EPA02403 Finno Ugric Lang 2016 1 003-037

Unifying subject agreement across clause types in Estonian*
Mark Norris
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 post-
syntactic 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 inves-
tigation 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
1 Introduction
In the canonical case of subject-verb agreement, there is one instance of subject agreement
in person and number (herea er: ϕ-features) on the finite verb. This is shown for Estonian
in (1) and (2).1
*
I started thinking about these patterns in collaboration with Anie Thompson in 2013, and her contri-
butions to the project are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Claire Halpert, Jorge Hankamer,
Boris Harizanov, Ruth Kramer, Ethan Poole, Virve Vihman, and audiences at UCSC’s Morphology Reading
Group, the 88th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, and the Workshop on Syntactic
Structures of Uralic Languages at the XII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies in Oulu, Finland.
Thanks to András Bárány for technical support. Thanks to two anonymous reviewers, whose critique and
suggestions have improved this paper in terms of argumentation and rhetorical flow. Finally, I thank the
following speakers of Estonian for discussing their language with me: Leelo Kask, Kärt Lazić, and Katrin
Jänese. I am responsible for any remaining errors.
1
Glossing abbreviations are as follows: 1 first person, 2 second person, 3 third person, accusative
case, adessive case, connegative, conditional, . da-infinitive, dual number,
equentative, hortative, imperative, inessive case, negation, partitive case, pas-
sive/impersonal, participle, plural number, past tense, singular number.
Some examples come om online resources for the Estonian language. The first ( ) is a
balanced literary corpus containing equal parts fiction, journalism, and academic writing. The second ( )
is an online dictionary of standard Estonian (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat). Both are available online at
http://www.keeleveeb.ee/.
Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, Vol. ⒌ No. ⒈ (2016), 3–37 http://full.btk.ppke.hu

ISSN: 2063-8825
Norris 4
⑴ Sa vaata-d filmi.
you watch-2 movie.
‘You are watching a movie.’
⑵ Te vaata-te filmi.
you. watch-2 movie.
‘You (pl/formal) are watching a movie.’
In (1), the verb bears the suffix -d indicating agreement with a second-person singular
subject, and in (2) the verb bears -te, indicating agreement with a second-person plural
subject. Under standard Minimalist conceptions, this kind of agreement is formalized
as an Agree relation (between the subject and the verb, loosely speaking) in the syntax
correlating with one agreement marker in the morphology.
However, this one-to-one relationship between syntactic agreement relation and
morphological exponence of agreement does not always obtain in Estonian. In addition to
contexts where there is one morphological exponent of agreement, there are situations in
Estonian where there is no agreement and situations where agreement is doubled. These
complex patterns require a closer look at the relationship between the syntax and mor-
phology of agreement in the language. In this paper, I investigate and analyze the agree-
ment patterns in negated imperatives, which show doubling, and negated indicatives, where
agreement disappears, and I argue that the most successful analysis is one in which syn-
tactic agreement (i.e., the Agree relation) and morphological agreement (i.e., the presence
of agreement markers) overlap but are not isomorphic. Under the analysis I propose, the
differing morphological situations disguise a system that is syntactically uniform. Before
getting to the analysis, I present the morphological patterns in more detail.
Like indicative clauses, affirmative imperative clauses also exhibit one instance of
subject-verb agreement. The paradigm of agreement markers for imperatives is different
than the paradigm used in indicatives, as is visible in (3) and (4).
⑶ Vaata filmi!
watch. .2 movie.
‘Watch a movie!’
⑷ Vaada-ke filmi!
watch- .2 movie.
‘Watch a movie!’
The second-person singular imperative (in (3)) has no ending (I represent this in the
table as a null morpheme -∅), and the second-person plural (in (4)) uses the morpheme
-ge/ke.2
Full paradigms for indicative and imperative clauses are presented in Table 1 on the
following page.3 Examples such as affirmative clauses in Estonian are the canonical case, a
one-to-one correspondence between syntactic and morphological agreement.
The situations where the agreement patterns diverge are found in negated clauses.
Negated indicative clauses exhibit no morphological agreement. In the present tense, the
main verb appears in a form that resembles an inflected stem without the inflection. This
2
The choice between -ge and -ke is part of Estonian’s complex morphophonological system of stem
alternation known as gradation. It is largely irrelevant to the issues I address here, so I will not discuss it
5 Subject agreement across clause types
I
I
1 -gu/ku -me
1 -n -me
-gem/kem
2 -d -te
2 -∅ -ge/ke
3 -b/-s -vad/-d
3 -gu/ku -gu/ku
Table 1: Estonian agreement paradigms: indicative (le ) and imperative (right)
form is sometimes called the form, as it is a verb form that appears with
negation. Examples are given in (5).
⑸ a. Sa ei vaata(*-d) filmi.
You watch-2 movie.
‘You are not watching a/the movie.’
b. Te ei vaata(*-te) filmi.
You. watch-2 movie.
‘You ( /formal) are not watching a/the movie.’
As shown in (5), negated indicative clauses with overt agreement morphemes are ungram-
matical.
In contrast, negated imperatives exhibit agreement twice: once on the main verb and
once on the word ära, which is traditionally identified as an imperative negative auxiliary.4
⑹ a. Ära vaata filmi!
. .2 watch. .2 movie.
‘Don’t watch a/the movie!’
b. Är*(-ge) vaada*(-ke) filmi!
. -2 watch- .2 movie.
‘Don’t watch a/the movie!’
The imperative negative auxiliary’s agreement paradigm is clearly the imperative paradigm;
compare the forms of ära shown in Table 2 with the forms in Table 1.
Thus, both ära and the main verb morphologically express imperativity and agree-
ment. I refer to this pattern as . There are thus three types of exponence in
Estonian: standard (single) agreement, no agreement, and doubling.
I argue that these three patterns of exponence arise om a unified syntax of agree-
ment: in Estonian clauses, there is always exactly one head bearing [uϕ]. I propose this
head is the polarity head Pol0 . This straightforwardly predicts one instance of agreement,
as in affirmative clauses. The patterns of doubled agreement and no agreement emerge
in detail. I assume for concreteness that the alternation amounts to contextual allomorphy determined by
particular verbal roots, but see Blevins (2007) for further discussion.
3
The -gu/ku forms are not always included as part of the imperative paradigm (see, e.g., Erelt 2003),
as that is the ending associated with the jussive. I have included them in the paradigm in the interest of
completeness.
4
This pattern is also observable in negated jussive clauses (see, e.g., Tamm 2015, 408–410). I focus
here on imperatives, but the patterns seen in jussive clauses are fully compatible with my analysis, as far as I
can tell.
Norris 6
1 är-gu är-me
är-gem
2 ära är-ge
3 är-gu är-gu
Table 2: Agreement paradigm for the imperative negative auxiliary ära
due to the morphology of Estonian, in ways that are made precise below. The end result
is a system with a unified syntax of agreement across clausal types but a complex map-
ping between the syntax of agreement and its morphological exponence. This is consistent
with a theory where morphological and syntactic agreement overlap but are not isomor-
phic (Chung 2013). This analysis also has support om patterns seen in other Uralic
languages: while doubling occurs in some languages, the most common pattern is for
imperative-marking and agreement to appear only on negation, consistent with the idea
that doubling is idiosyncratic morphology rather than evidence of a syntactic relation.
An alternative viewpoint that I consider is that every instance of morphological agree-
ment corresponds to an agreement relationship in syntax, and vice versa. This alternative
view is tacitly assumed in some research on agreement, especially in analyses of multiple
agreement in the clausal domain by Baker and Willie (2010) and Carstens (2001), and
Henderson (2006). For Estonian, negated indicatives would have no agreement—neither
syntactic, nor morphological—and negated imperatives would have two instances of syntac-
tic agreement that correspond to two morphological exponents of agreement. While this
simplifies the mapping between the syntax and morphology of agreement, it precludes the
possibility of a unified syntax of agreement across clause types in Estonian. I believe it is
desirable to seek a unified syntax of agreement in the language, as it extends more readily
to systems in other Uralic languages (and beyond). More strongly, I show that it is difficult
for this type of analysis to generate all of the correct results in Estonian, casting doubt on
its general viability in the language.
I begin by providing additional background information in Section 2 before propos-
ing my analysis in Section 3. I consider and reject the alternative analysis mentioned above
in Section 4. In Section 5, I consider how my analysis helps us understand the patterns
of agreement and imperative-marking in negated imperatives in other Uralic languages,
and I discuss a type of unattested imperative-marking within Uralic that is predicted to be
nonexistent by my analysis. I offer some directions for future research in Section 6.
2 Background Assumptions
This analysis is formalized within a Minimalist approach to syntax (Chomsky 1995, et seq.)
combined with the proposals of Distributed Morphology (Halle 1990; Halle and Marantz
1993). In this amework, the syntax manipulates sets of abstract morphological features
with no phonological content. Morphological forms are supplied a er syntactic operations
at a step known as Vocabulary Insertion, which is taken to occur as part of the interface
responsible for phonetic and phonological form (PF). Importantly, within this approach,
there are postsyntactic morphological operations that can alter the syntactic representation
before Vocabulary Insertion takes place (see, e.g., Arregi and Nevins 2012; Embick 2010;
Harley and Noyer 1999). This system is schematized below.
⑺ Lexicon
Numeration
(Narrow)
Syntax
Morphology Spell-Out
Phonetic Form Logical Form

One particular syntactic operation figures prominently in the analysis. It is com-
monly known as Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001; Preminger 2014, a.o.). The formalization
of Agree is subject to some variation, but the core aspects are fairly consistent. The for-
malization I adopt is given in (8).
⑻ Agree:
a. A syntactic head with an unvalued feature or set of features [u ] (the
) searches within its c-command domain for a node with a corre-
sponding valued feature or feature set (the ).
b. If the probe finds a suitable goal, the goal’s relevant features are copied to
the probe, and Agree is complete.
c. If the probe fails to find a suitable goal, Agree fails, and no values are
supplied to the probe.5
In the situations considered here, the probe has a set of unvalued ϕ-features ([uϕ]), and it
finds a suitable set of ϕ-features on the subject DP, which I assume (for concreteness) to
be generated in Spec,vP. Those ϕ-features are copied to the probe and they are canonically
realized (at PF) as an agreement marker. In what follows, the precise question that I
investigate is how closely morphological agreement tracks syntactic Agree.
2.1 Basic proposals regarding Estonian clause structure
While there are no significant proposals regarding the functional structure of the Estonian
IP within a generative amework, there are a number of proposals for Finnish, and they
more or less converge on the same structure (Brattico and Huhmarniemi 2006; Brattico
et al. 2014; Holmberg and Nikanne 2002; Holmberg et al. 1993; Huhmarniemi 2012;
Koskinen 1998; Mitchell 1991). A synthesis of these views is presented below.
5
Under some formalizations of the operation, failure of Agree leads to ungrammaticality. See Pre-
minger (2014) for a thorough rebuttal against these kinds of approaches.
Norris 8
⑼ CP
C FinP
DP
Fin (NegP)
Subject
(Neg) TP
T vP
[ ]/[ ]
v VP
[ ]
Two particular aspects of this proposal are worth mentioning at the moment. First,
Fin(ite)0 is the head that is responsible for finiteness, as visible by subject-verb agree-
ment. In addition, the neutral position of the subject (or more properly, topic) is taken to
be Spec,FinP. Second, if Negation is present, it is in between Fin0 and T0 . This reflects
the fact that, in negated sentences, negation bears agreement, but tense is still reflected
only on the main verb. This is visible for Finnish in (10) and (11).
⑽ puhu-n / puhu-i-n
speak-1 speak- -1
‘I speak’ ‘I spoke’
⑾ e-n puhu / e-n puhu-nut
-1 speak -1 speak- . ( )
‘I don’t speak’ ‘I didn’t speak’
The examples in (10) establish that, in affirmative clauses, the verb reflects both tense and
agreement. In the negated sentences in (11), the expression of agreement and tense is split,
with negation bearing agreement and the main verb expressing the tense of the clause.
Turning to Estonian, the facts regarding negation and tense are the same: the main
verb bears tense in negated clauses, and negation does not (see (12) and (13)).
⑿ Ma ei maga. ⒀ Ma ei maga-nud.
1 sleep 1 sleep- .
‘I don’t sleep.’ ‘I didn’t sleep.’
These facts follow the same pattern as Finnish with respect to tense-marking: compare
maga ‘sleep’ in (12) to maganud ‘sleep. . ’ in (13). As in Finnish, the main verb does
not bear agreement in negated indicatives in Estonian, whether past or present. I take
this as evidence that the ϕ-feature probe in Estonian clauses is also higher than negation
(as in Finnish), as the introduction of negation blocks ϕ-feature agreement on the main
verb. However, unlike negation in Finnish, Estonian indicative negation does not show
any agreement: it is always ei (see also (5)). I set this aside for the moment, returning to
an analysis of indicative negation in Section ⒊2.
Imperative clauses are not discussed in detail in much of the literature on Finnic
clausal architecture; some important exceptions are Brattico et al. (2014), Mitchell (1991),
and Nelson (1998). Nelson (1998) proposes that the morphosyntactic feature⒮ unique to
imperative clauses are lower (on T0 , below negation and Fin0 ), while Brattico et al. (2014)
and Mitchell (1991) propose that the morphosyntactic features unique to imperative clauses
are located on C0 , which is above negation and finiteness (see also Han 1999; Rivero and
Terzi 1995). I propose the same for Estonian, i.e., that morphosyntactic imperative features
are located on C0 , but I will come back to Nelson’s (1998) proposal in Section 5.
Taking these proposals together, the structure of the Estonian clause that serves as
the basis for my analysis is presented in (14).
⒁ CP
C PolP
[ ]
DP
Subject Pol TP
[uϕ], [ ]
T vP
[ ]/[ ]
v VP
[ ]
Some aspects of the structure deserve comment. First, though I have not discussed it here,
I assume that v0 is the location of the impersonal/passive suffix. Second, I have collapsed
Neg0 and Fin0 into one head: Pol0 . As far as I can tell, Neg0 serves no purpose other
than the introduction of the negation head, which always moves to Fin0 . Instead of this,
I propose a head Pol0 (for polarity) that comes in two flavors: one with [ ] and one
without. Pol[ ] 0 spells out as negation, and plain Pol0 spells out as ϕ-feature agreement.
The proposals I make in what follows are compatible with an analysis that does not collapse
Fin0 and Neg0 , but I will do so in the interest of simplicity. This means that whatever
information besides [uϕ] is assumed to be present on Fin0 must be present on Pol0 instead,
although the discussion that follows focuses only on [uϕ].
Within this structure, I assume that the verb undergoes head movement up the
clausal spine. I assume it moves as high as T0 in all clauses, as has been proposed for
Finnish (Holmberg and Nikanne 2002, a.o.). In affirmative clauses, the verb continues to
Pol0 . In negated clauses, head movement to Pol[ ] 0 is blocked, and the verb stays in T0 .
This is shown for affirmative clauses in (15) and negated clauses in (16).
⒂ PolP
Pol+T+v+V
<T>
<v>
<V> …
Norris 10
⒃ PolP
Pol
T+v+V
[ ] <v>
<V> …
The interaction of Pol0 and C[ ] 0 is part of the core of the analysis, which is discussed in
the next section. Let us turn to it now.
3 ära as a conglomeration of negation and imperativity
As we have seen, negated imperative clauses in Estonian are not formed with ei, but with
a special negative auxiliary ära.6 Unlike Estonian ei, ära morphologically agrees with the
subject, and the set of agreement markers that appear is the same imperative paradigm as
that which appears on the main verb in an affirmative imperative. 7 Additional examples
are in (17).
⒄ a. Är-ge kõndi-ge muru-l!
. -2 walk- .2 grass-
‘Don’t walk on the grass!’ (Erelt et al. 1993, 155)
b. Ära kõnni muru-l!
. .2 walk. .2 grass-
‘Don’t walk on the grass!’ (Erelt et al. 1993, 155)
Recall as well that the main verb bears imperative agreement in negated imperatives (e.g.,
kõndi-ge ‘walk- .2 ’ in (17a)). This means that agreement and imperativity are real-
6
An anonymous reviewer asks about the etymology of ära and ei, and in particular, whether their
relationship can be illuminated by historical evidence. I have not found anything particularly interest-
ing as of yet. The etymological dictionary of Estonian (Eesti etümoloogiasõnaraamat, available online at
http://www.eki.ee/dict/ety/) collapses the entries for ära and ei into one entry. The entry provides the
cognate forms in a variety of languages, including both the indicative and imperative negative auxiliary. Some
of these forms are given in Section 5 of the present article. However, I will re ain om speculating and
simply note that this is a question worth investigating. Thanks to Anne Tamm for helpful discussion of this
issue.
7
I will continue to refer to imperative agreement as agreement with the subject, and I will represent
it formally as such. However, the source of this agreement is a matter of some debate within the literature.
Kiparsky (2001) proposes that agreement in imperatives is not the same as agreement in non-imperative
clauses in Finnish (pp. 335–6), and Miǉan and Cann (2013) claim something similar for Estonian, proposing
the agreement is “not syntactic but pragmatic” (p. 360). I note first that the observations Kiparsky and
Miǉan & Cann make do not preclude a syntactic account: see, e.g., Zanuttini (2008) and Zanuttini et al.
(2012). However, even if the pragmatic approach is superior, the choice between the pragmatic account
and the syntactic account is ultimately about the proper controller of agreement, whereas the phenomenon I
am investigating is about the exponence of agreement. It seems to me that the puzzle of multiple agreement
exponence in negated imperatives remains even if the controller is pragmatic in nature. Thus, in what follows,
I assume a syntactic approach for concreteness.
ized twice: once on ära and once on the main verb.8 It is ungrammatical to leave either
agreement exponent out, whether on negation (as in (18a)) or on the main verb (as in
(18b)).
⒅ a. * Ära söö-ge seda kooki!
. eat- .2 that. cake.
Intended: ‘Don’t eat that cake!’
b. * Är-ge söö seda kooki!
. -2 eat. that. cake.
Intended: ‘Don’t eat that cake!’
However, there is one exception to the general pattern of obligatory imperative agreement
doubling in Estonian negated imperatives. For [1 ] imperatives using the ending -me,
agreement on the main verb is optional.9 When agreement does not appear on the main
verb, the main verb instead surfaces in the ordinary present connegative form. This is
illustrated in (19) and (20).
⒆ Är-me vaata(-me) filmi!
. -1 watch(-1 ) film.
‘Let’s not watch a/the movie!’
⒇ är-me tee(-me)
. -1 do(-1 )
‘Let’s not do’ (Tamm 2015, 407)
As Tamm (2015) shows, both forms—with doubling and without it—exist in modern spo-
ken and written registers of varying levels of formality in the modern language, though
she suggests that the standardization of the non-agreeing form is a somewhat recent de-
velopment.
There are two primary questions that I address with my analysis. First, why are both
negation and the main verb inflected for imperative features? Assuming that imperative
morphology is connected to a morphosyntactic feature (e.g., [ ]), it is worth considering
which of the imperative inflections (i.e., that on negation or that on the main verb) is
connected to this feature. Second, what is the source of the doubled ϕ-feature marking,
and how can we formalize it such that it can be optional in the case of [1 ] agreement?
In response to the first question, I argue that the imperative marking on negation
is connected to “true” (i.e., syntactic) imperativity. In response to the second question, I
argue that agreement on ära, i.e., negation, is the reflex of an Agree relationship. Thus, the
imperative negator is directly connected to both syntactic features, [ ] and ϕ-features.
8
It is difficult to know whether the main verb is inflecting for person and number in the context of
second-person singular subjects, as it is in a form that is homophonous with the present connegative form
for nearly every verb in the language. The only verb for which this is not true is minema ‘go’, where the
2 imperative form is mine but the present connegative form is lähe. Because of this, I believe the verb is
bearing agreement in this context.
9
Another ending is possible for [1 ] imperatives: -gem/-kem. As Tamm (2015) observes, there is
a register difference between -me and -gem, such that the -gem form is quite formal. Unlike -me, -gem
obligatorily doubles in negated imperatives. I assume this difference can be attributed to a morphosyntactic
feature related to formality or to different dialects, which is independently necessary in order to capture the
fact that -me and -gem are both possible exponents for [1 ] in imperatives.
Norris 12
In contrast, I propose that the agreement and imperative-marking on the main verb is the
result of a different operation. Furthermore, I argue that the optionality of [1 ] doubling
suggests that this operation is morphological rather than syntactic in nature. I propose
that it is an instance of Feature Copying (Kramer 2010; Norris 2014), an idiosyncratic rule
of Estonian triggered by the presence [ ] and [ ] on the same head.
The primary focus of this section is to lay out my analysis and show how it works.
The two sections following this one show in more detail why the analysis I propose is
preferable. In Section 4, I consider an alternative that is more along the lines of the
work that proposes multiple ϕ-feature probes (e.g., Baker and Willie 2010; Carstens 2001;
Henderson 2006), and I show that it is less plausible than the analysis I advocate for. Then
in Section 5, I show that my analysis makes interesting predictions with respect to negated
imperatives in the Uralic family, lending further support to the analysis proposed in this
section.
3.1 Analysis: morphology and syntax of negated imperatives
The analysis is broken up into two parts. Beginning with the assumption that imperative
clauses are connected to a feature (or set of features) in the syntax, I propose that Estonian
has a C0 with an imperative feature, which I call [ ] for concreteness. In an affirmative
imperative clause, the finite verb is high, indicated by the fact that it can readily appear
before the subject when the subject is overt.
(21) (Sa) kasta lilli!
you water. .2 flower. .
‘Water (some) flowers!’ (Erelt et al. 1993, 175)
(22) Kasta SINA lilli!
water. .2 you flower. .
‘YOU water (some) flowers!’ (Erelt et al. 1993, 175)
In (21), the pronoun sa ‘you’ can appear before the verb. Importantly, the subject pronoun
can also appear a er the verb, as in (22).10 I attribute this to head movement: the verb
moves all the way to C0 in imperative clauses. For concreteness, I suggest the variable
positioning of the subject (before or a er the verb) is due to an optional movement of
the subject to Spec,CP, though the position of the subject will not affect the analysis I
propose.11 If the subject remains in Spec,PolP, then it is post-verbal.12
Turning to negated imperatives, recall that head movement of the verb stops at T0
when Pol[ ] 0 is present. This accounts for the fact that the verb inflects for tense but not
10
The form, sina or sa, does not affect the possible positions, as far as I have been able to tell.
11
Based on the research conducted on Finnish, I believe this movement to Spec,CP is likely driven
by information-structural considerations. For example, Holmberg and Nikanne (2002) note that Spec,CP is
generally reserved for contrastive topics. I have not yet uncovered any significant contrasts in the interpretation
of imperatives with preverbal or postverbal subjects in fieldwork, though a reviewer notes that postverbal
subjects in imperatives are normally interpreted as contrastive, suggesting the default position for the subject
in an imperative is preverbal. I must leave this issue unresolved here, although I note that the exact positioning
of the subject is tangential to the point that I am trying to make about agreement exponence.
12
In Finnish, the imperative subject, when present, must be post-verbal. I have no explanation for why
Finnish and Estonian differ in this respect.
agreement in negated clauses. This also precludes the verb om reaching C0 as it does in
affirmative imperatives. However, Pol0 is able to move to C0 as normal— it just does not
contain the verbal complex. This movement yields the complex head in (23).13
(23) CP
C PolP
C Pol <Pol> …
[ ] [ ]
[ϕ]
Thus, the only difference between negated imperatives and affirmative imperatives is wheth-
er or not the verbal complex raises to Pol0 . In either case, Pol0 always raises to C[ ] 0 .
As indicated in (23), Pol[ ] 0 has already established Agree with the subject DP by
the time it raises to C0 , and the subject’s ϕ-features, along with negation and imperativity,
now form a complex head in C0 . This is the essence of the special negative imperative
auxiliary ära: it is the morphological form supplied to the complex C0 head, expressing
negation, imperativity, and the subject’s ϕ-features. Imperativity is visible at least in the
agreement paradigm used, which is the language’s imperative agreement paradigm. It is
reasonable to suggest ära reflects negation given ⒤ its restriction to negative imperatives,
and (ii) the fact that no other sentential negation is possible.14
At this point, the representation is sent to the PF interface where it can be interpreted
by the morphology. To begin, I propose that C[ ] 0 and Pol[ ] 0 undergo Fusion (Halle
1990; Halle and Marantz 1993), which takes two terminal nodes which are sisters and
combines their feature bundles to form a single node as represented in (24). The new
fused head is ultimately spelled out as ära.
(24) CP −→ CP
C PolP C PolP
[ , , ϕ, Pol]
C Pol … …
[ ] [ , ϕ]
13
An issue that I do not address here is how such a complex head would be interpreted, especially as far
as scope is concerned. This issue could be avoided under an account where head movement does not occur
until PF (e.g., Schoorlemmer and Temmerman 2012) or where ära is not derived via Head Movement, but
Spanning (Merchant 2015; Svenonius 2012). I will not attempt to construct such an account here.
14
However, I note here that the alternative analysis that I consider in Section 4 does not adopt this
characterization for ära.
Norris 14
(25) Imperative Negative Auxiliary Vocabulary Items (simplified):15

