Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Particles: Syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and historical aspects
Edited by Xabier Artiagoitia, Arantzazu Elordieta and Sergio Monforte
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 276] 2022
► pp. 101–130

Chapter 4
Agreeing complementizers may just be moody

| Boğaziçi University
| Boğaziçi University
This study investigates two discourse-related particles, ya and şo, in Laz, an endangered South Caucasian language. We argue that both ya and şo are indexical shift complementizers which can occur without an overt embedding verb, suggesting root complementizer behavior. However, when they appear embedded, the mood specification of the embedding verb determines which of the two will surface, suggestive of complementizer agreement in mood features. We show that, while ya and şo need to be semantically distinct in their root occurrences, there are compositionality challenges against the null hypothesis that ya and şo keep their meanings when embedded. As an alternative to a formal agreement account, we propose to semantically relate the embedded and root occurrences of these complementizers.
Keywords: root complementizers, indexical shift, imperative mood, complementizer agreement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The particles ya and şo are complementizers
    • 2.1Evidence for the complementizer status of ya and şo
    • 2.2Evidence for the complementizer status of ya and şo
  • 3.On the morphological distinctness of ya and şo
    • 3.1What do the roots complementizers in Laz mean?
    • 3.2Embedded ya and şo
      • 3.2.1Are embedded ya and şo differentiated through agreement?
      • 3.2.2Are embedded ya and şo differentiated semantically?
  • 4.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.276.04dem
References (41)
References
Akkuş, Faruk & Hill, Virginia. 2021. Overt speakers in syntax. Glossa 6(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, Robert B. Young (ed), 20–37. Ithaca: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., & Bobalijk, Jonathan. 2017. On Inherent and Dependent Theories of Ergative Case. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa De Mena Travis (eds), 113–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. & Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2019. Checking up on (ϕ-) Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeder, Winfried. 2002. Speech and thought representation in the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages. In Reported Discourse: A meeting ground of different domains [Typological Studies in Language 52], Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds), 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Božič, Jurij. 2019. Constraining long-distance allomorphy. The Linguistic Review 36(3): 485–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2013. Modified numerals as post-suppositions. Journal of Semantics 30(2): 155–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2016. Delayed valuation: a reanalysis of goal features, “upwards” complementizer agreement, and the mechanics of Case. Syntax 19(1): 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2020. A Theory of Indexical Shift. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demirok, Ömer & Öztürk, Balkız. 2015. The logophoric complementizer in Laz. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Linguistics Research] 26(2): 45–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demirok, Ömer, Özyıldız, Deniz, & Öztürk, Balkız. 2019. Complementizers with attitude. In Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 49, Maggie Baird & Jonathan Pesetsky (eds), 213–222. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2013. Lubukusu complementizer agreement as a logophoric relation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2): 257–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo. 2008. On quotative constructions in Iberian Spanish. In Pragmatics of Clause Combining, Ritva Laury (ed), 35–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. From hearsay evidentiality to samesaying relations. Lingua 120(3), 604–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Quotative expansions. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Utrecht 2011, Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen, Luisa Meroni & Manuela Pinto (eds), 93–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1985. Logophoric Systems in Chadic. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7(1): 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2002. When ‘say’ is not say: the functional versatility of the Bantu quotative marker ti with special reference to Shona. In Reported discourse: a meeting ground for different linguistic domains, Tom Güldemann & Manfred von Roncador (eds.), 253–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Themes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds), 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Fine-tuning natural language imperatives. Journal of Logic and Computation 29(3): 321–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110(2): 69–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Quantifiers in questions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3(4): 449–526.Google Scholar
Lacroix, René. 2009. Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie): grammaire et textes. PhD dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2. <[URL]>
Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Podobryaev, Alexander. 2014. Persons, imposters, and monsters. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5(2): 167–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, Robert B. Young (ed), 235–252. Ithaca: LSA and CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul, Pak, Miok & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2019. The speaker-addressee relation at the syntax-semantics interface. Language 95(1): 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, Kirill, & Sudo, Yasutada. 2014. The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 381–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2019. A New Theory of Indexical Shift. Ms, University of Leipzig. <[URL]> (30 September 2021)
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do?. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 159–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2007. Modal Concord. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 17, Masayuki Gibson & Tova Friedman (eds), 317–332. Ithaca: CLC Publications. < DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 317–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar