Decomposing hierarchical alignment
Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3987657 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (0000-0003-0138-4635, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, corresponding author), Taras Zakharko (0000-0001-7601-8424, University of Zurich), Lennart Bierkandt (Friedrich Schiller University Jena), Federico Zúñiga (0000-0002-9015-6601, University of Bern), Fernando Zúñiga, Balthasar Bickel (0000-0002-9087-0565, University of Zurich) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Publication date | 2016-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0024-3949 • E-ISSN: 1613-396X |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1515/ling-2016-0011 |
| OpenAlex | W2324512601 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 8 |
Apart from common cases of differential argument marking, referential hierarchies affect argument marking in two ways: (a) through hierarchical marking, where markers compete for a slot and the competition is resolved by a hierarchy, and (b) through co-argument sensitivity, where the marking of one argument depends on the properties of its co-argument. Here we show that while co-argument sensitivity cannot be analyzed in terms of hierarchical marking, hierarchical marking can be analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity. Once hierarchical effects on marking are analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity, it becomes possible to examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in exactly the same way as one can examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in cases of differential argument marking and indeed any other condition on alignment (such as tense or clause type). As a result, instances of hierarchical marking of any kind turn out not to present a special case in the typology of alignment, and there is no need for positing an additional non-basic alignment type such as "hierarchical alignment". While hierarchies are not needed for descriptive and comparative purposes, we also cast doubt on their relevance in diachrony: examining two families for which hierarchical agreement has been postulated, Algonquian and Kiranti, we find only weak and very limited statistical evidence for agreement paradigms to have been shaped by a principled ranking of person categories
Agreement · Argument (complex analysis) · Hierarchy · Linguistics · Political science · Sociology · Typology · Verb · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Language and cultural evolution · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Philosophy · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
The typology of external splits
Category clustering
Non-canonical inverse in Circassian languages
Word order evolves at similar rates in main and subordinate clauses
Differential argument marking and discourse prominence
A crosslinguistic study of conditions on argument indexing
Stem alternations in Kiranti and their implications for the morphology–phonology interface
A structural and functional comparison of differential A and P indexing
Between Symmetrical Voice and Ergativity
Optional and alternating case marking
Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits
Hierarchical Alignment and Comparative Linguistics in the Guaykuruan Languages
In the Vestibule of Meaning
Semantic role clustering
Grammatical Relations Typology
On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology
What Algonquian Is Really like
Hierarchical Alignment in Movima
Patterns of contrast in phonological change
An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns
| Citations per year | 1.71 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2019 - 2026 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |