Kalyakin (2026): VP ellipsis and argument structure alternations in Muira Dargwa #
This file formalizes Kalyakin's argument that Muira Dargwa complex predicates show v-stranding VP-ellipsis: the light verb survives while its complement, the VP containing the non-verbal root, is elided. With [E] on v the deletion domain is smaller than that of English VP-ellipsis, so the causative alternation, a difference in Voice over one root, is tolerated (§5) while the root must still match, and both readings of again survive (§4.1), unlike English, where only the repetitive one does. A root's position is read off its content, a state or a manner entailment in Beavers and Koontz-Garboden's vocabulary: a root that imposes a manner on an activity attaches to v rather than to the direct object and so lies outside the deletion domain, and antipassives coerce a root into that position, which is why they resist ellipsis (§5). The NV-drop test shows that the root and the argument go together, so the elided constituent is the VP (§3.6). The paper's survey (§6) puts Persian and British do beside Muira Dargwa with [E] on v, and Bangla with [E] on Voice, and finds that Persian, unlike Muira Dargwa, respects Goldberg's Verbal Identity Requirement.
References #
Mismatch predictions #
The site of a root on the clausal spine. A change-of-state root merges with the direct object, at V in v's complement, and a manner root attaches to v, at the VP-adjunction site outside it (§2.2).
Equations
Instances For
The core prediction is that vVPE tolerates both voice and transitivity mismatches while blocking lexical verb mismatches.
English VPE has a strictly more restrictive profile than vVPE, since it also blocks transitivity mismatches.
The causative alternation under vVPE (§5) #
The two alternants of a change-of-state root differ in the light verb alone, [vDO, vBE]
against [vGO, vBE] in [Cue03]'s calculus, and share the VP below it. vVPE strands the
light verb and elides its complement, so the shared VP satisfies identity and the alternation is
tolerated; English VP-ellipsis deletes the vP, where v_trans ≠ v_unacc fails identity
([Mer13b]).
The causative alternant of a change-of-state root is a state under vDO.
Instances For
The inchoative alternant is the same state under vGO.
Instances For
The causative alternation is tolerated under vVPE because transitivity mismatches are allowed.
The causative alternation is blocked under English VPE because transitivity mismatches are blocked.
Antipassive blocking #
Antipassive roots in Muira Dargwa are coerced to v-adjunction, outside vVPE's deletion domain, so they cannot be elided (§5).
Change-of-state roots, merged with the direct object, lie inside vVPE's deletion domain and can be elided.
Cross-linguistic predictions #
Sluicing tolerates fewer mismatches than English VPE, which tolerates fewer than vVPE.
vVPE's [E] position, v, is strictly below English VPE's, Voice, so by Sailor's generalization any mismatch tolerated by English VPE is tolerated by vVPE.
The causative chain #
The alternants share their VP under distinct light verbs ([Cue03]) and vVPE with [E] on v elides the VP alone ([Mer13b]), so the alternation is tolerated under vVPE.
Sluicing, with [E] on C, blocks voice mismatches under Merchant's theory too, since Voice is inside TP, its deletion domain, as the Santa Cruz sluicing data set of Anand, Hardt and McCloskey confirms independently.
The again diagnostic #
Under vVPE both the repetitive and the restitutive again survive, (52a–b), as both do under Persian vVPE ([Too09] (90)), which confirms that the deletion domain is the VP and not the vP.
English VPE deletes restitutive again, so only the repetitive reading survives ([Mer13b]).
The again test separates vVPE from English VPE, whose deletion domains differ.
The position of a root by its content (§2.2, §4.1) #
A non-verbal element is a bare root, and where it merges is fixed by its conceptual content: a root describing the end state of a change-of-state event merges with the direct object, one imposing a manner on an activity attaches to v. The roots of the paper's complex predicates carry the state or manner entailment Kalyakin reads off them.
wana of wana AGR-arq'- 'warm up' (3), (8), (75)–(80).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.wana = { name := "wana", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.state "warm"} }
Instances For
hark of hark AGR-arq'- 'open', which denotes the result state of being open (52).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.hark = { name := "hark", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.state "open"} }
Instances For
parʁat of parʁat AGR-arq'- 'calm' (36), (69)–(71).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.parghat = { name := "parʁat", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.state "calm"} }
Instances For
dawk of dawk AGR-irq'- 'repair' (84)–(86).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.dawk = { name := "dawk", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.state "repaired"} }
Instances For
taˤħ of taˤħ Ø-uq- 'jump' (57).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.tah = { name := "taˤħ", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.manner "jump"} }
Instances For
duc' of duc' Ø-uq- 'run' (58).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.duc = { name := "duc'", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.manner "run"} }
Instances For
ʡimč of ʡimč w-ik'- 'sneeze' (59).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.imc = { name := "ʡimč", entailments := {Semantics.Root.Entailment.manner "sneeze"} }
Instances For
The position of a root by its conceptual content. A root imposing a manner on an activity attaches to v, one describing an end state merges with the direct object.
Equations
Instances For
A root lies in vVPE's deletion domain exactly when it entails no manner. The roots merged with the direct object are elided with it, the v-adjoined ones never.
The change-of-state roots are elided with the object, (36a) and (52).
The manner roots are not, (57)–(59).
The survey of verb-stranding ellipsis (§6) #
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.instDecidableEqLanguage x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.instReprLanguage = { reprPrec := Kalyakin2026.instReprLanguage.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The ellipsis of each language. Muira Dargwa, Persian, where both readings of again survive ((90), after Toosarvandani), and British do, which tolerates voice and argument-structure mismatches alike ((97)–(98), after Silk), put [E] on v; Bangla puts it on Voice, where the restitutive reading is lost (94) and adjuncts are recovered (95), the light verb evacuating by head movement (after Haldar).
Equations
Instances For
Whether the language respects Goldberg's Verbal Identity Requirement, identity of the light verbs of antecedent and target ((92)), where the paper reports it. Persian prohibits every light-verb mismatch (91) and Muira Dargwa tolerates them (§5).
Equations
- Kalyakin2026.Language.persian.respectsVIR? = some true
- Kalyakin2026.Language.muiraDargwa.respectsVIR? = some false
- x✝.respectsVIR? = none
Instances For
Every language but Bangla elides the complement of v.
Persian and Muira Dargwa share the [E] position but differ on the Verbal Identity Requirement, so languages with [E] on v may respect or disregard it.
Bangla's ellipsis is the larger one, and the again test shows it, since restitutive again is deleted in Bangla but survives in Muira Dargwa.