Case marking in Russian eventive nominalizations: inherent vs. dependent case theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asya Pereltsvaig ◽  
Ekaterina Lyutikova ◽  
Anastasia Gerasimova
Author(s):  
Ahmad Alqassas

This chapter discusses two main issues that arise from PSIs (polarity-sensitive items) with head-like properties. These PSIs seem to be outside the (immediate) domain of their licensor. The first issue is how these PSIs are licensed in syntax and how a unified analysis can handle their distribution. The author argues that these PSIs are adverbial phrases that do not project a clausal projection and that negation licenses these PSIs either in Spec-NegP or under c-command. This unified analysis does not appeal to the problematic head–complement relation as a putative licensing configuration. Another issue that arises from these NPIs (negative polarity items) with head-like properties is their ability to host clitics with accusative and genitive case marking. This issue raises interesting questions pertaining to case theory and dependent case licensing. The author argues that negation licenses the puzzling accusative case of the pronominal complement, a conclusion with far-reaching implications to dependent case licensing in natural language.


2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Baker

Focusing on the Shipibo language, I defend a simple ‘‘dependent case’’ theory of ergative case marking, where ergative case is assigned to the higher of two NPs in a clausal domain. I show how apparent failures of this rule can be explained assuming that VP is a Spell-Out domain distinct from the clause, and that this bleeds ergative case assignment for c-command relationships that already exist in VP and are unchanged in CP. This accounts for the apparent underapplication of ergative case marking with ditransitives, reciprocals, and dyadic experiencer verbs, as opposed to the applicatives of unaccusative verbs, which do have ergative subjects. Finally, I show how case assignment interacts with restructuring to explain constructions in which ergative case appears to be optional.


2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-428
Author(s):  
Katalin É. Kiss

AbstractAgreement and case assignment can be interdependent, partially independent, or independent of each other (Baker & Vinokurova 2010; Baker 2014, 2015). These parametric options appear to have random distribution across languages. This paper claims on the basis of the comparison of the Ugric languages (Mansi, Khanty, and Hungarian) that the correlation of case and agreement or the lack of it may not be random. A strict correlation of case and agreement is attested in sentence structures displaying a fusion of grammatical functions and discourse roles. When these roles are encoded in distinct clausal domains, case and agreement have separate functions and licensing conditions, with case marking grammatical functions, and agreement associated with discourse roles. At the same time, relics of their former syntactic interdependence may survive in morphology, resulting in a partial correlation between case and agreement. It is shown that dependent case theory can account for the whole range of variation attested in the relation of case and agreement.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson ◽  
Jim Wood ◽  
Einar Freyr Sigurðsson

We discuss remarkable constructions in Icelandic that have the distributive pronoun hvor ‘each’ in common: the reciprocal construction hvor annar ‘each other’, and the distributive hvor sinn ‘each their’ construction, which also comes in a sinn hvor ‘their each’ version. We provide the first detailed description of these constructions, in particular their case and word order properties, which raise recalcitrant puzzles, and then we discuss what they tell us about the syntax of nonfinite verbs. Specifically, the word order and case properties of these constructions indicate that nonfinite verbs in Icelandic undergo short verb movement within the verb phrase. That is, the evidence indicates that the leftmost element in these constructions, alternatively hvor or sinn, originates inside an object DP and moves, by what we refer to as e-raising, to the base position of an antecedent with which it agrees, before being stranded by that very antecedent. The verb, nevertheless, appears to the left of this element, even when it is a nonfinite verb, showing that it must undergo short movement to the left of Spec,vP. In addition, the interaction of e-raising and case has important consequences for Case theory, as it indicates that case agreement and case marking take place in PF.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Riedel ◽  
Mark de Vos

AbstractSwahili exhibits a construction where a tensed and an infinitival clause are coordinated. This is an example of “unbalanced” coordination insofar as one verb is tensed and the other is not. Furthermore, the licensing of an overt subject in the infinitival clause problematizes Case Theory because infinitival clauses do not assign nominative case. The construction is also puzzling because although it bears some characteristics of pseudo-coordination it also has properties reminiscent of true coordination. Despite the theoretical questions this raises, the construction has not been adequately addressed in the literature: to our knowledge, this paper presents the first-ever theoretical analysis of this construction. We argue that the conjuncts are at least coordinated AgrSPs (the subject agreement phrase) dominated by TP (the tense phrase) which licenses case-marked subjects in both conjuncts.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-113
Author(s):  
Sanghoun Song ◽  
Duk-Ho Jung ◽  
Eunjeong Oh

Author(s):  
Timothy M. Stirtz

AbstractGaahmg has ergative traces in a predominately nominative-accusative system. Clauses with object focus demonstrate ergative case marking on postverbal noun and pronoun agents, and an ergative morpheme is also bound to verbs. Other evidence for ergativity is that the ergative morpheme is morphologically and syntactically distinct from the passive morpheme. Ergative morphemes and constructions in Gaahmg are similar to those of other Nilo-Saharan languages, including Luwo, Päri, and Shilluk. The Gaahmg antipassive also resembles that of other Nilo-Saharan languages. Yet, unlike other languages with ergativity and antipassives, Gaahmg readily combines the antipassive with ergative, passive, and causative morphemes in the same verb form. The Gaahmg antipassive occurs in nominative-accusative structures, as well as in object-focus clauses with ergative-absolutive structures. Further, the antipassive co-occurs with the passive, as if both the nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive structures are simultaneously present in the same clause, and the language is currently shifting from one structure to the other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document