The morphosyntax of aspect stacking in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic

What it is about

Many Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) varieties have two ways of marking perfective aspect. The canonical perfective uses the perfective verb base and is often banned from taking certain objects. The secondary perfective prefixes the morpheme qam- to the imperfective base and needs an object that triggers object agreement. Kalin argues that qam- is a high perfective aspect head, stacked on an imperfective aspect head, in the way that Slavic "superlexical" prefixes are. Her account ties the choice to whether T succeeds in phi-agreement, which shows that phi-agreement is syntactic and not post-syntactic. The data come from Senaya, Jewish Zakho, Barwar, and Amadiya, with agreement suffixes (S- and L-suffixes) and a table of restrictions on object marking on the perfective base (complete, first and second person, or none).

Ideas

• I1. A feature table for NENA verb bases: for each variety, which object persons may be marked on the perfective base (none, 1st/2nd banned, none banned). Encode it as a small finite table, and use it to choose the verb form when generating a clause with an object.
• I2. A generation rule: if the object is specific and the variety bans its marking on the perfective base, use the qam- form on the imperfective base. This is a deterministic choice from a table, not a learned one, and it can be tested on the four varieties in the paper.
• I3. Build the paper's glossed examples into a small gold test set for the verb tables, with the glosses as given, and count how many forms the rules get right.

For Mova

I1 and I3 belong in The verb in Biblical Aramaic, as a comparison note on NENA; The Aramaic family and the Jewish varieties lists the varieties. I2 is a rule for the verb generator; it has no place in the current Targum or Babylonian Talmudic chapters, since the paper covers modern varieties only.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.200

@article{kalin2016morphosyntax,
  title = {{The morphosyntax of aspect stacking in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic}},
  author = {Kalin, Laura},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.200},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.200}
}