a. C, [ , , 2 ] ↔ ära
b. C, [ , , 1 ] ↔ ärme
c. C, [ , , 2 ] ↔ ärge
d. C, [ , ] ↔ ärgu
Thus, under this analysis, the term “negative imperative auxiliary” refers to a C0 that con-
tains ϕ-features, the imperative feature [ ], and the negation feature [ ].
Turning now to the main verb, recall that it expresses imperative agreement as well in
negated imperatives. Thus, as far as the morphology is concerned, the main verb needs to
acquire the imperative feature [ ] as well as the subject’s ϕ-features. Since those features
are bundled up in C0 , we have to say something more. It will not do to propose a second
ϕ-feature probe on a lower head, e.g., T0 . We have already seen evidence against such a
proposal om negated indicatives, where the main verb bears tense but no agreement. If T0
were a probe, this would be unexpected. Thus, while two ϕ-feature probes might simpli
negated imperatives, they complicate negated indicatives, as well as affirmative clauses in
general.
I propose instead that doubling is the result of a morphological rule of Feature Copy-
ing, triggered by C0 specified as [ , ]. First, an Agr node is adjoined to T0 , and sub-
sequently, C0 ’s features are copied onto that Agr node. This is represented schematically
in (26), where the dashed branch indicates a slight abbreviation in the structure.
(26) CP
C TP
[ ]
T vP
[ ]
[ϕ]
T+v+V Agr …
[ ]
[ ]
F C [ϕ]
This copies all of the features of C0 , including [ ], which is essentially ignored at Vocab-
ulary Insertion. I do this in the interest of simplicity: it is simpler to have C0 ’s entire feature
set copied rather than allowing Feature Copying to choose which features are copied. See
15
These Vocabulary Items are simplified in that I abstract away om whatever operation (e.g., Fission),
separates the agreement features om the negative and imperative features. It would be empirically identical
to suggest that there is no Fusion, but instead, mutual contextual allomorphy. We could propose that är is
an expression of C[ ] 0 in the context of [ ], and Pol[ ] 0 with ϕ-features is realized as the imperative
agreement paradigm in the context of C[ ] 0 . I adopt the Fusion account here because it allows for a more
straightforward account of the doubling of imperative and agreement features, as it joins them as a single
node.
also Kramer (2010) for a similar conclusion regarding Feature Copying in Amharic adjec-
tival agreement.16
Because Feature Copying applies postsyntactically, it necessarily applies a er Agree
has taken place. This means that the ϕ-feature values of the subject are known when Fea-
ture Copying applies, which opens the door for an understanding of the optionality in the
case of [1 ] -me. Concretely, I propose that the operation of Feature Copying is optional
when C0 is specified as [1 ]. This is similar to the analysis of Basque auxiliaries proposed
by Arregi and Nevins (2012), where certain PF operations may apply (or not apply) based
on ϕ-feature specifications. The final formalization I adopt for Feature Copying Estonian
Imperatives is presented in (27).
(27) Feature Copying (Estonian Imperatives): Copy C0 ’s features to an Agr node

adjoined to T0 if C0 is specified for [ , ]. This is optional if C0 is specified
as [1 ].
A reviewer has two related questions about the arbitrariness of rules of Feature Copying.
First, the reviewer observes that the optionality of first-person plural doubling is rather
arbitrary as stated here. The issue of arbitrariness comes up again in Section 5, where some
differences in patterns of doubling in other Finno-Ugric languages are investigated. There
is some variation in what features are copied in languages with doubling, suggesting some
degree of arbitrariness may be necessary.
Second, the reviewer asks whether the heads and features involved in Feature Copying
rules like (27) are completely arbitrary. While I cannot offer a definitive answer to this
question, I comment briefly on this question here. The question is both empirical and
theoretical, and it has not yet been systematically investigated. However, the rule presented
here shares similarities with other uses of Feature Copying in the literature (Kramer 2010;
Norris 2014). First, Feature Copying copies features to an Agr node adjoined to some
head postsyntactically. Second, the origin of the features is higher in the structure than
the target; in other words, features are copied downward, as opposed to Agree, which can
only transfer features upward, in at least some conceptualizations. 17 Third, there is a sense
in which Feature Copying takes place within a single domain reminiscent of Grimshaw’s
(1991/2005) Extended Projection: for Kramer (2010) and Norris (2014), features are copied
om some nominal head to attributive adjectives, and for my analysis, features are copied
om a verbal head to another verbal head. Whether these properties can hold for all
plausible instances of Feature Copying is an issue that I must leave to future work.
Returning to the main point, when Feature Copying does not apply in these [1 ]
contexts, the main verb is in a structural position that is identical (or very similar) to its
position in negated indicative clauses: it is in T0 with no ϕ-features. This is visible in the
imperative structure in (28) and the indicative structure in (29).
16
Feature Copying of the kind proposed here is also similar to the operation of Enrichment proposed
by Müller (2007), although Enrichment operates more locally, only allowing features to be duplicated inside
a single complex head.
17
There are many existing proposals concerning the direction of Agree, including that it only transmits
feature values downward and that it can transfer feature values in any direction. For recent discussion, see
Bjorkman and Zeĳlstra (2015) and Preminger and Polinsky (2015).
Norris 16
(28) CP (29) CP
C+Pol PolP C PolP

