A Non-coreference Rule in Odia1
Junji YAMABE
Keywords: Odia (Indo-European, eastern India), anaphoric relation, case frame,
oblique subject, head vs. dependent marking, proximate vs. obviate,
the Person-Case Constraint
Abstract In Odia, in a specific range of constructions, the subject’s possessor (Pos.S) andthe object (O) are prevented from being coreferent. Whereas saying “Babula’s<i> s teacher
likes him<i>.” is usually no problem, the same is sometimes impossible. The Non-coreference
Rule precludes coreference of Pos.S and O, and it applies only where the subject (S) and theobject (O) are marked with the same morphological case and situated within the same clause.
Outside of Odia, instances of the Non-coreference Rule, i.e. constraints precluding
coreference of Pos.S and O, have been reported from languages of the Americas (the “genitiveeffect” of Aissen 1997). The grammatical underpinning of the Non-coreference Rule isaccounted for by following Aissen (1997) to looking up the relative proximate-obviate
ranking among the referents of noun phrases in a clause. The instances of the Non-coreference
Rule in the two language sets differ fundamentally with respect to what kinds of clausal
environments non-coreference occurs in. This cross-linguistic contrast derives from thetypologically opposed characters in the morphosyntax of the languages, namely, dependent
marking (Odia) vs. head marking (the languages of the Americas). Finally, parallelisms
holding between the Non-coreference Rule and the Person-Case Constraint are sketched.

1

 Yamabejjyamabe@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Department of Communication and Information Studies, Faculty of Letters,
Kumamoto University, 2-40-1 Kurokami, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto-shi 860-8555, Japan

This article is a revision of my presentation at the 166th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan,
June 17, 2023. The feedback at the meeting is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to my Odia
consultants for their judgments. My research was funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant, 21K0054000.

19

1

Goals

This article describes a Non-coreference Rule in Odia, of a kind hitherto unknown for this or
any other Indo-Aryan language, and accounts for its properties from a cross-linguistic
perspective.
In Odia, in a range of constructions, the subject’s possessor (Pos.S) and the object (O) areprevented from being co-referent. Whereas usually as in (1), saying “Babula’s<i> teacher
likes him<i>.” with ‘him’ referring to Babula is no problem, the same is impossible undercertain other circumstances as in (2). 2,3,4,5(1)

maani-raMani-GENsaar
sirniscaya taa-ku
certainly her-OBJ

bhala paa-uch-aanti.
like-PROG-3PL

Mani’s<i> teacher[NOM] certainly likes her<i> [OBJ].
(2)

maani-raMani-GENsaaran-ku niscaya taa-ku
sir-OBJ
certainly her-OBJ

bhala laag-uch-i.
like-PROG-3SG

Mani’s<i> teacher[OBJ] certainly likes her<*i> [OBJ].
The rule that is precluding coreference in sentence (2) is specified in (3). Let us call it theNon-coreference Rule. The present article is to bring this rule to light. Note that whereas therule exerts effect (non-coreference) on the pair of Pos.S and O, it looks up (Conditions ① and2Odia pronunciation a [ ɔ ], aa [ a ], D,L,T = retroflex, ~ = vowel nasalization.
Abbreviations CLA = classifier, CP = conjunctive participle, FUT = future, GEN =genitive, GER = gerund,
INF = infinitive, LOC = locative, (n) = noun, NOM = nominative, O = object, OBJ = objective, PAST = past, PL= plural, Pos.S = possessor of the subject, PROG = progressive, RGER = root gerund, S = subject, SG =singular, (v) = verb, 1/2/3 = 1st/2nd/3rd person.
Unacceptability/impossibility is indicated by *star and shading.
3

The basic word order in Odia is SVO in a clause, and AN in a noun phrase. OSV is a readily available
alternative for a clause, as in (8) below.
4

In the translations of the examples, coreference is indicated by a pair of <i>’s, and non-coreference, by
the starred and shaded <*i> for the second occurrence. Note also that the 3rd person pronoun (e.g. taa-ku‘he-OBJ’) does not distinguish gender (To be more general, there is no grammatical category of gender inOdia.), and the translations and glosses for it in the following will use whichever sounds more appropriateof ‘he/him’ and ‘she/her’.
5

Notes on verb agreement in Odia. The verb in (1) is plural (PL) because a person who is being respectedby the speaker is grammatically plural even if he/she is referentially single. The verb in (2) is 3rd person
singular (3SG) because it is agreeing with no NP and therefore is in the unmarked form. Generally, a verb
can agree only with a nominative NP, and never with an oblique-case NP.

20②) the features of the pair of S and O.
(3)

The Non-coreference Rule (Odia)
Pos.S and O cannot be co-referent, if both Conditions ① and ② obtain.
① Same Case:S and O are marked with the same morphological case.
② Clause Mates:
S and O are situated within the same clause.
(in the sense to be made precise in section 3).

Looking outside of Odia, instances of the Non-coreference Rules, i.e. grammaticalconstraints precluding coreference of Pos.S and O, have been reported from languages of theAmericas (the “genitive effect” of Aissen 1997) . What matters is the relative proximateobviate ranking between the referents of noun phrases in a clause (Aissen 1997).
On the other hand, the versions of the Non-coreference Rules in the two language groups
differ fundamentally with respect to the sorts of environments in which they take effect. In
Odia, non-coreference effect occurs only in highly marked types of clauses, for example,
oblique-subject constructions, such as (1), whereas ordinary transitive clauses are immune
from it, as in (2). Just complementarily to this, in the Americas, non-coreference effect occurs
in least marked types of clauses, such as direct voice or active voice depending on language;
where these are not allowed a marked voice is used, such as inverse voice or passive voice. I
derive this cross-linguistic contrast from the typologically opposed characters inmorphosyntax of the languages, namely, dependent marking (Odia) vs. head marking(languages of the Americas). A cross-linguistic commonality is the Non-coreference Rule, in
Odia and in the Americas, apply where the S and O are not distinguished by morphologicalcase.
The following parts of this article are organized as this. Sections 2 and 3, respectively,
illustrate Conditions ① and ② of the Non-coreference Rule. Sections 4 accounts for the Noncoreference Rule as for its grammatical underpinnings and typological characteristics.
Sections 5 sketches parallelisms holing between the Non-coreference Rule (i.e. the restricteddistribution of coreference) and the Person-Case Constraint (i.e. the restricted distribution of
1st and 2nd person pronouns). Section 6 concludes.

21

2

Condition ①

Section 2 illustrates Condition ① of the Non-coreference Rule (specified in (3)). Same Case:
Non-coreference of Pos.S and O is forced only if S and O are marked with the samemorphological case. Such a configuration obtains with two species of case frame: [OBJ-OBJ](which we examine in section 2.1) and [GEN-GEN] (section 2.4).
2.1 [OBJ-OBJ]
Sentences (1) and (2), repeated below, respectively, are cases in which the constraint has andhas not taken effect. (1) is an ordinary type of transitive clause. In this there is no problem
with Pos.S and O being coreferent: taa-ku ‘her-OBJ’ and maani-ra ‘Mani-GEN (female name)’
can refer to the same person that is Mani. Sentence (2) is an oblique-subject construction ofsimilar meaning. Here, O (taa-ku ‘her-OBJ’) cannot corefer with Pos.S (maani-ra ‘ManiGEN’). Incidentally, sentence (2) and also all those example sentences in this article that are

ruled out by the Non-coference Rule turn good if Pos.S and O are taken as non-coreferent6 :for example, sentence (2) becomes good if taa-ku ‘her-OBJ’ refers to someone other than Mani.
I omit indicating this possibility.
(1)

maani-raMani-GENsaar
sirniscaya taa-ku
certainly her-OBJ

bhala paa-uch-aanti.
like-PROG-3PL

Mani’s<i> teacher[NOM] certainly likes her<i> [OBJ].
(2)

maani-raMani-GENsaaran-ku niscaya taa-ku
sir-OBJ
certainly her-OBJ

bhala laag-uch-i.
like-PROG-3SG

Mani’s<i> teacher[OBJ] certainly likes her<*i> [OBJ].
The causes and consequence of the choice of cases in sentences (1) and (2) are as follows. In
an ordinary transitive clause such as (1) with verb bhala paa- ‘like’, S is nominative (NOM),
i.e. without a visible case marker, and O, objective (OBJ): [NOM-OBJ]. This configuration does
not fit Condition ① of the Non-coreference Rule, and therefore does not trigger the Noncoreference Rule to impose non-coreference. In contrast, the verb bhala laag- ‘like’ in (2) is
6

With some qualifications, this generalization holds true even in such a relative clause containing two
occurrences of the relative pronoun as Pos.S and O. See footnote 8 for details. Only that the context, i.e.
the main clause part, must be changed to yield a good sentence, according to whether the two occurrenceof the relative pronouns are coreferent or non-coreferent.

