Raising to Quirky Subjectin Tatar
Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
Chihiro Taguchi
taguchi.chihiro.td0[at]is.naist.jp
November 21, 2020

Raising to Quirky Subject in Tatar
1. Introduction
a. Raisingb. Quirky subject
2. Discussion: Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016)
3. Conclusion

2

Raising to Quirky Subject in Tatar
1. Introduction
a. Raisingb. Quirky subject
2. Discussion: Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016)
3. Conclusion

3

Introduction: Objective
This study will empirically demonstrate that:● Description:Tatar has raising constructions with “quirky” case-markings● Theory:Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016) is not language-speciﬁc4

Introduction: Tatar● Typology: Turkic > Kipchak > Tatar○Spoken mainly in the Republic of Tatarstan, Russia● Syntax: SOV, AN● Morphology: case-marking, sufﬁxation

5

Introduction: Raising in Tatar(1) Maratkit-ärgä
Marat.NOM leave-INF(2) Marat-qa
kit-ärgä
Marat-DAT leave-INF(3) Marat-nïŋ
kit-äseMarat-GEN leave-FP.3

tiješ.
obligatory
kiräk.
necessarybar.
exist(1)-(3): “Marat must leave.”

Problem: different case-markings on the subject⇒ subject-to-subject raising (SSR) with quirky case-marking
6

Raising to Quirky Subject in Tatar
1. Introduction
a. Raisingb. Quirky subject
2. Discussion: Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016)
3. Conclusion

7

Overview: Raising●Raising
syntactic movement of an argument from subordinate clause to matrix clausee.g., SSR in English
Johni seemed [ti to leave.]… “John” is not a semantic argument of SEEM but of LEAVE.

●cf. controle.g., Johni tried [PROi to leave].
… “John” is a semantic argument of both TRY and LEAVE.
8

Raising in Tatar●●Raising property of sentences (1)-(3) can be conﬁrmed by passivization test.
No change in semantic relationship(12) Maratxat-nï
jaz-arɣa tiješ.
Marat.NOM letter-ACC
write-INF obligatory“Marat must write the letter.” i.e., write(Marat, letter)

identical(13) Xat
Marat tarafïnnanjaz-ïl-ïrɣatiješ.
letter.NOM
Marat bywrite-PASS-INF
obligatory“The letter must be written by Marat.”i.e., write(Marat, letter)
9Raising in Tatar
Passivization of a control predicate causes semantic relationship alternation(14) Marat
xat-nï
jaz-arɣa tïrïš-tï.
Marat.NOM
letter-ACCwrite-INF try-PST.3“Marat tried to write the letter.”i.e., try(Marat, λx.write(x, letter))(15) Xat
Marat tarafïnnan jaz-ïl-ïrɣatïrïš-tï.
alternation
letter.NOM
Marat bywrite-PASS-INF try-PST.3“The letter tried to be written by Marat.”i.e., try(letter, λx.write(Marat, x))10

Raising in Tatar● The same test can be applied to (2) and (3)⇒ (1)-(3) are raising constructions⇒ Non-ﬂat structure (also conﬁrmed by anaphoric binding)

11Raising to Quirky Subject in Tatar
1. Introduction
a. Raisingb. Quirky subject
2. Discussion: Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016)
3. Conclusion

12Overview: Quirky Subject●●Non-nominative subject○ typically found in Icelandic (Sigurðsson 1992)
Example (Icelandic):(16) Þeirhjálpuðu
okkur.
they.NOM
help.PST.3.PL we.DAT“They helped us.”(17) Okkur var
hjálpað.
we.DAT be.PST.3.SG help.PP“We were helped.”
13

Quirky Subject vs. Pseudo-Quirky Argument●Quirky-like argument in German○ uns is not a quirky subject but an object (Zaenen et al. 1985).

(18) Siehalfen
uns.
they.NOM
help.PST.3.PL we.DAT“They helped us.”(19) Uns
wurdegeholfen.
we.DAT become.PST.3.SG help.PP“We were helped.”
14

Quirky Subject vs. Pseudo-Quirky Argument
PRO test: if an XP can control a PRO, the PRO is the subject.
(20)Viðwe.NOM(21)* Wir
we.NOMvonuðumst
hope.MED.PST.1.PL
hofftenhope.PST.1.PL

tilfor[PROað
[PRO(DAT) to[PROgeholfen[PRO(DAT) help.PPzutoverðahjálpað]. (Icelandic)
become.INF help.PP]
werden]. (German)
become.INF]

German quirky-like argument cannot bind PRO with supposedly dative case-marking⇒ Not a subject

15

Quirky Subject in Tatar Raising● Are the raised arguments in Tatar really quirky subjects?
⇒ Apply subjecthood tests (Sigurðsson 1992, Poole 2016)● Anaphoric Binding test
● PRO test
● Reduced Relative test

16

Anaphoric Binding test(22) Marat-qa
Marat-DAT[berüz-e[oneself-3.NOM

kit-ärgä]
leave-INF]

kiräk.
necessary(23) Marat-nïŋ
Marat-GEN[berüz-e[oneself-3.NOM

kit-äse]leave-FP.3]

bar.
exist“Marat must leave by himself.”⇒ The raised quirky arguments can bind the reﬂexive pronoun
17

