Extraction Competition in Ergative and Accusative Languagesfaculty.washington.edu/aldr/pdf/CamCoS.pdf · Extraction Competition in Ergative and Accusative Languages ... Proposal:

1

Cambridge Comparative Syntax

University of Cambridge

2017/5/4-6

Extraction Competition in Ergative and Accusative Languages

Edith Aldridge, University of Washington

1. Introduction

In many ergative languages, only the nominative/absolutive DP can undergo movement.

Tagalog ergative alignment

(1) a. D<um>ating ang babae. (Intransitive)

<INTR.PRV>arrive NOM/ABS woman

‘The woman arrived.’

b. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda. (Transitive)

<TR.PRV>buy GEN/ERG woman NOM/ABS fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

Direct object extracts in transitive clause, but not external argument

(2) a. isda-ng b<in>ili ng babae (Transitive object: OK)

fish-LK <TR.PRV>buy GEN woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

b. *babae-ng b<in>ili ang isda (Transitive subject: *)

woman-ng <TR.PRV>buy NOM fish

‘woman who bought the fish’

c. babae-ng d<um>ating (Intransitive subject: OK)

woman-LK <INTR.PRV>-arrive

‘woman who arrived’

Proposal: Correlate extraction with structural case licensing.1

(3) Extraction Competition

DPs move only to case positions.

1 This proposal builds on the widely held views that absolutive case is equivalent to nominative (Bok-Bennema 1991;

Murasugi 1992; Campana 1992; Bittner 1994; Bittner & Hale 1996a, b; Manning 1996; Ura 2000) and that

nominative case assignment is related to the extraction asymmetry in Austronesian and/or syntactically ergative

languages (Schachter & Otanes 1972, Bell 1983, Campana 1992, Guilfoyle et al. 1992, Kroeger 1993, Coon et al.

2014 and others). See also Keenan & Comrie (1977) for the observation that only one grammatical function in a

language can undergo relativization, it must be the subject. See also Deal (2016) for a different approach to tying

extraction privilege to a particular type of case. In this analysis, probes on C are sensitive to the type of case valued

on a DP, with “unmarked case” (in the sense of Marantz 1991, Bobaljik 2008) being the most accessible.

2

Consequences:

=> DPs move only to a phase edge.

=> Movement of the nominative DP is free, proceeds directly to [Spec, CP].

=> Movement of a DP over the external argument is possible only when the external argument is

licensed with inherent case.

Implications for UG: => The need to case license a DP is universal.

=> Other features, e.g. [uWH], might not be universally available on C.

=> A/A’ partition is not universal.

=> “Syntactic ergativity” (the absolutive/nominative extraction restriction) need not be limited to

languages with ergative alignment.

2. Extraction-Competition in Ergative Languages

2.1. Theoretical background

Chomsky (2008 and subsequent work) C-T Inheritance:

1. All uninterpretable features on T are inherited from C.

2. C passes [uɸ] to T. [uɸ] case licenses the subject and forces it to move to [Spec, TP].

3. C retains other features like [uWH] to allow wh-movement over the subject.

(4) a. What did you buy?

b. CP

DP[WH, ACC] C’

|

what C[uWH] TP

did

DP[NOM] T’

|

you T[uɸ] vP

<DP[WH, ACC]> v’

DP[NOM] v’

v VP

V <DP[WH, ACC]>

buy

C-T Inheritance is not universal (Ouali 2006; Gallego 2014; Legate 2014; Martinović 2015;

Erlewine 2016; Aldridge 2017)

3

Condition on C-T Inheritance

(5) C-T Inheritance is a consequence of the need to project a second specifier of C/T.



Consequences

=> No A/A’ partition for the purposes of DP dislocation; all DP movement targets phase edges.

=> Strict locality in all cases of DP dislocation

=> Subject movement to [Spec, CP] to value NOM.

=> Objects cannot move over NOM subjects.

=> Movement of a DP over the external argument is possible only when the external argument is

licensed with inherent case.

2.2. Analysis of syntactic ergativity

Extraction Competition => Movement of the DP which checks nominative case

=> Inherent case on external argument allows object to value nominative case and move over the

subject.