22

one of several oblique-subject predicates in Odia; it avails itself of two options for case frame:[OBJ-OBJ] or [OBJ-NOM]. (It does not appear in the ordinary transitive case frame: *[NOM-OBJ],
though.) The [OBJ-OBJ] frame, occurring in (2), fits the Condition ① of (3), and therefore
causes the Non-coreference Rule to take effect.7
The same contrast between [NOM-OBJ] and [OBJ-OBJ] clauses can also be observed
between (4) and (5). The verb in (4), darkaara kar- ‘need’, selects for a NOM subject. The
verb in (5), darkaara he- ‘need’, selects for an OBJ subject. (Or, it can take a genitive-case(GEN) subject, not shown in this article.) Coreference of Pos.S and O is admitted in (4), andbanned in (5).
(4)

gunu-ramaalika ebe aau
taa-kuGunu-GEN owner now any.more him-OBJ

darkaara kar-u naah-anti.
need(n) PROG not-3PL

Gunu’s<i> employer[NOM] doesn’t need him<i> [OBJ] any more.
(5)

gunu-ramaalikan-ku ebe aau
taa-ku darkaara ha-uni.
Gunu-GEN owner-OBJ now any.more him-OBJ need(n) happen-PROG not.3SG
Gunu’s<i> employer[OBJ] doesn’t need him<*i> [OBJ] any more.

7

One may wonder whether the case frame [NOM-NOM], two instance of unmarked case, counts as“marking with the same case” for the purpose of Condition ① of the Non-coreference Rule, to trigger noncoreference between Pos.S and O. I leave settling this issue for the future research. Some excuse for thisstrategy follows.
Indeed, [NOM-NOM] arises in Odia. In normal transitive clauses as in (i), O can be nominative (NOM) as
well as objective (OBJ) if it is inanimate.
(i)baabulaa { pisi-Ti | pisi-Ti -ku | sei-Taa | taa-ku }BabulaPC-CLA PC-CLA-OBJ that-CLA it-CLA-OBJ
Babula[NOM] brought { the PC | that }[NOM|OBJ].

aaN-il-aa.
bring-PAST-3SG

However, as in (ii), a person O is preferably marked objective, and a person pronominal O is neccessarily
marked objective (taa-ku ‘her-OBJ’) leading to a [NOM-OBJ] configuration only.
(ii)

baabulaa { ? jhiai-Ti | jhia-Ti -ku | * seiTaa | taa-ku }BabulaPC-CLA PC-CLA-OBJ that-CLA her-OBJ
Babula[NOM] brought { the girl | her }[NOM|OBJ].

aaN-il-aa.
bring-PAST-3SG

Discussing the Non-coreference Rule, this article focuses on the situations where the O (intended to becoreferent with Pos.S) refers to a person. This limitation in the scope of discussion is motivated on twoscores. First, supposedly it is theoretically justified: I assume that Pos.S being a person constitutes acanonical type of situation. Second, it is necessitated by practice: on the present stage of my research, only
person situations are getting me a robust enough set of judgements to make a generalization over and ananalysis of. So, the case frame [NOM-NOM] does not come into play as far as the present article’s discussion
goes. See Aissen (1997) for a discussion of the situations in which the referent shared by Pos.S and O isinanimate such as a book.

23

2.2 It is the distribution, and not the directionality, of coreference that matters
The Non-coreference Rule, as it is formulated in (3), concerns the distribution of coreference.
It does not concern which way anaphoric dependency is directed (whether Pos.S is dependent
on O, or O is dependent on Pos.S, for the determination of reference): on this score it is distinct
from Condition C of the Binding Theory, which does concern the direction of anaphoric
dependency (van Hoek 1997, Safir 2004), and which is at work also in Odia (but not dealt
with in this article). As a reflection of this feature, it does not matter what sort of lexical items(pronoun, full noun, or relative pronoun) are deployed for the two coreferent positions in aclausal structure. Thus, given a sentence in which effect of the Non-coreference Rule is inplace, that effect persists after a full noun is replaced by a pronoun (though admittedly getting
somewhat less robust). Going from sentence (2) to (7), there is not (much) difference:
coreference was excluded in (2) and it is (quite) excluded in (7). (Note for comparison that
coreference was possible in (1) and it is also possible (6).)(6)(Mani<i> is a good child, so . .)taa-rasaar
her-GEN sir

niscaya taa-ku
certainly her-OBJ

bhala paa-uch-aanti.
like-PROG-3PL

Her<i> teacher[NOM] certainly likes her<i> [OBJ].
(7)(Mani a good child, so . .)taa-raher-GENsaaran-ku niscaya
sir-OBJ
certainly

taa-kuher-OBJ

bhala laag-uch-i.
like-PROG-3SG

Her<i> teacher[OBJ] certainly likes her<?? i> [OBJ].
(cf. Her<i> teacher[OBJ], certainly she<i> [OBJ] likes.)
Incidentally, as indicated in parenthesis in the bottom line of (7), the same word sequence,with coreference of the two pronouns, can felicitously mean something reverse to what isoriginally intended but actually precluded: it can rightly mean ‘She i likes her i teacher.’ This
interpretation does not involve the violation of the Non-coreference Rule. This alternativeinterpretation is not robustly available, but that is because it involves an OS order of clausal
constituents. Generally, an OS order is degraded where S and O are in the same case, todegrees ranging from instance to instance. In particular, with the verb bhala- laag- ‘like’ asin (9), it is deeply impossible. (In contrast, if S and O are marked with distinct cases, as they24

normally are in this language, OS order is easily available as in (8). See also fn.2.)(8)e pilaa-Ti-ku
this kid-CLA-OBJ

niscayacertainly

saar bhala paa-ib-e.
sir like-FUT-3PL

OS order: Lit. This child[OBJ], the man[NOM] will like certainly.
(9)e pilaa-Ti-ku
this kid-CLA-OBJ

niscayacertainly

saaran-ku bhala laag-ib-a.
sir-OBJ
like-FUT-3SGOS order: Lit. * This child[OBJ], the man[OBJ] will like certainly.
SO order: This child[OBJ] will like the man[OBJ] certainly.
What is worth noting with regard to the data in (7) is that the Non-coreference Rule is so
robust that if it comes into effect as it does here, it overrides a word order rule, coercing aninterpretation implicating a word order that would otherwise be impossible as in (9).
The same asymmetry that we have seen between (6) and (7) is also found between (10)and (11), with a pair of relative pronouns in place of a pair of 3rd person pronouns. In fact, it
is all the more distinctly observed. As is known in the linguistic literature widely (Srivastav
1991 a.o.), a relative clause in Indo-Aryan languages can contain two instances of the relative
pronoun, and in such a relative clause the two instances of the relative pronoun can refer to
district persons, resulting in a “doubly-headed” relative clause ((i) and (ii) in footnote 8 are
instances of this type.). What is worth pointing out (for Odia) and also relevant to thediscussion of the Non-coreference Rule is the fact that two occurrences of the relative pronoun
are allowed to be coreferent as long as no independent constraint applies to exclude that
(Yamabe 1998), as they are in (10). The relative clauses of (10) and (11) both contains jaara ‘whose(R)-GEN’ as Pos.S, and jaa-ku ‘who(R)-OBJ’ as O. In (10), the relative clause has
the case frame [NOM-OBJ]. Here, the Non-coreference Rule (specified in (3)) is inert, leaving
coreference between Pos.S and O intact, and so the whole sentence is fine. In (11) the relative
clause has [OBJ-OBJ]. Here, the Non-coreference Rule gets activated, precluding coreferenceof Pos.S and O in the relative clause, and as a consequence the whole sentence is ill-formed.8
8

For the word sequences comprising the relative clause parts of (9) and (10), the non-coreference
interpretation of two occurrences of the relative pronoun is potentially available, as shown in (i) and (ii),respectively. Particularly notable in connection to the Non-coreference Rule is the contrast in acceptability
between the ill-formed (10) and the well-formed (ii). (i) and (ii) has replaced the matrix clause part: there
needs to be an NP (or a pair of NPs) in the matrix clause that refers back to the referents of the two relative

25

(10)

jaa-rasaar
who(R)-GEN sir

aadou
at.allsei pilaa niscayathat kid certainly

badmaasnaughtyjaa-kuwho(R)-OBJ

bhala paa-u naah-aanti.
like-PROG not-3PL

he-ith-ib-a.
become-PERF-FUT-3SG

Lit. Who(R)’s<i> teacher[NOM] doesn’t like who(R)<i> [OBJ],
that child will certainly be naughty.
The child whose<i> teacher doesn’t like him<i> at all will certainly be naughty.
(11)

jaa-rawho(R)-GENsaaran-ku
sir-OBJ

sei pilaa niscayathat kid certainly

aadou
at.allbadmaasnaughtyjaa-kuwho(R)-OBJ

bhala laag-u ni.
like-PROG
not.3SGhe-i-th-ib-a.
become-PERF-FUT-3SG

Lit. Who(R)’s<i> teacher[OBJ] doesn’t like who(R)<*i> [OBJ],
that child will certainly be naughty.
* The child whose<i> teacher doesn’t like him <i> at all will certainly be naughty.
Contrasting (11) and the following (12) brings out the same interpretation reversal that wehave observed by contrasting the two interpretations of example (6); and for that matter, thejudgements obtained here are more stable and clear than there. In (11) and (12), the relative
pronouns in the relative clause.
(i)

jaa-rabaapamaa
who(R)-GEN parents

aadou
at.alljaa-kubhala paa-u naah-aanti.
who(R)-OBJ like-PROG not-3PL

sei pilaa-maaane saangare kheL-i paar-ib-e
kemiti?
together play-CP can-FUT-3PL howthat kid-PL.CLA
Lit. Who(R)’s<i> parents[NOM] don’t like who(R)<k> [OBJ],
how could those children<i+k> play together?
Given that some child’s<i> parents don’t like another child<k> at all,how could those children<j+k> play together?
(ii)

jaa-rawho(R)-GENsaaran-ku
sir-OBJ

aadou
at.alljaa-kuwho(R)-OBJ

bhala laag-u ni.
like-PROG
not.3SGsei pilaa-maaane saangare kheL-i paar-ib-e
kemiti?
together play-CP can-FUT-3PL howthat kid-PL.CLA
Lit. Who(R)’s<i> parents[OBJ] don’t like who(R)<k> [OBJ],
how could those children<i+k> play together?
Given that one child’s<i> parents don’t like another child<k> at all,how could those children<j+k> play together?

26

clauses are made of the exactly same word sequence, and in addition, in both the two
occurrences of the relative pronouns are coreferent. The relative clause of (12) felicitouslymeans something reverse of what that of (11) intends but is not fit to mean. With the relative
clause part of (12) being fine, the whole sentence of (12) is fine.
(12)

jaa-rawho(R)-GEN
sei pilaathat kidsaaran-ku
sir-OBJ

aadou
at.alljaa-kuwho(R)-OBJ

bhala laag-uch-i.
like-PROG-3SG

bhala paaTha paDh-ib-a
kemiti ?
good lesson study-FUT-3SG how

Lit. Who(R)’s<i> teacher[OBJ] , Who(R)<i> [OBJ] doesn’t like at all,
how that child will study properly? (OS order)
How would the child who<i> doesn’t like his<i> teacher at all study properly?
In contradistinction to all the examples thus far, the constraint effect of the Noncoreference Rule is circumvented if Pos.S and O are both lexicalized by an identical proper
name. Thus, coreference of Pos.S and O is fine, not only in (13), a [NOM-OBJ] sentence, butalso in (14), an [OBJ-OBJ] sentence.
(13)

maani-raMani-GENsaar
sirniscaya maani-ku
certainly Mani-OBJ

bhala paa-uch-aanti.
like-PROG-3PL

Mani’s<i> teacher[NOM] certainly likes her<i> [OBJ].
(14)

maani-raMani-GENsaaran-ku niscaya maani-ku
sir-OBJ
certainly Mani-OBJ

bhala laag-uch-i.
like-PROG-3SG

Mani’s<i> teacher[OBJ] certainly likes Mani<i> [OBJ].
I presume that in sentences such as (14), the constraining effect of the Non-coreference Ruleis got around by way of an interpretive route that is only available to proper names. Eachmention of a proper name in a sentence can pick up its referent from the world, and thereby
need not pay attention to another noun phrase for the purpose of the determination of its
reference. In contrast, for a pronoun (3rd person pronoun or relative pronoun), thedetermination of its referent can only be achieved by referencing a coreferent noun phrase
occurring in the same text, either locally within the same sentence or more globally within
the same discourse. If this referencing process occurs within a clause, the Non-coreference
Rule interferes.

27

2.3 In clauses with a complex predicate
The examples thus far all contained a single verb. Let us now turn to the sentences in which
two verbs together make up a compound verbs. Here also, the Non-coreference Rule does thesame work, and the same asymmetry due to the absence vs. presence of its effect can beobserved. Sentence (15) has an ordinary case frame: [NOM-OBJ]. Here, Pos.S and O can becoreferent: taa-ku ‘him-OBJ’ and maNTu-ra ‘Mantu-GEN’ can refer to the same person that is
Mantu. Sentence (16) contains the dative-subject verb aas- ‘can, know how to’ taking thecomplement verb paDh- ‘teach’. With the former verb bringing in the OBJ case on its subject
and the latter verb bringing in another instance of OBJ on its object, the sentence has the [OBJOBJ] frame. Here, Pos.S and O cannot be coreferent: taa-ku ‘him-OBJ’ cannot refer with Mantu.

(15)

maNTu-ra saar Thik baabhe taa-ku
Mantu-GEN sir right manner him-OBJ

paDhe-i paar-u naah-aanti.
teach-CP can-PROG not-3PL

Mantu’s<i> teacher[NOM] cannot teach him<i>[OBJ] properly.
(16)

maNTu-ra saaran-ku Thik baabhe
Mantu-GEN sir-OBJ
right mannertaa-kupaDhe-i aas-uni.
him-OBJ teach-CP can-PROG not.3SG

Mantu’s<i> teacher[OBJ] cannot teach him<*i>[OBJ] properly.
(17) and (18) are another pair of sentences exhibiting the same contrast. Sentence (17) is anormal transitive clause with the verb ne- ‘take’, with the case frame [NOM-OBJ]. Here, Pos.S
and O are allowed to refer the same person that is Rina. Sentence (18) has a complex verb
made of the matrix verb paD- ‘have to’ and the complement verb ne- ‘take’. The subject is
OBJ because paD- ‘have to’ is an oblique-subject predicate, and the object is OBJ because it is

the object of ne- ‘take’, resulting in the case frame [OBJ-OBJ]. Here, Pos.S and O are prevented
from referring to the same person.
(17)rinaa-ra baapaa
Rina-GEN father

aaji
today

taa-kuher-OBJ

haspiTaal ne-b-e.
hospital take-FUT-3PL

Rina’s<i> father[NOM] will take her<i> [OBJ] to the hospital today.
(18)

rinaa-ra baapaan-ku aaji taa-ku haspiTaal ne-baa paai~ paD-ib-a.
Rina-GEN father-OBJ
today her-OBJ hospital take-INF
fall-FUT-3SG
Rina’s<i> father[OBJ] will have to take her<?? i> [OBJ] to the hospital today.

28

2.4 [GEN-GEN]
The observations thus far might suggest that whether coreference is possible or impossible is
keyed to whether the subject’s case is nominative (NOM) or objective (OBJ). As a matter offact it is not true, as I am going to illustrate in 2.4. For one thing, even if S is OBJ, coreferenceis still permitted if O is in another oblique case, namely, genitive (GEN). Conversely, even if
S is not OBJ, coreference is prevented if S and O are both in another oblique case, namely,
GEN. The Odia grammar is so constituted that one can conveniently and convincingly

demonstrate this generalization. S can be OBJ (as in the examples above) or GEN, dependingon the verb. O can also be OBJ (as above) or GEN, depending on the verb. Further, a handfulof verbs offer alternative choice between the two cases (Yamabe 1995). This last feature isgoing to provide the discussion of the non-Coreference Rule with variation of minimal pairsof example clauses.
The sentences in (19) have the case frame [OBJ-GEN]. OBJ on S comes from the matrix verb
(aas- ‘can’ in (19a) and paD- ‘have to’ in (19b)), just as it was in (16) and (18), respectively.
GEN on O originates from the embedded verb (prasansaa kar- ‘praise’). In these sentences,

coreference of Pos.S and O is not precluded. (The verb pasansaa kar- can alternatively govern
its object in OBJ, as in (20) below.)(19) a.

maNTu-ra saaran-ku kintu
taa-ra prasansaa kar-i aas-il-aa
ni.
Mantu-GEN sir-OBJ
however he-GEN praise(n) do-CP come-PAST-3SG not
Mantu’s<i> teacher[OBJ], however, didn’t know how to praise him<i> [GEN].

b.

baabulaa-ra saaran-ku sesa-re taa-ra prasansaa kar-ibaa paai~ paD-ib-a.
Babula-GEN sir-OBJ
end-LOC he-GEN praise(n) do-INF
fall-FUT-3SG
Babula’s<i>teacher[OBJ] will have to paraise him<i> [GEN].

The sentences in (20) have the case frame [GEN-OBJ]. In (20a), S is GEN because the matrix
verb th- ‘is supposed to’ takes its subject in GEN. (This verb can alternatively take its subject
in NOM, which I omit showing.) In (20b), S is GEN because the use of the root gerund form
(RGER) for the embedded verb (kar-aa ‘do-RGER’) leads to GEN (rather than NOM) on S. In
these sentences also, coreference of Pos.S and O is fine.9
9

Care is in order while making examples involving a genitive subject. Because a possessor-headsequence normally contains a GEN-affix attached on the possessor as in (14)-(17) , if the head also get29(20) a.

nabina saara-nka caakara-Ti-ra
Nabin sir-’sservant-CLA-GEN

aaji seThi
today theretaan-ku
he-OBJ

prasansaa kar-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SGMr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] was supposed to praise him<i> [OBJ] there today.
b.

nabina saara-nka caakara-Ti-ra
aaji seThi
Nabin sir-’sservant-CLA-GEN today theretaan-kuhe-GENsamaalocanaa kar-aa Thik he-l-aani.
criticism
do-RGER right become-PAST-3SG not
Mr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] criticizing him<i> [OBJ] was not good.
Changing the case on the object from OBJ in (20) to GEN in (21), to have both S and O marked
with GEN, the non-coreference effect comes back. In (21a), Pos.O and O cannot refer to thesame person. (21b) is another example of [GEN-GEN] which shows the same effect.
(21) a. nabina saara-nka caakara-Ti-ra
Nabin sir-’sservant-CLA-GEN

aaji seThi
today theretaanka-ra
he-GENprasansaa kar-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SGMr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] was supposed to praise him<*i> [GEN] there today.
b. nabina saara-nka caakara-Ti-ra
aaji seThi
Nabin sir-’sservant-CLA-GEN today theretaanka-ra
he-GENsamaalocanaa kar-aa Thik he-l-aani.
criticism
do-RGER right become-PAST-3SG not
Mr Nabin’s<i> servant [GEN] criticizing him<*i> [GEN] was not good.
The variable O mentioned in the Non-coreference Rule ranges over not only the object ofa verb (something acted on in the action named by the verb), such as OBJ and GEN objects

attached with a GEN-affix, then the result is an immediate repetition of GEN-marked nouns:*maNTu-ra(GEN) saaranka-ra (GEN), *rinaa-ra (GEN) saaranka-ra (GEN). This is something that is banned by aspecies of dissimilatory constraint (a member of the Case OCP family).
The sentences in (20) and (21) have got around this case dissimilatory effect thanks to the first noun
taking an adnominal form (glossed as -’s), which is distinct from the GEN form , more specifically, it isgenitive form minus -ra. Compare saaranka (’s) caakara-Ti-ra (GEN) found in (20) and (21), and theeschewed *saaranka-ra (GEN) caakara-Ti-ra (GEN). The option of the adnominal form is available forplural nouns (e.g. saar ‘sir’) but not for singular nouns (e.g. maNTu ‘Mantu’). Note from footnote 5, a
respected person is grammatically plural, even if he/she is referentially single.

30

thus far, but also over some instances of possessor of the object of a verb. In sentence (22a),where the object noun is bare (‘car-Ø’), its possessor counts as O of the Non-coreference
Rule, and works to trigger non-coreference effect. Presumably, the bare noun (gaaDi ‘car’)here has get incorporated into the verb to make a compound verb with it (something like
gaaDi cal- ‘do car-driving’, as is shown for certain object-verb sequences in Hindi by
Mohanan 1994 and Dayal 2011), and as a side effect of the incorporation the possessor of
the object noun has become an immediate constituent of the clause, resulting the [GEN-GEN]
marking on the clausal two constituents. In contradistinction, in (22b), where the object
noun is suffixed with a classifier or a case marker or both, non-coreference is not imposed.
This suggests that in this sentence the object noun is not incorporated, and accordingly its
possessor remains within the NP it heads. Coreference is not forced in (22c) either, where
the possessor (taanka ‘his’) is not marked with GEN (-ra ‘-GEN’), but in the adnominal form
(i.e. without -ra ‘-GEN’).
(22) a.

nabina baabunka caakara-Ti-ra
Nabin Mr-’s
servant-CLA-GEN

se dina seThi
that day theretaanka-ra gaaDi cale-ibaa-ra
th-il-aa.
he-GENcar
drive-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SGMr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] was supposed to drive
his<*i> [GEN] car-Ø there that day.
b. nabina baabunka caakara-Ti-ra
Nabin Mr’s
servant-CLA-GEN

se dina seThi
that day theretaanka-ra { gaaDi-Ti | gaaDi-ku | gaaDi-Ti-ku } cale-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
he-GEN
car-CLA
car-obj
car-CLA-OBJ
drive-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SGMr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] was supposed to drive
his<i> [GEN] car-{CLA|OBJ |CLA-OBJ} there that day.
c.

nabina baabunka caakara-Ti-ra
se dina seThi
Nabin Mr’s
servant-CLA-GEN
that day theretaanka gaaDi cale-ibaa-ra
th-il-aa.
hiscardrive-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SGMr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] was supposed to drive
his<i>[’s] car-Ø there that day.

The same pattern as is observed with the N +V combination gaaDi ‘car’ + cal- ‘drive’ in(22) is also observed with ghara ‘house’ + jhaD- ‘sweep’.

31

3 Condition ②
Section 3 illustrates Condition ② of the Non-coreference Rule (in specified (3)). Clause
Mates: Non-coreference of Pos.S and O comes into effect only if S and O are situated within
the same clause.
3.1 Non-reduced clauses
The examples we have seen thus far containing two verbal roots are complex clauses due tocontaining two verbs, but they are of the kind that have undergone a certain degree of
reduction in syntactic structure (variously called as “clause union” Sridhar 1977; “clause
reduction” Aissen & Perlmutter 1983; “restructuring” Burzio 1984, Wurmbrand 2001). Suchspecies of complex clauses count as a single clause for the purpose of Condition ② of theNon-coreference Rule, and accordingly non-coreference effect occurs in it, as we have seen.
In contrast, there is another family of complex clauses, to be taken up in this section, that havenot undergone a comparable degree of structural reduction. These complex clauses are freefrom the application of the Non-coreference Rule so long as the two coreferent positions are
separated by a clause boundary. (The reduced and unreduced clausal boundaries, respectively,
are henceforth indicated by single brackets [ ] and by double brackets [[ ]].)
icchaa he- ‘want to’ in (23) and darkaara ‘need to’ in (24) are instances of predicatestaking a non-reduced type of complement clause. The subject can be OBJ, or alternatively
GEN. Either option can, among others, lead to the same-case configuration: [OBJ-OBJ] in (a),and [GEN-GEN] in (b). In (23) and (24), S and O are marked with the same case but are
regarded to be situated in separate clauses for the purpose of Condition ②, and accordingly
coreference of Pos.S and O is permitted. Compare (23) with (16) and (18); (24) with (21).
(23)

a.

baabulaa-ra saaran-ku kintu
Babula-GEN sir-OBJ
however[[ taa-ku paDhe-ibaa paai~ ]]him-OBJ teach-INF

icchaa he-l-aa
ni.
desire(n) happen-PAST-3SG not
Babula’s<i> teacher[OBJ] didn’t want [[ to teach him<i> [OBJ] ]] , though.
b. nabina saara-nka caakara-Ti-rasabubeLe
Nabin sir-’sservant-CLA-GEN always[[ taanka-ra samaalocanaa kar-ibaa paai~ ]] icchaa
him-GEN criticism
do-INFdesire(n)he-uch-i.
happen-PROF-3SG

Mr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] always wants [[ to criticise him<i> [GEN] ]].

32

(24)

a.

rinaa-ra baapaan-ku aaji [[ taa-ku haspitaal ne-baa ]] darkaara.
Rina-GEN father-OBJ today her-OBJ hospital take-GER necessity
Rina’s<i> father[OBJ] needs [[to take her<i> [OBJ] to hospital ]] today.

b. nabina saara-nka caakara-Ti-ra
Nabin sir-’sservant-CLA-GEN[[ taanka-ra prasansaa kar-ibaa ]]him-GEN praise(n) do-GERsasabubeLe
alwaysdarkaara.
neccessity

Mr Nabin’s<i> servant[GEN] always needs [[to praise him<i> [GEN] ]] .
3.2 Tests
Whether a matrix predicate projects a reduced or a non-reduced sentence structure can beprobed by three tests.
Test I: Lexical Integrity. In the effect of reduction (aas- ‘can, know how’ in (25a), paD‘have to’ in (25b)), the verb of the complement clause must be linearly contiguous to that of
the matrix clause; and without reduction (icchaa he- ‘want to’ in (26a), darkaara- ‘need to’in (26b)), the complement-clause verb and the matrix-clause verb can be intervened by a fullword such as an adjunct. < > indicates where an adjunct can or cannot occur.
(25) a.

gunu-ku <aadou> [ se gaaDi-Ti cale-i ] <*aadou> aas-uni.
Gunu-OBJ at.allthat car-CLA drive-CP at.all come-PROG not.3SG
Gunu doesn’t know how [to drive that car ] at all.

b. Baapi-ku <puNi> [ seThiki jibaa paai~ ] <*puNi> paD-il-aa.
Babula-OBJ again
there go-INF
again fall-PAST-3SG
Bapi again had [ to go there ].
(26) a.

gunu-ku <aadou> [[ se ghara-Ti jhaaD-ibaa paai~ ]] <aadou>
Gunu-OBJ at.allthat house-CLA sweep-INF
at.allicchaa he-l-aa
ni.
desire(n) happen-PAST-3SG not
Gunu didn’t want [[ to sweep that room ]] at all.

b. baapi-ku
Bapi-OBJ<puNi> [[ seThiki j-ibaa ]] < puNi> darkaara.
again
there go-GER
again necessity

Bapi again needs [[ to go there ]] .
Test II: Case Concord. With reduction the complement clause cannot license a nominative33

item as its dependent; and without reduction the complement can license a nominative item
if other conditions are met. A case in point is the adjunct phrase samaste ekaasangare ‘all
together’ (Yamabe 2016). Consider the situation in which the adjunct phrase semanticallygoes with the complement verb (rather than with the matrix verb). In a sentence that does not
involve structural reduction such as (28) samaste ‘all’ can be NOM, agreeing with the neverpronounced subject of the complement-clause subject which itself bears the case feature NOM;
and it can alternatively be OBJ, agreeing the main clause subject which is visibly OBJ. In
contrast, in a sentence with reduced structure such as (29), samaste ‘all’ can only be OBJ
agreeing with the subject of the whole sentence, because the complement clause lacks its
subject for it to agree with.
(27)

pilaa-maanan-ku [ sethi { samastan-ku | *samaste } ekaa saangare
kid-CLA.PL-OBJ
there
all-OBJ
all.NOM
togetherkaama karibaa paai~ ] paD-ib-a.
work(n) do-INF
fall-FUT-3SG
The workers will have [ to work all {OBJ | *NOM｝together there ].

(28)

pilaa-maanan-ku [[ sethi { samastan-ku | samaste } ekaa saangare
kid- CLA.PL-OBJ
there all-OBJ
all.NOM
togetherkaama karibaa paai~ ]] icchaa
he-l-aani.
desire(n) become-PAST-3SG notwork(n) do-INF
The workers didn’t want [[ to work all {OBJ | NOM｝together there ]].

Test III: Case OCP. With reduction, as in (29), a sequence of two NPs in the same case isprecluded, calling for a piece of overt expression occurring in between; without reduction, asin (30), such a sequence is permitted. (For more on the Case OCP in Odia, see Yamabe 2017,
2021, 2023.)(29)

saaaran-ku [ * (Thik baabhe ) maNTu-ku paDhe-i ] aas-uni.
sir-OBJ
right way
Mantu-OBJ teach-CP
can-PROG not.3SG
The teacher(OBJ) can’t [ teach Mantu(OBJ) properly ].

(30)saaaran-ku [[ maNTu-ku
sir-OBJ
Mantu-OBJ

paDhe-ibaa paai~ ]] icchaa ha-uni.
teach-INF
desire(n) happen-PROG not.3SG

The teacher(OBJ) doesn’t want [[ to teach Mantu(OBJ) ]] .
These three tests combined serve to divide the matrix predicates into two classes, as

34

summarized in (31). Class A are matrix predicates for which one or more of the tests speak
for the reduction property, bringing in acceptability (marked by * and shading in the table)).
Class B are those for which none does so. Class A predicates make a sentence that count as
reduced for the purpose of Condition ② of the Non-coreference Rule, so that S and O
contained in the sentence can lead to the non-coreference effect. Class B predicates make asentence that counts as non-reduced in the relevant sense, so that non-coreference effect does
not arise.
(31) Matrix predicates that do (A) and do not (B) involve structure reduction
Class
A

B

Test I: Lexical
Matrix predicate
Integrity
aas- ‘can’*
paD- ‘have to’*Thi- ‘be supposed to’*
RGER + Thik he- ‘-ing is good’icchaa he- ‘want to’
darkaara ‘need to’

II: Case
Concord***

III: Case
OCP
*
*
*

3.3 Transitive matrix predicatesIn those complex sentences we looked at thus far, the matrix verbs were intransitive. Let us
now have a look at complex sentences whose matrix verb is transitive. In parallel to theintransitives, s there are two classes of transitives: A. structure-reducing, and B. nonreducing). The classification can be probed by means of the tests mentioned in 3.2, and isreflected in the contrasting behavior with respect to the Non-coreference Rule. In (32), thematrix verb de- ‘allow, let’ is structure-reducing10, and accordingly, Pos.S (gunu-ra ‘GunuGEN’) and O (taa-ku ‘him-OBJ’) of the complement verb piT- ‘beat’ cannot corefer. In (33),in contrast, the matrix verb kah- ‘tell, order’ is not structure-reducing, and accordingly,
coreference of the same NPs are possible.

10

For a comparable classification of the Hindi cognates of these two verbs (‘allow’ and ‘tell’), see Butt(2014) and Butt & Gillian Ramchand (2005).

35

(32)

prinsipaal-jaNaka gunu-rasaaran-ku ethara aau
pincipal-CLA
Gunu-GEN sir-OBJ
this.time any.more[ taa-ku
piT-ibaa paai~ ] de-l-eni.
him-OBJ beat-INF
give-PAST-3PL not
The principal didn’t allow Gunu’s<i> teacher[OBJ] [ to beat him<*i> [OBJ] ]any more.

(33)

prinsipaal-jaNaka gunu-rasaaran-ku aaji
pincipal-CLA
Gunu-GEN sir-OBJ
today[[ taa-ku
piT-ibaa paai~ ]] kah-il-e.
him-OBJ beat-INF
tell-PAST-3PL
The principal told Gunu’s<i> teacher[OBJ] [[ to beat him<i> [OBJ] ]]today.

The structure-reducing and non-structure reducing features of de- ‘allow’ (32) and kah- ‘tell’(33), respectively, can be brought out by means of the above-mentioned tests. The results ofthe tests are summarized in (34).
(34)

Class Matrix predicateAde- ‘allow’Bkah- ‘tell’Test I: Lexical
Integrity*

II: Case
Concord*

III: Case
OCP

How Test II (Case Concord) works is exemplified below. In the ‘tell’-sentence (35), samaste‘all’ can be NOM, getting in concord with the null subject of the non-reduced embedded clause.
In the ‘allow’-sentence (36), it does not avail itself of this option, because the embedded
clause missing its syntactic subject position.
(35)

maalika-jaNaka pilaa-maanan-ku [ sethi { samastan-ku | *samaste }owner-CLA
kid-CLA.PL-OBJ
there
all-OBJ
all.NOM
ekaa saangare kaama kar-ibaa paai~ ] de-l-eni.
Togetherwork(n) do-INF
give-PAST-3PL not
The owner didn’t allow the workers [ to work all{OBJ|*NOM} together ] .

(36)maalika-jaNaka
owner-CLA

pilaa-maanan-ku [[ sethi { samastan-ku | samaste }kid-CLA.PL-OBJ
there all-OBJ
all.NOM

ekaa saangare kaama kar-ibaa paai~ ]] kah-il-e.
togetherwork(n) do-INF
tell-PAST-3PL
The owner told the workers [[ to work all{OBJ|NOM} together ]] .

36

4

Explaining the grammatical underpinnings

Section 4 discusses the commonalities and contrasts between the Non-coreference Rule in
Odia, on the one hand, and those in languages of the Americas, on the other.
4.1 Cross-linguistic commonalities
Outside Odia, instances of the Non-coreference Rule, i.e. grammatical constraints preventing
Pos.S and O from being coreferent, have been reported from languages of the Americas.
Aissen (1997) calls them “genitive effect.” Example (37a) is from Tzotzil (Mayan, VOS);(37b), from Navajo (Athabaskan, SOV); (37c), from Mapudungun (unclassified, south central
Child and Argentina, SVO). In these examples, Pos.S and O cannot be coreferent, andtherefore the interpretation indicated by the English translation is not available. (Thepronouns for 3rd persons are regularly non-overt in the languages in (37), these languages,
and PRO’s in the examples are such. Abbreviations in (37): ICP=incompletive, ENC=enclitic,
PSR=possessor, IND=indicative, OBV=obviative, SBJ=subject.)(37) a.

Ta s-sa’PRO
ICP A3-seek him/hey-ajnil
A3-wifeli Manvel-e.
the Manuel-ENC* ‘Manuel’s<i> wife is looking for him<i> .’b.

Ashkiiboybɨzhé’éPRO
his-father him/heyi-yii ɬ tsą́.
saw* ‘The boy’s<i> father saw him<i> .’
c.

Ñi
3.PSR

foṯüm
son.of.man(Aissen 1997: (36a))ḻangüm-f-i-Ø
kill-OBV.P-IND-3.SBJ‘His<?? i | j> son killed him<i>(Hale et al. 1977: 405, modified)PRO.

him/he(Zúñiga 2013: 344, modified)

In Americas, non-coreference effect occurs in least marked types of clauses in grammaticalsystem, such as direct voice or active voice depending on language. In case non-coreference
effect occurs, a marked voice is resort to, such as inverse voice or passive voice. To
approximate this restriction and alternative strategy by means of English sentences, it would
be grammatically impossible to say “Manuel’s<i> wife hit him<i>” (as shown in (37)) andthe intended state-of-affairs could only be rendered as “Manuel<i> was hit by his<i> wife.”
Constraints precluding coreference of Pos.S and O, along with alternative constructions
similar to the above for expressing the intended state-of-affairs, are reported for the following

37

languages as well as for the above-mentioned two: Jacaltec (Mayan, Craig 1977: 177, 220,cited in Woodford 1991:507), Chuj, Cho’l (both Mayan, Deals et al. 2023: 44), Ojibwe(Algonquian, Rhodes 1993, cited in Aissen 1997:713 and Oxford 2019:986-987), Plains Cree
(Algonquian, Wolfart 1973, cited in Aissen 1997:712). In a similar vein, coreference of Pos.S
and O is reportedly “dispreferred” for Upper St’át’imcets, Salish (Davis 2009: 4).
The grammatical mechanism underlying this constraint is accounted for in Aissen (1997).
The arguments of present article to follow builds on the basic pieces of idea found there. A
key notion is to look up the relative ranks along the proximate-obviate dimension that areassigned to the referents of the multiple noun phrases occurring in the same clause (moreexactly, within a certain stretch of discourse). In unmarked situations, the person mentioned
in Pos.S is more proximate than the person mentioned in S [Pos.S > S], for one thing, and foranother, the person mentioned in S is more proximate than the person mentioned by O [S >O]. Now, where Pos.S and O refer to the same person [Pos.S=O], there is inevitably bound to
be a deviation from an unmarked constellation in either of these points, leading to somedegree of marked-ness.
4.2 Typological contrasts
The Non-coreference Rule in Odia (specified in (3)) is attached with Condition ①: Itsapplication is confined to those situations where S and O are marked with the same case. In
other words, in Odia, the above-mentioned marked-ness is fatal exclusively where the twoarguments of the clausal predicate are not distinguished by way of morphological case.
Ordinary transitive clauses are not like that: S and O are distinguished by morphological case,with S being NOM, and O being OBJ or GEN. So, ordinary transitive clauses are immune to theeffect of the Non-coreference Rule. Let us now re-phrase the original Condition ① Same
Case (in (3)) as Condition ①ʹ Case Non-distinctness (in (38)). As I am going to argue, thisrewording offers a key to understanding the source of the differences found between the
instances of the Non-coreference Rule in Odia and the Americas.
(38)

Condition ①ʹ Case Non-distinctness :S and O are not distinguished by morphological case.

Between the languages of the Americas and Odia, a fundamental difference can be38

pointed out as to what sort of clausal constructions the non-coreference constraint effectoccurs in. In the Americas, the effect occurs in the least marked constructions, such as active
and direct, whereas in Odia it occurs in the highly marked constructions such as obliquesubject constructions. Nonetheless, both types of situations share Condition ①ʹ. The crosslinguistic contrast just mentioned can be traced back to the opposed typological characters inmorphosyntax, namely, dependent marking (Odia) vs. head marking (the languages of theAmericas).
Those languages of the Americas, as can been seen in examples in (37), are characterized
as head-marking. Thus, in a clause, the relation between the verb and the arguments aremainly marked on the verb, rather than on the arguments. Therefore, the in normal types ofclauses, Condition ①ʹ holds. Opposed to this, Odia is characterized as dependent marking.
Thus, in a clause, the relation between the verb and the arguments are mainly marked on theargument NPs. So, in normal types of clauses Condition ①ʹ does not hold. In special types of
constructions such as some species of oblique-subject constructions, the dependent-marking
nature of this languages is exerted to such an extreme degree that the two arguments are eachassigned a case marker for a reason: S is case-marked for one reason, e.g. being an experiencer,
and O is so for another, e.g. being someone acted on. It can farther happen by chance that thetwo case marked used are the same, leading a situation of Condition ①ʹ. In the Americas, asituation specified by Condition ①ʹ obtains in basic types of clauses “by default,” because
they regularly contain no case marker. In Odia, a Condition ①ʹ situation obtains in marked
types of clauses, because they can have multiple case marker that can “by chance” be thesame.
5Parallelisms to the Person-Case Constraint

The Person-Case Constraint (PCC), in its universal format, dictates that, if a clause contains
two or more arguments, then the lower of them cannot be 1st or 2nd person. 11 The Odia
11

In its original formulations (For an overview, see Anagnostopoulou 2017 a.o.), the PCC is somethingthat takes effect in a ditransitive clause, i.e. in a clause with an indirect and a direct object, and prevents the
direct object (i.e. the syntactically lower object) from being 1st or 2nd person. This article uses this term in
an extended sense, to subsume transitive clauses as well as ditransitive clauses. In a transitive clause, i.e.
in the clause with S and O, it prevents O (i.e. the syntactically lower argument) from being 1st or or 2nd
person. Indeed, all the examples in this article are of this kind.

39

version of PCC is as specified in (39) (Yamabe 2014,2018,2020b, 2022). It is phrased in away remarkably parallel to the Non-coreference Rule (specified in (3)) , in sharing Conditions① and ②. A typologically notable feature of the Odia version of PCC is that it exerts effecton phonologically full pronouns.
(39)

12

The Person-Case Constraint (Odia)
O cannot be 1st or 2nd person, if both Conditions ① and ② obtain.
① Same Case:S and O are marked with the same morphological case.
② Clause Mates:
S and O are situated within the same clause.
(in the sense made precise in Section 3 for the Non-coreference Rule).

Section 5 illustrates how the PCC works parallelly to the Non-coreference Rule. The former
comes into force in the same ranges of circumstances as the latter. More concretely, thosesentences in Sections 2 and 3 which do not admit coreference of Pos.S and O do not admit
the 1st or 2nd person pronouns for O, either; and conversely, those which do admit
coreference of Pos.S and O do admit the 1st and 2nd person pronouns, too. Examples for the
PCC are arranged in correspondence with the examples for the Non-coreference Rule in
Section 2 and 3.
5.1 Condition ①
Just as the Non-coreference Rule applies only if S and O are marked with the same clause,
the PCC also applies only if S and O are marked with the same case. In (40a), an ordinarytransitive construction with the case frame [NOM-OBJ], the PCC does not apply: O can be 1st
person (mo-te ‘me-OBJ’) and 2nd person (tuma-ku) ‘you-OBJ’. In (40b), an oblique-subject
construction with [OBJ-OBJ], it does apply: it prevents O from being 1st or 2nd person. The
It is also worth noting that the PCC in Odia (along with the Non-coreference Rule) takes effect in aclause with two internal arguments, rather than any two arguments. So, its effect is observed in transitive
unaccusatives, i.e. oblique-subject constructions, but not in ergative transitives, i.e. nominative-subject
construction.
12

As far as known in the literature for other languages than Odia, the domain of PCC effect is restricted
to phonologically reduced pronominal items like clitic pronouns or verbal agreements. Indeed, thedefinition of the PCC usually incorporates this restriction (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2017 a.o.).

