Universal #1639

Legacy number: 1639

 Number  1634
 Original  IF there is polysynthesis (essentially, noun incorporation and bound agreement/cross-reference markers for subject and object(s) on the verb, thus with no independent NPs necessary for complete clauses, and without the absence of NPs being analysable as pro-drop), THEN there are no non-finite verbal forms (i.e., every verb form exhibits full inflection for person and tense-aspect) / no non-finite subordinate clauses.
 Standardized  IF there is polysynthesis, THEN there will be no non-finite verb forms / no non-finite subordinate clauses.
 Formula  polysynthesis ⇒ ¬ nonfinite verb forms
 Keywords  polysynthesis, finiteness, verb
 Domain  morphology, syntax
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  Polysynthetic languages in Baker 1996 like Mohawk (Iroquoian), Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan), Kiowa (Kiowa- Tanoan), Gunwinjguan (Gunwingguan, Australian), Wichita (Caddoan), Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan), Ainu (isolate). Non-polysynthetic languages like Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut), Lakhota (Siouan), Slave (Athabaskan), Alamblak (Sepik-Ramu), Chichewa (Bantoid, Niger-Congo), Choctaw (Muskogean)
 Source  Baker 1996: 452 passim, also independently claimed by Heath 1975, Mithun 1984b, Jung 2002

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
Possible counterexamples: Rembarrnga (Gunwingguan, Australian), Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan) (Baker 1996: 475-484). However, Nordlinger & Saulwick (2002) argue against Baker who claims the verb in the relevant constructions are either fully finite (owing to the presence of pronominal prefixes) or nominalisations).
Notes
For Baker (1996), this implication follows from the Morphological Visibility Condition, requiring that arguments must be encoded on the verb, which is only possible in tensed clauses, since agreement morphemes can only be adjoined to heads that have structural Case-assigning features (and tenseless INFL isn't such a head).
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
For Baker 1996, this implication follows from the Morphological Visibility Condition, requiring that arguments must be encoded on the verb, which is only possible in tensed clauses, since agreement morphemes can only be adjoined to heads that have structural Case-assigning features (and tenseless INFL isn't such a head).