[ ,1 , ]
<Pol> TP Pol TP
ärme
[ ]
T vP T vP
ei
v+V T … v+V T …
tee tee
In (28), Pol0 has raised to C0 , but Feature Copying has not applied, leaving the main verb
in T0 with no [ ] feature nor ϕ-features. This is the same as the main verb in a negated
indicative clause: it has no ϕ-features (nor the [ ] feature, for that matter).
This analysis thus predicts that, when Feature Copying does not apply, the main verb
should surface in its ordinary connegative form. It is actually somewhat difficult to tell,
because for most verbs in the language, the connegative form is homophonous with the
second-person singular imperative form. However, as noted in footnote 8, there is one verb
with distinct forms (minema ‘go’), and it must be in the connegative form in first-person
plural imperatives without doubling. This is shown in (30) and (31).
(30) är-me lähe (31) * är-me mine
. -1 go. . -1 go. .2
‘Let’s not go’ Intended: ‘Let’s not go.’
The connegative form of minema ‘go’ is lähe, while its second-person singular imperative
form is mine. Only lähe can be used in negated [1 ] imperatives without Feature Copying,
which is exactly what the Feature Copying analysis predicts.
Under this analysis, the relationship between the syntax of agreement (i.e., Agree)
and its morphological expression is imperfect for negated imperatives: there is only one
instance of Agree, but potentially two exponents of ϕ-feature agreement. In fact, the
analysis also requires an imperfect relationship for negated indicatives: one instance of
Agree in the syntax, but no morphological expression. This is a complication, but it is
warranted. Let us now discuss indicative clauses for some independent evidence for that
claim.
3.2 ei as a morphologically deficient negative auxiliary
As we have seen, negated indicative clauses in Estonian do not show morphological agree-
ment, regardless of tense.
(32) Sa ei vaata filmi.
2 watch movie.
‘You are not watching a/the movie.’
(33) Sa ei vaada-nud filmi.
2 watch- . movie.
‘You did not watch a/the movie.’
If we take the term negative auxiliary to mean that the negation word inflects like a verb,
then Estonian ei does not quali . It does not show verb-like inflection of any kind. If we
take the canonical example of a negation particle to be a negation form that does not affect
the form of the main verb ( in the terms of Miestamo 2005), Estonian
ei does not seem to quali with this either, as its presence prevents the main verb om
showing agreement. Under the analysis I proposed above, Estonian ei is the realization of
Pol[ ] 0 , a head which bears [uϕ] and establishes Agree in the syntax. In other words, it is
syntactically a negative auxiliary. I believe that this is the right approach for the syntax of
Estonian for two reasons.
First, discussion by Erelt (2003) and Tamm (2015) suggests that the negative auxil-
iary bore inflection in older forms of the language. Tamm provides the example in (34).
(34) et e-b se mei-lle woi mitte kuria teh-da.
that -3 this we- can. harm. do- .
‘That this cannot harm us.’ (Tamm 2015, 419)
Here, the form of negation is eb, indicated as bearing third person singular agreement.
Tamm also notes that, although ei does not show inflection in Standard Estonian, it does
agree in some Southern varieties of the language. There is thus historical precedent and
potential dialectal evidence for a negative auxiliary in Estonian.
Second, Estonian is the only language among its closest relatives where the negative
auxiliary fails to inflect (Miestamo et al. 2015; Mitchell 2006). As we have seen, it inflects
in Finnish, but it also inflects in the Finnic languages Ingrian, Karelian, Livonian, Veps,
and Vod.18
(35) Ingrian (Mitchell 2006, 235)

e-n ompēle
-1 sew
‘I don’t sew’
(36) Karelian (Mitchell 2006, 235)
e-n šano
-1 say
‘I don’t say’
(37) Livonian (Mitchell 2006, 230)
Miná ä-b uo
1 -1 be- .
‘I am not.’
(38) Veps (Mitchell 2006, 230)
e-n to
-1 bring
‘I don’t bring’
18
Some of the Finnic languages’ names are rendered in English in a variety of ways. Veps is sometimes
called Vepsian, and Vod is sometimes called Votic or Votian. Here, I have used the main entry name according
to Ethnologue.
Norris 18
(39) Vod (Mitchell 2006, 236)

e-n jō
-1 drink
‘I don’t drink.’
In addition, though not shown here, all of the closely related Saami languages have inflect-
ing auxiliaries (Toivonen and Nelson 2007, 8–9).19 Proposing that the Estonian ei is still
at some level a negative auxiliary thus puts it in line with the other members of its family
and the closely related Saami languages.
Speaking more concretely, I propose that Estonian ei (or more accurately, the syn-
tactic head Pol0 ) still has the syntax of a negative auxiliary. This means it is generated
with [uϕ] in the syntax, and it undergoes Agree with the subject, obtaining its ϕ-features.
Estonian has this in common with the languages where this agreement is overt. This is
depicted in (40).
(40) PolP
Pol TP
[uϕ], [ ]
T vP
DP
[ϕ] v VP
In (40), Pol0 establishes Agree with the subject DP in Spec,vP. Thus, Pol[ ] 0 acquires a
ϕ-feature set in the narrow syntax, and this is the representation that undergoes Vocabulary
Insertion in indicatives.
This is where Standard Estonian differs om the rest of the members of its family.
Whereas a language like Finnish has multiple vocabulary items for Pol[ ] 0 , Estonian only
has one: ei. Thus, when Pol[ ] 0 undergoes Vocabulary Insertion, ei is inserted regardless
of the ϕ-features. An example terminal node is presented in (41), and the competitions
for Finnish and Estonian are represented in (42) and (43), respectively.
(41) Example terminal node targeted for insertion:

PolP
Pol TP
[ ]
[2 ] …
19
Toivonen and Nelson (2007) provide examples om South Saami and Inari Saami, but their discussion
suggests this is the case in all of the Saami languages. The literature also contains examples om Finnmark
Saami (Mitchell 2006), North Saami (Nickel 1990), Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014), and Skolt Saami (Feist 2010),
all of which have agreeing negative auxiliaries.
(42) Finnish Vocabulary Items (43) Estonian Vocabulary Items

a. Pol, [ , 1 ] ↔ en a. Pol, [ ] ↔ ei ⇐
b. Pol, [ , 2 ] ↔ et ⇐
c. Pol, [ , 1 ] ↔ emme
d. Pol, [ , 2 ] ↔ ette
e. Pol, [ , 3 ] ↔ eivät
f. Pol, [ ] ↔ ei
Thus, the Estonian ei amounts to a highly underspecified vocabulary item for negation.
Following standard DM assumptions, the vocabulary item matching the largest subset of
features of the terminal node is inserted (on the Subset Principle, see Halle 1997; Han-
kamer and Mikkelsen 2005, a.o.). For Finnish, this is et, which matches the entire set. For
Estonian, ei matches a subset of the features of the terminal node, and there are no Vocab-
ulary Items matching a greater set. Regardless of the ϕ-feature set, ei is inserted. Thus,
the indicative negative auxiliary in Estonian establishes a syntactic Agree relationship, but
that relationship is not realized by morphological agreement.
As an alternative, it could be proposed that the difference between Estonian and other
Finno-Ugric languages is that Pol[ ] 0 in Estonian has lost its status as a ϕ-feature probe.
There would be thus no agreement in the syntax, and the spell-out would be the same.
This provides a more transparent mapping between the syntax and morphology of Estonian
ei, but it also sets Estonian apart om the rest of its relatives in terms of the syntax. I
believe this alternative analysis and the analysis I propose are indistinguishable in terms of
empirical coverage for indicatives. Conceptually, my analysis is preferable for two reasons.
First, it fits within a general theory of language variation where variation is located in the
morphology of languages rather than their syntax (Chung 2013, 2014).20
Second, the analysis whereby Estonian ei establishes Agree in the syntax despite
its lack of demonstrable agreement is easier to incorporate with an analysis of the pat-
tern of negated imperatives. In that analysis, the imperative negative auxiliary ära is the
spell-out of a complex head involving [ ], [ ], and [ϕ]. If Pol[ ] 0 is simply not a
ϕ-feature probe (i.e., if it lacks [uϕ]), then the only way for C[ ] 0 to have ϕ-features
in its feature bundle would be if C[ ] 0 could idiosyncratically select Pol[ ] 0 with ϕ-
features, which seems difficult to motivate independently. It is also not obviously superior
to propose that C[ ] 0 Agrees directly with the subject, as this would mean there are
two ϕ-feature probes in affirmative imperatives—C[ ] 0 and Pol0 , necessary for affirma-
tive indicatives—even though there is only one instance of agreement. It also leads to a
system that is less uniform, as the analysis I propose holds that there is always only one
ϕ-feature probe per finite CP, and it is located on Pol0 . For these reasons, I do not adopt
an analysis where Pol[ ] 0 lacks [uϕ] in Estonian.
20
It is also worth noting here that the account whereby Pol[ ] 0 is simply not a probe in Estonian is
incompatible with the proposal that some clausal features are born on C0 but inherited by the head of C0 ’s
complement (see Brattico et al. 2014 for a discussion of this in the context of Finnish). Under this analysis,
it is C0 that determines the features relevant for the clause. Thus, whether C0 ’s complement is Pol[ ] 0 or
simply Pol0 would be irrelevant, formally speaking.
Norris 20
3.3 Negated Imperatives: analysis summary
In this section, I presented an analysis of the agreement patterns in negated imperatives in

Estonian as resulting om syntactic and morphological agreement. On the syntactic side, I
proposed that Pol[ ] 0 Agrees with the subject before moving to C[ ] 0 , ultimately spelling
out as the imperative negative auxiliary ära. In the morphology, the combination of [ ]
and [ ] triggers Feature Copying om C0 to the verbal complex in T0 . In Estonian, Fea-
ture Copying is obligatory for all combinations of person and number except first-person
plural, where agreement is only obligatory on the negative auxiliary. As a consequence of
this proposal, I also discussed the indicative negative auxiliary ei, proposing that it estab-
lishes Agree in the syntax even though that agreement is not reflected morphologically as
it is in all of Estonian’s closest relatives.
The upshot of the analysis is that the complicated morphology of agreement expo-
nence in Estonian disguises a system that is straightforward syntactically. There is one
head that bears [uϕ]—Pol0 —and that head always establishes Agree in the syntax. This
opens the door for the possibility of a more uniform analysis of the syntax of agreement in
the Finnic and Saamic languages. This line of research ties language-specific stipulations
about Estonian (e.g., doubling, ei showing no inflection) to the morphology as opposed to
the syntax, following the argumentation of Chung (2014).
This analysis also involves a maximally transparent syntax for negated imperatives in
Estonian, as the syntax of imperativity is simply laid on top of the syntax of negation. While
I believe this is a welcome result, it is not necessarily an argument in favor of the current
proposal, as it is well-known that negation and imperativity are not readily combined in the
world’s languages. In the WALS chapter on the prohibitive (van der Auwera et al. 2013),
only 2⒉8% of languages in the sample form negative imperatives with a morphologically-
imperative verb and the same negation as declaratives, and we would expect that number
to be higher if there were no issues combining imperative and negation. Furthermore,
based on surface forms alone, Estonian does not fall into that group. Rather, Estonian
is a member of the largest group of languages in the sample (3⒍7%), whose negative
imperatives utilize a special form of negation. It is thus reasonable to question whether
it is right to ascribe the transparent syntax I have proposed for negated imperatives in the
language.
In the next section, I consider the prospects for an account of Estonian that takes
a different tack, treating negation and imperativity as syntactically incompatible. The al-
ternative hypothesis I will consider also differs om the analysis presented in this section
in that it accounts for doubling in imperatives by adding a second ϕ-feature probe to the
clause. As I have mentioned, this is in line with some previous work on multiple agreement
for ϕ-features (Baker and Willie 2010; Carstens 2001; Henderson 2006; Polinsky 2016). I
show that the account struggles to account for the optionality of agreement in first-person
plural imperatives. I also discuss some conceptual reasons why the alternative developed
in the next section is inferior to the analysis I argued for in this section.
4 Alternative: Multiple ϕ-feature probes
The morphological analysis presented in Section 3 requires a morphological method of