NOM object extracts in transitive clause, but not external argument

(7) a. isda-ng b<in>ili ng babae (Transitive object: OK)



b. *babae-ng b<in>ili ang isda (Transitive subject: *)

woman-ng <TR.PRV>buy NOM fish

‘woman who bought the fish’

4

c. CP IA values NOM with C.

DP[NOM] C’

C[NOM] AspP

V+v+Asp vP

<DP[uCASE]> v’ EA receives inherent case2; cannot value probe on C.

DP[GEN] v’

<V+v> VP

<V> <DP[uCASE]>

EA extracts in intransitive/antipassive clause, but not direct object

(8) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda. (Antipassive clause)

<INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

b. babae-ng b<um>ili ng isda (Intransitive subject: OK)

woman-LK <INTR.PRV>buy GEN fish

‘woman who bought a/the fish’

c. *isda-ng b<um>ili ang babae (AP object: *)

fish-LK <INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman


d. CP EA values NOM with C.

DP[NOM] C’

C[NOM] AspP

V+v+Asp vP No inherent case for EA when v is intransitive.

<DP[uCASE]> v’

<V+v> VP

Point: Only the DP with an unvalued case feature can move to [Spec, CP].

=> This will be the NOM DP; only the NOM DP can undergo movement.

2 See Mahajan (1989), and Woolford (1997, 2006), Legate (2002, 2008), for other proposals that ergative case is

inherent case assigned to the external argument in [Spec, vP]. Aldridge (2004, 2008) specifically limits the

availability of ergative case to transitive v.

5

2.3. Supporting evidence

2.3.1. Austronesian languages lack A-movement (as distinct from A’-movement)

No A-movement to subject position.

=> No fixed position for NOM DP; basic word order follows the thematic hierarchy

Tagalog

(9) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda. (Antipassive)

<TR.PRV>buy NOM woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought (a) fish.’

b. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda kay Huan. (Transitive)

<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman NOM fish DAT Juan

‘The woman bought the fish from Juan.’

c. B<in>ilh-an ng babae ng isda si Huan.

<TR.PRV>buy-APPL GEN woman GEN fish NOM Juan

‘The woman bought a/the fish from Juan.’ (Applicative)

Nominative case is valued on DP in situ, but it still has properties of a topic.3

(10) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy GEN woman NOM fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

b. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<INTR.PRV>buy NOM woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a/*the fish.’

2.3.2. Successive-cyclic “A-movement”

Long distance movement must target each subject position

Sundanese (Davies & Kurniawan 2013: 114-5)

(11) a. Mobil naon nu di-anggap ku Ali [(nu) kakara di-beuli __ ku Hasan]?

car what REL PV-assume by Ali REL recently PV-buy by Hasan

‘What car did Ali assume Hasan had recently bought?’

(lit: ‘What car was assumed by Ali to have been bought by Hasan?’)

b. *Mobil naon nu Ali ng-anggap [(nu) kakara di-beuli __ ku Hasan]?

car what REL Ali AV-assume REL recently PV-buy by Hasan


c. *Mobil naon nu di-anggap ku Ali [(nu) Hasan kakara meuli __ ]?

car what REL PV-assume by Ali REL Hasan recently AV-buy


DP movement always targets the phase edge:

=> Multiple movements through case positions should be allowed.

3 Richards (2000) analyzes absolutives in Tagalog as topics that move covertly to [Spec, CP].

6

(12) [CP DPNOM [C’[NOM] … [CP DPNOM [C’[NOM] … <DP[uCASE]> … ]]

2.3.3. Lack of Superiority Effects

Superiority Effects in English:

=> [uWH] on C attracts the closest wh-phrase.

(13) a. Who bought what?

b.??What did who buy?

c. C/TP

DP[WH, NOM] C/T’

C/T[uɸ], [uWH] vP

<DP[WH, NOM]> v’

v √P

√ DP[WH, ACC]

Tagalog: Either subject or object can be extracted in multiple wh-questions.

=> Extraction depends on valuation of NOM, not on [uWH].

