Estonian negated indicative clauses show no agreement, whereas Estonian negated imperative clauses show agreement twice: once on the main verb and once on the negation word ära. This contrasts with affirmative clauses, where agreement appears only once. I propose a unified syntax for agreement across these clausal types, arguing that the there is one head which bears a ϕ-feature probe in all Estonian sentences. There is no agreement in negated indicatives because this head has only one suitable vocabulary item in this context: ei. Doubled agreement arises due to a rule of postsyntactic Feature Copying in imperative contexts. I argue that this analysis is superior to an analysis making use of multiple ϕ-feature probes in the syntax, as such analyses struggle to account for the optionality of doubling in first-person plural contexts. The proposed analysis makes predictions about the kinds of marking possible in negated imperatives, which appear to be borne out in related Uralic languages. This investigation supports a view of the morphosyntax of agreement whereby the syntax and morphology of agreement overlap but do not coincide.
Keywords: agreement, Estonian, imperatives, negation
Finnish and Estonian have several types of split noun phrases where a noun phrase is separated from the modifing quantifier or numeral. This paper provides a preliminary classification of split noun phrases in both languages and proposes a syntactic analysis of a specific type of split NP, the partitive split, where the noun phrase is in the partitive case. We propose that the partitive split is derived by discourse-related movement of the partitive NP. Particular attention is paid on contexts where the partitive noun phrase does not reconstruct to its position prior to movement. For example, numerals higher than one induce morphological mismatches in partitive split in both languages. A solution is proposed, where the partitive split involves an optionally pronounced classifier head, which facilitates the semantic selection and morphology. This analysis is shown to apply to Finnish, but the evidence for Estonian is not conclusive.
Keywords: syntax, split NP, partitive split, Finnish, Estonian
The Second International Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Uralic Languages (SIWCLUL) was held in Szeged in January 2016. The goals of the conference series include increased co-operation between the researchers, universities and research centres working on Uralic languages. The event gathered a number of participants from all over Eurasia, including Finland, Hungary, Estonia, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Norway among others. The conference also marked a start of an Association for Computational Linguistics’ Special Interest Group for Uralic Languages (ACL SIGUR).
Keywords: Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, Computational linguistics