feature transfer (Feature Copying), and thus it is worth considering the prospects for an
account that does not utilize additional mechanisms. There are no previous accounts that
can be compared, so far as I know. Instead, I present the best account I have been able
to construct, building on the idea that imperative syntax and ordinary negation syntax are
incompatible (Laka 1990; Zanuttini 1994). This alternative analysis accounts for doubling
through the use of multiple ϕ-feature probes, as has been proposed for other instances of
multiple ϕ-feature exponence in Archi (Polinsky 2016), Ibibio (Baker and Willie 2010),
and Swahili (Carstens 2001; Henderson 2006). We will see that it cannot straightforwardly
account for the optionality of doubling in [1 ] contexts. Furthermore, it does not gen-
eralize as easily to the morphological patterns seen in other Uralic languages, which is the
focus of Section 5.
4.1 Laka (1990): Negation and imperative realize the same head
To account for the fact that negation and imperativity are incompatible in some languages,
Laka (1990) proposes that negation and imperative realize the same head. Laka calls this
head Σ0 , and Σ0 selects a TP complement. Thus, a clause can either have Σ0 with an
imperative feature [ ] or Σ0 with a negation feature [ ], but not both at once. This
is shown in (44) and (45).
(44) ΣP (45) ΣP
Σ Σ
T T
[ ] v VP [ ] v VP
Laka’s discussion about imperativity focused on Spanish, where the morphological imper-
ative form cannot be combined with the standard negation marker. Instead, the language
uses a subjunctive verbal form. To adapt this for Estonian, we would further propose that
it is Σ0 that bears unvalued ϕ-features in imperative clauses in Estonian. I leave open the
question of whether all Σ0 heads bear [uϕ] (that is, both Σ0 with [ ] and Σ0 with [ ])
or if it is just the imperative Σ0 . This differs om the analysis proposed in Section 3,
as imperative and negation are realized by separate heads in that analysis—C0 and Pol0 ,
respectively—and are thus fully compatible.
Since negation and imperative features would be syntactically incompatible under
this analysis, Estonian would require an alternative structure to express prohibitive seman-
tics. Namely, Estonian makes use of ära, a word traditionally called the imperative negative
auxiliary. To concretize this traditional definition, I suggest that ära is a C0 that selects
a ΣP with [ ] features. This constrains ära such that it would only surface in impera-
tive clauses. Because ära shows agreement, it must be idiosyncratically associated with its
own set of unvalued ϕ-features [uϕ]. Let us see how this alternative hypothesis works by
walking through a sample derivation.
In the first step, Σ0 (with imperative features) establishes Agree with the subject DP
as normal, schematized by the dashed arrow in (46).
Norris 22
(46) ΣP
Σ TP
[uϕ], [ ]
T vP
DP
[ϕ] v VP
Then, assuming that the verb moves up the clausal spine to Σ0 [ ] —just as I proposed
in Section 3—the imperative verb comes to reflect the ϕ-features of the imperative sub-
ject. Under this account, this much would be identical for both affirmative and negated
imperatives.
In the second step, ära (more accurately, the C0 that ultimately spells out as ära) is
merged with the structure, and it too has unvalued ϕ-features. It searches its c-command
domain for a suitable set of ϕ-features, which I assume it finds on the subject—which has
moved to Spec,ΣP—for concreteness.21
(47) CP
C ΣP
ära
[uϕ] DP
[ϕ] Σ TP
[ϕ], [ ]
T vP
<DP>
v VP
We thus have two instances of ϕ-features in the same clause: on C0 (ära) and Σ0 (main
verb).22
This analysis succeeds in certain respects. First, it captures the fact that ära is re-
stricted to imperatives, as ära selects only ΣP headed by Σ0 [ ] . Second, it captures the fact
that ära and the main verb must bear the same set of ϕ-features, as they acquire their ϕ-
features om the same source. However, what is not immediately clear om this analysis
is why ära’s ϕ-feature marking is om the imperative paradigm rather than the indicative
paradigm (or some other paradigm entirely). It cannot be because ära is string-adjacent
21
The particulars of this analysis would not change if the goal was Σ0 or ΣP, as in the analyses of Baker
and Willie (2010) and Henderson (2006).
22
At this point, this alternative analysis is quite similar to the analyses of multiple ϕ-feature agreement in
some Niger-Congo languages: see Carstens (2001) and Henderson (2006) for discussion of Swahili (Bantu)
and Baker and Willie (2010) for Ibibio (non-Bantu).
to Σ0 [ ] (e.g., as a kind of contextual allomorphy) because ära and the main verb can be
separated, as in (48) and (49).
(48) Ja är-ge te õue-s kukku-ge, libe on.
and . -2 you. outside- fall- .2 slippery be.⒊
‘And don’t you fall down outside. It’s slippery.’ ( )
(49) Är-ge te seda arva-ke ega loot-ke.
. -2 you. that. think- .2 or hope- .2
‘Don’t you think or hope that.’ ( )
In these examples ärge is separated om the main verb⒮, suggesting that an analysis based
on linear adjacency would run into trouble with a broader range of data.
A more promising possibility for ära’s imperative marking is that ära is associated not
only with [uϕ], but with its own imperative feature [ ]. With this additional stipulation,
there would be two components that are used to account for the imperative characteristics
of ära under this analysis. It would be restricted to imperative clauses because it only selects
ΣP with imperative features. Its inflection would be om the imperative set because it is
associated with its own imperative feature.
In this respect, the analysis proposed in Section 3 is superior, as the imperative as-
pects of ära are tied to the same claim. In that analysis, ära is the spell-out of a complex
head containing Pol[ ] 0 (with ϕ-features) and C[ ] 0 . Because this C[ ] 0 is the source of
imperative-marking under this analysis, we capture the fact that ära only surfaces in imper-
ative clauses. It is that same feature that is responsible for the fact that the ϕ-feature in-
flection is om the imperative paradigm. Thus, though ära’s restriction to imperatives
must be stipulated in either account, the alternative account currently under discussion
would require two separate stipulations to capture all of ära’s imperative properties, but
the account proposed in Section 3 requires only one.
However, a bigger concern for the account currently under consideration is that
there is no clear path to generate the optionality of [1 ] doubling. Recall that [1 ] can
be dropped on the main verb, but importantly, this is only true in negated imperatives. In
affirmative imperatives, the verb must bear agreement, even in the case of [1 ] agreement.
Leaving off [1 ] agreement in affirmative imperatives is ungrammatical, as shown in (50).
(50) * (Me) lähe sinna!
we go. there
Intended: ‘Let’s go there!’
Under this account, both the main verb and ära establish Agree relationships and acquire
ϕ-features, and there is no formal link between ära’s agreement and the main verb’s (i.e.,
Σ0 ’s) agreement. The main verb has to be able to see that ära is present, and when it is,
the verb can drop its [1 ] inflection, informally speaking.
This hypothetical operation is reminiscent of the Distributed Morphology operation
Impoverishment, so it is worth taking a moment to consider such an approach. As we will
see, the operation required would be significantly more powerful than existing formalisms
for Impoverishment.
Norris 24
4.2 Optional first-person plural agreement is not Impoverishment
Broadly speaking, Impoverishment removes features that were present in the syntactic rep-
resentation before Vocabulary Insertion can take place. Informally, Impoverishment in this
case would remove [1 ] features om Σ0 [ ] just in case it is in a structure with a C0 with
[ ], i.e., ära.23 This way of looking at [1 ] optionality is essentially the reverse of how
I amed it in Section 3. Here, agreement doubling always happens, but agreement on
the main verb can be Impoverished if it is [1 ]. In the analysis I proposed, doubling is
the norm, but the doubling operation can be ignored or might not apply in the context of
[1 ].
At first glance, the Feature Copying operation that I propose seems just as arbitrary as
the Impoverishment operation described here. Unlike Feature Copying, Impoverishment
has received a fair amount of attention in the literature, largely focused on how exactly it
should be constrained. Based on the existing literature on Impoverishment, it seems to
me that the Impoverishment-like operation that this alternative account requires would be
outside the bounds of our current understanding of Impoverishment.
It has been proposed that rules of Impoverishment are not arbitrary, but emerge
om cross-linguistically supported scales of markedness (see, e.g., Arregi and Nevins 2012;
Keine and Müller 2014). It is not clear how [1 ] could be considered more marked
than other sets of ϕ-features, even in the context of imperatives. For example, in the
system developed by Harley and Ritter (2002), first-person plural must be less-marked
than second-person plural: it contains the default [ ] feature whereas second-person
plural comes pre-specified with the feature [ ].24 Unlike the first-person plural,
second-person plural must always be marked on the main verb in a negated imperative (see
(18b)). Thus, it seems unlikely that the optionality of [1 ] agreement on the main verb
in Estonian negated imperatives has anything to do with cross-linguistic markedness.
It has also been proposed that Impoverishment rules refer only to isolated feature
bundles, not to the contexts in which those feature bundles appear (see, e.g., Keine 2010;
Müller 2007). Thus, for example, a gender feature might be deleted just in case it is in
a feature bundle with [ ], capturing the fact that gender features are neutralized in the
plural for some languages (Corbett 1991; Kramer 2015). Along these lines, one might
suggest that [1 ] is deleted in Estonian in the context of [ ]. However, this would be
too strong: in affirmative imperatives, where [1 ] and [ ] can readily appear in the same
feature bundle, agreement is obligatory, as we just saw in (50). The [1 ] -me can only be
deleted when the higher C0 that ultimately spells out as ära is present— in other words,
it is not triggered by the mere presence of [1 ] and [ ] in the same feature bundle.
Finally, Arregi and Nevins (2012) propose that Impoverishment rules may refer to
more than one feature bundle, but those bundles must be at least in the same M-word
(roughly, the same complex head). In order for this to be applicable in Estonian, ära and
the main verb would have to be one M-word. However, this seems unlikely, as ära and the
23
Recall that, under this alternative analysis, ära is not associated with the morphosyntactic feature
[ ].
24
The feature [ ] is not always a default. Harley and Ritter (2002) propose that [ ] is
always fully specified in languages with an inclusive/exclusive distinction for first-person plural. Estonian
does not have this distinction, and so [ ] must be supplied as a default in Estonian. As a result, it
does not count for Harley and Ritter’s node-counting metric for markedness.
main verb can be separated, as seen in (48)–(49). Additional examples are shown in (51)
and (52).
(51) Ära homme tule!