Tagalog

(14) a. Sino ang b<um>ili ng ano?

who NOM <INTR.PRV>buy GEN what

‘Who bought what?’

b. Ano ang b<in>ili nino?

what NOM <TR.PRV>buy who.GEN

‘What did who buy?’

2.3.4. Austronesian languages lack morphological evidence of WH-features

Morphological evidence for [WH] in English:

=> who, what, where, when, why

Tagalog nominal interrogative words have a D component, not WH. (Blust 2015; Kaufman, to

appear)

(15) a. sino ‘who.NOM.PN’ si Maria ‘NOM.PN Maria’

b. ano ‘what.NOM.CN’ a-ng guro ‘NOM.CN teacher’

c. nino ‘who.GEN.PN’ ni Maria ‘GEN.PN Maria’

7

Locative/dative interrogative words also appear to begin with oblique or prepositional case

markers.

(16) a. sa-an ‘where’ sa Maynila ‘in Manila’

b. ka-nino ‘to whom’ kay Maria ‘to Maria’

Other adjunct interrogative words: No unifying ‘wh’ morpheme

(17) a. kailan ‘when’

b. bakit ‘why’

c. ilan ‘how many’

Summary of Syntactic Ergativity:

=> Free movement of NOM DP

=> Strict locality for DP movement

=> No evidence for A’-movement independent of case-driven movement for DPs

=> Inherent case on ERG DP allows C/T to undergo Agree with the object.

3. Extraction Competition in Late Archaic Chinese (LAC; 5th-3rd centuries BCE)

Evidence of Extraction Competition:

Strict locality for DP-movement

No A/A’ partition

Nominalized object relative clauses; inherent case to subject if object extracts

3.1. Topicalization

Object topicalization in modern Mandarin:

Object movement to clause-initial position, leaving a gap in VP.

(18) a. 我很喜歡音樂。

Wo hen xihuan yinyue.

I very like music

‘I like music.’

b. 音樂，我很喜歡。

Yinyue, wo hen xihuan __ .

music I very like

‘Music, I like.’ (Huang et al. 2009:199)

LAC: SVO basic word order; subjects move to clause-initial position.

(19) a. 鄭伯亦惡之。 (Zuozhuan, Xi 31)

Zheng bo yi __ wu zhi.

Zheng earl also dislike 3.OBJ

‘And the Earl of Zheng also disliked him.’

8

b. C/TP

DP[NOM] C/T’

Zheng Bo

C/T vP

<DP> v’

v VP

In LAC, topicalized objects had to be resumed by overt pronouns.

Object topics are base generated high; No feature allowing movement over the subject.

(20) a. 子路，人告之以有過。 (Mencius 3)

Zilu ren gao zhi yi you guo.

Zilu person tell 3.OBJ YI have error

‘Zilu, someone told him he made a mistake.’

b. 晉國，天下莫強焉。 (Mencius 1)

Jin Guo Tianxia mo qiang yan.

Jin nation world none strong 3.DAT

‘The Jin nation, in the world, none is stronger than them.’

c. C/TP

DPi C/TP

Jin Guo

DP[NOM] C/T’

Tianxia

C/T vP

<DP[NOM]> v’

v VP

V DPi

|

yan

3.2. Wh-movement

Wh-movement of any VP-internal element. But no movement over the subject.

(21) a. 吾誰欺?欺天乎？ (Analects, Zihan)

Wu shei [VP qi tshei ]? Qi tian hu?

I who deceive deceive Heaven Q

‘Who do I deceive? Do I deceive Heaven?’

9

b. 天下之父歸之，其子焉往？

Tianxia zhi fu gui zhi qi zi yan [VP wang tyan ]?

world Gen father settle here 3.Gen son where go

‘If the fathers of the world settled here, where would their sons go?’

(Mencius, Lilou 1)

Subject wh-words are higher than object wh-words.4

Object wh-words move to a clause-medial position below the subject.

(22) a. 誰將治之？ (Yanzi Chunqui, Neipian Jianshang13)

Shei jiang zhi zhi?

who will govern them

‘Who will govern them?’

b. 我將何求？ (Zuozhuan, Xi 28)

Wo jiang he qiu?

I will what ask:for

‘What will I ask for?’

