Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Research

A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi

Author:

Renuka Ozarkar

Department of Linguistics, University of Mumbai, Vidyanagari, Santacruz, Mumbai, IN
X close

Abstract

This paper discusses an unexplored case of long distance agreement (LDA) in Marathi in which agreement takes place across an embedded subjunctive clause. In this construction, three distinct heads- an embedded verb, a matrix verb and what appears to be a clause-introducing complementizer-like morpheme- agree with the embedded object. The paper demonstrates that the subjunctive clause embedded in the LDA construction is a restructured clause lacking several functional projections such as TP, NegP and the entire CP layer. Further, it argues that the complementizer-like agreeing morpheme is a clause-linker attached lower than the CP-layer (à la den Dikken 2006). LDA in this construction is mediated by this clause-linker and the restructured nature of the clause it introduces. The analysis in this paper is based within the Minimalist framework of probe-goal mechanism of Agree.

How to Cite: Ozarkar, R. (2020). A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 93. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.698
91
Views
58
Downloads
  Published on 16 Sep 2020
 Accepted on 15 Jun 2020            Submitted on 21 May 2018

1 Introduction

In this paper, I discuss one particular construction in Marathi involving long distance agreement across a subjunctive embedded clause. In this construction three distinct heads- an embedded verb, a matrix verb and a complementizer-like element- agree with the same embedded argument, i.e. the object of the embedded clause. Consider the following Marathi sentences:

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbɑ
    2. mango.M.SG
    1. khɑ-w-ɑ-s-ɑ
    2. eat-SBJV-M.SG-such-M.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-o.
    2. feel-IPFV-3M.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating a mango.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. kəiri
    2. raw.mango.F.SG
    1. khɑ-w-i-∫-i
    2. eat-SBJV-F.SG-such-F.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-e.
    2. feel-IPFV-3F.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating a raw mango.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-s-e
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-such-M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV-3M.PL
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating mangoes.’

In these examples, the matrix verb ‘feel’ takes an embedded clause as its complement. The embedded verb ‘eat’ carries subjunctive/optative morphology -ɑw- and it agrees with its object- ‘mango’, ‘raw mango’ and the plural object ‘mangoes’ in (1.a), (1.b) and (1.c) respectively. The matrix verb ‘feel’ also agrees with the embedded object, which is not theta-marked by it. Moreover, there is a -s-, glossed here as ‘such’,1 attached to the embedded verb, which also agrees with the same embedded object. Agreement of the matrix verb and -s- with the embedded object is an instance of ‘long distance agreement’ (LDA hereafter), where these two elements agree with an argument not selected by them. The present paper offers an analysis of LDA in this particular construction.

The phenomenon of LDA has been reported and analysed in several languages belonging to various language families across the world, such as Basque (Preminger 2009), Hindi-Urdu (Mahajan 1989; 2017; Davison 1991; Butt 1995; Bhatt 2005; Chandra 2007; Keine 2013), Kashmiri (Subbarao & Munshi 2000 as cited in Bhatt (2005)), Tsez (Polinsky & Potsdam 2001) among others. The phenomenon of LDA is of empirical as well as theoretical importance as it raises issues regarding locality of syntactic phenomena and dependency relationships. Through the literature accumulated on LDA constructions over the last few decades, several cross-linguistically common properties of this phenomenon have emerged (‘universals of LDA’ as dubbed by Bhatt & Keine 2017). However, no consensus on the theoretical analyses of these constructions has been reached. There have been several proposals made in the literature, some of which will be briefly discussed later in section 4. See Bhatt & Keine (2017) for a critical survey of several proposals. LDA is in fact an epiphenomenon which evades a uniform analysis of several LDA constructions even within the same language. One has to provide case-by-case analysis of individual LDA constructions and look for fundamental properties underlying these distinct cases. One such instance of LDA is the focus of this paper.

LDA across the subjunctive clause in Marathi differs from LDA reported in other languages in two aspects: one, the embedded clause across which LDA takes places in Marathi is neither a typical infinitival clause as found in the languages like Hindi-Urdu and Kashmiri, nor is it any finite clause as seen in Tsez. It is specifically a subjunctive clause. Second, something that appears like a complementizer is overtly present, albeit in a bound form, and it participates in agreement. At the outset, this complementizer-like -s- appears to be a phonologically reduced form of the clause-final complementizer əsə (see Subbārāo 2012: 165 for a remark to this effect).2 Agreeing complementizers have been reported in some West Germanic languages like Bavarian (Bayer 1984) and some Bantu languages (Diercks 2013), but not in Indo-Aryan languages. I argue that the agreeing form -s- in Marathi LDA under discussion here is not a standard complementizer lexicalizing the C0. It is a sort of clause-linker, attached lower than the CP layer in the structure and introduces a restructured or a small-clause complement of a matrix verb (cf. den Dikken 2006; Philip 2012). I call it ‘a (clause-)linker’. To my knowledge, both these properties- LDA across a subjunctive clause and an agreeing clause-linker- have not been reported in any of the Indo-Aryan languages. Marathi, therefore, offers interesting empirical insights.

In this paper, I demonstrate that LDA across the subjunctive clause in Marathi as shown in (1) results due to the mediation of the agreeing clause-linker -s- and it also goes hand-in-hand with restructuring properties of the embedded clause. The paper is organized as follows. Section two discusses basic facts about verb-agreement in Marathi. Section three introduces the LDA construction and discusses its basic properties in comparison to a closely-related construction without LDA (referred to as ‘non-LDA construction’ now on). In section four, a sketch of the analysis proposed in this paper is provided. More specifically, I argue that the embedded clause in the LDA construction involves restructuring in the sense that it lacks some functional projections and is thus smaller than a full CP structure. Further, the form -s- has been analysed as a low-attached clause-linker distinct from the complementizer əsə in C0. In section five, I provide evidence for the restructured nature of the subjunctive clause in the LDA context, by demonstrating that this clause lacks TP, NegP and arguably a CP-layer as well. In section six, the mechanism of Agree deriving the effects of LDA has been spelled-out. Section seven concludes with some discussion on open issues.3

2 Basic patterns of verb-agreement in Marathi

The finite verb in Marathi agrees with the highest DP argument which carries no overt case. This means, it agrees with the unmarked nominative subject irrespective of the case of the object DP (2.a). If the subject carries ergative case (2.b) or dative case (2.c), the verb agrees with the case-less object. If both the subject and the object carry an overt case, the verb shows default agreement morphology, which is the same as 3N.SG features (2.d). These facts about Marathi are well-documented (Pandharipande 1997; Dhongde & Wali 2009 among others) and I am presenting them here only for immediate reference.

    1. (2)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ
    2. Mira.F.SG
    1. pust̪əkə
    2. book.N.PL
    1. wɑts-t̪-e.
    2. read-IPFV-3F.SG
    1. ‘Mira reads books.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira.F.SG = ERG
    1. pust̪əkə
    2. book.N.PL
    1. wɑts-l-i.
    2. read-PFV-3N.PL
    1. ‘Mira read books.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira.F.SG = DAT
    1. pust̪əkə
    2. book.N.PL
    1. ɑwəɖ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. like-IPFV-3N.PL
    1. ‘Mira likes books.’
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira.F.SG = ERG
    1. kɑl
    2. yesterday
    1. kɑkɑ = lɑ
    2. uncle.M.SG = DAT
    1. pɑhi-l-ə.
    2. see-PFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Mira saw the uncle yesterday.’

Marathi shows Person split in ergativity in that the 1st and 2nd Person subjects do not exhibit overt ergative case. However, they can be shown to carry phonologically null ergative case and thus agreement is controlled by the morphologically unmarked object (cf. Deo & Sharma 2006: 380).

The subjunctive clause in Marathi, which is at the centre of the discussion in this paper, occurs both as an embedded clause and a root clause. The subject of a subjunctive clause in Marathi carries ergative or nominative case, depending on the (in)transitivity of the verb and animacy or agentivity of the subject.4 Consider the examples in (3). If the subject has ergative case, as in (3.a), then in conformation with the pattern discussed above, the morphologically unmarked object controls agreement of the subjunctive verb. If the subject has nominative case, it controls agreement, as in (3.b).

    1. (3)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira.F.SG = ERG
    1. pepər
    2. paper.M.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-ɑ.
    2. read-SBJV-3M.SG
    1. ‘Mira should read a paper.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ
    2. Mira.F.SG.NOM
    1. puɳjɑ = lɑ
    2. Pune = DAT
    1. dzɑ-w-i.
    2. go-SBJV-3F.SG
    1. ‘Mira should go to Pune.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira.F.SG = ERG
    1. puɳjɑ = lɑ
    2. Pune = DAT
    1. dzɑ-w-ə.
    2. go-SBJV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Mira should go to Pune.’

In (3.a), the transitive verb ‘read’ takes the ergative subject and the verb agrees with the unmarked object ‘paper’. In (3.b), the subject of the intransitive verb ‘go’ is in nominative case and so, the subject ‘Mira’ controls agreement of the verb. However in (3.c), the animate subject of the intransitive verb takes ergative case. In this sentence, as there is no unmarked argument, the verb shows default agreement.

An interesting feature of verb agreement in Marathi is ‘double agreement’. The 2SG subject in Marathi triggers a special morpheme -s on the finite verb, when the subject carries either nominative or (null) ergative case. This morpheme occurs irrespective of whether the verb agrees with the subject or the object or shows default agreement morphology. In (4.a), the verb agrees with the nominative subject and carries the -s morpheme, while in (4.b) the verb agrees with the object and it still carries the same morpheme. Such cases where the verb agrees with the object and also shows the 2SG features of the subject, exhibit what I call ‘double agreement’ (cf. Wali 2005). Davison mentions some examples of this kind to suggest that Marathi has ‘two slots for agreement’ (1991: ex.29). The -s morpheme is glossed separately.

    1. (4)
    1. a.
    1. t̪u
    2. you.M.SG.NOM
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-t̪-o-s.
    2. read-IPFV-M.SG-2SG.SBJ
    1. ‘You read a poem nicely.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. t̪u
    2. you.M.SG.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-l-i-s.
    2. read-PFV-F.SG-2SG.SBJ
    1. ‘You read the poem nicely.’

When the subject is not 2SG, the -s morpheme does not occur (cf. (5)).

    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1. səmir / mi
    2. Samir / I.M
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-t̪-o-(*s).
    2. read-IPFV-M.SG-(*2SG.SBJ)
    1. ‘Sameer / I read a poem nicely.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. səmir = ne / mi
    2. Samir = ERG / I.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-l-i-(*s).
    2. read-PFV-F.SG-(*2SG.SBJ)
    1. ‘Sameer / I read a poem nicely.’

Another instance of double-agreement occurs in a perfective transitive clause. In the absence of any tense auxiliary, a 2PL ergative subject triggers the presence of a morpheme - on the perfective aspectual verb, in addition to the verb’s agreement with the unmarked object (see also Wali 2005: 28).