. tomorrow come. .2
‘Don’t come tomorrow!’ (Erelt 2003, 111)
(52) Är-me selle-st rohkem räägi!
. -1 this- more speak
‘Let’s not speak about this anymore!’ ( , entry for ära)
In (51), ära is separated om the main verb tule ‘come’ by homme ‘tomorrow’, and in (52),
they are separated by two words. Significantly, (52) involves a main verb with no agreement
exponence, which is exactly the environment where the putative rule of Impoverishment
would have to apply.
Thus, it seems unlikely that the optionality of [1 ] agreement on the main verb
in negated imperatives is to be explained by Impoverishment. It would involve deletion of
features that are not driven by markedness in any straightforward way, and it would require
a greater amount of syntactic context than has previously been included in the domain of
Impoverishment.25
4.3 Alternative: prospects & summary
The syntactic account presented in this section eschews DM postsyntactic operations in

favor of syntactic Agree relations. This fits with a general theory of clausal agreement
wherein more than one head in a clause can serve as a ϕ-feature probe (Baker and Willie
2010; Carstens 2001; Henderson 2006; Kalin and van Urk 2015; Polinsky 2016). An even
stronger version of this theory is one in which Agree underlies all forms of morphological
agreement, and all instances of syntactic Agree result in morphological agreement.26 This
would, of course, provide a transparent mapping between the syntax and morphology, at
least as far as agreement is concerned, and this would be a positive result.
However, the analysis struggles to account for the full range of patterns in negated
imperatives. Because the groundwork for extended exponence is laid at the start of the
derivation, it is difficult to produce the examples where [1 ] agreement is not dou-
bled. There is no formal connection made between the ϕ-feature probe of ära and the
ϕ-feature probe of the main verb. I conclude that the account that makes use of morpho-
logical operations is the more promising approach of the two. At a minimum, it is able to
produce the attested forms: first-person plural agreement on the main verb is optional only
in the context of ära because ⒤ it is C[ ] 0 (ära) that passes the features to the main verb,
25
To be sure, the Impoverishment approach is not inconceivable. It may be that future research on
Impoverishment finds reason for it to be less constrained than its current form. In that case, it would be
worth revisiting the alternative analysis presented here to see if it can be subsumed under the umbrella of
Impoverishment. I thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful discussion of this point.
26
Polinsky (2016) does not adopt the strong version of Agree, wherein Agree underlies all forms of
morphological agreement. In particular, she argues that nominal concord in Archi, which is unquestionably
a form of morphological agreement, does not arise om Agree. Instead, she advocates for the view that
concord is a fundamentally different operation om argument-predicate agreement (see also den Dikken
2006; Kramer 2009; Norris 2014).
Norris 26
and (ii) the operation is postsyntactic, meaning it can be value-sensitive. Furthermore,

my analysis locates plausibly general facts about (Uralic) imperatives in the syntax, and it
locates Estonian-specific facts in the morphology, which I take to be a desirable result (see
also Chung 2013, 2014).
The alternative account also does not fare as well in another domain: the patterns of
agreement and imperative-marking in other Uralic languages. In this alternative account,
both instances of imperative-marking and agreement are syntactically real— that is, they
are both connected to features in the syntax. However, there are a number of Uralic
languages where the main verb bears no imperative marking nor inflection in negated
imperatives, suggesting the imperative-marking on the negative auxiliary is in some sense
more robust than that on the main verb. From the perspective of the analysis I argue for,
that is because it is only the imperative-marking on the negative auxiliary that is connected
to the syntactic imperative feature. Let us now turn to a discussion of the patterns in other
languages.
5 Negative Imperatives across Uralic
The analysis I argue for contains both Estonian-specific and more general proposals. On
the general side, the analysis holds that the syntactic locus of imperativity is C0 . Thus,
in a language like Estonian, where imperativity is expressed twice in negated imperatives,
it is the imperativity on the negative auxiliary that corresponds to real (that is, syntactic)
imperative features. From the perspective of this analysis, the doubled imperative marking
on the verb is special. Also on the general side, the analysis holds that heads other than T0
may be the main ϕ-feature probe in a language, though this much is already assumed in
much research on Finnish (Holmberg and Nikanne 2002; Holmberg et al. 1993; Mitchell
1991).
On the Estonian-specific side, the syntax of Estonian involves head movement of
Pol[ ] 0 to C[ ] 0 followed by Fusion, which results in a negative auxiliary that is particular
to imperative clauses. This much is shared by some (not all) Uralic languages. Further,
Estonian has a language-particular rule of Feature Copying, which copies features om C0
to T0 . Again, some (not all) Uralic languages share this property.
In this section, I discuss the picture om other languages within the Uralic family,
focusing on languages that have negative auxiliaries at least some of the time. I show
that peeling away some of the Estonian-specific operations predicts the existence of other
patterns that are attested in other Uralic languages. I also show that, in virtue of the general
proposal that imperativity is high, there is a pattern of imperativity and ϕ-feature marking
that is predicted to be nonexistent. Based on the sample in Miestamo et al. (2015), this
prediction is borne out for Uralic. Thus, the analysis presented here receives additional
support om other Uralic languages.
5.1 Languages (almost) like Estonian
Vod, Livonian, Skolt Saami, and Finnish exhibit very similar morphology in their negated
imperative clauses. They have a special negative auxiliary just for negated imperatives. In
addition, the main verb reflects imperativity in negated imperatives, and in Livonian and
Vod, the main verb also reflects agreement.
(53) Livonian: doubled imperative + agreement (Metslang et al. 2015, 440)
a. alā and-õ
. .2 give- .2
‘Don’t give’
b. al-gid anda-gid
. -2 give- .2
‘Don’t give’
(54) Vod: doubled imperative + agreement (Rozhanskiy and Markus 2015, 494)
a. elä näe
. .2 see. .2
‘Don’t see!’
b. elka nähka
. .2 see. .2
‘Don’t see!’
(55) Finnish: doubled imperative (+ 2 agreement) (Sulkala and Karjalainen 1992)
a. älä tule
. .2 come. .2
‘don’t come’
b. äl-kää tul-ko
. -2 come- .
‘don’t come’
(56) Skolt Saami: doubled imperative only (Miestamo and Koponen 2015, 360)
a. jeä′ lled porru/poor
. .2 eat. . /
‘Don’t eat!’
b. jeällap porru
. .1 eat. .
‘Let’s not eat!’
In terms of the analysis proposed here, these languages would all have rules of Feature
Copying, but they would have to be slightly different om Estonian’s. Doubling in Vod and
Livonian is always obligatory. In Skolt Saami, Feature Copying copies only the imperative
feature, but that copying is optional for [2 ].27 When the imperative feature is not copied,
then the main verb surfaces in its ordinary connegative form, just as in [1 ] contexts for
Estonian. In Finnish, in most cases, the main verb only reflects imperativity (with the
suffix -ko) and not ϕ-features— the one exception is second-person singular. Thus, it is
like Skolt Saami in that most scenarios involve copying only the imperative feature, but
slightly different in that it requires copying ϕ-features in second-person singular. These
patterns suggest a degree of arbitrariness among the languages with doubling of some
27
Alternatively, in line with the analysis of Estonian ei, we could propose that all the features are copied,
but the ϕ-features do not affect vocabulary insertion in Skolt Saami.
Norris 28
kind, reminiscent of the kinds of seemingly arbitrary restrictions on PF operations for the
varying dialects of Basque uncovered by Arregi and Nevins (2012).
5.2 Languages with no Feature Copying
There are also multiple Uralic languages which reflect imperativity only on the negative
auxiliary and not on the main verb. Instead, the main verb in a negated imperative is
indistinguishable om the form of a verb in a negated indicative clause. This is observable
in Erzya, Forest Enets, Mari, North Saami, Pite Saami, South Saami, and Tundra Nenets.
I present only the imperative examples.
(57) Erzya (Hamari and Aasmäe 2015, 299)
a. il’a učo!
. .2 wait.
‘do not wait!’
b. il’a-do učo!
. -2 wait.
‘do not wait!’
(58) Forest Enets28 (Siegl 2015, 50)
ið d’ori-r
. .2 speak- .
‘don’t speak’
(59) Eastern Mari (Saarinen 2015, 335)
a. i-t tol
. -2 come.
‘don’t come’
b. i-da tol
. -2 come.
‘don’t come’
(60) North Saami (Nickel 1990, 61)
a. ale boaðe
. .2 come.
‘don’t come’
b. allet boaðe
. .2 come.
‘don’t come’
28
The imperative system of Forest Enets is complex, but Siegl (2015) explains it very carefully. The only
person and number combination that has a distinct form of imperative negation is second-person singular.
Other persons and numbers use the same negative auxiliary as indicatives and thus, negated imperatives and
negated indicatives are formally indistinct for those persons and numbers.
(61) Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014, 160, 181)29

a. ele tsábme!
. .2 hit.
‘Don’t hit!’ (said to a child)
b. ellet/illut
. .2
(no translation)
(62) South Saami30 (Blokland and Inaba 2015, 382)
a. aellieh båetieh
. .2 come.
‘don’t come’
b. aellebe båetieh
. .2 come.
‘don’t come’
(63) Tundra Nenets (Eastern Dialect, Taymyr Subdialect) (Mus 2015, 80–81)
a. śimi ńo-n xaada-ʔ!
1 . . -2 kill-
‘Do not kill me!’
b. tańa ńo-xo-ńiʔ xań-ʔ!
there . - -2 go-
‘Do not go there!’
In terms of my analysis, these languages all involve creation of a complex head compris-
ing Pol0 and C0 . This creates the negative auxiliary that is particular to imperative clauses.
However, unlike Estonian, these languages do not have an additional rule of Feature Copy-
ing. Instead, the verb surfaces in its ordinary connegative form.
These languages also provide an argument in favor of the high origin of imperative
features. In Section ⒉1, I noted that Nelson (1998) proposed that imperative features in
Finnish were generated lower (in T0 ). This was her analysis for the Finnish morpheme -ko
that appears on the main verb in all negated imperatives except second-person singular.
Nelson does state that there is a special negative auxiliary for imperatives (p. 171), but
she does not speci how these morphological forms are generated. However, given that
imperativity is otherwise lower in her analysis, it seems that the special negative imperative
auxiliary is the unexpected part of the construction, with the main verb bearing the syn-
tactic imperative feature. The languages of this class suggest that that is not right— it is
the negative auxiliary that bears the main marker of imperativity, and imperative marking
is copied onto the main verb in some languages.
29
Wilbur provides only one complete example of a negated imperative. However, he does provide forms
for the imperative negative auxiliary, and discussion surrounding negation (pp. 159–60) suggests that the
main verb is identical in indicative and imperative negation, which means that it does not inflect for imperative
features.
30
South Saami has two negated imperative auxiliaries. One is used for prohibitives (the forms presented
here), and one is used for warnings. Blokland and Inaba (2015) call the latter forms , and they
behave identically to prohibitives as far as the data given here are concerned.
Norris 30
5.3 A gap: No imperative marking on the negative auxiliary
The observations seen so far are summarized in Table 3 below.
Negation Main verb Languages