40

numbers (e.g. “<(1)”) at the tails of the following examples refer to the corresponding Noncoreference Rule examples.
(40)

a.

saar niscaya
sircertainly{ maani-ku | taa-ku | mo-te | tuma-ku } bhala paa-uch-anti.
Mani-OBJ her-OBJ me-OBJ you-OBJ like-PROG-3SG

The teacher[OBJ] likes {Mani| her| me| you}[OBJ], certainly. ＜(1)b. saaran-ku niscaya { maani-ku | taa-ku | *mo-te | *tuma-ku } bhala laag-uch-i.
sir-OBJ
certainly Mani-OBJ her-OBJ me-OBJ you-OBJ
like-PROG-3SG
The teacher[OBJ] likes {Mani| her~| *me| *you}[OBJ], certainly. <(2)( cf. { *Mani/ *She/ I/ You}[OBJ] like(s) the teacher[OBJ], certainly.)
Instead, the word sequence in (40b) with the 1st and 2nd person pronouns can convey themeaning indicated in the parenthesis at the bottom line of (40b) in parentheses. Recall fromthe discussion of examples (7) and (11) that the Non-Coreference Rule subverts the wordorder restriction illustrated in (9) that rules out the OS order. It is worth noting here in relation
to example (40b) that the PCC also subverts the same word-order restriction. As indicated inparenthesis in (40b), PCC effect is in force forces the interpretation ‘I/You like the teacher’
which implicates the OS order that is otherwise impossible.
In examples (a) to (d) of (41), both S and O are in an oblique case: they are (a) [OBJ-OBJ],(b) [OBJ-GEN], (c) [GEN-OBJ], (d) [GEN-GEN]. The PCC applies in (a) and (d), where S and O
are in the same case: O cannot be 1st or 2nd person. It fails to apply in (b) and (c), where S
and O are case-distinct: O can be 1st and 2nd person.
(41) a. lipi-ku ethara { saaran-ku | taan-ku | mo-te | tuma-ku }Lipi-OBJ this.time sir-OBJ
him-OBJ me-OBJ you-OBJ
prasansaa kar-ibaa paai~ paD-ib-a.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN fall-PAST-3SG
Lipi[OBJ] will have to praise {the teacher| him~| *me| *you}[OBJ]
this time. ＜(16), (18)b. lipi-ku ethara { saaranka-ra | taanka-ra| mo-ra| tuma-ra}
Lipi-OBJ this.time sir-GEN
him-GEN me-GEN you-GEN
prasansaa kar-ibaa paai~ paD-ib-a.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN
fall-PAST-3SG
Lipi[OBJ] will have to praise {the teacher|him~| me| you}[GEN]this time. ＜(19)41

c. lipi-ra
kaali seThi { saaran-ku | taan-ku | mo-te | tuma-ku }Lipi-GEN today there
sir-OBJ
him-OBJ me-OBJ you-OBJ
prasansaa kar-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SG
Lipi[GEN] was supposed to praise {the teacher| him~| me| you}[OBJ]
there yesterday. ＜(20)d. lipi-ra
kaali seThi { saaranka-ra | taanka-ra | mo-ra | tuma-ra }Lipi-GEN today there
sir-GEN
him-GEN
me-GEN you-GEN
prasansaa kar-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SG
Lipi[GEN] was supposed to praise {the teacher| him|*me|*you}[GEN]there yesterday. ＜(21)Again similar to the Non-coreference Rule as it did in (22), the PCC regards the possessor ofcertain object nouns as O for the purpose of Condition ①, as in (42). Specifically, it does soonly if the object noun is bare. In (42a), it does apply (car-Ø). It ceases to apply, as in (42b),
if the object gets attached with some affix or another (car-CLA-OBJ). It also ceases to apply,
as in (42c), if the possessor of the object is not marked by GEN, but is in the adnominal form
(without -ra ‘-GEN’).
(42)

a.

baabulaa-ra se dina seThi { saaranka-ra| taanka-ra| *mo-ra| *tuma-ra}
Babula-GEN that day there
sir-GEN
him-GEN me-GEN you-GEN
gaaDi
car

cale-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
drive-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SG

Babula[GEN] was supposed to drive {the teacher’s| his|*my|*your}[GEN] car-Ø.
b. baabulaa-ra se dina seThi { saaranka-ra| taanka-ra| mo-ra| tuma-ra}
Babula-GEN that day there
sir-GEN
him-GEN me-GEN you-GEN
gaaDi-Ti-ku cale-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
cardrive-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SG
Babula[GEN] was supposed to drive {the teacher’s| his|my|your}[GEN] car-CLA-OBJ.
c.

baabulaa-ra se dina seThi { saaranka | taanka | mo | tuma }Babula-GEN that day there
sir’s
his
my yourgaaDi
car

cale-ibaa-ra th-il-aa.
drive-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SG

Babula[GEN] was supposed to drive {the teacher’s| his|my|your}[-’s] car-Ø .

42

5.2 Condition ②
Just as with the Non-coreference Rule, the PCC applies only in situations where S and O arecontained in the same clause, and the range of such situations includes complex sentences of
reduced structure but excludes those of non-reduced structure (Yamabe 2014). This is
illustrated by the [OBJ-OBJ] complex sentences in (42). In (43a), de- ‘allow’ is structurereducing (cf. table in (34)), and accordingly the PCC comes into force. In (43b), kah- ‘tell’ isnot structure-reducing, and so the PCC remains inactive.
(43)

a.

prinsipaal se saaran-ku kintu [ { maNTu-ku| taa-ku| *mo-te | *tuma-ku }principal that sir-OBJ however Mantu-OBJ him-OBJ me-OBJ you-OBJ
piTibaa paai~ ] de-b-eni.
beat-INF
give-FUT-3PL not
The principal won’t allow the teacher[OBJ] [ to beat {Mantu| him|*me|*you}[OBJ] ],though. ＜(32)b. prinsipaal se saaran-ku aaji
principal that sir-OBJ today[[ { maNTu-ku | taa-ku | mo-te | tuma-ku }Mantu-OBJ him-OBJ me-OBJ you-OBJ

piTibaa paai~ ]] kah-il-e.
beat-INF
tell-PAST-3PL
The principal told the teacher[OBJ] [[ to beat｛Mantu| him| me| you}[OBJ] ]]today. ＜(33)The same contrast is illustrated for the [GEN-GEN] complex sentences in (44). In (44a), th‘be supposed to’ is structure-reducing (cf. table in (31)), and accordingly the PCC comes into
force. In (43b), icchaa he- ‘want to’ is not structure-reducing, and so the PCC remains inactive.
(44)

a.

baabulaa-ra
Babula-GEN

aaji seThi
today there[ { saaranka-ra| taanka-ra| *mo-ra | *tuma-ra }sir-GEN
him-GEN me-GEN you-GEN

prasansaa kar-ibaa-ra ] th-il-aa.
praise(n) do-GER-GEN be-PAST-3SG
Babula[GEN] was supposed to praise {the teacher|him|*me|*you}[GEN]there today. <(21)b. baabula-raBabula-GENsabubeLe [[ { maalikana-ra| taanka-ra| mo-ra | tuma-ra }alwaysowner-GEN
him-GEN me-GEN you-GENsamalocanaa kar-ibaa paai~ ]] icchaa
criticism
do-INFdesire(n)he-uch-i.
happen-PROF-3SG

Babula[GEN] always wants [[ to criticise {the employer|him|me|you} [GEN] ]].
< (23b), (24b)43

5.3 Capturing the parallelisms
Given that the Non-coreference Rule and the PCC coincide as for the conditions forapplication, it is suggested that they are underpinned by a common machinery. The observed
coincidence can be captured, if the accounts given in Section 4 for the Non-coference Ruleare extended to cover the PCC. Namely, that will be assuming that the 1st and 2nd persons
are normally more proximate than 3rd persons, and that this holds owing to their inherent
properties, related to lexical meanings (1,2 > 3). (For comparison recall this. We assumed in
Section 4 in relation to the Non-coreferece Rule that the referent of Pos.S is normally more
proximate than that of S, and this holds owing to the structural positions they assume on
occurring in a sentence.) This much assumed, a reasoning goes on as follows. O being 1st or
2nd person inevitably leads to the contradiction with the fact that S is normally proximate
than O (S>O). (This account is to attribute to the cause of the effect to the PCC to that of theNon-coreference effect, the same contradiction. Pos.S being coreferent with O inevitably
leads to the contradiction with the fact S is normally proximate than O.)
Similarities have been long recognized in literature between the hierarchy-based constraint
applying among 3rd persons (of which the Non-coreference is a subtype 13) on the one hand,
and the hierarchy-based constrains applying between local participants (1st and 2nd persons)and non-local participants (3rd persons) (of which the PCC is an instance) on the other. The
literature is divided with respect to the views on the syntactic nature of the two families of
constraints: there is one group of views (Foley & Toosarvandani 2022, Clem 2022) which(tend to) unify the two sets of constraints, and explain as their effect arising by an overarching
syntactic machinery: there is another group (Givón 1994, Aissen 1997, Oxford 2023) which(tend to) differentiate them, and explain their effect arising through distinct, though widely
overlapping, sets of machinery14. The present article is not ready to put forward a decisive
13

Another subtype of the hierarchy-based constraint applying among 3rd persons is the one applying
between animate NPs, on the one hand, and inanimate NPs or the like, on the other hand, whereby it canbe assumed that the former normally outrank the latter on the proximate-obviate scale (animate >inanimate or like). Odia attests to an instance of this subtype, and, similarly to the Non-Coreference Ruleand the PCC, it also subject to Conditions ① and ② (Yamabe 2020a).