    1. (6)
    1. a.
    1. t̪umhi
    2. you.PL.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-l-i-t̪.
    2. read-PFV-F.SG-2PL.SBJ
    1. ‘You all read a poem nicely.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ɑmhi/
    2. we.ERG/
    1. t̪jɑn = ni
    2. they = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-l-i-(*t̪).
    2. read-PFV-F.SG-(*2PL.SBJ)
    1. ‘We/ they read a poem nicely.’

The morphemes -s and - also occur in a subjunctive clause. As usual, the morpheme -s expresses 2SG features of the subject. However, the morpheme - on a subjunctive verb expresses 3PL features on the object. It does not express any features of the subject. The morpheme - in the subjunctive clause occurs whenever the verb agrees with the unmarked 3PL object, except when the subject of the clause is 2SG (in which case -s occurs on the verb). See examples (7).

    1. (7)
    1. a.
    1. 2SG subject, 3SG object
    1. t̪u
    2. you.M.SG.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i-s.
    2. read-SBJV-3F.SG-2SG.SBJ
    1. ‘You should read a poem.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. 2SG subject, 3PL object
    1. t̪u
    2. you.M.SG.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-s/(*t̪).
    2. read-SBJV-3F.PL-2SG.SBJ/(*3PL.OBJ)
    1. ‘You should read poems.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Subject other than 2SG, 3SG object
    1. mi/
    2. I.ERG/
    1. mirɑ = ne/
    2. Mira = ERG/
    1. t̪umhi/
    2. you.PL.ERG/
    1. ɑmhi/
    2. we.ERG/
    1. t̪jɑn = ni
    2. they = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i-(*s)/(*t̪).
    2. read-SBJV-3F.SG-(*2SG.SBJ)/(*3PL.OBJ)
    1. ‘I/ Mira/ you all/ we/ they should read a poem.’
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. Subject other than 2SG, 3PL object
    1. mi/
    2. I.ERG/
    1. mirɑ = ne/
    2. Mira = ERG/
    1. t̪umhi/
    2. you.PL.ERG/
    1. ɑmhi/
    2. we.ERG/
    1. t̪jɑn = ni
    2. they = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-t̪/(*s).
    2. read-SBJV-3F.PL-3PL.OBJ/(*2SG.SBJ)
    1. ‘I/ Mira/ you all/ we/ they should read poems.’

Unlike -s, the morpheme - in a subjunctive clause does not result in the verb agreeing with two arguments. However, - can still be shown to differ from standard agreement and to come from the second slot of agreement. See (9) below. Therefore, I gloss - separately.

The two double or second agreement morphemes -s and - are peripheral in the sense that they occur on the left-most verbal element in a finite verb-complex. Recall that in (4), the -s appears on the main verb which is the only verb in the clause. However in (8), when the tense auxiliary is present, this morpheme jumps on the tense auxiliary instead of occurring on the verb.

    1. (8)
    1. t̪u
    2. you.SG.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. t∫hɑn
    2. nicely
    1. wɑts-l-i-(*s)
    2. read-PFV-F.SG-(*2SG.SBJ)
    1. hot̪-i-s.
    2. be.PST-F.SG-2SG.SBJ
    1. You had read the poem nicely.

The subjunctive verb does not take any tense auxiliary. However, it is negated by a special prohibitive negation which occurs sentence-finally. Interestingly, the ‘double agreement’ morpheme -s (2SG.SBJ) and the second agreement morpheme - indicating 3PL object, occur on the negation instead on the verb which now occurs in a nonfinite form.

    1. (9)
    1. a.
    1. t̪u
    2. you.SG.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i-s.
    2. read-SBJV-F.SG-2SG.SBJ
    1. ‘You should read a poem.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. t̪u
    2. you.SG.ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-u
    2. read-NFIN
    1. nəje-s.
    2. PROH-2SG.SBJ
    1. ‘You should not read a poem.’
    1. (10)
    1. a.
    1. mi/
    2. I.ERG/
    1. mirɑ = ne/
    2. Mira = ERG/
    1. t̪umhi/
    2. you.PL.ERG/
    1. ɑmhi/
    2. we.ERG/
    1. t̪jɑn = ni
    2. they = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-t̪.
    2. read-SBJV-F.PL-3PL.OBJ
    1. ‘I/ Mira/ you all/ we/ they should read poems.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mi/
    2. I.ERG/
    1. mirɑ = ne/
    2. Mira = ERG/
    1. t̪umhi/
    2. you.PL.ERG/
    1. ɑmhi/
    2. we.ERG/
    1. t̪jɑn = ni
    2. they = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-u
    2. read-NFIN
    1. nəje-t̪.
    2. PROH-3PL.OBJ
    1. ‘I/ Mira/ you all/ we/ they should not read poems.’

It is for this reason, I treat both -s and - morphemes as peripheral and coming from the ‘second agreement slot’, even in the case of subjunctive verbs. It is important to note further that, the prohibitive nəje shows agreement only through the morphemes -s (2SG.SBJ) and - (3PL.OBJ). In all other cases, the prohibitive does not show any agreement. It is in this regard too, the second-slot agreement differs from standard agreement. We will see later that the presence/absence of these two morphemes on the subjunctive verb provides additional support for the restructured nature of the subjunctive clause (cf. section 5.5.3).

3 Properties of the LDA construction

The example of LDA across the embedded subjunctive clause in (1.a) is repeated here as (11.a) for immediate reference. The sentence in (11.b) is often judged by the speakers as a paraphrase of the LDA construction in (11.a).5

    1. (11)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbɑ
    2. mango.M.SG
    1. khɑ-w-ɑ-s-ɑ
    2. eat-SBJV-M.SG-such-M.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-o.
    2. feel-IPFV-3M.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating a mango.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbɑ
    2. mango.M.SG
    1. khɑ-w-ɑ
    2. eat-SBJV-M.SG
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating a mango.’

The matrix verb wɑʈ ‘feel’ takes a dative-subject and therefore it cannot agree with the subject. In (11.a), as mentioned in section 1, both the matrix verb wɑʈ ‘feel’ and the form -s- agree with the embedded object ‘a mango’. In (11.b), the matrix verb and the complementizer əsə show 3N.SG features (seemingly the default agreement morphology). Further note that in both the sentences, the embedded verb khɑ ‘eat’ agrees with its own object ‘a mango’. In other words, the embedded verb agrees with its object, irrespective of whether LDA takes place or not. Let us now discuss some of the properties of LDA across the subjunctive clause.

3.1 (Non-)Optionality of LDA

In a variety of Hindi-Urdu discussed by Bhatt (2005), LDA is shown to be optional and it is characterised by co-variation of agreement of both matrix and embedded verbs: either both the verbs agree with the embedded object or both fail to agree, exhibiting default agreement. LDA across the subjunctive clause in Marathi is however, not optional. There is also no dependency between agreement of the embedded verb and that of the matrix verb. As seen in (11), the embedded verb in the subjunctive clause agrees with its own argument locally, irrespective of whether or not LDA takes place. However, agreement of the matrix verb co-varies with the presence of the form -s- and its agreement. The form -s- obligatorily agrees with the embedded object. And in that case, the matrix verb must agree with the embedded object as well. In (12.a), -s- agrees with the embedded object, while the matrix verb does not. In (12.b), while the matrix verb agrees, -s- does not. In (12.c), neither -s- nor the matrix verb agrees with the embedded object. All of these strings are unacceptable. Sentences in (12.b–c) particularly demonstrate that the form -s- must participate in LDA.

    1. (12)
    1. a.
    1.    Agreeing -s-, non-agreeing matrix verb:
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. kəiri
    2. raw.mango.F.SG
    1. khɑ-w-i-∫-i
    2. eat-SBJV-F.SG-such-F.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira feels like eating a raw mango.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.    Non-agreeing -s-, agreeing matrix verb:
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. kəiri
    2. raw.mango.F.SG
    1. khɑ-w-i-s-ə
    2. eat-SBJV-F.SG-such-3N.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-e.
    2. feel-IPFV-F.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira feels like eating a raw mango.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1.    Non-agreeing -s-, non-agreeing matrix verb:
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. kəiri
    2. raw.mango.F.SG
    1. khɑ-w-i-s-ə
    2. eat-SBJV-F.SG-such-3N.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira feels like eating a raw mango.’

Further, example (13) shows that neither the complementizer əsə nor the matrix verb can agree with the embedded object. Contrast this with (11.b).

    1. (13)
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. kəiri
    2. raw.mango.F.SG
    1. khɑ-w-i
    2. eat-SBJV-F.SG
    1. ə∫-i
    2. such-F.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-e.
    2. feel-IPFV-F.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira feels like eating a raw mango.’

In other words, there is co-variational dependency between the occurrence of the form -s- and LDA. If -s- occurs, it agrees and the matrix verb also agrees with the embedded object. If the complementizer əsə occurs instead, it cannot agree and the matrix verb also cannot agree with the embedded object. LDA across the subjunctive clause is not optional.

3.2 Absence of an overt subject

Another property of LDA across the subjunctive clause is that it does not permit an overt, lexical subject. In (14.a), the embedded subject ‘Seema’ is explicitly present in the LDA context and the sentence is unacceptable. When there is no LDA, an overt embedded subject is acceptable (14.b). The ‘absent’ embedded argument in the LDA construction is always interpreted to be co-referential with the matrix subject. But, the LDA construction also does not permit an anaphoric subject ɑpəɳ ‘self’ which is co-referential with (i.e. bound by) the matrix subject, while the non-LDA construction permits it.

    1. (14)
    1. a.
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. simɑ = ne/
    2. Seema = ERG/
    1. ɑpəɳ
    2. self.ERG
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-s-e
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-such-M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV.3PL
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira feels that Seema / she(=Mira) should eat mangoes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. simɑ = ne/
    2. Seema = ERG/
    1. ɑpəɳ
    2. self.ERG
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-t̪
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1.    ‘Mira feels that Seema/ she(=Mira) should eat mangoes.’

The subject can be dropped in the non-LDA construction and is interpreted as co-referential with the matrix subject. Therefore, I assume that the covert subject in the non-LDA construction is an instance of pro-drop of an anaphoric subject. On the other hand, I claim that the embedded subject position in the LDA construction is absent altogether (see section 4).6 Moreover, I will demonstrate that the embedded clause has a PRO argument in the spec-vP of the embedded verb, obligatorily controlled by the matrix subject (cf. section 5).

