Syntactic conditions on accusative to ergative alignment change in Austronesian languages

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-247
Author(s):  
Edith Aldridge
Keyword(s):  
Austronesian Languages ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
First Order ◽  
New Evidence

Abstract This paper develops the proposal put forth by Aldridge (2015, 2016) for the emergence of ergative alignment in a first-order subgroup of the Austronesian family. I first provide new evidence for reconstructing Proto-Austronesian (PAn) as accusative rather than ergative. I then propose a significantly revised approach to Aldridge’s proposed reanalysis. On the basis of evidence from Tsou, I propose that the reanalysis took place in biclausal constructions embedded under motion or locative verbs. Since such biclausal constructions are contexts for restructuring, no accusative case is available for an object. This forced objects which needed structural licensing to value nominative case with T. I additionally show that subjects were assigned inherent non-nominative case in PAn when objects needed to enter into Agree with T, as when valuing nominative case. These conditions yielded a new ergative clause type in a daughter of PAn, which Aldridge (2015, 2016) calls “Proto-Ergative Austronesian”. No change took place in clauses lacking an object needing structural licensing. Consequently, subjects in intransitive clauses and transitive clauses with indefinite objects continued to surface with nominative case, yielding the type of ergative alignment prevalent in Formosan and Philippine languages today.

scholarly journals Comment on: “Interseismic Strain Accumulation near Lisbon (Portugal) from Space Geodesy” by Fonseca et al. (2021)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Matias
Keyword(s):  
Relative Velocity ◽  
Strain Accumulation ◽  
Geophysical Research ◽  
First Order ◽  
Crustal Block ◽  
Tectonic Lineament ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Gnss Data ◽  
Strain Rate Field ◽  
New Evidence

The paper by Fonseca et al. (2021), hereafter referred as FON21, published in Geophysical Research Letters2 make several conclusions that are not convincingly supported by the evidence of the data that is made available. In this comment we will address the following statements: 1) FON21 “provides new evidence of sinistral simple shear driven by a NNE-SSW first-order tectonic lineament; 2) “PSInSAR vertical velocities corroborate qualitatively the GNSS strain-rate field, showing uplift/subsidence where the GNSS data indicate contraction/extension”; 3) FON21 proposes “the presence of a small block to the W of Lisbon moving independently toward the SW with a relative velocity of 0.96 ± 0.20 mm/yr”; 4) FON21 shows “that the contribution of intraplate faults to the seismic hazard in the LMA is more important than currently assumed”. We conclude that more evidence needs to be collected to confirm or infirm FON21 statements and conclusions. For the moment the proposal of an autonomous crustal block moving with significant velocity in relation to the neighboring domain should be considered speculative and unproved.

Morphological and Abstract Case

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Anne Legate
Keyword(s):  
Prima Facie ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Abstract Case ◽  
Split Ergativity ◽  
The Relationship

This article examines the relationship between abstract and morphological case, arguing that morphological case realizes abstract Case features in a postsyntactic morphology, according to the Elsewhere Condition. A class of prima facie ergative-absolutive languages is identified wherein intransitive subjects receive abstract nominative Case and transitive objects receive abstract accusative Case; these are realized through a morphological default, which is often mislabeled as absolutive. Further support comes from split ergativity based on a nominal hierarchy, which is shown to have a morphological source. Proposals that case and agreement are purely morphological phenomena are critiqued.

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 A case of collision in principles of language description?

2014 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-146
Author(s):  
Roland Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Main Part ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Lexical Unit ◽  
Object Position ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Language Description

Abstract In the article, I deal with an apparent case of incoherence within the framework of Functional Generative Description (FGD) in treating certain reflexive constructions. According to the principle that differences between valency frames are constitutive for establishing different lexical units (e.g., Žabokrtský and Lopatková, 2007), the occurrences of vnímat in (i) Vnímá syna jako soka and (ii) Sám se vnímá jako síla ochraňující divadlo have to be assigned to two different lexical units, as there is a difference in the formal marking of the Effect-argument (jako+accusative case in (i), jako+nominative case in (ii)). On the basis of the commutation test (e.g., Panevová, 2008) which identifies the reflexive clitic se in (ii) as an object-clitic, both occurrences of vnímat have to be, however, assigned to the same lexical unit as the only difference between vnímá syna in (i) and vnímá se in (ii) consists in the lexical filling of the object position. In the main part of the text, I review two different strategies to remedy the conflict between the two principles. I point out certain implications of both strategies and conclude by pleading for a solution within the framework of Modified Valency Theory (Karlík, 2000a)

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 Secondary predication and default case

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Youngjun Jang ◽  
Siyoun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Small Clause ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Default Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Secondary Predication

This paper compares secondary predication constructions (including small clause complements, resultatives, and/or depictives) in English and Korean and argues that these two typologically different languages employ different modes of satisfying the Case Filter (Chomsky 1981) with regard to the Case of the subjects of secondary predication constructions. More specifically, we argue that the subject of the secondary predicate in English is Accusative Case-marked by the higher governing verb, while that in Korean is Nominative Case-marked by default. Evidence for default Nominative Case will be provided from Korean and other languages.  

Case alignment in Kabyle Amazigh

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-379
Author(s):  
Lydia Felice
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Free State ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
African Languages ◽  
Default Case ◽  
Alignment System ◽  
Morphological Patterns

Abstract This paper examines the state alternation in Kabyle, arguing that state is the morphological realization of Case. The free state is accusative case, and the construct state is nominative case. Taking morphological patterns and syntactic distribution into account, Kabyle is found to be a Type 2 marked nominative language. Both states, or cases, are morphologically marked. The free state is the default case. This analysis accounts for the bulk of the distribution of free state and construct state nouns, and situates Kabyle as belonging to a typologically rare alignment system that is concentrated in Afroasiatic and African languages.

Language evolution from a cognitive-grammar perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 429-464
Author(s):  
Reyadh Aldokhayel
Keyword(s):  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Language Evolution ◽  
Cognitive Grammar ◽  
Departure Point ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Semantic Function ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Baseline Case ◽  
Classical Arabic

Abstract This paper considers language evolution from a cognitive-grammar (CG) perspective taking Classical Arabic Case Marking (CACM) as a case in point and a departure point. It is argued that the accusative case is diachronically the baseline case mark, designating the Objective Scene (OS) and demarcating an object of perception in the initial stage of maximal subjectivity in which the ground (G) is totally implicit. Such maximum is then attenuated through a process of objectification such that g entities are gradually put onstage to fulfill the functions of identification and predication. The nominative case, then, figures to mark such emerging entities in their baseline, immediate status. This conception of G with its functions is later extended to mark entities external to G, which gives rise to the full, nominative-marked, baseline existential core (C∃) comprising the existential predicate (P∃) and the existential subject (S∃). The truncation (T) of a verb’s nominative case is argued to fulfill the semantic function of situating a process out of existential reality yielding the existential predicate minus (P-∃), which represents a basic elaboration on baseline C∃. Processes being extensions from perception, the accusative case attenuates to mark entities (D) that demarcate processes, implementing the semantic function of processual modification. Finally, a genitive-marked entity (RP) is proposed to implement the semantic function of referential modification, anchoring and referencing the conceptions of all those facets of reality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document