The paper aims to answer the question why object–verb agreement is blocked inudHungarian, Tundra Nenets, Selkup, and Nganasan if the object is a first orudsecond person pronoun. Based on Dalrymple & Nikolaeva (2011), it is arguedudthat object–verb agreement serves (or served historically) to mark the secondaryudtopic status of the object. The gaps in object-verb agreement can be derivedudfrom the Inverse Agreement Constraint, a formal, semantically unmotivatedudconstraint observed by Comrie (1980) in Chukchee, Koryak and Kamchadal,udforbidding object-verb agreement if the object is more ʻanimate’ than theudsubject: The paper claims that the Inverse Agreement Constraint is a constraintudon information structure. What it requires is that a secondary topic be lessudtopical than the primary topic. An object more topical than the primary topicudcan only figure as a focus. A version of the constraint can also explain whyudHungarian first and second person objects have no accusative suffix, and whyudaccusative marking is optional in the case of objects having a first or secondudperson possessor.
展开▼
