ECM in Passamaquoddy: Implications for the inverse
Peter Grishin
May 2022
 

[Some typos fixed, new data added.] Oxford (2022) argues that the Algonquian 3>3 inverse is a voice construction much like Austronesian object voice, in contrast to the 3>SAP inverse, which is just a surface morphological phenomenon. I provide novel evidence from Passamaquoddy (Eastern Algonquian) for this conclusion, involving an ECM-like construction in which the highest argument in an embedded subordinative clause shows certain properties associated with being a matrix object (agreement and obviation). The locality of ECM allows us to diagnose which argument occupies the highest A position—generally always the external argument, except in the 3>3 inverse, in which case it’s the internal argument. Thus, the internal argument A-moves over the external argument in the 3>3 inverse but not the 3>SAP inverse.
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/006575
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in: manuscript, MIT (comments welcome)
keywords: ecm, inverse, algonquian, passamaquoddy, syntax
previous versions: v1 [April 2022]
Downloaded:326 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]