[ ], [ϕ] [ ], [ϕ] Votic, Estonian, Livonian
[ ], [ϕ] [ ] Finnish, Skolt Saami
Erzya, Forest Enets, Eastern Mari,
[ ], [ϕ] ∅
North Saami, Pite Saami, South Saami
[ϕ] [ ], [ϕ] Unattested
[ϕ] [ ] Unattested
Table 3: Imperative and ϕ-feature mar ng in Uralic imperative clauses
The table focuses on just those Uralic languages where negation bears agreement in im-
perative clauses. The top three rows show the languages just discussed, where negation
inflects for imperative features and ϕ-features. The bottom two rows present two kinds
of languages that are unattested in Miestamo et al. 2015. In these patterns, imperative
features are reflected only on the main verb, not on the negative auxiliary. A toy example
based on Finnish is presented in (65), with the indicative in (64) for reference.
(64) e-tte tule

-2 come
‘You ( ) do not come.’
(65) e-tte tul-ko
-2 come-
‘Don’t come.’ (Hypothetical Finnish)
In standard Finnish, the main verb does reflect imperativity in negated imperatives, but
so does negation: it is älkää rather than the indicative ette as in the hypothetical Finnish
example in (65).
This gap within the typology of Uralic negation (so far as I know) is predicted by my
analysis, and it connects back to the question of which imperative markers correspond to
imperative features in the syntax. In my analysis, the source of imperative-marking on the
negative auxiliary is the syntactic head bearing imperative features, i.e., C0 , located high in
the clausal structure. The negative auxiliary comes to reflect imperative features because it
undergoes head movement to C0 . Thus, the imperative marking on the negative auxiliary
is connected to the syntactic location of imperative in the clause.
In contrast, the imperative-marking on the main verb is not connected directly to
the syntactic locus of imperativity. Rather, it is connected indirectly via the imperative
features of the negative auxiliary. Because the negative auxiliary (i.e., negation) intervenes
between the imperative C0 and the main verb, there is no way for the verb to raise to C0
without passing the negative auxiliary. Instead, it is the negative auxiliary that is associated
with imperativity in the syntax, and these imperative features are sometimes passed to
the main verb. This is essentially the same explanation for the languages whose indicative
connegative and imperative connegative forms are identical: the imperative marking on the
negative auxiliary is syntactically real, and the marking on the main verb (when present) is
redundant morphology.
At this point, I would like to note that the alternative analysis presented in Section 4
does not straightforwardly predict this same gap. Recall that, under that analysis, the
negated imperative is formed om by merging the imperative negative auxiliary (C0 / ära)
with an affirmative imperative clause (ΣP headed by Σ0 [ ] ). The imperative features and
ϕ-feature probes associated with C0 and Σ0 are independent of each other; just as it is
possible for both to be associated with [ ] and [uϕ], it should be possible for one to
be associated with [ ] and the other with [uϕ], all else being equal. Thus, Σ0 could be
associated with [ ], and C0 could be associated with [uϕ], and the result would be very
similar to the proposed gap: a negation word with non-imperative agreement, and a main
verb with imperative-marking but no agreement.31
6 Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued for a straightforward syntax for agreement in Estonian negated
clauses. Pol[ ] 0 is always the only ϕ-feature probe, even when morphological agreement
is realized twice or not at all. The upshot of this claim is that the syntax of agreement in
Estonian need not be radically different om its neighbors. The analysis presented here
is also an argument in support of a general theory of agreement whereby morphological
agreement and the syntactic relation Agree do not track each other directly (Chung 1998,
2013, 2014; Polinsky 2016; Sigurðsson 2004). Instead, there are cases of syntactic Agree
that are not ultimately realized by morphological agreement, and there are instances of
morphological agreement that are not (directly, at least) tied to a syntactic Agree relation.
There are a number of puzzles for agreement exponence inside Estonian and inside
Uralic not investigated here that could be interesting domains for future research. First,
in the Estonian conditional, the verb agrees only optionally, as shown in (66) and (67).
(66) mina ela-ksi-n / ela-ks
I live- -1 live-
‘I would live’ (Erelt et al. 2000, 282)
(67) meie ela-ksi-me / ela-ks
we live- -1 live-
‘we would live’ (Erelt et al. 2000, 282)
For example, in (66), the verb can either bear agreement with the first-person singular
subject agreement (elaksin), or it can appear without agreement (elaks). This is not only part
of the spoken language, but it is also acceptable in the written standard. Erelt et al. (2000)
note that the forms without agreement are more common than the forms with endings in
the spoken language. According to the amework laid out here, agreeing and non-agreeing
31
In truth, the language predicted by the alternative proposal is not exactly the gap, because standard
negation in that proposal would be the spell-out of Σ0 , not C0 . Thus, it predicts the presence of a special
negator which nevertheless uses the standard indicative agreement. This kind of language is also not attested,
and it cannot be generated by the analysis I proposed in Section 3.
Norris 32
conditionals would both involve an Agree relationship, but it would not always be realized
morphologically.
Next, when we look at other Uralic languages, there are instances of multiple agree-
ment exponence outside of imperatives. For example, in standard Finnish, the form known
as the past participle inflects for number. 32 This is true in both auxiliary constructions
and negative constructions, where the past participle is used as a past indicative connegative
form.
(68) Lapset o-vat luke-neet tämän rjan.

children be-3 read- . . this book
‘The children have read this book.’ (Holmberg et al. 1993, 200)
(69) Lapset ei-vät ol-leet luke-neet tätä rjaa.
children -3 be- . . read- . . this book
‘The children had not read this book.’ (Holmberg et al. 1993, 200)
In (68), we see the past participle lukeneet ‘read’ in an auxiliary construction. In (69), there
are two past participles: one that emerges as a result of the auxiliary, the other because of
negation. In each case, the participle reflects the number of the subject: plural -neet as
opposed to singular -nut. It is worth considering whether these forms could be amenable
to the kind of analysis investigated here.
Outside of Finnic, there are languages with indicative connegatives that agree with
the subject. For example, in Komi, the indicative connegative verb inflects in the plural.
(70) Komi (Hamari 2015, 241)
a. o-g mun
. -1 go.
‘I don’t go’
b. o-ge̬(j) mun-e̬(j) / o-g mun-e̬(j)
. -1 go. -1/2 / . -1 go. -1/2
‘We don’t go’
c. o-z mun
. -3 go.
‘S/he doesn’t go’
d. o-z mun-ni̬
. -3 go. -3
‘They don’t go’
The connegative verb clearly expresses number: compare first-person singular (70a) with
plural (70b). In the first- and second-person plural, plurality can also optionally be reflected
on negation, giving this the appearance of multiple exponence. This is certainly another
domain that could raise interesting questions for the interaction between the syntax and
morphology of agreement.33
32
Holmberg et al. (1993) note that part participles do not inflect in most spoken varieties of the lan-
guage. In these varieties, the singular form -nut is always used.
33
Udmurt exhibits a very similar pattern to the Komi pattern in the present tense (Edygarova 2015:
267). It also exhibits a similar but simpler pattern in the future and 1st preterite, where the connegative varies
As I have mentioned, it is well-known that negation and imperativity are in some

