Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:1 (2016) ► pp.1–25

Floating agreement and information structure

The case of Sanzhi Dargwa

| Universität Bamberg & James Cook University
This paper investigates the morphosyntactic and pragmatic properties of floating person agreement in Sanzhi Dargwa (Nakh-Daghestanian, Russia). Person agreement enclitics can occur on the verb or on other constituents (NPs, adverbs, or pronouns). In the latter case, they seem to function like constituent focus markers because they emphasize their host, but this effect is limited to elicited sentences. Floating agreement in Sanzhi Dargwa is compared to similar constructions in other Nakh-Daghestanian languages (Udi, Lak) which have been analyzed as synchronic in situ clefts or as diachronically arising from clefts. The paper shows that a synchronic cleft analysis for floating agreement in Sanzhi must be rejected, and it is argued that diachronically they originate from identificational copula constructions.
Keywords: Nakh-Daghestanian, floating agreement, person marking, focus, cleft
Published online: 29 April 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.01for
References (44)
Amha, Azeb. 2007. Questioning forms in Zargulla. In Rainer Voigt (ed.), From beyond the Mediterranean. Akten des 7. Internationalen Semitohamitistenkongresses, Berlin, 13-15. September 2004, 197–210. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2010. From gender identification to assertion: On the use of -tte and -tta in Zargulla, an endangered Omotic language. Journal of West African Languages 371. 57–73.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1987. From auxiliary to desinence. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 1–52. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2006. Floating affixes in Polish. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Varna, 123–139. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. 2000. Towards a cross-linguistic typology of copula constructions. In John Henderson (ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. [URL]. (30 November 2015).Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. Towards a typology of pronominal cliticization , Presentation at the ALT V conference. Cagliari.
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C., Maria E. Hoffmann, Jan R. de Jong, Sie I. Djiang, Harry Stroomer & Lourens de Vries. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Theunis A. Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael Jozef Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on functional grammar, 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory Vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drubig, H. Bernhard & Wolfram Schaffar. 2001. Focus constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1078–1104. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1995. Mobile inflections in Polish. Proceedings NELS 251. 127–142.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. In Preparation. Grammatical relations in Sanzhi Dargwa. In Balthasar Bickel & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Handbook of grammatical relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Frascarelli, Mara & Annarita Puglielli. 2007. Focus markers and universal grammar. In Azeb Amha, Maarten Mous & Graziano Savà (eds.), Cushitic and Omotic languages: Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Cushitic and Omotic Languages (Leiden, 10–12 April 2003), 119–134. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
Gerdel, Florence L. & Marianna C. Slocum. 1976. Páez discourse, paragraph and sentence structure. In Robert E. Longacre & Frances Woods (eds.), Discourse grammar: Studies in indigenous languages of Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador, 259–443. Dallas: SIL and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2013. The subject/object asymmetry in bound person indexing: Diachronic and discourse considerations. Presentation at the workshop Agreement in discourse , University of Bamberg, February 1-2, 2013.
Harris, Alice C. 2001. Focus and universal principles governing simplification of cleft structures. In Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 159–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 1996. The syntax of personal agreement in East Caucasian languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 491. 127–148.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Nina Sumbatova. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness, 183–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 1998. On patient demotion in Lak. In Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories, 95–115. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Focus in Daghestanian and word order typology. Linguistic Typology 61. 289–316.Google Scholar
. 2013. Sintaksis sovremennogo lakskogo jazyka. Makhachkala: Aleph.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 391. 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maas, Utz. 2004. ‘‘Finite’’ and ‘‘nonfinite’’ from a typological perspective. Linguistics 421. 359–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1998. Topicality and agreement. In Michael Darnell, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume II. Case studies, 203–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2006. Motivations for second position: Evidence from North-Central Australia. Linguistic Typology 101. 287–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language 231. 341–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 391. 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2005. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saeed, John. 1984. The syntax of topic and focus in Somali. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2007. Personalität in den ostkaukasischen Sprachen . Munich Working Papers in Cognitive Typology 4, IATS University of Munich.
Schulze, Wolfgang. Ms. The origin of personal agreement clitics in Caucasian Albanian and Udi. University of Munich.
Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 81. 147–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina. 2011. Person hierarchies and the problem of person marker origin in Dargwa: facts and diachronic problems. In Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak (eds.), Tense, aspect, modality and finiteness in East Caucasian languages, 131–160. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
. 2013. Tipologičeskoe i diaxroničeskoe issledovanie morfosintaksisa (na primere jazykov darginskoj gruppy). Moscow: RGGU doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2002. A whole lotta focusin’ goin’ on: Information packaging in Somali texts. Studies in African Linguistics 311. 27–53.Google Scholar
Tseng, Jesse. 2009. A formal model of grammaticalization in Slavic past tense constructions. In Current issues in unity and diversity of languages, 749–762. Collection of the papers selected from the CIL 18, Korea University in Seoul.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Giorgio Iemmolo. 2013. When is there agreement? Typologizing suspension restrictions on agreement. Presentation at the ALT10 conference , Leipzig, August 15-18, 2013.
Xajdakov, S.M. 1986. Logičeskoe udarenie i členenie predloženij (dagestanskie dannye). In Aktual’nye problemy dagestansko-naxksogo jazykoznanija, 79–96. IJa AN SSSR: Makhachkala.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Just, Erika & Judith Voß
2023. Variable index placement in Gutob from a typological perspective. Studies in Language 47:4 ► pp. 870 ff. DOI logo
Forker, Diana
2020. More than just a modal particle. Functions of Language 27:3 ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. The Syntax of Information-Structural Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 268], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.