Aldridge (2010): Object wh-movement to edge of vP

3.3. Relative clauses

Modern Mandarin

Both subject & object relatives formed on DE (<ZHE; Lü 1943, Ohta 1958, Cao 1986,

Feng 1990, and others).

In object relatives, subject moves to [Spec, TP] and values nominative case.

Operator moves from inside VP to [Spec, CP] over nominative subject.

(23) a. [Lisi mai de] shu

Lisi buy DE book

‘book which Lisi bought’

b. [mai shu de] ren

buy book DE person

‘person who bought the book’

LAC

Separate strategies for subject and object relativization:

=> Subject relativization: Gap in [Spec, CP] bound be determiner ZHE5

4 Wei (1999) first showed that object wh-words follow the modal jiang, while subject wh-words precede jiang. 5 See Williamson (1987), Kayne (1994), and others for proposals in which a determiner directly selects a relative

clause CP. See Basilico (1996) for an analysis of relative clauses in which the external determiner binds the head

position to derive a relative clause.

10

(24) a. 夫執輿者為誰？ (Analects, Weizi)

[DP Fu [nP [CP e [VP zhi yu]] zhe]] wei shei?

DEM control carriage DET COP who

‘Who is the one driving the carriage?’

b. 欲戰者 (Zuozhuan, Cheng 6)

[DP [CP e [VP yu zhan]] zhe]

desire fight DET

‘(those) who desire to fight’

c. DP

C/TP ZHEi

DP[NOM] C/T’

|

OPi C/T vP

<OP> v’

v VP

=> Object relativization: CP is nominalized; Subject with GEN case

=> Allows object movement over subject

(25) a. 其北陵，文王之所避風雨也。 (Zuozhuan, Xi 32)

Qi bei ling [Wen Wang zhi suo [VP bi feng yu __ ]] ye.

3.GEN north hill Wen king GEN REL escape wind rain COP

The north hill is [where the (Zhou) king Wen took shelter from the storm].

b. 人之所畏 (Laozi 20)

ren zhi suo wei __

person GEN REL fear

‘what people fear’

11

c. C/TP

OP C/T’

C/T vP

<OP> v’

DP[GEN] v’

ren zhi

SUO VP

V <OP>

wei

3.4. Lack of A/A’ distinction

LAC relativization targeted the closest structurally case licensed argument.

Subject of embedded clause extracted in object relative clause

(26) 凡所使治國家, 官府, 邑里， Fan [CP OP [vP suo [VP shi [TP tOP zhi guojia, guanfu, yili]]]]

generally REL make govern nation bureaucracy city

此皆國之賢者也。 (Mozi 9)

ci jie guo zhi xian zhe ye.

DEM all nation GEN wise DET COP

‘Those whom we make govern the nation, the bureaucracies, and the cities are

generally all among the wise people of the nation.’

EMC allows movement over structurally case licensed DP.

Object in embedded clause extracted over embedded subject

(27) 是所使夫百吏官人為也。 (Xunzi 11)

Shi [CP OP [vP suo [VP shi [TP [fu baili guanren] [vP wei tOP ]]]]] ye

DEM REL make DEM clerk official do COP

‘This is something which one makes those clerks and officials do.’

3.5. LAC summary

LAC objects could not move over a nominative subject.

Subjects had to have inherent (genitive) case to allow movement over them.

No evidence of A/A’ divide for DP dislocation

12

4. Conclusion

Parameter for ergative and accusative languages with the DP extraction asymmetry:



Accounts for:

No A/A’ partition in DP-movement

Free movement of nominative DPs

No object movement over a nominative subject

Object movement allowed only over a subject with inherent case

Ergative languages: ABS movement over ERG (ERG as inherent case)

Accusative languages: Object movement in nominalization (EA with GEN case)

Appendix: Other approaches to the extraction restriction

Locality Approach (Aldridge 2004, 2008; Coon et al. 2014)

Absolutive moves to a structurally prominent position, blocks ERG DP from moving.6

Tagalog

(1) a. isda-ng b<in>ili ng babae



b. CP

DP[NOM] C‘

C[EPP] AspP

V+v+Asp vP

DP[NOM] v’

DP[GEN] v’

<V+v>[EPP] VP

<V> <DP[NOM]>

Problem: Forces (covert) movement of nominative object

6 Campana (1992) proposes that the absolutive moves to [Spec, TP] to check nominative case.

13

Frozen Ergative Approach (Polinsky 2016)

If ergative case is prepositional, ERG DP cannot extract.