3.3 Interim summary

Let us summarize the properties of the LDA construction:

  • The matrix verb must be wɑʈ ‘feel’.
  • The embedded verb must have a subjunctive/optative mood morpheme -ɑw-.
  • The subjunctive embedded verb further carries a morpheme -s- whose status is yet to be determined.
  • The embedded clause must not have an overt subject. The agent of the embedded verb is interpreted as co-referential with the matrix subject.
  • The embedded verb agrees locally with the embedded object if present. Else, it would show default agreement in accordance with the general agreement patterns of Marathi.
  • The morpheme -s- must agree with the embedded object if present. Else, it would show default agreement.
  • The matrix subject carries dative case, hence the matrix verb cannot agree with its subject. Instead, it must agree with the embedded object if present. Else it shows default agreement.

4 Analysis of LDA across the subjunctive: a proposal

In the literature on LDA in a variety of different languages, several analytic alternatives have been proposed. As agreement is treated as a local syntactic phenomenon, agreement becomes interesting and theoretically important when it appears to violate locality. In the literature on the analysis of LDA, two possible strategies of achieving long distance agreement have recurrently emerged: (i) restructuring in sense of Wurmbrand (2001), where an embedded structure is smaller than a full clause, lacking some functional projections, and (ii) movement of the agreement-triggering phrase in the domain of a target head.

Mahajan (1989; 2017); Chandra (2007) and Koopman (2006) propose movement to forge a very local spec-head relationship between the agreeing head and the trigger DP, while Polinsky & Potsdam (2001) and Keine (2013) propose movement of an argument to the edge of a domain (i.e. a clause) from where it can be accessed by agreeing heads outside the domain. The former movement has been referred to by Keine (2013) as ‘long movement’ and the latter as ‘short movement’. The long-movement of the embedded object as proposed by Mahajan and Chandra is driven by case. In these accounts, case and agreement are associated. However, the case-driven long A-movement cannot account for LDA across the subjunctive clause in Marathi.

I propose that the embedded object in Marathi receives accusative case in its own clause even in the LDA construction. Recall that agreement of the embedded subjunctive verb is not dependent on LDA. The embedded subjunctive verb agrees with its unmarked object in both LDA and non-LDA contexts. Further, I argue that both types of subjunctive clauses have a vP projection and an agent argument (a lexical DP or a pro in the non-LDA context and a PRO argument in the LDA context). It implies, according to Burzio’s Generalization, that the embedded v0 in both types of subjunctives has the potential to assign accusative case to the object. Therefore, there is no obvious reason to infer that the case-assignment for the internal argument may be different in the embedded subjunctive in the LDA and the non-LDA contexts. Arguably, in both LDA and non-LDA contexts, the v0 in the embedded clause assigns accusative case to the object. Thus, the embedded object in the LDA context does not need to move into the matrix clause to secure case.

Further, Bhatt & Keine (2017) use idioms as an argument against movement analysis for Hindi-Urdu LDA. They argue that scrambling of the embedded object which is part of an idiom decreases the availability of the idiomatic reading in Hindi (cf. (15)). The fact that the idiomatic reading is not disrupted under LDA in Hindi shows that the embedded object must not have moved out of the embedded predicate (cf. (16)).7

    1. (15)
    1. Hindi (adapted from Keine 2019: ex.14)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.   rɑm = ne
    2.   Ram = ERG
    1. [prət̪ɑp = kiː
    2. Pratap = GEN
    1. khub
    2. lot
    1. mərəmmət̪]
    2. repair.F.SG
    1. kiː.
    2. do.PFV.F.SG
    1.    ‘Ram gave Pratap a good beating.’ (lit. Ram did Pratap’s many repairs.)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. #[prət̪ɑp = kiː
    2.   Pratap = GEN
    1. khub
    2. lot
    1. mərəmmət̪]1
    2. repair.F.SG
    1. rɑm = ne
    2. Ram = ERG
    1. t1
    2.  
    1. kiː.
    2. do.PFV.F.SG
    1.    ‘Ram gave Pratap a good beating.’ (lit. Ram did Pratap’s many repairs.)8
    1. (16)
    1. Hindi (adapted from Bhatt & Keine 2017: ex.18)
    1. rɑm = ne
    2. Ram = ERG
    1. [prət̪ɑp = kiː
    2. Pratap = GEN
    1. khub
    2. lot
    1. mərəmmət̪]
    2. repair.F.SG
    1. kər-niː/-nɑ
    2. do-INF.F.SG/-INF.M.SG
    1. t∫ɑh-i:/-ɑ.
    2. want-F.SG/-M.SG
    1. ‘Ram wanted to give Pratap a good beating.’

A parallel argument can be made for Marathi: the idiomatic reading becomes deviant by scrambling the object included in the idiom. But under LDA, the idiomatic reading is not lost.

    1. (17)
    1. a.
    1. rɑd̪hɑ
    2. Radha.NOM
    1. mɑ∫ɑ
    2. flea.F.PL
    1. mɑr-t̪-e-j.
    2. kill-IPFV-F.SG-PRS
    1. ‘Radha is idling away the time.’ (lit. Radha is killing fleas.)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mɑ∫ɑ
    2. flea.F.PL
    1. rɑd̪hɑ
    2. Radha.NOM
    1. mɑ∫ɑ
    2.  
    1. mɑr-t̪-e-j.
    2. kill-IPFV-F.SG-PRS
    1. (1) #Radha is idling away the time.
    2. (2) Radha is killing fleas.
    1. (18)
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = lɑ
    2. Radha = DAT
    1. ɑdz
    2. today
    1. mɑ∫ɑ
    2. flea.F.PL
    1. mɑr-ɑw-jɑ-∫-ɑ
    2. kill-SBJV-F.PL-such-F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑ-et̪.
    2. feel-IPFV-PL-PRS.3PL
    1. ‘Radha is feeling like idling away the time today.’

Thus, movement- either long or short- of the embedded object is not needed for LDA to take place. In particular, the availability of the idiomatic reading suggests the embedded object does not move out of the vP, ruling out short-distance (i.e. within the clause) movement as well.

Davison (1991) has also argued against the movement-based analysis of LDA in Hindi. Davison’s analysis involves percolation of phi-features up in the syntactic projections yielding LDA. Another analysis of LDA which does not argue for movement is proposed by Legate (2005) who claims that agreement across syntactic phases (therefore, in long-distance manner) takes place through the mediation of intermediate heads (head-to-head agreement). Her analysis involves cyclic application of local agreement relationships bringing about the surface effect of LDA. Both Davison’s and Legate’s proposals have an appeal for explaining LDA across the subjunctive clause in Marathi in which multiple adjacent heads participate in agreement. In this construction, the presence and mediation of -s- facilitates LDA. The proposal which I adopt in this paper indeed involves cyclic application of local agreements, but it also differs in certain ways from both Davison’s and Legate’s approaches. In accordance with Davison’s approach, I propose that in this instance of LDA, agreement in each clause is triggered by an argument of a verb in that clause: the embedded verb agrees with the embedded object, and the matrix verb agrees with its own internal argument which is clausal in nature. However, I do not resort to feature percolation or an equivalent mechanism as widely as Davison does. I also do not propose head-to-head agreement as Legate does. See section 6 for details.

One of the reasons for not adopting feature-percolation and cyclic agreement analyses as they are, is that they do not extend to other instances of LDA in Marathi or even to the standard monoclausal agreement of the main verb and the auxiliary. Note that in (19), the embedded non-finite verb does not agree with its argument while the matrix verb agrees with it, leading to LDA. Also in (20), the aspectual participle form of the main verb does not agree with the subject, while the past tense auxiliary does.

    1. (19)
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = ne
    2. Radha = ERG
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. [kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑj-lɑ]
    2. read-INF.DAT
    1. sɑɳgit̪-l-jɑ.
    2. tell-PFV-F.PL
    1. ‘Radha told Mira to read poems.’
    1. (20)
    1. səmir
    2. Samir.NOM
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ət̪
    2. read-IPFV
    1. hot̪-ɑ.
    2. be.PST-3M.SG
    1. ‘Sameer was reading poems.’

Cases such as these, where intermediate heads show no agreement, require extra stipulations (such as abstract agreement) in the feature-percolation and cyclic agreement analyses. Instead, I propose in section 6 that several heads in a clause independently agree with the same argument.

In another alternative proposed by Butt (1995), cyclic mechanism of local agreement is employed in addition to ‘complex predicate formation’. Complex predicate formation involves ‘fusion of event structures or argument structures of two verbs resulting in a simplex grammatical structure with a single predicate’ (consisting of multiple lexical items) and a single subject (Butt 1995: 2). Typically such a complex predicate consists of a cluster of verbs. The Marathi LDA construction does not seem to involve complex predicate formation, as the embedded verb carries mood and agreement morphology which suggests that at least some structural material intervenes between the two verbs.9 I propose that a different kind of verb-cluster formation is indeed possible in the LDA construction being discussed in this paper, but such a cluster-formation is not necessary for LDA (cf. section 5.5.1 and references cited therein).

Note that many of the proposals discussed above include restructuring of the embedded clause in Hindi LDA in addition to other mechanisms of agreement (cf. Koopman 2006; Keine 2013; Mahajan 2017). On the other hand, Bhatt (2005) and Boeckx (2004) propose that restructuring of the embedded clause is enough to account for LDA in Hindi. Bhatt claims that the restructured clause in Hindi-Urdu LDA is a subjectless TP with an infinitival T0 (Inf0 in his terminology) taking a vP complement with no external argument. Boeckx, on the other hand, claims that the embedded material in the Hindi LDA construction is a bare VP (2004: 32). In LDA in Marathi being discussed here, the embedded subjunctive clause also exhibits restructuring properties which I discuss at length in section 5. However, I argue that while LDA and the restructuring properties of the subjunctive clause always co-occur, LDA itself is achieved by a series of local agreements in which the verb in each clause agrees with its own internal argument.

My proposal is as follows. The subjunctive clause that occurs embedded in the non-LDA construction is a full CP. On the other hand, the subjunctive clause embedded in the LDA construction, is restructured in the sense that it lacks some functional projections that a full clause has, specifically, at least a TP, a NegP and crucially the entire CP layer. This restructured clause is selected by a clause-introducing functional element- -s-- which I analyse as a clause-linker (à la den Dikken 2006; Philip 2012) located in some functional projection lower than CP projections in a clause. For the want of a better alternative, I call this projection LinkP (cf. den Dikken 2006). The structure of the LDA construction is given in (21).

    1. (21)
    1. The structure of the LDA construction

I stipulate that the linker -s- in (21) is lexically specified to select for a restructured subjunctive clause. Also that, this linker has unvalued phi-features which make it probe and locate the embedded object as a goal, leading to LDA. As this clause-linker necessarily agrees with the embedded object, I claim that LDA across the subjunctive in Marathi is mediated by the agreeing form -s-. Since both LDA and the selection of the restructured clause depend on -s-, the two phenomena necessarily co-occur. Moreover, I shortly demonstrate that the linker is distinct from the complementizer əsə, despite its appearance as a reduced version of the latter.

