Clitic or Agreement Restriction in Santali: A Typological Analysis

Keywords: clitic, affix, agreement, prosody, Santali


This paper investigates the syntactic configuration of pronominal number marking in Santali. Syntactic, morphological and prosodic restrictions show that pronominal number markers have properties of an affix as well as a clitic. A marker is an affix due to the fact that it cannot participate in a binding relation with other arguments. A pronominal number marker also functions as a clitic since it is attached to prosodically the most prominent constituent. The arguments that trigger object agreement do not manifest one particular case, but instead indicate a dissociation between a case and object agreement. On the other hand, the argument with subject agreement manifests nominative case only, indicating an association between nominative case and subject agreement. Both subject and object agreement are sensitive to case that indicates a property of an affix. Keeping in view the distribution of the pronominal number markers, we analyze feature checking of the two parameters, namely agreement and case in Santali.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Rajesh KUMAR, Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Rajesh Kumar teaches linguistics in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai. The broad goal of his research is to uncover regularities underlying both the form (what language is) and sociolinguistic functions (what language does) of natural languages.  He obtained his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


Anderson, G. D. S. (2007). The Munda Verb: Typological Perspectives. Berlin–New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Baker, M. (2015). Case (No. 146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, M., & Kramer, R. (2016). Doubling clitics are pronouns: Reduce and interpret (Manuscript).Rutgers University and Georgetown University.

Bhatt, R. (2005). Long-distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 757–807. Retrieved from at

Bhattacharya, T. (1999). The structure of the Bangla DP. Department of Linguistics (Doctoral Dissertation). University College London. Accessed at

Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, No. 15. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Massachusetts: MITWPL.

Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by Phase, No. 18. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), In honour of Howard Lasnik. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax (89–155). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Comrie, B. (2005). Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil and B. Comrie (Eds.), The world at language structures (398-403). New York: Oxford University Press.

Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davison, A. (2004). Structural case, lexical case and the verbal projection. In Clause structure in South Asian languages, 199-225. Springer, Dordrecht. Retrieved from

Ghosh, A. (2008). Santali. In Anderson (ed.), The Munda Languages. 434-507. New York: Routledge.

Givón, T. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic (149−188). New York: Academic Press.

Halpern, A. L. (1992). Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics (Doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.

Harizanov, B. (2014). Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(4), 1033-1088.

Hock, H. H. (2013). Backernagel is Wackernagel Lite. On the “P-Minus 2” Clitics of Santali. Lingua posnaniensis, 55(2), 67-75.

Kidwai, A. (2005). Santali ‘Backernagel’ Clitics: Distributing Clitic Doubling. In R. Singh (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (189–207). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Kramer, R. (2014). Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(2), 593-634. Retrieved from

Leslau, W. (1995). Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 69–109.

Mavrogiorgos, M. (2010). Clitics in Greek: A minimalist account of proclisis and enclisis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Nagaraja, K. S. (1993). Agreement in Khasi and Munda languages. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 53, 271-276. Accessed at

Neukom, L. (2001). Santali. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.

Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29, 939–971.

Osada T. (2008). Mundari. In Anderson (ed.), The Munda Languages. 99–164. New York: Routledge.

Siewierska, A. (2005). Alignment of verbal person marking. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures (406-409). New York: Oxford University Press.

Subbarao, K. V. (2012). South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suñer, M. (1988). The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 391–434.

Taylor, A. (1995). The distribution of object clitics in Koine Greek. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(1), 7.

Thráinsson, H. (1979). On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.

Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic inquiry, 37 (1), 111-130.

Supporting Agencies
How to Cite
DILIPM. J., & KUMARR. (2020). Clitic or Agreement Restriction in Santali: A Typological Analysis. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, 10(1), 9-33.
Research Articles