Linguistic Society of America

Dependencies between Grammatical SystemsAuthor(s): Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. DixonReviewed work(s):Source: Language, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 56-80Published by: Linguistic Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/417565 .Accessed: 17/03/2012 22:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/417565?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEMS

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural (functionally corresponding to both accusative singular and dative singular). We can then say that there is a DEPEN- DENCY between the number and case systems in this language, specifically that CASE DEPENDS ON NUMBER since the case choices that are available depend on the choice that is made from the number system.

We have gathered all the examples we could find of dependencies between the eight systems and examined the direction of dependencies. For some pairs of systems there is a one-way dependency; for instance, if there is a dependency between polarity (posi- tive versus negative) and case it is always case that depends on polarity, never the other way around. For other pairs the dependency can operate in one direction in one language and in the reverse direction in another. We have examples of case depending on number, and also number depending on case (but never in the same language, only in distinct languages). Putting together the full set of dependencies from our data reveals a hierarchy of dependencies between the systems. This helps to explain the way in which human language is intrinsically organized.

We have not restricted ourselves to a particular selection of languages. Rather, we

* For critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper, we owe a considerable debt to Mengistu Amberber, Felix Ameka, Wallace Chafe, Adam Chapman, Greville Corbett, Desmond Derbyshire, Mark Donohue, Matthew Dryer, Michael Dunn, Nicholas Evans, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Joseph Greenberg, Martin Haspel- math, Bemd Heine, George Hewitt, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Aet Joasoo, Harold Koch, Leonid Kulikov, Randy LaPolla, Ilse Lehiste, Winfred Lehmann, Frank Lichtenberk, Tony Liddicoat, Edith Moravcsik, Ulrike Mosel, Nicole Nau, Masayuki Onishi, Vladimir Plungian, Alan Rumsey, Tim Shopen, George Silnitsky, Luciana Storto, Tiit-Rein Viitso, Anna Wierzbicka, and especially Bernard Comrie. The research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council large grant to R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.

56

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD AND R. M. W. DIXON

Australian National University In some languages there are dependencies between grammatical systems, e.g. there may be

fewer tense choices in negative than in positive polarity. We examine the direction of dependencies between eight types of grammatical systems, and establish a dependency hierarchy. Polarity is at the top of the hierarchy-the choices available in another system may depend on polarity, but the possibility of positive/negative specification never depends on any of the other systems consid- ered here. Next come systems associated with the predicate (or perhaps with the clause as a whole): tense, aspect, and evidentiality. Next come systems associated with predicate arguments-person, reference classification (covering gender/noun class, classifiers, and human/nonhuman or animate/inanimate); then number. And finally case, which marks the function of a predicate argument. The rationale for this hierarchy is considered. An appendix adds systems of definiteness to the discussion.*

1. INTRODUCTION. In this article we consider eight grammatical systems -polarity, tense, aspect, evidentiality, person, reference classification, number, and case-and examine their cooccurrence within grammars. In many instances there is no dependency between systems. For instance, a language may have a two-term number system, singu- lar and plural, and a three-term case system, nominative, accusative, and dative, with all combinations of these choices being attested (nominative singular, accusative singular, dative singular, nominative plural, accusative plural, dative plural). In another language we may find a distinction between three cases in singular number, but only a two- way contrast in plural number-a nominative plural (corresponding in function to nominative singular) and a single accusative-dative plural