The complementizer əsə always occurs in a full CP clause. Further, it has fixed, lexically valued phi-features (3N.SG). It does not probe. The structure of the non-LDA construction in which əsə occurs, is given in (22).

    1. (22)
    1. The structure of the non-LDA construction

In both LDA and non-LDA constructions, the matrix clause probes fail to agree with the matrix subject as it carries dative case. However, they agree locally with the internal argument of the matrix verb- CP in case of the non-LDA construction and LinkP in case of the LDA construction. However, since LinkP is headed by a linker carrying phi-features of the embedded object, the matrix verb also lands up with the same features through agreement with the LinkP. In other words, the presence of an agreeing linker facilitates the effect of LDA, while the presence of a non-agreeing complementizer yields the effect of blocking LDA. The mechanism of agreement in LDA and non-LDA constructions is discussed in detail in section 6. In the next section, I discuss the status of -s- as a linker.

4.1 A note on the status of -s-

Due to striking form-similarity between this linker and the final complementizer əsə, as well as between the LDA and non-LDA constructions, the form -s- is often judged as a phonologically reduced form of əsə. The two forms --s- and əsə may also be historically related (cf. Damle 1970), but there is no diachronic investigation available yet to verify this hunch. The form -s-, which I refer to as a linker, has extremely limited distribution, unlike other genuine complementizers in Marathi. The form -s- does not come attached to any clause other than the restructured subjunctive clause being discussed here. However, it occurs in two other contexts. In one context, the form -s- can attach to adjectives to express meanings similar to ‘sort-of’ or ‘-ish’ in English (as in small-ish). In this case, both the adjective and the form -s- agree with the noun modified by the adjective. See examples in (23). I call it ‘adjectival -s-’.

    1. (23)
    1. a.
    1. t∫hoʈ-i-∫-i
    2. small-F.SG-such-F.SG
    1. mulgi
    2. girl
    1. ‘a small-ish girl / a small sort of girl’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. t∫hoʈ-ɑ-s-ɑ
    2. small-M.SG-such-M.SG
    1. mulgɑ
    2. boy
    1. ‘a smallish boy / a small sort of boy’

In another instance, this form occurs attached to two negative auxiliaries- nɑhi which is a present-tense negative form and also the default negation in Marathi, and nəko which is the negative imperative/desirative (expressing the meaning ‘not want/need’). The -s- attaching to these negations also participates in agreement. These negatives appear to be converted to adjectives by the addition of -s-, especially nəko-s- form, as can be seen from (24.c).

    1. (24)
    1. a.
    1. səmir
    2. Sameer.NOM
    1. puɳjɑ = hun
    2. Pune = from
    1. nɑhi-s-ɑ
    2. NEG-such-M.SG
    1. dzhɑ-l-ɑ.
    2. become-PFV-3M.SG
    1. ‘Sameer vanished from Pune.’ (lit. Sameer became like not there!)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. səmir = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. these.F
    1. wəst̪u
    2. thing.F.PL
    1. nəko-∫-ɑ
    2. unwant-such-F.PL
    1. dzhɑ-l-jɑ.
    2. become-PFV-3F.PL
    1. ‘These things became undesirable to Sameer.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. nəko-∫-ɑ
    2. unwant-such-F.PL
    1. wəst̪u
    2. thing.F.PL
    1. ‘unwanted things’

The clause-linker is distinct from both the adjectival -s- and the negative-attaching -s-. I take the -s- attached negations to be lexicalized, fossilized forms, not productively derived in syntax. The reason is that these are the only negations that come attached with -s-. Both the adjectival -s- and the clause-linker are more productive.

The linker is distinct from the adjectival -s- due to following reasons. One, the adjectival -s- derives adjectives out of adjectives. However, the embedded subjunctive clause in the LDA context does not have properties of an adjectival phrase or an adjectival small clause. Indeed the matrix verb ‘feel’ can take a variety of complements, including an adjectival small clause such as in (25). However, the subjunctive clause attached with -s- is different from the adjectival small clause.

    1. (25)
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. [ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. məhɑgɖe]
    2. costly.M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV.3PL
    1. ‘Mira finds mangoes costly.’

The sentence embedding an adjectival small clause has a very different meaning than the LDA construction being discussed here, as the translation in (25) shows. Moreover, the two constructions are structurally very different: the adjectival small clause is a typical verbless clause which leads to the raising of a DP in it into the higher clause for case (or has ECM). I propose that the restructured subjunctive clause is bigger in size than the adjectival small-clause. It involves a PRO argument in its vP (see section 5.2). The LDA construction therefore, involves control and is thus structurally different from (25). Further, note that the adjectival small clause can be questioned by ‘how’, while the subjunctive verb cannot be. The answer to the question in (26.a) could involve true adjectives but not the -s-attached subjunctive verb.

    1. (26)
    1. a.
    1. Question:
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. kəse
    2. how
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪?
    2. feel-IPFV.3PL
    1. ‘How does Mira find the mangoes?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Answer:
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. tsɑŋgle/
    2. good.M.PL/
    1. goɖ/
    2. sweet.M.PL/
    1. məhɑgɖe/
    2. costly.M.PL/
    1. khɑ-ɳjɑ = dzoge/
    2. eat-INF=able/
    1. *khɑ-w-e-s-e
    2. *eat-SBJV-M.PL-such-M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV.3PL
    1. ‘Mira finds the mangoes nice/ sweet/ costly/ edible/ *eating-like.’

Also, the adjectival -s- cannot attach to a clause- even if the clause is adjectival in the sense it modifies a noun (a relative clause).

    1. (27)
    1. a.
    1.   t∫hɑn
    2.   nice
    1. gɑ-u
    2. sing-NFIN
    1. ∫ək-el
    2. can-FUT.3SG
    1. əsɑ
    2. such.M.SG
    1. mulgɑ
    2. boy
    1.    ‘a boy who can sing nicely’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *t∫hɑn
    2.   nice
    1. gɑ-u
    2. sing-NFIN
    1. ∫ək-el-s-ɑ
    2. can-FUT.3SG-such.M.SG
    1. mulgɑ
    2. boy
    1.    Intended: ‘a boy who can sing nicely’

The adjectival -s- is optional in the sense that an adjective does not need to have this morpheme in order to be used. The linker may also be omitted as seen in (28), however such instances are relatively rare.

    1. (28)
    1. (from Karunashtak by G.D. Madgulkar)
    1. mə = lɑ
    2. I = DAT
    1. sɑndzɑ
    2. semolina.M.SG
    1. khɑ-w-ɑ
    2. eat-SBJV-M.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-o.
    2. feel-IPFV-M.SG
    1. ‘I feel like eating a semolina-dish.’

Further, unlike in case of adjectives, where omission of -s- leads to the loss of -ish-like meanings, the omission of the linker -s- as in (28), seems to make no semantic difference. In other words, the clause-linker -s- appears to be semantically vacuous.10

According to Philip (2012), complementizers are also a kind of linkers. Accordingly, as both -s- and əsə are linkers, their similarities or historical association may be accounted for. Nonetheless, they are distinct linkers, with their own distinct selectional and other lexical properties. The full complementizer əsə selects any finite clause, while the linker -s- selects only a restructured subjunctive clause. The full complementizer can also occur with a wide variety of matrix predicates such as mhəɳ ‘say’, sɑŋ ‘tell’, pɑh ‘see’, wit∫ɑr ‘ask’, kəɭ ‘come.to.know’ etc., including wɑʈ ‘feel’. The linker occurs with only ‘feel’ matrix verb. Additionally, the full complementizer is a free and non-agreeing form. I propose that it has fixed 3N.SG features of its own lexically valued and therefore it does not act as a probe for agreement (cf. section 6.1 for details). The linker, on the other hand, is a bound form and it has unvalued phi-features. It therefore acts as a probe and agrees on finding a suitable goal to value its features. The complementizer əsə occupies the C-head, like any other complementizer. The linker, on the other hand, occurs immediately on top of the restructured clause it introduces. I demonstrate that this clause is a MoodP and it lacks TP as well as NegP. Thus, the linker heads a functional projection- LinkP- which occurs right above the MoodP. The linker does not occur in the CP-layer of a clause.

Treating -s- as a low-attached clause-linker allows us to capture the co-occurrence of LDA, the linker and the other properties of this construction which suggest restructuring in a principled way: both LDA and restructuring are the properties of this linker (cf. section 5). Further, it also suggests the absence of a phase boundary, which allows the movement of the embedded material into the matrix clause (cf. sections 5.5 and 5.7).

5 Evidence of restructuring

I now present arguments to demonstrate that the subjunctive embedded clause in the LDA construction involves syntactic restructuring. In the literature on restructuring, various diagnostic tests have been proposed, such as long-passivization (Wurmbrand 2001), anaphor-binding, control and agreement (Butt 1995) and NPI-licensing (Bhatt 2005). Most of these tests are not useful here: For instance, the long-passive test does not apply to Marathi LDA since the matrix verb in the LDA context under consideration is a dative-subject predicate which does not passivize (cf. Rosen & Wali 1989). However, transparency of the NPI-licensing can serve as one diagnostic, since it can be shown to occur due to restructured nature of the embedded clause. I demonstrate the restructured nature of the embedded subjunctive clause through the absence of positions such as TP, NegP etc. A crucial evidence of restructuring also comes from the fact that the embedded verb in the LDA context fails to participate in ‘double or second agreement’ (recall section 2).

5.1 Presence of a vP and a MoodP

First, we need to ascertain which functional projections the subjunctive embedded clause does have. The embedded verb in the LDA construction is necessarily an agentive verb. The presence of semantic agentivity, ascertained by the embedded verb’s compatibility with an agentive adverb such as ‘deliberately’ and ‘to one’s satisfaction’ suggests the presence of the vP-layer.

    1. (29)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. mud̪d̪ɑm
    2. deliberately
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = t∫jɑ
    2. Radha = GEN
    1. khoɖjɑ
    2. prank.F.PL
    1. kɑɖh-ɑw-jɑ-∫-ɑ
    2. pull-SBJV-F.PL-such-F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV-3F.PL
    1. ‘Mira feels like deliberately playing pranks on Radha.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. mənəsokt̪əpəɳe
    2. heartfully
    1. kəirjɑ
    2. raw.mango.F.PL
    1. khɑ-w-jɑ-∫-ɑ
    2. eat-SBJV-F.PL-such.F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV-3F.PL
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating raw mangoes to her satisfaction.’

Moreover, the embedded verb has subjunctive morphology and agreement. I assume therefore, that there is some functional projection present over the vP to host subjunctive (i.e. irrealis) modal morphology. I call it MoodP and assume that it is located above vP but below TP (Wali 2006).11

5.2 Presence of the obligatorily controlled PRO

The embedded subjunctive clause in the LDA context not only has a vP, but also has a PRO argument in the Spec-vP position. PRO takes the Agent theta role from the embedded verb and is obligatorily controlled by the matrix subject. I use two diagnostics- Davison’s Dative Case Restriction and sloppy reading- to demonstrate the presence of PRO.

5.2.1 Dative case restriction

According to Davison’s Dative Case Restriction (Davison 2008), in obligatory control constructions, dative-subjects do not occur as PRO. Davison uses this generalization as a test to determine if a construction involves obligatory control. This generalization has been shown to apply to complement clauses in Marathi (see Rosen & Wali (1989: 15), as quoted in Davison (2008: 42) as ex.44).12 Now consider (30) in which a dative-subject predicate miɭ ‘get’ is used. This predicate cannot be embedded under wɑʈ ‘feel’ in the LDA context (31.a), but it can be embedded in the non-LDA construction (31.b).

    1. (30)
    1. səmir = lɑ
    2. Sameer = DAT
    1. tsɑŋgli
    2. good.F.SG
    1. nokri
    2. job.F.SG
    1. miɭɑ-l-i.
    2. get-PFV-3F.SG
    1. ‘Samir got a good job.’
    1. (31)
    1. a.
    1. *səmir = lɑ
    2.   Sameer = DAT
    1. [tsɑŋgli
    2. good.F.SG
    1. nokri
    2. job.F.SG
    1. miɭ-ɑw-i-∫-i]
    2. get-SBJV-F.SG-such-F.SG
    1. wɑʈ-l-i.
    2. feel-PFV-3F.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Sameer felt like getting a good job.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   səmir1=lɑ
    2.   Sameer = DAT
    1. [(ɑpljɑ1=lɑ)
    2. (self = DAT)
    1. tsɑŋgli
    2. good.F.SG
    1. nokri
    2. job.F.SG
    1. miɭ-ɑw-i
    2. get-SBJV-F.SG
    1. əsə]
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-l-ə.
    2. feel-PFV-3N.SG
    1.    ‘Sameer felt like getting a good job.’

The impossibility of embedding a dative-subject predicate in the LDA construction suggests that the embedded clause in LDA involves a PRO argument. More specifically, the co-referential embedded argument- the receiver of a job in (31.a)- must be obligatorily controlled PRO. Note that in the non-LDA construction, there is a strong preference for an overt subject (an anaphoric subject in (31.b)). This indicates that the covert subject in the non-LDA construction is not PRO.

5.2.2 Sloppy reading under ellipsis

Another common diagnostic used for the presence of a PRO is sloppy reading under ellipsis (Landau 2004 among many others). Consider (32).

    1. (32)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-s-e
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-such.M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪
    2. feel-IPFV.3PL
    1. ɑɳi
    2. and
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = lɑ = sud̪d̪hɑ.
    2. Radha = DAT=too
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating mangoes and Radha does too.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-t̪
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1. ɑɳi
    2. and
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = lɑ = sud̪d̪hɑ.
    2. Radha = DAT=too
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating mangoes and Radha does too.’

In both these sentences, the entire matrix verb-phrase along with the clause embedded in it is deleted by ellipsis. In (32.a), the only reading possible is sloppy: Mira wants Mira to eat mangoes, while Radha wants Radha to eat mangoes. On the other hand, (32.b) is ambiguous between a sloppy reading and a strict reading. The preferred reading is sloppy in which Mira and Radha each want themselves to eat mangoes. However, the strict reading that Radha wants Mira to eat mangoes is also available. Obligatorily controlled PRO typically blocks the strict reading as in the case of (32.a).

From both of these tests, we can infer that the embedded subjunctive clause in the LDA construction has an obligatorily controlled PRO argument. The embedded clause in the non-LDA construction has a lexical DP or a pro.

5.3 Absence of a TP

While the embedded subjunctive clause in the LDA construction has vP and MoodP, it lacks functional projections higher than MoodP. I claim that this clause particularly lacks a TP projection. Recall that the subjunctive clause in Marathi can also occur as a root clause. I propose that the subjunctive that occurs as a root clause and as a complement clause in the non-LDA context has TP, but there is no evidence for the presence of TP in the subjunctive under LDA.

Consider sentences in (33) that depict instances of a subjunctive as a root clause. In (33.a) and (33.b), the subjunctive is used to express suggestions or injunctions such as in Do-s and Don’t-s instructions. It expresses a speaker’s wish in (33.c). In (33.b), the overt subject is optionally present. It is common in Marathi to drop the overt subject in an injunctive statement, when the injunction is deemed applicable universally.

    1. (33)
    1. a.
    1. mulɑn = ni
    2. children = ERG
    1. ∫ɑɭe = t̪
    2. school = LOC
    1. weɭe = wər
    2. time = on
    1. jɑ-w-ə.
    2. come-SBJV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Children should come to school on time.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. (sərwɑn = ni)
    2. (all = ERG)
    1. it̪he
    2. here
    1. ∫ɑnt̪ət̪ɑ
    2. silence.F.SG
    1. rɑkh-ɑw-i.
    2. maintain-SBJV-F.SG
    1. ‘Everybody / One should maintain silence here.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. mə = lɑ
    2. I = DAT
    1. tsɑŋgli
    2. good.F.SG
    1. nokri
    2. job
    1. miɭ-ɑw-i.
    2. get-SBJV-F.SG
    1. ‘I should get a good job (I wish/hope).’

Thus, when the subjunctive occurs as a root clause, a lexical subject (or a pro) is present. The lexical subject or the pro is also present in the subjunctive clause in the non-LDA contexts (cf. (14.b)). Further, in the injunctive reading as in (33.a-b), there is an overall generic sense- all future instances of the events of ‘coming to school’ or ‘maintaining silence’ come under the scope of these injunctions. The wish/hope reading obviously locates the event of ‘getting a job’ in future times. In other words, these root subjunctive clauses have an independent, i.e. deictic tense, which locates the events in future times with respect to the utterance time. I assume therefore that the root subjunctive also contains a syntactic projection of the tense, namely a TP. Borrowing from Stowell (1982), let us say the tense of the root subjunctive clause is always ‘irrealis’ or ‘unrealised future’.13 The irrealis tense or futurity of the subjunctive verb can further be confirmed from the fact that a temporal adverb ‘yesterday’ is incompatible with the subjunctive verb (see (34)).

    1. (34)
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira = ERG
    1. ɑt̪t̪ɑ/ud̪jɑ/*kal
    2. now/tomorrow/*yesterday
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i.
    2. read-SBJV-F.SG
    1. ‘Mira should read a poem now/tomorrow/*yesterday.’

This irrealis-tensed subjunctive clause, apart from occurring as a root clause, can also be embedded under a variety of predicates such as ‘say’, ‘decide’, ‘ask’ including the verb ‘feel’. See (35).

    1. (35)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i
    2. read-SBJV-F.SG
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. rɑd̪hɑ
    2. Radha
    1. mhəɳɑ-l-i.
    2. say-PFV-3F.SG
    1. ‘Radha said that Mira should read a poem.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i
    2. read-SBJV-F.SG
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = ne
    2. Radha = ERG
    1. ʈhərəw-l-ə.
    2. decide-PFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Radha decided that Mira should read a poem.’

Note that the embedded clauses in (35) are introduced by a complementizer əsə which introduces only finite clauses (Bayer 1984; Pandharipande 1997; Dhongde & Wali 2009). The presence of a nominative or an ergative lexical subject,14 as well as the proposal for the presence of a TP headed by the irrealis tense, are compatible with the claim that these subjunctive clauses may be finite in nature and have a full clausal structure. They are in fact CPs.

Now consider (36). We have a non-LDA construction in (36.a). Note that both the matrix clause and the subjunctive clause can be independently modified by distinct temporal adverbs. In contrast, when LDA takes place, the embedded subjunctive clause cannot have an independent temporal adverb (36.b).

    1. (36)
    1. a.
    1.   kɑl
    2.   yesterday
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ud̪jɑ
    2. tomorrow
    1. gɑɖi
    2. car.F.SG
    1. ghjɑ-w-i
    2. take-SBJV-F.SG
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-ət̪
    2. feel-IPFV
    1. hot̪-ə.
    2. be.PST-3N.SG
    1.    ‘Yesterday Mira was feeling like buying a car tomorrow.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *kɑl
    2.   yesterday
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ud̪jɑ
    2. tomorrow
    1. gɑɖi
    2. car.F.SG
    1. ghjɑ-w-i-∫-i
    2. take-SBJV-F.SG-such-F.SG
    1. wɑʈ-ət̪
    2. feel-IPFV
    1. hot̪-i.
    2. be.PST-3F.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Yesterday Mira was feeling like buying a car tomorrow.’

The two events of wanting and of buying in (36.b) must be concomitant. In other words, the embedded clause in the LDA context appears to not have a tense independent of the tense of the matrix clause, as it does not have access to the utterance time. It is not incompatible with the proposal that the clause lacks the whole TP. Therefore, I assume that the subjunctive embedded clause in the LDA context lacks TP.

5.4 Absence of a NegP

Yet another evidence of restructuring comes from the prohibition of negation in the embedded subjunctive clause under LDA. Marathi has several ‘negative auxiliaries’ which inherently have tense and mood information in them (Damle 1970; Pandharipande 1997; Wali 2005; Dhongde & Wali 2009). In a typical verbal complex in any Marathi clause, the main verb precedes the negation and the negation precedes the tense and agreement morphology (see (37)). Given the linear order “V – Aspect –Negation– Tense” in Marathi, I assume that the NegP is located lower than the TP, but possibly higher than the AspP and the MoodP.

    1. (37)
    1. mirɑ
    2. Mira.NOM
    1. ɑt̪t̪ɑ
    2. right.now
    1. pust̪ək
    2. book.N.SG
    1. wɑts-ət̪
    2. read-IPFV
    1. nɑhi-je.
    2. NEG-be.PRS.1SG
    1. ‘Mira is not reading a book right now.’

The subjunctive is negated in Marathi by a special prohibitive negation nəje as shown in (38).

    1. (38)
    1. a.
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = ne
    2. Radha = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-ɑw-i.
    2. read-SBJV-F.SG
    1. ‘Mira should read a poem.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = ne
    2. Radha = ERG
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-u
    2. read-NFIN
    1. nəje.
    2. PROH
    1. ‘Mira should not read a poem.’

In the non-LDA construction, the embedded clause is negated with the prohibitive (39.a) just like in case of a root clause. It is also possible to negate both the embedded subjunctive verb and the matrix verb independently (39.b).

    1. (39)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-u
    2. read-NFIN
    1. nəje-t̪
    2. PROH-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels like not reading poems.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.SG
    1. wɑts-u
    2. read-NFIN
    1. nəje-t̪
    2. PROH-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-ət̪
    2. feel-IPFV
    1. nɑhi.
    2. NEG.PRS
    1. ‘Mira does not feel like not reading poems.’