14

Note that this dichotomy is quite bit a simplification. For instance, Deals & Royer (2023) argue forthe syntactic machinery overarching the PCC and the nominal hierarchy effect among 3rd persons.
However, what is relevant to the concern of this article, they attribute the Non-coreference Rule (the“genitive effect”) to a source separate from nominal hierarchy effect per se (pp.45-46, 49). On this score44

proposal on this issue. But as far as thee data available relating to the Non-coreference Ruleand the PCC in Odia are concerned, there is no indication that would differentiate the tworules concerning their syntactic distribution, and this suggests that the two rules should be
most conveniently collapsed under the same syntactic machinery, as in (45).
(45)

Generalizing over the Non-coreference Rule and the PCC (Odia)
Marked-ness in proximate-obviate ranking of noun phrases is not tolerated,
where both Conditions ① and ② obtain.
① Same Case:S and O are marked with the same morphological case.
② Clause Mates:
S and O are situated within the same clause.
(in the sense to be made precise in Section 3 for the Non-coreference Rule).

In other words, marked situations with respect to proximate-obviate ranking can only be
expressed if the distinction of S and O are encoded, and that can be done either
morphologically by case, or syntactically by an intervening clausal boundary.
Further research is needed to make certain that there does not exist any facts that mighturge us for separate treatment of the Non-coreference rule and more generally the rules
concerning the hierarchy among 3rd persons, on the one hand, and the PCC and moregenerally the rules concerning the hierarchy between local participants and non-local
participants. In the present stage of my research, there remains a notable gap in available data
concerning how the Non-coreference Rule works on the indirect and direct objects oftransitive predicates (such as the verbs dekhaa- ‘show, de- ‘give’), whereas some details areavailable concerning how the PCC Rule works on these (Yamabe 2022). Data collection
work concerning the former issue is underway, and a comparison of the two rules in thecontext of ditransitive predicates is forthcoming.
6 Conclusion
The Non-coreference Rule precludes coreference of Pos.S and O, if S and O are marked by
the same morphological case and situated within the same clause. Outside of Odia, instances
they view that the Non-coreference Rule is based on mechanism distinct from the PCC.

45

of the Non-coreference Rule, i.e. constraints precluding coreference of Pos.S and O, havebeen reported from languages of the Americas. As for the grammatical underpinning of theNon-coreference Rule, what matters is the consideration of the relative proximate-obviate
ranking between the referents of noun phrases in a clause (Aissen 1997). The instances of theNon-coreference Rule in the two language sets differ fundamentally as to the sorts of clausal
environments non-coreference effect occurs in: in Odia, non-coreference takes place only inhighly marked types of clauses, for instance, oblique-subject constructions; in the Americas,
in least marked types of clauses. This contrast derives from the typologically opposedcharacters in the morphosyntax of the languages, namely, dependent marking (Odia) vs. headmarking (the languages of the Americas). Despite this contrast, a commonality is that theNon-coreference Rule, in Odia and in the Americas, apply where S and O are notdistinguished by morphological case. The Non-coreference Rule and the PCC behave fullyparallelly in Odia, as far as available data show. The available data speak for an
undifferentiated account for the nominal hierarchy effect involving 3rd persons (i.e, the Noncoreference Rule) on the one hand, and that involving 1st and 2nd persons, on the other, as
far as Odia is concerned.
References[J]: Written/presented in Japanese.

Aissen, L. Judith (1997) On the syntax of obviation. Language 73: 705-750.
Aissen, L. Judith (1999) Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75: 451-485.
Aissen, L. Judith & David M. Perlmutter (1983) Clause Reduction in Spanish. David M. Perlmutter,ed., Studies in Relational Grammar 1, pp.360-403. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2017) The Person Case Constraint. Martin Everaert, and Henk C. vanRiemsdijk, eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edition, pp.3001-3047. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Burzio, Luigi (1986) Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Butt, Miriam (2014) Control vs. complex predication. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 165190.
Butt, Miriam, & Gillian Ramchand (2005) Complex aspectual structure in Hindi/Urdu. N. ErteschikShir et al., eds., The syntax of aspect, pp. 117-153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clem, Emily (2022) Accounting for parallels between inverse marking and the PCC.

46

https://pages.ucsd.edu/~eclem/clem-2022-inverse-marking-pcc-nels52.pdf
Craig, Colette G. (1977) The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Davis, Henry (2009) Cross-linguistic variation in anaphoric dependencies: evidence from the PacificNorthwest. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27: 1-43.
Dayal. Vineeta (2011) Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29: 123-167.
Deals, Amy Rose & Justin Royer (2023) Mayan animacy hierarchy effects and the dynamics of Agree.
Ms., lingbuzz/007666.
Foley, Steven, & Maziar Toosarvandani (2022) Extending the Person-Case Constraint to Gender:
Agreement, Locality, and the Syntax of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 53: 1-40.
Givón, T. (1994) The pragmatics of de-transitive voice. T. Givón, ed., Functional and typologicalaspects of inversion, pp.3-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, Kenneth, LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne, & Paul Platero (1977) Three cases of overgeneration.
Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, & Adrian Akmajian, eds., Formal syntax, pp.379-416. New
York: Academic Press.
Mohanan, Tara (1994) Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 13:75-134.
Oxford, Will (2019) Inverse marking and Multiple Agree in Algonquin: Complementarity andvariability. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 955-996.
Oxford, Will (2023) A tale of two inverses. Syntax 26:311-354.
Rhodes, Richard (1993) The possessor constraint. Paper presented at the twenty-fifth Algonquian
conference, Montreal.
Safir, Ken (2004) Syntax of (In)Dependence. Cambridge, MA; The MIT Press.
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. (1977) Clause Union and Relational Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 700-713.
Srivastav, Veneeta [Dayal] (1991) The syntax and semantics of correlatives, Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 9: 637-686.
Van Hoek, Karen (1997) Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolfart, H. Christoph (1973) Plains Cree: a grammatical study. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society. N.S., vol. 63, part 5.
Woolford, Ellen (1991) VP-internal subjects in VSO and nonconfigurational languages. Linguistic
Inquiry 22: 503-540.
Wurmbrand, Susanne (2001) Infinitives: restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de47

Gruyter.
Yamabe, Junji (1995) The cases in the oblique case subject constructions in Oriya. Journal of theJapanese Association for South Asian Studies 7:46-82.
Yamabe, Junji (1998) The relative and interrogative pronouns in Oriya. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Tokyo.
Yamabe, Junji (2014) The person restriction applicable to compound verbs in Oriya. Proceedings ofthe 148th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 296-301. [J]Yamabe, Junji (2017) The various constructional environments in Odia which do and don’t allow thesuccession of identically case-marked nouns. Proceedings of the 154th meeting of the LinguisticSociety of Japan, 164-169. [J]Yamabe, Junji (2018) The Odia constructions in which the person constraint does and does not takeplace. Proceedings of the 156th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 277-282. [J]Yamabe, Junji (2020a) The person constraint in Odia which affects noun phrases attached with aclassifier. Proceedings of the 160th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 29-35.[J]Yamabe, Junji (2020b) The person constraint in Odia. Tariq Khan, ed., Queries in the structure oflanguage, 1-13. Mysuru, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Yamabe, Junji (2021) Odia constructions in which the effect of the identical case constraint is { absent|
present| strong}. Proceedings of the 163rd meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 115–121. [J]Yamabe, Junji (2022) The Person-Case Constraint in Two Dialects of Odia. Kumamoto Journal of
Humanities 3: 7-29.
Yamabe, Junji (2023) Variation of Case OCP Effects in Odia. Kumamoto Journal of Humanities 4:21-41.
Zúñiga, Fernando (2013) Inversion, obviation, and animacy in native languages of the Americas:
Elements for a cross-linguistic survey. Anthropological Linguistics 56: 334-355.

オリヤ語の非同一指示規則
キーワード： オリヤ語（印欧語、インド東部）、照応関係、格体制、斜格主語、主要部標示・従属部標示、近接・疎遠、人称・格制約(やまべ・じゅんじ[山部順治] 熊本大学)

48