References

63 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Anand, Pranav & Andrew Nevins. 2006. The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvénal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues. 3–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ↗
2. Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8 ↗
3. Babko-Malaya, Olga. 1999. Zero morphology: a study of aspect, argument structure and case. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers dissertation. find
4. Babko-Malaya, Olga. 2003. Perfectivity and prefixation in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1). 5–36. find
5. Baker, Mark & Ümit Atlamaz. 2014. On the relationship of case to agreement in split-ergative Kurmanji and beyond. Ms. Rutgers University. find
6. Bhatt, Rajesh & Martin Walkow. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 951–1013. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9203-y ↗
7. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
8. Bobaljik, Jonathan & Phil Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple Case checking. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvénal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 44–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_3 ↗
9. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance languages. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. find
10. Borik, Olga. 2002. Aspect and reference time. Utrecht, Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht dissertation. find
11. Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Douglas A. Kibbee & Dieter Wanner (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos ↗
12. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, apsect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. find
13. Coghill, Eleanor. 1999. The verbal system of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. England: University of Cambridge MA thesis. find
14. Coghill, Eleanor. 2014. Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic. Linguistics 52(2). 335–364. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0065 ↗
15. Cohen, Eran. 2012. The syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish dialect of Zakho. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press. ↗
16. Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica silesiana 3. 13–21. find
17. Coon, Jessica. 2010. Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858743.001.0001 Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. New York: Oxford University Press. ↗
18. Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2011. Towards a unified account of person splits. In Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WC-CFL 29). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. find
19. Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2012. Taking ‘ergativity’ out of split ergativity: A structural account of aspect and person splits. LingBuzz/001556. find
20. Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, 159–179. CSLI. find
21. Demirdache, Hamida & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, 157–186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
22. Di Sciullo, Anne Marie & Roumyana Slabakova. 2005. Quantification and aspect. In Henk J. Verkuyl, Henriette De Swart & Angeliek Van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 61–80. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_4 ↗
23. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 Doron, Edit & Geoffrey Khan. 2012. The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua 122(3). 225–240. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.008 ↗
24. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford University Press. ↗
25. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–26. find
26. Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11. 55–101. find
27. Forsyth, James. 1970. A grammar or aspect: usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge University Press. find
28. Fukuda, Shin. 2012. Aspectual verbs as functional heads: evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(4). 965–1026. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9171-7 Greenblatt, Jared. 2011. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Amәdya. Leiden and Boston: Brill. ↗
29. Gribanova, Vera. 2013. Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 91–136. ↗
30. Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110198614 ↗
31. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. find
32. Heinrichs, Wolfhart. 2002. Peculiarities of the verbal system of senāya within the framework of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). In Werner Arnold & Hartmut Bobzin (eds.), “sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, 237–268. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. find
33. Hoberman, Robert. 1989. The syntax and semantics of verb morphology in Modern Aramaic. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, Publishing Nexus Inc. find
34. Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the Perfect. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 189–238. MIT Press. ↗
35. Kalin, Laura. 2012. Two last resort phenomena in Senaya (Neo-Aramaic). In Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds.), Theories of everything. in honor of Ed Keenan, 131–153. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17. find
36. Kalin, Laura. 2014. Aspect and argument licensing in Neo-Aramaic. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. find
37. Kalin, Laura. 2015. Morphological reversal in Amadiya (Neo-Aramaic) as late agreement. Presented at WCCFL 33. find
38. Kalin, Laura & Coppe van Urk. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity: Agreement asymmetries in Neo-Aramaic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33. 659–702. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9262-8 ↗
39. Kalin, Laura & Laura McPherson. 2012. Senaya (Neo-Aramaic): Structural PCC effects in progressives. In Nathan Arnett & Ryan Bennett (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th west coast conference on formal linguistics (wccfl 30), 184–194. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. find
40. Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar: Grammar, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i-2198 ↗
41. Klein, Wolfgang. 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71. 669–695. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/415740 ↗
42. Laka, Itziar. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 173–195. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_7 ↗
43. Maclean, Arthur John. 1895. Grammar of the dialects of vernacular Syriac. Cambridge University Press. find
44. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chae (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. find
45. Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 153–197. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006465130442 ↗
46. Panoussi, Estiphan. 1990. On the Senaya dialect. In Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic Harvard Semitic Studies, 107–129. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. ↗
47. Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. 1997. On the etymology of the Neo-Aramaic particle qam/kim. In Moshe Bar-Asher (ed.), Massarot: Studies in language traditions and Jewish languages, vol. IX-X-XI. 475–482. Jerusalem: Department of Hebrew Language, Hebrew University. find
48. Piñon, Christopher. 1994a. Accumulation and aspectuality in Polish. In Merce González (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24, vol. 2. 491–506. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. find
49. Piñon, Christopher. 1994b. Aspectual composition and the ‘pofective’ in Polish. In Proceedings of FASL 3. Michigan Slavic Publications. find
50. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. find
51. Ramchand, Gillian. 2004. Time and the event: the semantics of Russian prefixes. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Nordlyd 32.2: Special issue on slavic prefixes, 323–361. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. ↗
52. Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Perfectivity as aspectual definiteness: time and the event in Russian. Lingua 118. 1690–1715. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.03.008 ↗
53. Romanova, Eugenia. 2004. Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. Nordlyd 32. 255–278. find
54. Romanova, Eugenia. 2006. Constructing perfectivity in Russian. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø dissertation. find
55. Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside vp. Nordlyd 32(2). 205–253. ↗
56. Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Russian prefixes are phrasal. In Gerhild Zybatow, Luka Szucsich, Uwe Junghanns & Roland Meyer (eds.), Formal description of Slavic languages, 526–537. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. find
57. Tatevosov, Sergei. 2008. Intermediate prefixes in Russian. In Andrei Antonenko, John Bailyn & Christina Y. Bethin (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook meeting 2007, vol. 16. 423–442. Ann Arbor. find
58. Travis, Lisa. 1991. Derived object, inner aspect, and structure of VP. Paper presented at NELS 22. find
59. Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner Aspect: the articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer. find
60. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge University Press. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4 ↗
61. How to cite this article: Kalin, Laura. 2016. The morphosyntax of aspect stacking in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1): 49. 1–36, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.200 ↗ our card
62. Published: 2 December 2016 find
63. Copyright: © 2016 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2016-kalin-morphosyntax-aspect-stacking-northeastern-neo/