But: This cannot be true:

PPs are generally extractable.

Mam (England 1983:252)

(2) a. ma kub’ t-tx’ee7ma-n Kyel tzee7 [PP t-u7u maachit]

REC 3S.ABS.DIR 3S.ERG-cut-DS Miguel tree 3S-RN/INST machete

“Miguel cut the tree with a machete.”

b. [PP al u7u] x-kub’ t-tx’ee7ma-n Kyel tzee7

what RN/INST 3S.ABS.DIR 3S.ERG-cut-DS Miguel tree

‘With what did Miguel cut the tree?’

Case Discrimination Approach (Deal 2016)

Configurational approach to case assignment (Marantz 1991, McFadden 2004, Baker &

Vinokurova 2010, and others):

Assign “dependent case” only in the presence of an argument with “unmarked case”.

Accessibility for Agree (Bobaljik 2008):

Unmarked case < dependent case < lexical/oblique case

Extraction restriction: A’-movement requires Agree:

DP with unmarked case as the only potential goal

Problems: Uneconomical: Requires an additional step (Case assignment & discrimination)

What is meant by “unmarked” case? Many languages with the extraction restriction have

overt nominative case marking.

Is Agree really involved? Most languages with the extraction restriction do not have -

feature agreement. Agree with other features should not involve -features anyway

(Relativized Minimality!).

References

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation,

Cornell University.

Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative Approaches to Ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass:

Syntax and Morphology 2.5:966-995.

Aldridge, Edith. 2009. Old Chinese Determiner Zhe. In Paola Crisma, Giuseppe Longobardi

(eds.), Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, 233-248. Oxford University Press.

Aldridge, Edith. 2010. Clause-internal wh-movement in Archaic Chinese. Journal of East Asian

Linguistics 19(1):1-36.

Aldridge, Edith. 2013. Object Relative Clauses in Archaic Chinese. Canadian Journal of

Linguistics 58.2:239-265 (Special issue on relative clauses, ed. by Martha McGinnis).

14

Aldridge, Edith. 2016. Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and

Linguistics 17.1:27-62.

Aldridge, Edith. 2017. ϕ-Feature Competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction

restriction. Proceedings of the 52nd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 52, ed.

by Jessica Kantarovich, Tran Truong, Orest Xherija.

Baker, Mark and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: case in Sakha.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593-642.

Basilico, David. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language 73(3):

498-532.

Bell, Sarah. 1983. Advancements and Ascensions in Cebuano. In David Perlmutter, ed., Studies

in Relational Grammar, 143-218. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bittner, Maria and Ken Hale. 1996a. The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement.

Linguistic Inquiry 27:1-68.

Bittner, Maria and Ken Hale. 1996b. Ergativity: Toward a Theory of a Heterogeneous Class.

Linguistic Inquiry 27:531-604.

Blust, Robert. 2015. The case-markers of Proto-Austronesian. Oceanic Linguistics 54.2:436-491.

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a Post-Syntactic Operation. In Daniel

Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces

and Iodules, 295-328. Oxford University Press.

Bobaljik, Jonathan & Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory 23:809–865.

Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Foris Publications.

Bošcović, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more

Minimal Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38.4:589-644.

Campana, Mark. 1992. A Movement Theory of Ergativity. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.

Cao, Guangshun. 1986. Zutangji zhong de ‘di (di)’, ‘que (liao)’, ‘zhuo’ [‘di (di), ‘que (liao)’, and

‘zhuo’ in the Zutangji]. Zhongguo Yuwen 1986:192-202.

Carstens, Vicky. 2015. Delayed Valuation: A Reanalysis of Goal Features, “Upward”

Complementizer Agreement, and the Mechanics of Case. Syntax 19.1: 1-42.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in

Honor of J-R. Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chou, Fagao. 1962. Zhongguo gudai yufa: Gouci bian [Historical grammar of Ancient Chinese:

Morphology]. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of History and Philology.

Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger. 2014. The role of case in A’-extraction

asymmetries. Linguistic Variation 14.2:179-242.

Davies, William and Eri Kurniawan. 2013. Movement and locality in Sundanese wh-questions.

Syntax 16.2: 111-147.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Syntactic ergativity: Analysis and identification. Annual Review of

Linguisics 2016.2: 165-85.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59-138.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.

England, Nora. 1983. A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

15

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Multiple extraction and voice in Toba Batak. In Hiroki

Nomoto, Takuya Miyauchi, Asako Shiohara (eds.), The Proceedings of the 23th Meeting of

the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 81-95. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.

Gallego, Angel J. 2014. Deriving featuring inheritance from the copy theory of movement. The

Linguistic Review 31.1: 41-71.

Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung, and L. Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects in

Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10:375-414.

Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving Ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23:57-88.

Kaufman, Daniel. To appear. Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian. In Handbook of

Ergativity, ed. by Lisa Travis, Jessica Coon, and Diane Massam. Oxford University Press.

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.

Linguistic Inquiry 8.1:63-99.

Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Center

for the Study of Language and Information.

Legate, Julie. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55-101.

Legate, Julie. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mahajan, A. 1989. Agreement and agreement projections. In: Laka, I., Mahajan, A. (Eds.), MIT

Working papers in Linguistics, Vol. 10: Functional Heads and Clause Structure. MIT

Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, pp. 217-252.

Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations.

Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. In G. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R. Chae (eds.),

Proceedings of ESCOL ‘91, 234-253. Ohio State University: Cornell Linguistics Circle.

Martinović, Martina. 2015. Feature Geometry and Head-splitting: Evidence from the

morphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A study on the

syntax-morphology interface. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.

Murasugi, Kumiko G. 1992. Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movement in Accusative and

Ergative Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Ouali, Hamid. 2006. On C-to-T ɸ-transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in

Berber. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.),

Agreement Restrictions, 159-180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Polinsky, Maria. 2016. Deconstructing Ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their

features. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of

Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case

Study. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4:565-599.

Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another Look at Tagalog Subjects. In I. Paul, V. Phillips, L. Travis, eds.,

Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics, 105-116. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

16

Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: A reappraisal. In Alexander

Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History:

A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295-326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Ross, Malcolm. 2012. In defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language and

Linguistics 13.6:1253-1300.

Schachter, Paul. 1976. The Subject in Philippine Languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none

of the above. In Charles Li, ed., Subject and Topic, 491-518. New York: Academic Press.

Schachter, P. and Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan fanguages. Austronesian

Studies Relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-

an Ho, Chiu-yu Tseng, 683-726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Starosta, Stanley. 2001. Reduplication and the subgrouping of Formosan languages. Paper

presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues relating to

Taiwan, Academia Sinica. Published in Zeitoun (2009), 801-834.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The Evolution of Focus in

Austronesian. In Amram Halim, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm (eds.), Third International

Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics, C-75.

Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Wang, Li. 1958. Hanyu shigao. Reprinted in 2004. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

Wei, Pei-chuan. 1999. Lun Xian-Qin Hanyu Yunfu de Weizhi [On the Position of Operators in

Pre-Qin Chinese]. In A. Peyaube and C. Sun, eds., Linguistic Essays in Honor of Mei Tsu-lin:

Studies in Chinese Historical Syntax, 259-297. Paris: Center de Recherches Linguistiques sur

l Asie Orientale.

Williamson, Janis. 1987. An indefiniteness restriction for relative clauses in Lakhota. In The

Representation of (In)definites, ed. Eric Reuland and A.G.B. ter Meulen, 198-190.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Woolford, E. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 679-728.

Woolford, E. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37.1,

111-130.

Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2007. A Grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute

of Linguistics.

Documents

Extraction Competition in Ergative and Accusative Languagesfaculty.washington.edu/aldr/pdf/CamCoS.pdf · Extraction Competition in Ergative and Accusative Languages ... Proposal: