Directionality of government and nominative case assignment in Romanian

1989 ◽  
pp. 209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Kempchinsky
Keyword(s):  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment

Rethinking Verb Second and Nominative case assignment

2020 ◽  
pp. 575-593
Author(s):  
Ermenegildo Bidese ◽  
Andrea Padovan ◽  
Alessandra Tomaselli
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Verb Second ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Spreading Model ◽  
Traditional Argument ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Finite Verb

Cimbrian is a German(ic) VO heritage language that does not display the linear V2 restriction: the DP subject can show up before the finite verb together with other constituents, while German-like verb-subject inversion only obtains with clitic pronouns. In recent literature on Cimbrian, pronominal subject inversion has been taken as a traditional argument in favour of mandatory V-to-C movement (assuming a split-C configuration). Building on this assumption, the syntax of the enclitic expletive subject, -da/-ta, (which shows up whenever the DP subject does not raise in the C-domain) makes the Cimbrian data particularly relevant, since it casts light on the correlation between V2 and Nominative case licensing. The stance in this chapter is that Nominative case in Cimbrian is assigned by C—as generally assumed for Germanic V2 languages—but in an idiosyncratic way: (i) it applies within the C domain, i.e. FinP; (ii) expletive -da/-ta absorbs Nominative case and acts as a defective goal with respect to the ‘low’ subject. On the basis of the feature-spreading model in Ouali (2008), the phasal head C in Cimbrian is taken to ‘KEEP’ its relevant ϕ‎- and T-features, to assign Nominative case in [Spec,FinP], and to triggering mandatory V-movement.

Accord, Chaines Impersonnelles Et Variables

1983 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Pollock
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Morphological Properties ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
General Constraint ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Assignment Rule ◽  
French And English ◽  
Government Binding

The present paper has two intimately connected goals; It aims at contributing to Chomsky's "Government Binding Theory" and also at providing a fairly detailed comparative analysis of French and English impersonal constructions. Its contribution comes under the guise of (a) an Agreement Theory (see section 2), (b) a general constraint on impersonal chains (see (72)) and (c) a new nominative Case assignment rule: it is suggested that in French and Italian (but not in English) "ergative verbs" (in Burzio (1981) 'sense) can assign nominative Case to their "object". Furthermore, as has become standard in recent comparative work in the GB framework, the paper attempts to isolate the parameters that are responsible for the minimally distinct properties of the constructions under investigation. It is shown here that they can be traced back to the interplay of a Case parameter, the morphological properties of expletive elements (il vs there) and the properties of Universal Grammar.

scholarly journals The Derivation of Wh-Questions in Najrani Arabic

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 181
Author(s):  
Saud A. Mushait
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Phase Approach ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Edge Feature

The study explores the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic and attempts to answer the following questions: (i) Can wh-questions in Najrani Arabic be derived in VSO or SVO or both?, and (ii) How can Najrani Arabic wh-questions be accounted for within Chomsky’s (2001,2005, 2013,2015 ) Phase approach? The objective of the study is to present a unified analysis of the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic and show the interaction between Najrani Arabic data and Chomsky’s Phase framework. It has been shown that Najrani Arabic allows the derivation of wh-questions from the argument and non-argument positions in VSO word order. Given this, we assume that VSO is the unmarked order for the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic. In VSO, the subject DP does not raise to Spec-TP because the head T does not have the EPP feature: the latter attracts movement of the former. The verb raises to the head T of TP, while the subject DP remains in-situ in Spec-vP. Moreover, in Najrani Arabic intransitive structures, the phase vP does not have a specifier because it does not have an external thematic argument whereas in transitive constructions the vP has. Concerning case assignment, the phase vP merges with an abstract tense af (fix) on the head T, which agrees with and assigns invisible nominative case to the subject wh-word man ‘who’. We assume that the phase head C is the probe and has the Edge feature which attracts the raising of the subject wh-phrase to Spec-CP. Besides, we argue that the light transitive head v has an Edged feature which attracts the raising of the object wh-phrase aish ‘what’ to be the second (outer) specifier of vP. Being the phase head, the v probes for a local goal and finds the object wh-phrase aish; the v agrees with and assigns accusative case to the object wh-phrase aish. As the TP merges with a null interrogative head C, the phase head C has an Edge feature that attracts the raising of the object wh-word aish to Spec-CP for feature valuation. Following this, the null copies of the moved entities left after movement receive a null spellout in the phonological level and, hence, cannot be accessed for any further operation.

scholarly journals Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan David Bobaljik ◽  
Idan Landau
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subsequent Work ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Complements ◽  
Domain Independent

A rich literature on Icelandic syntax has established that infinitival complements of obligatory control verbs constitute a case assignment domain independent from the matrix clause, and in this differ systematically from all types of A-movement, which manifest case dependence/preservation. As Landau (2003) has observed, these facts provide significant counterevidence to the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) attempt to defend this theory in light of data from Icelandic. We offer here a review of the relevant literature, and we show that Boeckx and Hornstein's reply fails on several counts. We further argue that contrary to their claims, PRO in Icelandic receives structural rather than default (nominative) case, leaving the movement theory with no account for the distinction between PRO and lexical subjects.

scholarly journals The Syntax of Arabic Vocatives

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hussein Al-Bataineh
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Proper Names ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Case Alternation ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Indefinite Article ◽  
Case Marking

This paper examines the syntactic structure of Arabic vocatives, focusing on Case-marking of vocatives. The assignment of accusative and nominative Case can be accounted for in the light of Hill (2017) and Larson (2014)’s proposals. Hill (2017) provides the basic structure of the vocative phrase, and Larson (2014) proposes the internal structure of DP. The combination of these proposals explains the derivation of Arabic vocatives and their Case alternation. This paper argues that indefinite vocatives are assigned accusative Case only if they are merged with an overt D -n, otherwise a nominative Case surfaces on the noun by default. Proper names have the same analysis since the presence of the indefinite article-n is a prerequisite for accusative Case assignment. Concerning vocatives as heads of Construct States, N-to-D movement takes place in order to assign [+def] feature to D and is assigned accusative Case once D raises to the light d. Regarding vocatives in demonstrative phrases, D-to-d movement is blocked because of the intervening constituent Dem, indicating that this operation is subject to the adjacency condition. The same analysis is applicable to definite vocatives occurring with the particle ʡayyuha.

scholarly journals Case assignment in English-speaking children: a paired priming paradigm

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
LISA WISMAN WEIL ◽  
LAURENCE B. LEONARD
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Priming Paradigm ◽  
English Speaking

AbstractThis study employed a paired priming paradigm to ask whether input features influence a child's propensity to use non-nominative versus nominative case in subject position, and to use non-nominative forms even when verbs are marked for agreement. Thirty English-speaking children (ages 2;6 to 3;7) heard sentences with pronouns that had non-contrasting case forms (e.g. Dad hugs it and it hugs Tigger) and it was hypothesized that these forms would lead to more errors (e.g. Himhugs Barney) in an elicited phrase more often than if the children heard contrasting case forms (e.g. Dad hugs us and we hug the doggie). Tense/agreement features were also examined in children's elicited productions. The findings were consistent with predictions, and supported the input ambiguity hypothesis of Pelham (2011). Implications for current accounts of the optional infinitive stage are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document