sense difficult to express in combination (van der Auwera et al. 2013). However, some
languages express negated imperatives with morphosyntactic ease, suggesting this is only a
tendency, not a universal. These languages make up 2⒉8% of the languages in the sample
provided by van der Auwera et al. (2013). When the incompatibility of negation and im-
perativity manifests, its effects do not always have the same appearance. For example, some
languages use a standard negation word combined with a non-imperative verbal form (e.g.,
Italian, Zanuttini 1994, 1997), others may use a special negation word but a normal imper-
ative (like Estonian), and others may use both simultaneously. The analysis proposed here
holds that negation and imperativity are in fact fully syntactically compatible in Estonian,
but this is obscured by their surface forms. It is thus worth investigating other cases of
apparent incompatibility to see if the incompatibility is deeply ingrained in the grammar
of the language or, as I have argued for Estonian, a surface morphological effect.
References
Arregi, Karlos and Andrew Nevins (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure
of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, Mark and Willie Udo Willie (2010). “Agreement in Ibibio: From every head to
every head”. Syntax ⒔2, 99–13⒉
Bjorkman, Bronwyn and Hedde Zeĳlstra (2015). Upward Agree is superior. Presented at the
33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 33).
Blevins, James P. (2007). “Coǌugation classes in Estonian”. Linguistica Uralica XLIII,
250–26⒎
Blokland, Rogier and Nobufumi Inaba (2015). “Negation in South Saami”. In: Negation in
Uralic Languages. Ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 377–39⒏
Brattico, Pauli and Saara Huhmarniemi (2006). “Finnish negation, the EPP feature and
the valuation theory of morphosyntax”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29 ⑴, 5–4⒋
Brattico, Pauli, Saara Huhmarniemi, Jukka Purma, and Anne Vainikka (2014). “The struc-
ture of Finnish CP and feature inheritance”. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics
2 ⑵, 66–10⒐
Carstens, Vicki (2001). “Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against ϕ-incompleteness”.
Syntax ⒋3, 147–16⒊
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Chomsky, Noam (2000). “Minimalist inquiries: The amework”. In: Step by step: Essays
on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik. Ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David,
and Uriagereka, Juan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–15⒍
Chomsky, Noam (2001). “Derivation by Phase”. In: Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Ed. by
Kenstowicz, Michael. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–5⒉
Chung, Sandra (1998). The design of agreement: Evidence om Chamorro. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
only for number but not for person. Another similar but simpler pattern exists in Western Mari, where the
indicative connegative bears an additional suffix only in the third-person plural (Saarinen 2015: 330).
Norris 34
Chung, Sandra (2013). “The syntactic relations behind agreement”. In: Diagnosing Syntax.
Ed. by Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chung, Sandra (2014). “On reaching agreement late”. In: CLS 48, Volume 1. Ed. by Bel-
trama, Andrea, Chatzikonstantinou, Tasos, Lee, Jackson L., Pham, Mike, and Rak,
Diane. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 169–190.
Corbett, Greville (1991). Gender. Cambridge: CUP.
den Dikken, Marcel (2006). “Agreement”. In: Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.
Edygarova, Svetlana (2015). “Negation in Udmurt”. In: Negation in Uralic Languages. Ed.
by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 265–29⒈
Embick, David (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Erelt, Mati, ed. (2003). Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.
Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja
Tael, and Silvi Vare (1993). Eesti Keele Grammatika II: Süntaks; Lisa: Kiri [Estonian
Grammar II: Syntax; Appendix: Written Language]. Tallinn, Estonia: Eest Teaduste
Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt, and Kristiina Ross (2000). Eesti keele käsiraamat [Estonian language
handbook]. Tallinn: Eesti keele sihtasutus.
Feist, Timothy (2010). “A Grammar of Skolt Saami”. PhD thesis. University of Manch-
ester.
Grimshaw, Jane (1991/2005). Words and structure. CSLI Publications.
Halle, M. (1990). “An approach to morphology”. In: Proceedings of NELS 20. University
of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA, 150–18⒋
Halle, Morris (1997). “Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission”. MITWPL
30, 425–44⒐
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993). “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of In-
flection”. In: The View om Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain
Bromberger. Ed. by Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–
17⒍
Hamari, Arja (2015). “Negation in Komi”. In: Negation in Uralic Languages. Ed. by Mi-
estamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 239–26⒊
Hamari, Arja and Niina Aasmäe (2015). “Negation in Erzya”. In: Negation in Uralic Lan-
guages. Ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 293–32⒋
Han, Chung-Hye (1999). “Cross-linguistic variation in the compatibility of negation and
imperatives”. In: Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. Vol. 17,
265–27⒐
Hankamer, Jorge and Line Mikkelsen (2005). “When movement must be blocked: A reply
to Embick and Noyer”. Linguistic Inquiry 3⒍1, 85–12⒌
Harley, Heidi and Rolf Noyer (1999). “State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology”.
GLOT international 4 ⑷, 3–⒐
Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter (2002). “Person and number in pronouns: A feature-
geometric analysis”. Language 7⒏3, 482–52⒍
Henderson, Brent (2006). “Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu”. Syntax ⒐3, 275–
28⒐
Holmberg, Anders and Urpo Nikanne (2002). “Expletives, subjects, and topics in Finnish”.
In: Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. Ed. by Svenonius, Peter. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 71–10⒌
Holmberg, Anders, Urpo Nikanne, Irmeli Oraviita, Hannu Reime, and Trond Trosterud
(1993). “The structure of INFL and the finite clause in Finnish”. In: Case and other
functional categories in Finnish syntax. Ed. by Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 177–20⒍
Huhmarniemi, Saara (2012). “Finnish A′ -movement: Edges and islands”. PhD thesis. Uni-
versity of Helsinki.
Kalin, Laura and Coppe van Urk (2015). “Aspect splits without ergativity”. Natural Lan-
guage & Linguistic Theory 3⒊2, 659–70⒉
Keine, Stefan (2010). Case and agreement om inge to core: A minimalist approach. Lin-
guistische Arbeite. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Keine, Stefan and Gereon Müller (2014). “Differential argument encoding by impoverish-
ment”. In: Scales and Hierarchies. Ed. by Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Malchukov, A.,
and Richards, M. Trends in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–130.
Kiparsky, Paul (2001). “Structural case in Finnish”. Lingua 1⒒4, 315–37⒍
Koskinen, Päivi (1998). “Features and categories: Non-finite constructions in Finnish”.
PhD thesis. University of Toronto.
Kramer, Ruth (2009). “Definite markers, phi-features, and agreement: A morphosyntactic
investigation of the Amharic DP”. PhD thesis. University of California, Santa Cruz.
Kramer, Ruth (2010). “The Amharic definite marker and the syntax-morphology interface”.
Syntax 13, 196–240.
Kramer, Ruth (2015). The morphosyntax of gender: evidence om Amharic. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Laka, Itziar (1990). “Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and pro-
jections”. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Merchant, Jason (2015). “How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned
stem allomorphy”. Linguistic Inquiry 46 ⑵, 273–30⒊
Metslang, Helle, Karl Pajusalu, and Tiit-Rein Viitso (2015). “Negation in Livonian”. In:
Negation in Uralic Languages. Ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-
Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 433–
45⒍
Miestamo, Matti (2005). Standard negation: the negation of declarative verbal main clauses
in a typological perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miestamo, Matti and Eino Koponen (2015). “Negation in Skolt Saami”. In: Negation in
Uralic Languages. Ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 353–37⒍
Miestamo, Matti, Anne Tamm, and Beáta Wagner-Nagy, eds. (2015). Negation in Uralic
languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company.
Miǉan, Merilin and Ronnie Cann (2013). “Rethinking case marking and case alternation
in Estonian”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36 (03), 333–37⒐
Norris 36
Mitchell, Erika (1991). “Evidence om Finnish for Pollock’s theory of IP”. Linguistic In-
quiry 22 ⑵.
Mitchell, Erika (2006). “The morpho-syntax of negation and the positions of NegP in the
Finno-Ugric languages”. Lingua 1⒗3, 228–24⒋
Müller, Gereon (2007). “Extended exponence by enrichment: argument encoding in Ger-
man, Archi, and Timucua”. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Col-
loquium. Ed. by Scheffler, Tatjana, Tauberer, Joshua, Eilam, Aviad, and Mayol, Laia,
253–26⒍
Mus, Nikolett (2015). “Negation in Tundra Nenets”. In: Negation in Uralic Languages.
Ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Phi-
ladelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 75–10⒉
Nelson, Diane (1998). Grammatical case assignment in Finnish. New York & London: Gar-
land.
Nickel, Klaus Peter (1990). Samisk grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetforlaget.
Norris, Mark (2014). “A theory of Nominal Concord”. PhD thesis. University of California,
Santa Cruz.
Polinsky, Maria (2016). “Agreement in Archi om a minimalist perspective”. In: Archi:
complexities of agreement in a cross-theoretical perspective. Ed. by Bond, Oliver, Cor-
bett, Greville, Chumakina, Marina, and Brown, Dunstan. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Preminger, Omer (2014). Agreement and its failures. Vol. 6⒏ Linguistic Inquiry Mono-
graphs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Preminger, Omer and Maria Polinsky (2015). Upwards and onwards: On the direction of
valuation in ϕ-feature agreement. Handout of a talk presented at New York University,
April 25, 20⒖
Rivero, Maria Luisa and Arhonto Terzi (1995). “Imperatives, V-movement and logical
mood”. Journal of Linguistics 3⒈02, 301–33⒉
Rozhanskiy, Fedor and Elena Markus (2015). “Negation in contemporary Votic”. In: Nega-
tion in Uralic Languages. Ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy,
Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 487–5⒖
Saarinen, Sirkka (2015). “Negation in Mari”. In: Negation in Uralic Languages. Ed. by
Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 325–35⒉
Schoorlemmer, Erik and Taǌa Temmerman (2012). “Head movement as a PF-phenom-
enon: Evidence om identity under ellipsis”. In: Proceedings of the 29th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics. Ed. by Choi, Jaehoon, Hogue, E. Alan, Punske,
Jeffrey, Tat, Deniz, Schertz, Jessamyn, and Trueman, Alex. Somerville, MA: Cas-
cadilla Proceedings Project, 232–240.
Siegl, Florian (2015). “Negation in Forest Enets”. In: Negation in Uralic Languages. Ed.
by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 45–7⒊
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (2004). “Agree in syntax, agreement in signs”. Wor ng Papers
in Scandinavian Syntax 74, 1–4⒉
Sulkala, Helena and Merja Karjalainen (1992). Finnish. London and New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Svenonius, Peter (2012). Spanning. Ms., CASTL, University of Tromsø.

Tamm, Anne (2015). “Negation in Estonian”. In: Negation in Uralic Languages. Ed. by
Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Beǌamins Publishing Company, 399–43⒈
Toivonen, Ida and Diane Nelson, eds. (2007). Saami linguistics. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
van der Auwera, Johan, Ludo Lejeune, and Valentin Goussev (2013). “The prohibitive”.
In: The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and
Haspelmath, Martin. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Chap. 7⒈ : http://wals.info/chapter/71.
Wilbur, Joshua (2014). A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Zanuttini, Raffaella (1994). “Speculations on negative imperatives”. Rivista di Linguistica 6
⑴, 67–8⒐
Zanuttini, Raffaella (1997). Negation and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zanuttini, Raffaella (2008). “Encoding the addressee in the syntax: evidence om english
imperative subjects”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2⒍1, 185–2⒙
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak, and Paul Portner (2012). “A syntactic analysis of interpretive
restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects”. Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 30.4, 1231–127⒋
Mark Norris
University of Oklahoma
mark-norris@ou.edu

EPA02403 Finno Ugric Lang 2016 1 003-037

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EPA02403 Finno Ugric Lang 2016 1 003-037

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EPA02403 Finno Ugric Lang 2016 1 003-037

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unifying subject agreement across clause types in Estonian*

Estonian negated indicative clauses show no agreement, whereas Estonian negated

Keywords: agreement, Estonian, imperatives, negation

Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, Vol. ⒌ No. ⒈ (2016), 3–37 http://full.btk.ppke.hu

Table 1: Estonian agreement paradigms: indicative (le ) and imperative (right)

Table 2: Agreement paradigm for the imperative negative auxiliary ära

Phonetic Form Logical Form

2.1 Basic proposals regarding Estonian clause structure

3 ära as a conglomeration of negation and imperativity

3.1 Analysis: morphology and syntax of negated imperatives

(25) Imperative Negative Auxiliary Vocabulary Items (simpliﬁed):15

(27) Feature Copying (Estonian Imperatives): Copy C0 ’s features to an Agr node

C+Pol PolP C PolP

3.2 ei as a morphologically deﬁcient negative auxiliary

(35) Ingrian (Mitchell 2006, 235)

(39) Vod (Mitchell 2006, 236)

(41) Example terminal node targeted for insertion:

(42) Finnish Vocabulary Items (43) Estonian Vocabulary Items

3.3 Negated Imperatives: analysis summary

In this section, I presented an analysis of the agreement patterns in negated imperatives in

4 Alternative: Multiple ϕ-feature probes

The morphological analysis presented in Section 3 requires a morphological method of

4.2 Optional ﬁrst-person plural agreement is not Impoverishment

(51) Ära homme tule!

4.3 Alternative: prospects & summary

The syntactic account presented in this section eschews DM postsyntactic operations in

and (ii) the operation is postsyntactic, meaning it can be value-sensitive. Furthermore,

5 Negative Imperatives across Uralic

5.1 Languages (almost) like Estonian

5.2 Languages with no Feature Copying

(61) Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014, 160, 181)29

5.3 A gap: No imperative marking on the negative auxiliary

The observations seen so far are summarized in Table 3 below.

Negation Main verb Languages

Table 3: Imperative and ϕ-feature mar ng in Uralic imperative clauses

(64) e-tte tule

(68) Lapset o-vat luke-neet tämän rjan.

As I have mentioned, it is well-known that negation and imperativity are in some

Svenonius, Peter (2012). Spanning. Ms., CASTL, University of Tromsø.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.