITIVE, DEFAULTAGREEMENT ONAUX
AuxP
Aux ...
-lee
... TP
DPsubj T’
T AspP
ϕ-probe
(L-suffix)
Asp vP
ϕ-probe
(S-suffix) t v′
subj
v VP
V DPobj
With-leemergedonAux,alltheDPsinthestructurearestillabletobelicensed:thesubjectagreeswith
AspandtheobjectagreeswithT.Again,asin(22),thereisnorestrictiononthepersonoftheobjectin
thesecases,sinceTisunhinderedonitspathtoprobingtheobject.
Finally, the ϕ-probe on T is also not strictly necessary for licensing, so long as Aux remains a
licenser. Thus,thedummyϕ-probe-leecanmergeonT,(26).Thisderivestheverbalcomplexin(25).
(25) V.IMPF-AGR.S(SUBJ)-AGR.L(DFLT)=AUX-AGR(OBJ)
(26) TRANSITIVE, DEFAULTAGREEMENT ONT
AuxP
Aux ...
ϕ-probe
... TP
DPsubj T’
T AspP
-lee
Asp vP
ϕ-probe
(S-suffix) t v′
subj
v VP
V DPobj
Inthisderivation–unlikeallthepreviousones–thepathofagreementofAuxonitswaytotheobject
crossesoveranotherDP,thesubject. Additionally,itisinthisverbalcomplex/derivationthatthereisa
restrictionoftheobjecttothirdperson((27),repeatedbelow):
182
(27) *Aanamaxy-an-ee=y-at/lax.
I hit.IMPF-1SGF.S-DFLT.L=be-2SGF.S/L
Intended:‘I(fem.)amhittingyou(fem.).’
Theco-occurrenceoftheseobservations–namely,thatagreementin(27)crossesoverthesubjectand
thattheobjectinsuchaderivationislimitedtothirdperson–isnotcoincidental.Rather,weproposethat
therestrictiontothirdpersonisadirectresultofdefectiveinterventionbythealready-licensedsubject
ontheprobe’spathtolicensingtheobject.Weexplorethisfurtherinthefollowingsection.
4.3.PCCanalysis
The licensing configurationin (26) looks just like a PCC configuration. In (28), we compare the
canonicalPCC(twointernalarguments),(28b),tothe(simplified)derivationof(26),(28a).
(28) a. SENAYAPCC b. CANONICAL PCC
Aux v
DP DP
subj DPobj ... DAT DPACC ...
Inboth,theprobecrossesoveranalready-licensedDP,andthusthelowerDPisrestrictedtothirdperson.
ThepersonrestrictioninSenayaisalsoamenabletotheoreticaltreatmentasaPCCconfiguration,
alongthelinesofBéjar&Rezac(2003),presentedin§2. InordertofullyaccountforthePCCeffectin
Senaya,weneedtoaddthePLCtotheALC,bothrepeatedbelow.
(29) PERSON LICENSING CONDITION (PLC):Aninterpretable1st/2ndpersonfeaturemust
belicensedbyenteringintoanAgreerelationwithafunctionalcategory.
(30) ARGUMENT-LICENSING CONDITION (ALC): Every argumentDP must enter into an
Agreerelationwithauniqueϕ-probe.
ThePLC,(29),picksoutasubsetoftheDPspickedoutby(30),namely,first/secondpersonargument
DPs. ThissubsetofDPsnowmustnotonlyenterintoanagreerelation(aspertheALC),butalsomust
havetheirpersonfeatureschecked(bya[π]probe);thirdpersonDPs,ontheotherhand,canbelicensed
byenteringintoanyagreerelationatall(witha[π]or[#]probe).
Wecannowmakesenseofthefactthatnon-thirdpersonobjectDPsinprogressivetransitivescannot
belicensedviaagreementontheAux.AgreementfromAuxcrossesoveranotherDP,thesubject,which
actsasadefectiveintervener,usingupthe[π]probeandonlyallowing[#]toreachtheobject.
(31)
Aux
[π][#] DP
subj
DP ...
obj
DuetothePLC,theobjectcannotbefirstorsecondpersoninsuchcases.
The question now arises as to why [#] on Aux is allowed to probe past the subject in (31). In
canonicalPCC configurations,the higherargumentis clitic doubled,resultingin invisibilityto further
probing(Anagnostopoulou,2003;Béjar&Rezac,2003). Wedonotseeanovertcliticrepresentingthe
higherargument(thesubject)inthePCCconfigurationinSenaya,ararityamonginstancesofthePCC.
However,wenonethelessstipulatethatthereisacovert/nullsubjectcliticinjustthesecases.12
12 WerecognizethatthisisastipulativewaytoderiveSenaya’sPCCeffect. However,theconfigurationinSenaya
inwhichthereisarestrictiontothirdpersonlooksjustlikethecanonicalPCC,(28),makingitundesirabletoappeal
todifferenttheoreticalaccountsofthetwophenomena. Weleaveitasanopenquestionwhetheroursistheright
analysis,orwhether(perhaps)thereisanotherwayforthesubjectDPtobecomeinvisibletofurtherprobing. One
potentialpieceofsupportforouranalysiscomesfromthefactthatseveralclosely-relatedNeo-Aramaiclanguages
dohaveclitics,arguablygeneratedthroughagreementwithaclitic-doubling[π]probe(Kalin&vanUrk,2012a).