PRO test(24) Marati[[PROikit-ärgä

Marat.NOM [[PRO(DAT) leave-INFkiräk]

bul-u-ɣa]künder-el-de.

necessary] be-VN-DAT] persuade-PASS-PST.3“Marat was persuaded that he had to leave.”(25) Marati[PROikit-äse
bul-u-ïn-a]Marat.NOM[PRO(GEN) leave-FP be-VN-3-DAT]“Marat was persuaded that he would have to leave.”

künder-el-de.
persuade-PASS-PST.3⇒ The quirky arguments can be PRO18

Reduced Relative test (Overview)
Relative clauses without relative pronoun“If XP can be relativized in reduced relatives, XP is a subject.” (Poole 2016)
e.g., “The man gives the cattle the hay.”(26)
The mani [___i giving the cattle the hay](27)#
The cattlei [___i giving the man the hay](28)#
The hayi [___i giving the man the cattle]⇒ “the man” is the subject19

Reduced Relative test(29) ?? [___ikit-ärgäkiräk
leave-INF
necessary“The person who had to leave”

bul-ɣan]be-ADJVZ(30) [___i kit-üixtimal-ïbul-ɣan]leave-VN
possibility-3 be-ADJVZ“The person who might leave”

kešei
personkešei
person⇒ Acceptability differs
20Suppl.: -u ixtimal-ï bar (“possible”)-u ixtimal-ï bar syntactically behaves similarly to -asï bar(3)

Marat-nïŋ kit-äse
Marat-GEN leave-FP“Marat must leave.”

bar.
exist

(23)

Marat-nïŋ berüz-e
kit-äseMarat-GEN oneself-3 leave-VN“Marat must leave by himself.”(3)’Marat-nïŋ kit-ü
Marat-GEN leave-VN“Marat might leave.”ixtimal-ïbar.
possibility-3 exist

bar. (23)’ Marat-nïŋ berüz-ekit-ü
ixtimal-ï
bar.
exist
Marat-GEN oneself-3 leave-VN
possibility-3 exist“Marat might leave by himself.” (Anaphoric Binding)21Suppl.: -u ixtimal-ï bar (“possible”)(25) Marati[PROikit-äse
bul-u-ïn-a]Marat.NOM[PRO(GEN) leave-FP be-VN-3-DAT]“Marat was persuaded that he would have to leave.”

künder-el-de.
persuade-PASS-PST.3(25)’ Marati

bul-u-ïn-a]
be-VN-3-DAT][PROikit-ü[PRO(GEN) leave-VNixtimal-ï
possibility-3

künder-el-de.

Marat.NOMpersuade-PASS-PST.3“Marat was persuaded that he would have to leave.” (PRO test)

22

Genitive subject raising in Uyghur
Asarina (2011) reports genitive subject raising in Uyghur(31) Ötkür-niŋ
bu+ehtimalda oqu-š-ikérek.
Ötkür-GENprobably
read-VN-3 necessary“Ötkür probably must read.”(32) *Ötkür-niŋ
bu+ehtimalda oqu-š-imuhim.
Ötkür-GENprobably
read-VN-3 important
intended: “It is probably important for Ötkür to read.”⇒ Raising construction allows for insertion of sentence-modifying adverbials
23

Raising to Quirky Subject in Tatar1. Introduction
a. Raisingb. Quirky subject
2. Discussion: Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016)
3. Conclusion

24

Quirky Subject Hierarchy (QSH) (Poole 2016)25

Quirky Subject Hierarchy

Tatar (kiräk, dative raising)●Languages in parentheses are not clear yet
as to which they belong to.

Tatar (-asï bar, genitive raising)26

Raising to Quirky Subject in Tatar
1. Introduction
a. Raisingb. Quirky subject
2. Discussion: Quirky Subject Hierarchy (Poole 2016)
3. Conclusion

27

Conclusion: QSH types are not language-speciﬁc●

Reduced Relative test in Tatar showed that the acceptability differed between
dative SSR (kiräk) and genitive SSR (ixtimal bar).
⇒ Tatar belongs to two QSH types (Icelandic and Laz) ???

●●QSH types are not uniquely determined by each language
Different predicates can have a different QSH type⇒ lexically (by each word) or morphologically (by case-marking) motivated28

References
●
●
●
●
●
●

Asarina, A. A. (2011). Case in Uyghur and beyond. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inﬂection. In K. L. Hale & S. J.
Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, pp. 111-76.
Marantz, A. (2000). Case and licensing. In E. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’sgeneralization. John Benjamins, pp. 11-30.
Poole, E. (2016). Deconstructing subjecthood. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Sigurðsson, H. A. (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax, 49. Departmentof Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.
Zaenen, A., H. Thráinsson & J. Maling. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. In
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(4). Springer Verlag. pp. 441-483.

29

Raising to Quirky Subject
in Tatar
Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
Chihiro Taguchi
taguchi.chihiro.td0[at]is.naist.jp
November 21, 2020