Domains of dependent case assignment

Case ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 111-182
Author(s):  
Mark Baker
Keyword(s):  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case

scholarly journals Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 987-1051
Author(s):  
Elena Anagnostopoulou ◽  
Christina Sevdali
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Modern Greek ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Linguistic Evidence ◽  
Proposal A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Genitive Case

Abstract In this paper, we compare the properties of dative and genitive objects in Classical vs. Modern Greek. Based on the difference in behavior of dative/genitive objects of ditransitives and monadic transitives in the two periods of Greek which correlates with a range of systematic alternations in the case realization of Modern Greek IO arguments depending on the presence and category (DP vs. PP) of lower theme arguments, we argue that there are two distinct modes of dative and genitive objective case assignment: they are either prepositional or dependent (structural) cases, as also proposed by Baker and Vinokurova (2010), and Baker (2015) on the basis of cross-linguistic evidence. If we adopt this proposal a number of important implications follow both for the syntax of Modern Greek genitive indirect objects and for the understanding of the change from Classical to Standard Modern Greek which must be seen as a development from a grammatical system where dative and genitive were lexical/inherent/prepositional cases to a system where genitive is a dependent case assigned to DPs in the sense of Marantz (1991). Interestingly, the development from Classical Greek (CG) to Modern Greek (MG) affected the availability of dative/genitive-nominative alternations in passivization, in the opposite direction of what might be expected, i.e. such alternations were possible in CG and are no longer possible in MG. Our paper addresses this puzzle and argues that the availability of such alternations is not always a diagnostic tool for detecting whether an indirect object DP bears lexically specified or structural/dependent Case, contra standard practice in the literature.

Escaping the Person Case Constraint

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 97-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Rezac
Keyword(s):  
Striking Feature ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Reference Set ◽  
Person Case Constraint ◽  
Person Features

The Person Case Constraint (PCC) blocks a 1st/2nd person DP from Agree and Case assignment if it is separated from a probe by an intervener. I examine four separate strategies that circumvent the PCC: through giving the blocked DP case and agreement that would not otherwise be possible (absolutive displacement Basque; Jahnsson’s Rule in Finnish), by realizing the intervener elsewhere (3 to 5 Demotion in French), or by realizing the DP’s person features differently (Object Camouflage in Georgian). The striking feature these strategies share is that they are restricted to PCC contexts and not freely available. This makes it impossible to view them as paraphrase. Stating the conditions on their distribution requires reference to the failed PCC derivation, that is trans-derivational comparison. I extend the reference set computation of Fox (1995, 2000) and Reinhart (1995, 1999) to account for these strategies as the addition of a φ-probe, and suggest an extension to dependent Case.

From lexical to dependent

2021 ◽  
pp. 241-264
Author(s):  
Elena Anagnostopoulou ◽  
Christina Sevdali
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Modern Greek ◽  
Diachronic Change ◽  
History Of ◽  
Do So

In this paper, we discuss the diachronic change in the internal structure of direct and indirect objects in Greek. We do so by comparing the properties of dative and genitive objects in Classical vs. (Standard and Northern) Modern Greek. We argue that there are two distinct modes of dative and genitive objective case assignment: they are either prepositional or dependent (structural) cases, as proposed by Baker & Vinokurova (2010), and Baker (2015). In other words, the change from Classical to Standard Modern Greek must be analyzed as a development from a grammatical system where dative and genitive were lexical/inherent cases, PPs, to a system where genitive is a DP that receives dependent case in the sense of Marantz (1991). By reviewing the diachronic paths of morphological dative, prepositions and prefixes, we propose that the morphological loss of dative from the history of Greek is only indirectly relevant to the diachrony of argumental datives, while change in the case-assigning properties of prepositions played a central role.

On Dependent Ergative Case (in Shipibo) and Its Derivation by Phase

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Case Theory ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Unaccusative Verbs ◽  
Domain I

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.

scholarly journals What determines the varying relation of case and agreement? Evidence from the Ugric languages

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-428
Author(s):  
Katalin É. Kiss
Keyword(s):  
Partial Correlation ◽  
Random Distribution ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Range Of Variation ◽  
Grammatical Functions

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.

scholarly journals Modalities of case assignment: The view from Lithuanian

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 225-247
Author(s):  
James E. Lavine
Keyword(s):  
Local Feature ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Feature Based ◽  
The Subject

This paper assesses two competing modalities for the assignment of morphological case. Arguments are provided from Lithuanian against the configurational strategy of Dependent Case (Marantz 1991, Baker 2015) and in favor of case assignment by functional heads (Chomsky 2000, 2001). The first argument comes from a series of Transitive Impersonal constructions in which accusative appears independently, in the absence of a higher, nominative-marked argument, so long as the predicate is two-place and caused, implicating v-Cause as the source of accusative. Further evidence for this analysis comes from the Inferential Evidential, an oblique-subject construction. While the Dependent Case strategy states that nominative automatically shifts to the object if not assigned to the subject, nominative objects are exceedingly rare in the Inferential Evidential, a fact that is entirely consistent with the local, feature-based theory of case advanced in this paper, which relates the appearance of nominative to the Agree relation with Tense.

Long distance Case assignment and intervention

Lingua ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
pp. 309-336
Author(s):  
Pauli Brattico
Keyword(s):  
Long Distance ◽  
Case Assignment

The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Coon ◽  
Pedro Mateo Pedro ◽  
Omer Preminger
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Data ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Special Construction ◽  
Agent Focus ◽  
Family Based ◽  
Focus Questions

Many morphologically ergative languages display asymmetries in the extraction of core arguments: while absolutive arguments (transitive objects and intransitive subjects) extract freely, ergative arguments (transitive subjects) cannot. This falls under the label “syntactic ergativity” (see, e.g. Dixon 1972, 1994; Manning 1996; Polinsky to appear(b)). These extraction asymmetries are found in many languages of the Mayan family, where in order to extract transitive subjects (for focus, questions, or relativization), a special construction known as the “Agent Focus” (AF) must be used. These AF constructions have been described as syntactically and semantically transitive because they contain two non-oblique DP arguments, but morphologically intransitive because the verb appears with only a single agreement marker and takes an intransitive status suffix (Aissen 1999; Stiebels 2006). In this paper we offer a proposal for (i) why some morphologically ergative languages exhibit extraction asymmetries, while others do not; and (ii) how the AF construction in Q’anjob’al circumvents this problem. We adopt recent accounts which argue that ergative languages vary in the locus of absolutive case assignment (Aldridge 2004, 2008a; Legate 2002, 2008), and propose that this variation is present within the Mayan family. Based primarily on comparative data from Q’anjob’al and Chol, we argue that the inability to extract ergative arguments does not reflect a problem with properties of the ergative subject itself, but rather reflects locality properties of absolutive case assignment in the clause. We show how the AF morpheme -on circumvents this problem in Q’anjob’al by assigning case to internal arguments.

Lardil “Case Stacking” and the Timing of Case Assignment

Syntax ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norvin Richards
Keyword(s):  
Case Assignment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document