In the LDA construction, only the matrix negation is possible. The embedded subjunctive cannot be negated at all, suggesting that the NegP is absent in this clause. See (40).

    1. (40)
    1. a.
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-u
    2. read-NFIN
    1. nəje-∫-ɑ
    2. PROH-such-F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV-F.PL
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira feels like not reading the poems.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-∫-ɑ
    2. read-SBJV-F.PL-such-F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-ət̪
    2. feel-IPFV
    1. nɑhi-t̪.
    2. NEG.PRS-3PL.OBJ
    1.    ‘Mira does not feel like reading the poems.’

5.5 The effects of restructuring

The LDA and non-LDA constructions contrast with respect to some properties such as the scope of negation, the quantifier-scope etc. This contrast further supports arguments in favour of restructuring of the subjunctive clause in the LDA context. That the subjunctive clause under LDA is transparent for the scope of negation as well as for the quantifier-scope can be demonstrated to be due to its restructured nature.

5.5.1 Transparency of the scope of negation

Despite the unavailability of NegP inside the restructured subjunctive, sometimes a tensed negative auxiliary seemingly occurs inside such a clause and takes the scope over the matrix clause. In the sentence in (41.a), the tensed negation occurs in between the embedded object and the embedded verb. So, it seems to be located inside the embedded clause. This linear order is not available for the non-LDA construction (41.b).

    1. (41)
    1. a.
    1.   mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. nɑhi
    2. NEG.PRS
    1. khɑ-w-e-s-e
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-such-M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-l-e.
    2. feel-PFV-M.PL
    1.    ‘Mira did not feel like eating mangoes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *mirɑ = lɑ
    2.   Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. nɑhi
    2. NEG.PRS
    1. khɑ-w-e-t̪
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-l-ə.
    2. feel-PFV-3N.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Mira did not feel like eating mangoes.’

Further, the seemingly embedded negation in the LDA construction scopes over the matrix clause. Its scope can be diagnosed from the matrix NPI subject, which is licensed by the tensed negation (42).

    1. (42)
    1. koɳɑ = lɑ = hi
    2. anyone = DAT.EMPH
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. nɑhi
    2. NEG.PRS
    1. khɑ-w-e-s-e
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-such-M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-l-e.
    2. feel-PFV-M.PL
    1. ‘No one felt like eating mangoes.’

Thus, the embedded subjunctive appears to be transparent for the scope of negation under LDA. The contrast between the LDA and non-LDA construction such as in (41–42) is used by Bhatt (2005) as a diagnostic for restructuring in Hindi-Urdu.

However, on a closer look, it is clear that the tensed negation in (41.a) and (42) must actually be located in the matrix clause. First, recall that the subjunctive verb can only be negated by the prohibitive in Marathi. The tensed negation must therefore negate the matrix verb. Secondly, a truly embedded negation cannot license the matrix NPI. For instance, in a non-LDA construction, the prohibitive inside the embedded clause negates the subjunctive verb and it cannot license the matrix NPI subject (43).

    1. (43)
    1. *koɳɑ = lɑ = hi
    2.   anyone = DAT.EMPH
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-u
    2. eat-NFIN
    1. nəje-t̪
    2. PROH-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-l-ə.
    2. feel-PFV-3N.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘No one felt like eating mangoes.’

Thus, the apparent ‘transparency of the scope of negation’ in (42), in fact indicates that the negation lies in the matrix clause. The linear order and the scope properties in (41) and (42) respectively, could be the result of a rightward head-movement of the embedded verb into the matrix clause across the tensed negation. The possibility of this movement corresponds with the restructured nature of the embedded subjunctive. Such a movement of the embedded verb is not possible out of the subjunctive clause in the non-LDA construction, which is a full CP. See Homer & Bhatt (2020) for a similar account for Hindi-Urdu which in essence can be extended to the Marathi data presented here.

The embedded subjunctive in the LDA construction is restructured and lacks a CP. The linker -s- is a bound form, which allows the head-movement of the embedded verb in Link0, where the verb adjoins the linker. The embedded subjunctive verb can then move into the matrix clause. It forms a cluster with the matrix verb. Then the cluster of the two verbs can move to right-adjoin the tensed negation (or possibly move past the tensed negation into some higher functional head), yielding the word order “embedded object – tensed negation – embedded verb – matrix verb” as observed in (41).

In the non-LDA construction, the head-movement of the embedded subjunctive verb into the matrix clause is blocked by the presence of the complementizer əsə. Since this complementizer is a free form occupying C0, I assume that it does not permit head-movement into C0. As a result, the embedded subjunctive verb will have to skip C0 en route to the matrix clause. This would be violation of the Head Movement Constraint (HMC). The embedded subjunctive verb therefore cannot move into the matrix clause. It cannot form a verb-cluster with the matrix verb and as a result, the order “embedded object – tensed negation – embedded verb – matrix verb” is impossible for the non-LDA construction.

Thus, the seemingly embedded position of the tensed negation, as well as its apparent transparency of the scope from that position are facilitated by the linker and the restructured nature of the clause it introduces. The details of these head-movements are beyond the scope of this paper and need not detain us here. It must be noted that these head-movements and subsequent verb-cluster formation are optional, and are not necessary for LDA in Marathi (see also Homer & Bhatt 2020 for Hindi).

5.5.2 Object extraction and quantifier-scope

A subtle difference in the quantifier scope has been observed to correlate with LDA and non-LDA in Hindi-Urdu (Bhatt 2005; Chandra 2007). Similar effects are observed in Marathi too:

    1. (44)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. səgɭjɑ
    2. all.F.PL
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-∫-ɑ
    2. read-SBJV-F.PL-such-F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ɑt̪.
    2. feel-IPFV.3PL
    1. (1) ‘Mira feels like reading all poems.’ (feel > all)
    2. (2) ‘All poems are such that Mira feels like reading them.’ (all > feel)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. səgɭjɑ
    2. all.F.PL
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-t̪
    2. read-SBJV-F.PL
    1. əsə
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1. (1) ‘Mira feels like reading all poems.’ (feel > all)
    2. (2) #’All poems are such that Mira feels like reading them.’ (all > feel)

In (44.a), Mira desires that she should read all the poems, say in a book. This reading is also available in (44.b). This is the narrow scope of the quantifier ‘all’ in the embedded object DP. However, in (44.a), the quantifier can also scope over the matrix verb ‘feel’, rendering the reading that ‘all the poems (say in a book) are so nice that Mira desires to read them’. Assuming that the matrix scope of the quantifier is obtained by the movement of a quantifier DP over the matrix verb, such a movement of the object seems possible only in the LDA construction, but not in the non-LDA construction. Chandra (2007) uses this effect to demonstrate the movement of the embedded object in LDA. I believe that the embedded object can move over the matrix verb in LDA construction because the embedded clause in it is restructured and is not a phase. On the other hand, the wide scope of the quantifier is not possible in the non-LDA construction because the movement of the embedded object is blocked by the CP phase-boundary or by the finiteness of the embedded subjunctive clause. The ambiguity of the scope in (44.a) also indicates that in Marathi, the movement of the embedded object is optional and is not necessary for LDA.

In general, a definite embedded object can also be easily extracted out of the subjunctive clause in the LDA context, but not in the non-LDA construction as shown in (45).

    1. (45)
    1. a.
    1.   t̪jɑ
    2.   those.F
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. [mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. t̪jɑ kəwit̪ɑ
    2.  
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-∫-ɑ]
    2. read-SBJV-F.PL-such-F.PL
    1. wɑʈ-l-jɑ.
    2. feel-PFV-F.PL
    1.    ‘Those poems, Mira felt like reading.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *t̪jɑ
    2.   those.F
    1. kəwit̪ɑ
    2. poem.F.PL
    1. [mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. t̪jɑ kəwit̪ɑ
    2.  
    1. wɑts-ɑw-jɑ-t̪
    2. read-SBJV-F.PL-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə]
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-l-ə.
    2. feel-PFV-3N.SG
    1.    Intended: ‘Those poems, Mira felt like reading.’

These examples suggest that there is a general constraint on the extraction of the embedded object out of the subjunctive clause in the non-LDA construction. Such a ban does not apply to the restructured embedded clause in the LDA construction. The object-extraction and the wide scope of the quantifier thus correlate with the restructured nature of the embedded subjunctive.

5.5.3 Absence of the double-agreement morphemes

Recall the discussion on the double-agreement phenomenon in Marathi. It is seen that the double-agreement morphemes -s and -t occur on the leftmost- usually a tense-carrying- verbal element in a finite clause (cf. section 2). If the subjunctive clause in the LDA construction lacks NegP, TP, and arguably the entire CP domain, it is also predicated that the embedded verb cannot participate in the ‘double-agreement’ or the ‘second-slot agreement’. In contrast, no such restriction is predicted on the embedded subjunctive verb in the non-LDA construction. These predictions are indeed borne out, lending support to the structural contrast between the two subjunctive clauses.

See that in (46), there is no LDA and the embedded subjunctive clause under the ‘feel’ verb can manifest double-agreement morphemes.

    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1. no LDA, -t̪ morpheme on the embedded verb
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. [pro
    2.  
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-3PL.OBJ
    1. əsə]
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-l-ə.
    2. feel-PFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating mangoes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. no LDA, -s morpheme on the embedded verb
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. [t̪u
    2. you.SG.ERG
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-s
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-2SG.SBJ
    1. əsə]
    2. such
    1. wɑʈ-l-ə.
    2. feel-PFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘Mira feels that you should eat mangoes.’

Note that the double-agreement morpheme -s occurs when the 2SG subject carries either nominative or ergative case, but not when it carries dative case. Due to this, the absence of double agreement in the subjunctive clause in LDA is not clearly seen. In (46.b), the -s on the subjunctive verb is due to the overt embedded subject ‘you’. In the LDA construction, the matrix subject is the only subject and it carries dative case. As a result, the -s morpheme for 2SG subject never appears in the LDA context on any verb- matrix or embedded. However, the morpheme - indicating 3PL object also fails to appear on the subjunctive verb in LDA as seen in (47). Compare this with (46.a) above.

    1. (47)
    1. LDA, no -t morpheme on the embedded verb
    1. mirɑ = lɑ
    2. Mira = DAT
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-w-e-(*t̪)-s-e
    2. eat-SBJV-M.PL-(*3PL.OBJ)-such-M.PL
    1. wɑʈ-l-e.
    2. feel-PFV-3M.PL
    1. ‘Mira feels like eating mangoes.’

This suggests that the second slot of agreement morphemes is unavailable in the restructured subjunctive clause. Although it is not clear yet what the structural position of the second slot of agreement is,15 the contrast between (46.a) and (47) suffices to suggest the lack of this slot in the subjunctive clause in LDA.

