Universal #1619
Legacy number: 1619
| Number | 1615 |
| Original | If a language has ambiguous O agreement [see Comments for terminology], it has ambiguous A agreement. |
| Standardized | IF there is person agreement on the verb of the ambiguous type with the object, THEN there is ambiguous-type person agreement also with the transitive subject. |
| Formula | ambiguous O agreement ⇒ ambiguous A agreement |
| Keywords | agreement, person, subject, object |
| Domain | inflection, syntax |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | statistical |
| Basis | 272 languages sample; see Siewierska 1999: 250-251 |
| Source | Siewierska 1999: 238 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
Roviana (Western Oceanic) is a potential instance of a language which has bound person ambiguous agreement markers for just the O: According to Simon Cornston (Linguist List, 16.02.1995), whereas the A and S (single argument of an intransitive clause) exhibit only anaphoric agreement by independent anaphoric pronouns, the O person suffix occurs both in the presence and absence of overt object (Siewierska 1999: 236).
Notes
Siewierska’s tripartite typology of person agreement markers: 1. ANAPHORIC agreement markers are markers which are in complementary distribution with free nominal or pronominal arguments. E.g. Macushi (Carib): a. t-ekîn era’ma-’pî paaka esa-’ya REFL-pet:ABS see-PAST cow owner-ERG ‘The owner of the cow saw his own pet’; b. i-koneka-’pî-i-ya 3SG-make-PAST-3SG-ERG ‘He made it’. 2. AMBIGUOUS agreement markers are markers which occur obligatorily both in the presence and absence of free nominal and pronominal arguments. E.g. Tauya (Trans-New Guinea): a. fena?-ni fanu-Ø nen-yau-a-?a woman-ERG man-ABS 3PL-see 3SG-IND ‘The woman saw the men’; b. nen-yau-a-?a 3PL-see-3SG-IND ‘She/he saw them’. 3. GRAMMATICAL agreement markers are markers which, like ambiguous markers, are obligatory, but, unlike, ambiguous or anaphoric markers, must necessarily be accompanied by overt nominal or pronominal arguments. E.g. Dutch: a. Piet zie-t Kees elke dag Piet see-2/3SG Kees every day ‘Piet sees Kees every day’; b. *(Hij) zie-t Kees elke dag he see-2/3SG Kees every day ‘He see Kees every day’.
Log in to join the discussion.
1. ANAPHORIC agreement markers are markers which are in complementary distribution with free nominal or pronominal arguments. E.g. Macushi (Carib):
<table class="textTable">
<tr>
<td valign = "top">a.</td>
<td> t-ekîn era'ma-'pî paaka esa-'ya</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>REFL-pet:ABS see-PAST cow owner-ERG</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>'The owner of the cow saw his own pet';</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign = "top">b.</td>
<td> i-koneka-'pî-i-ya</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>3SG-make-PAST-3SG-ERG</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>'He made it'.</td>
</tr>
</table>
2. AMBIGUOUS agreement markers are markers which occur obligatorily both in the presence and absence of free nominal and pronominal arguments. E.g. Tauya (Trans-New Guinea):
<table class="textTable">
<tr>
<td valign = "top">a.</td>
<td> fena?-ni fanu-∅ nen-yau-a-?a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> woman-ERG man-ABS 3PL-see 3SG-IND </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>'The woman saw the men';</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign = "top">b.</td>
<td>nen-yau-a-?a
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> 3PL-see-3SG-IND</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>'She/he saw them'.</td>
</tr>
<table>
3. GRAMMATICAL agreement markers are markers which, like ambiguous markers, are obligatory, but, unlike, ambiguous or anaphoric markers, must necessarily be accompanied by overt nominal or pronominal arguments. E.g. Dutch:
<table class="textTable">
<tr>
<td valign = "top">a.</td>
<td> Piet zie-t Kees elke dag </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td> Piet see-2/3SG Kees every day</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>'Piet sees Kees every day';</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign = "top">b.</td>
<td> *(Hij) zie-t Kees elke dag</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>he see-2/3SG Kees every day</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>'He see Kees every day'.</td>
</tr>
</table>