To summarize, the embedded subjunctive clause in LDA is a restructured clause in the sense that it lacks several functional projections, crucially NegP, TP and CP. The restructured subjunctive clause is introduced by a clause-linker -s-. In contrast, the subjunctive clause in the non-LDA construction is a full CP clause, introduced by the complementizer əsə. In the next section, we turn our attention to the mechanism of agreement.

6 Mechanism of Agree

Given the structure of the LDA and non-LDA constructions, let us examine how agreement takes place in these clauses. I use the probe-goal mechanism of Agree to account for agreement. Accordingly, a head with uninterpretable, unvalued phi-features probes in its c-command domain in search for a goal carrying valued phi-features, which then values the features on the probing head. Finding the goal is subject to minimality, thus the phi-features of the goal closest to the probe are used to value the features on the probe. I assume, following Preminger (2009; 2011; 2014), that failing to find a goal does not lead the derivation to be crashed, instead the default agreement morphology shows up on the probing head.

I also assume that several functional heads in a Marathi clause, such as Aspect heads, Mood0, T0 etc. carry phi-probes on them. I assume this as different aspectual participles and tense auxiliaries in Marathi have different agreement properties. This implies that several functional heads probe independently, but minimality results in them all agreeing with the same goal. I further assume that, because a bare verb does not show any agreement morphology, v0 carries no probe. This is contrary to what is prevalent in the current literature. However, nothing crucially depends on it in my proposal here. If v0 probes, the union of v0 with higher functional heads like Asp0 and T0 in syntax will result in exhibiting a specific morphological agreement pattern on the inflected verb. The actual mechanism of morphological manifestation is not crucial for my proposal and therefore I ignore it here. For simplicity I also defer discussing the mechanism involved in double or second agreement. Let us briefly see how agreement takes place in a transitive clause in Marathi.

    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1. mirɑ
    2. Mira.NOM
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-t̪
    2. eat-IPFV
    1. hot̪-i.
    2. be.PST-3F.SG
    1. ‘Mira was eating mangoes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mirɑ = ne
    2. Mira = ERG
    1. ɑmbe
    2. mango.M.PL
    1. khɑ-ll-e
    2. eat-PFV-M.PL
    1. hot̪-e.
    2. be.PST-M.PL
    1. ‘Mira had eaten mangoes.’

The structure of the sentences in (48) is showed in (49).

(49) a. [TP Mira [AspP [vPMirɑ⟩mangoes eat] Asp ] T ]
  b. [TP Mira = ERG [AspP [vPMirɑ⟩mangoes eat] Asp ] T ]

In (49.a), the Asp0 hosts imperfective aspectual morpheme. When followed by a tense auxiliary, the imperfective participial form of the verb shows optional agreement in Marathi. In particular, in the presence of the past tense auxiliary, it does not show agreement. While I leave an account of optionality to future investigation, it would suffice here to assume that the imperfective aspectual head does not carry a phi-probe. Accordingly, no agreement morphology shows up on the imperfective participial verb. The T0 carries a phi-probe and searches its c-command domain for a goal. It locates the external argument of the vP, which carries uninterpretable nominative case feature and is accessible for agreement. Thus, we get the standard local subject-agreement.16

In (49.b) on the other hand, the main verb carries perfective aspect which always exhibits agreement in Marathi. Given that Marathi is a split ergative language, the external argument of a transitive vP carries ergative case feature which makes it inaccessible for agreement. The phi-probe on Asp0 therefore probes further to locate the internal argument, here the DP ‘mangoes’. Notice that the vP constitutes a phase. It is possible that the internal argument of the vP moves to the edge of the vP to secure accusative case. It is therefore accessible for the agree probe on Asp0 and T0.

The T0, in a similar manner, probes to find the internal argument ‘mangoes’. In case the internal argument is inaccessible due to an overt case on it, both Asp0 and T0 would fail to find a suitable goal. In that case, the default agreement morphology would be manifested on both.

6.1 Agreement mechanism with no LDA

Agreement in the non-LDA construction is essentially the same as in any monoclausal construction such as (48–49). In each CP- matrix as well as embedded- local agreement takes place.

    1. (50)
    1. Agree mechanism in the non-LDA construction

First, the embedded Mood0 probes. But as the external argument pro in the vP carries ergative case feature due to the subjunctive mood (recall section 2), it is inaccessible for agreement. The Mood0 probes further to locate the internal argument, in this case, ‘mangoes’, which has possibly moved to the edge of the vP (movement not shown in the tree). The DP ‘mangoes’ would value the phi-features on the Mood0. This is shown by the Agree-probing (1). The T0 selecting MoodP (subjunctive) is always non-overt in Marathi. Thus, one could either say that the ‘unrealized-future’ tense in Marathi trivially probes to locate the object as a goal or that it does not carry any phi-probe at all.

I propose that the complementizer əsə has valued phi-features 3N.SG. These features project to the CP. Thus, the CP headed by əsə can potentially serve as a goal (see also Davison 1991).

Both the Asp0 and the T0 in the matrix clause act as probes. But as the external argument ‘Mira’ carries dative case feature, it is inaccessible for agreement. They both probe further. Since the matrix verb is a dative-subject predicate, I assume that the matrix VP lacks the vP layer and hence does not constitute a phase in syntax. As a result the internal clausal argument of the matrix verb, the CP, is accessible to Asp0 and T0. They agree with the CP, as shown by the probes (2) and (3). Since the CP is a phase in syntax, embedded arguments are not accessible for the matrix probes on Asp0 and T0. Further, minimality implies they agree with the CP and not any goal inside the CP. According to the this analysis, the 3N.SG features on the matrix verb are not the manifestation of default agreement, but the result of local agreement with the CP argument with 3N.SG features.

Alternatively, it can be assumed that the complementizer əsə has no phi-features at all. Thus, the CP cannot serve as a goal. It is however, a phase, preventing the matrix clause probes from accessing embedded arguments. In that case, the matrix Asp0 and T0 fail to find a goal and the default agreement morphology manifests on them.17 While this proposal is quite feasible too, I choose to assume that the complementizer əsə has fixed phi-features. This assumption has potential to capture the association between this complementizer and other instances of əsə in the language which typically participate in agreement (cf. (27) in which əsə occurs in a relative clause). It also opens a possibility of exploring differences between əsə and other complementizers in Marathi.

6.2 Agreement mechanism leading to LDA

Now, let us look at how agreement takes place in long distance manner:

    1. (51)
    1. The Agree mechanism in the LDA construction

I assume that the PRO argument is invisible for agreement (Davison 1991). Thus, the embedded Mood0 cannot agree with the external argument PRO, and needs to probe further. It locates the internal argument (possibly moved to the edge of vP) as a goal. This is shown by probe (1).

The linker -s- carries a phi-probe, but it too cannot find PRO as a goal. Just like Mood0, the linker finds the embedded object as a goal, as shown by probe (2). I propose that these features percolate to LinkP which can now serve as a goal for other probes.

Like in the case of the non-LDA construction, the matrix Asp0 and T0 cannot access the dative-subject of the matrix clause. They probe further as shown by probes (3) and (4) respectively. They locate the internal argument of the matrix verb- LinkP- as a goal. Since the LinkP is not a phase in syntax, they can also access the embedded object directly. But minimality implies that they agree with LinkP rather than any argument embedded inside it. Since the LinkP has the same features as the embedded object, the matrix probes Asp0 and T0 also have the same features. This yields the effect of LDA in which the matrix verb appears to agree with the embedded object. In other words, LDA is derived through a series of local agreements. This proposal is essentially in line with the cyclic-agree analyses of Davison (1991); Butt (1995) and Legate (2005), but with crucial differences from all of these approaches in the implementation of the mechanism of agreement.

Notice that there is another possible alternative proposal in which the matrix Asp0 and T0 probes directly agree with the embedded object. Since the LinkP is a restructured clause and does not have a phase-boundary, the embedded object is accessible to the matrix probes. The rare instances in Marathi (cf. (28)) in which LDA takes place in the absence of the overt linker -s- in fact supports this analysis.18 However, these instances can be accounted in my proposal as well. Under my analysis, the absence of the linker and the restructured nature of the embedded clause together imply that the embedded object is the closest accessible goal to the matrix probes. In the alternative proposal of direct agreement of the matrix verb, the linker and the probes in the matrix clause agree independently. Therefore, restructuring of the embedded clause is enough to account for LDA. The agreeing property of the linker -s- turns out to be an interesting but incidental fact. Under my proposal, both restructuring of the embedded clause and the agreeing nature of the linker play an important role in bringing about the patterns of LDA across the subjunctive clause.

7 Conclusions and open questions

Like its closely related Indo-Aryan languages, Marathi exhibits several constructions involving LDA. However, LDA across the subjunctive embedded clause in Marathi is empirically quite peculiar. I have demonstrated in this paper that this instance of LDA results due to an agreeing clause-linker -s- and a restructured subjunctive clause which it introduces.

This particular instance of LDA has been derived through a series of local agreements. In both the LDA and non-LDA constructions, the matrix verb agrees with its internal argument- the full CP in case of the non-LDA construction and the LinkP in case of LDA. The crucial difference between the two arises from the distinction between clause-introducer elements- -s- and əsə. The former agrees with the embedded object, leading to the effect of LDA, while the latter does not agree. I have demonstrated that the form -s- is distinct from the clause-final complementizer əsə, despite its form-similarity with the latter. The form -s- is treated in fact as a low-attached linker. The complementizer əsə, in contrast, is a high-attached linker, a typical complementizer sitting in C0. The complementizer əsə has its fixed 3N.SG features and it occurs in a full-fledged CP clause, while the linker -s- agrees and introduces a restructured subjunctive clause. The correlation of the occurrence of the linker -s-, its agreement, LDA and the restructuring properties of the embedded subjunctive clause it introduces, is accounted for in this paper.

The distribution of the clause-linker -s- in Marathi is however, extremely limited. In fact, it occurs in just the one construction- the desirative construction involving LDA being discussed in this paper. As such, the analysis of this construction involving a clause-linker is extremely specific and independent justification for the proposed analysis of -s- as a clause-linker is hard to come by. One could argue that it is a clause-introducing element and hence a standard complementizer in C0. I have demonstrated the distinction between the two clause-final complementizers in section 4. Nothing crucially depends on locating it in C head. In any case, there is compelling evidence that the projections between CP and MoodP are absent. It is simpler to assume therefore that the whole CP-layer is also absent. However, analysing -s- as a low-attached linker may open possibilities for treating verb morphology in other multi-verb constructions in Marathi. The non-finite verbs in multi-verb constructions in Marathi, bear some morphology including aspectual markers, a case marker, a morpheme -u sometimes labelled as inceptive (cf. Dhongde & Wali 2009) etc. Many of these constructions too exhibit LDA. It would be worth investigating in future if these morphemes are also some kind of clause-linkers.

Notes

1Despite my claim that -s- is synchronically distinct from the complementizer əsə, I gloss both of them as ‘such’. The reason is that they both might be historically associated (although this has never been verified), and native speakers often feel both the elements to be ‘the same’.

2Marathi also has a clause-initial complementizer ki, but in this paper we are concerned with only the clause-final complementizer.

3Often in my discussion in this paper, facts of Marathi LDA construction have been described in relation to the well-known facts of Hindi-Urdu LDA, since LDA is most extensively analysed in Hindi-Urdu than in any Indo-Aryan languages. However, the purpose of this paper is not to present or revisit Hindi-Urdu facts.

4Ergativity typically manifests in perfective aspect (Dixon 1994; Deal 2012 among others). However, in at least some Indo-Aryan languages, ergative subjects also occur in certain modal constructions. See Bhatt et al. (2011: ex.11) for Hindi-Urdu. In Marathi it is well-documented that ergative subjects also occur in a subjunctive clause (Damle 1970; Pandharipande 1997; Wali 2006; Dhongde & Wali 2009).

5A note on English translation of the Marathi constructions: The LDA construction in (11.a) expresses desire, and as such it could be naturally translated as “Mira wants to eat a mango”. The non-LDA counterpart in (11.b) is ambiguous. It expresses Mira’s desire to eat a mango. In addition, it also expresses Mira’s opinion that she should eat a mango, whether or not she wants to do so. It could be naturally translated as “Mira thinks that she should eat a mango”. This opinion-reading is missing from the LDA construction. In this paper, I keep aside the opinion/judgement reading of the construction in (11.b) and will only refer to its desire reading. In its desire reading, it is a non-LDA counterpart of (11.a) and is therefore, translated in the same way as the LDA construction. The choice of ‘feel’ to translate the Marathi verb wɑʈ is guided by the core lexical meaning of this verb, which is ‘to feel’. It is a highly polysemous verb which is used to express the subject’s feelings, thoughts, beliefs and opinions, and takes a wide variety of complement types as its argument, including an adjectival small-clause to give an expression comparable to “John finds Mary stupid” or a full clause as in (11.b).

6There are some cases where the embedded subject is overtly present and the form -s- is also present. They may also have matrix verbs other than ‘feel’ (cf. (i.a)). None of these cases, however, exhibit LDA. The embedded clause in them also does not demonstrate properties of being restructured. See (i):

    1. (i)
    1. a.
    1. (from Goph by Gauri Deshpande)
    1. t̪i
    2. she
    1. kəd̪hi
    2. when
    1. je-t̪-e-s-ə
    2. come-IPFV-F.SG-such-3N.SG
    1. dzhɑ-l-ə-j.
    2. happen-PFV-3N.SG-PRS
    1. ‘I am eager for her to come.’ (lit. To me, it’s like when she would come.)

    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mə = lɑ
    2. I = DAT
    1. rɑd̪hɑ = ne
    2. Radha = ERG
    1. puɳjɑ = lɑ
    2. Pune = DAT
    1. dzɑ-u
    2. go-NFIN
    1. nəje-s-ə
    2. PROH-such-3N.SG
    1. wɑʈ-t̪-ə.
    2. feel-IPFV-3N.SG
    1. ‘I feel that Radha should not go to Pune.’

Further, the form -s- in these cases can be replaced by əsə without any further change. I believe that -s- in these examples is a genuine case of a purely phonological reduction of the full complementizer əsə, a result of the connected speech, and it can be handled by low level phonetic rules.

7See Keine (2019) for more discussion on this construction.

8A trace instead of a copy of the moved phrase has been shown in accordance with the original example.

9I thank an anonymous reviewer for making this suggestion.

10See den Dikken (2006) for the claim that linkers introducing a small-clause are semantically vacuous.

11The irrealis, subjunctive mood is often located low, over the verbal projections, in contrast to epistemic moods which are located higher in the CP-layer (Cinque 1999; Portner 2011).

12There is at least one example where seemingly the Dative Case Restriction appears violated:

    1. (i)
    1. a.
    1. t̪jɑ = lɑ
    2. he = DAT
    1. widze = tsɑ
    2. electricity = GEN
    1. həkkɑ
    2. shock.M.SG
    1. bəs-l-ɑ.
    2. SIT-PFV-3M.SG
    1. ‘He got an electric shock.’

    1.  
    1. b.
    1. t̪o
    2. he
    1. [PRO
    2. PRO
    1. widze = tsɑ
    2. electricity = GEN
    1. həkkɑ
    2. shock
    1. bəs-un]
    2. SIT.CNPRT
    1. me-l-ɑ.
    2. die-PFV-3M.SG
    1. ‘He died by getting an electric shock.’

Note however, the embedded clause in this case is an adverbial clause in which the verb is in a conjunctive participial form. I did not find exceptions to Davison’s Dative Case Restriction in any complement clauses in Marathi.

13Stowell claims the “possible future” to be the tense of the to-infinitive in English. I am extending the idea to the Marathi subjunctive here.

14It is not clear that the ergative subject correlates with the finiteness of a clause in Marathi. However, the possibility of a nominative subject may suffice to propose the presence of a TP projection.

15Nayudu (2008), who discusses only -s as an instance of double agreement in Marathi, analyses it as a ‘secondary phi-probe’ located on T0. An anonymous reviewer also wonders if these markers are not allocutive morphemes similar to the ones observed in Basque (Haddican 2018). If they are indeed allocutive morphemes, they may be located in the CP-domain instead on T0. The distribution of these markers, their contrast with the standard agreement morphemes etc. have not yet been described in detail. Therefore, their structural position is not established yet. However, so far as they are located higher than MoodP, their exact position is not significant to my analysis here. For maintaining the focus of argument, I defer a detailed analysis of this phenomenon.

16In the absence of a tense-auxiliary, the aspectual participle expresses present tense semantics as well as manifests agreement. In this case, the aspectual head gets tense features valued from T0 via Agree or by head-movement into T0. It is possible that in the process, it receives the phi-features obtained by T0 probe. I keep aside the actual mechanism which leads to this pattern for the limitation of space.

17Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the feasibility of this alternative.

18Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to me.

Abbreviations

1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person, CNPRT = conjunctive participle, DAT = dative, EMPH = emphatic, ERG = ergative, F = feminine, FUT = future, GEN = genitive, INF = infinitive, IPFV = imperfective, LOC = locative, M = masculine, N = neuter, NEG = negative, NFIN = non-finite, NOM = nominative, OBJ = object, PFV = perfective, PL = plural, PROH = prohibitive, PRS = present, PST = past, SBJ = subject, SBJV = subjunctive, SG = singular.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Avinash Pandey and the anonymous reviewers of Glossa for detailed comments on all versions of this paper which have been very crucial in shaping the analysis presented in this paper. I would also like to thank Rajesh Bhatt and Probal Dasgupta for discussions during initial phases of the analysis. Thanks are also due to K.P. and Tara Mohanan and Veneeta Dayal for friendly suggestions, Priyanka Dingankar and Juilee Samant for confirmatory judgements at times, participants of the GIAN course on “Topics in the Syntax of Indo-Aryan Languages” at the University of Mumbai (2016), audience of MAD-2018 workshop at ZAS, Berlin and participants of the Syntax classes at the University of Mumbai. All errors are my own.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The linguistic review 3(3). 209–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209 

  2. Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(4). 757–807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4136-0 

  3. Bhatt, Rajesh & Stefan Keine. 2017. Long-distance agreement. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The wiley blackwell companion to syntax, vol. IV, 2291–2321. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 2nd edn. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom083 

  4. Bhatt, Rajesh, Tina Bögel, Miriam Butt, Annette Hautli, Sebastian Sulger & Tracy Holloway King. 2011. Urdu/Hindi modals. In Proceedings of the LFG11 conference. Stanford: CSLI publications. 

  5. Boeckx, Cedric. 2004. Long-distance agreement in Hindi: Some theoretical implications. Studia linguistica 58(1). 23–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0039-3193.2004.00108.x 

  6. Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI publications. 

  7. Chandra, Pritha. 2007. Agree: Movement and agreement reconsidered. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation. 

  8. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

  9. Damle, Moro Keshav. 1970. Shastriya Marathi Vyakaran (a scientific grammar of Marathi). Pune: Deshmukh & Company. 

  10. Davison, Alice. 1991. Feature percolation and agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Ms. South Asian Conference, University of Wisconsin. 

  11. Davison, Alice. 2008. A case restriction on control: Implications for movement. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1(1). 29–54. 

  12. Deal, Amy Rose. 2012. Ergativity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 

  13. den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 

  14. Deo, Ashwini & Devyani Sharma. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10. 369–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.012 

  15. Dhongde, Ramesh Vaman & Kashi Wali. 2009. Marathi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.13 

  16. Diercks, Michael. 2013. Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2). 357–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9187-7 

  17. Dixon, Robert MW. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

  18. Haddican, Bill. 2018. The syntax of Basque allocutive clitics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.471 

  19. Homer, Vincent & Rajesh Bhatt. 2020. Restructuring and the scope of negation in Hindi-Urdu. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1). 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.927 

  20. Keine, Stefan. 2013. On the role of movement in Hindi/Urdu long-distance agreement. In Stefan Keine & S. Sloggett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 42, vol. 1. 273–284. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 

  21. Keine, Stefan. 2019. Selective opacity. Linguistic Inquiry 50(1). 13–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00299 

  22. Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: in defense of “spec head”. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 159–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.92.09koo 

  23. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 811–877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5 

  24. Legate, Julie Anne. 2005. Phases and cyclic agreement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Perspectives on phases) 49. 147–156. 

  25. Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Agreement and agreement phrases. MIT working papers in linguistics 10. 217–252. 

  26. Mahajan, Anoop. 2017. Locality in Hindi agreement. Indian Linguistics 78(1–2). 75–92. 

  27. Nayudu, Aarti. 2008. Issues in the syntax of Marathi: a minimalist approach. Durham: Durham University dissertation. 

  28. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge. 

  29. Philip, Joy Naomi. 2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. London: University College London dissertation. 

  30. Polinsky, Maria & Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(3). 583–646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010757806504 

  31. Portner, Paul. 2011. Verbal mood. In Claudia Maienborn Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning 2. 1262–1291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

  32. Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4). 619–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619 

  33. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Cambridge, Massacusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. 

  34. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambirdge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 

  35. Rosen, Carol & Kashi Wali. 1989. Twin passives, inversion and multistratalism in Marathi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7(1). 1–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141346 

  36. Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic inquiry 13(3). 561–570. 

  37. Subbārāo, Kārumūri V. 2012. South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003575 

  38. Wali, Kashi. 2005. Marathi. Munich: Lincom Europa. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02228-8 

  39. Wali, Kashi. 2006. Marathi: A study in comparative South Asian languages. Shimla: Indian Institute of Language Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02228-8 

  40. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 

comments powered by Disqus