Accusative and Ergative in Hindi

Author(s):  
Anoop Mahajan

This chapter examines the nature of case licensing of the direct object in ergative constructions in Hindi, a split ergative language. Split ergativity in Hindi is conditioned by aspect – perfective transitive constructions display ergative case marking while non-perfective clauses do not. The chapter argues that in Hindi the morphologically bare direct object in an ergative construction is case licensed by T(ense) and not by little v as argued recently by Legate (2008) and others. The evidence for this proposal comes from examining the syntax of perfective and imperfective prenominal relative clauses, an empirical domain in Hindi that has not been previously examined from the perspective of case licensing. The restrictions found on what arguments can be relativized in prenominal relative clauses provide crucial evidence for the nature of case licensing in Hindi participial clauses and that evidence in turn bears upon the nature of object case licensing in ergative constructions.

2003 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
William O'Grady ◽  
Miseon Lee ◽  
Miho Choo

A variety of studies have reported that learners of English as a second language find subject relative clauses easier to produce and comprehend than direct object relatives, but it is unclear whether this preference should be attributed to structural factors or to a linear distance effect. This paper seeks to resolve this issue and to extend our understanding of SLA in general by investigating the interpretation of subject and direct object relative clauses by English-speaking learners of Korean, a left-branching language in which subject gaps in relative clauses are more distant from the head than are object gaps. The results of a comprehension task conducted with 53 beginning and intermediate learners point toward a strong preference for subject relative clauses, favoring the structural account.


Author(s):  
Léa Nash

On the basis of the study of split ergativity in Georgian, this chapter defends a simple principle according to which the difference between a nominative and an ergative behaviour of the same language, and possibly across languages, consists in the capacity of the transitive subject to be theta-licensed, and by consequence case-licensed, in a position outside vP only in the nominative type. An outcome of this difference is that the transitive subject in ergative languages is licensed in vP, which is also the minimal domain containing the direct object. As both arguments of the transitive verb stay in vP, they are case-licensed by the same c-commanding functional head, according to the mechanism of Dependent Case (DC) assignment as originally proposed by Marantz (1991). The reason why one functional head marks two arguments in a language is due to the functional impoverishment between T and vP.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-301
Author(s):  
Álvaro Cerrón-Palomino

Abstract This variationist study analyzes the linguistic and social factors constraining the alternation of resumptive pronouns (RPs) and gaps in direct object (DO) relative clauses (RCs) in the Peruvian Limeño variety. Using a number of mixed-effects (logistic regression) models in Rbrul, results reveal that the set of linguistic constraints favoring pronominal DO resumption does not coincide with those reported to promote subject and oblique RP presence in previous studies. Furthermore, when compared to their subject and oblique counterparts, DO RPs are constrained by a higher number of factors of syntactic, semantic, processing and pragmatic nature. I suggest that this sensitivity to a broader set of constraints is crucial in explaining why DO RPs are more frequent in RCs than subject and oblique RPs. With respect to the social factors analyzed, this study shows a lack of effect of gender, age and education on the speaker’s choice for the resumptive variant.


Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dagobert Höllein

Valency theory is a grammatical theory which focuses on the verb or the predicate as its center. Modern valency theory was founded in 1959 by Lucien Tesnière and is based on the idea that verbs structure sentences by binding specific elements (complements, actants) as atoms do. Other, freely addable elements are not determined by the verb; these are called supplements, adjuncts, or circonstants. The basic items of valency theory are valency carriers, complements, and supplements. Take for example sentence (1), “He gives the book to Sandra in the library.” While the NPs He and the book and the PP to Sandra in sentence (1) are valency governed complements, the PP in the library is not governed. It is a supplement. Tesnière compares sentences to a stage play, with actors and requisites. The verb is considered the central valency carrier and the complements depend on the valency carrier. In contrast to other projective theories of grammar, such as generative grammar, the binary division of the sentence into subject and predicate is abolished: the prime element of a sentence is the verb, the subject is governed by the verb, and so are the other objects. In valency theory the number of complements that depend on the verb constitutes its valency. There are monovalent (run), bivalent (build), and trivalent verbs (give). The verb run requires a subject to form a minimal sentence and to communicate a scenario, build requires a subject and direct object for this purpose, give a subject, direct, and indirect object. But it is not necessary that every complement be realized. For instance, sentence (2): “He sold the car (to his neighbor)”. A trivalent verb like to sell can easily be realized with only two complements, as shown in example (2). Complements like the directive complement in (2) (called facultative complements) and supplements differ by the fact that complements are determined in their form (syntactic valency) and their meaning (semantic valency) by the valency carrier, while supplements such as temporal or local adjuncts are not. The ability of a valency carrier to determine formal aspects like case marking of its complement(s) is subsumed under syntactic valency and the ability to determine semantic aspects like its thematic role is called semantic valency/specificity. Acknowledgements: For discussion of the material in this article and notes, the author is grateful to Vilmos Ágel, Klaus Fischer, and the reviewers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-248
Author(s):  
Alla V. Peeters-Podgaevskaja ◽  
Bibi E. Janssen ◽  
Anne E. Baker

Abstract In this paper, we present the results on (re)production of relative clauses in a sentence repetition task by Russian and Polish monolingual and bilingual children (3;6–6;6 years). Russian and Polish both involve overt case marking in the relative clause formation, but the case marking in Polish is more regular and transparent. Our results suggest that, when case marking is the only disambiguating cue, its transparency and regularity contributes to a significantly better performance. This explains why the Polish children, both monolingual and bilingual, were more successful in reproduction of subject and object relatives compared to their Russian peers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Nicholas Twiner ◽  
Vera Lee-Schoenfeld

Despite Grewendorf’s (1988) well-known German binding data with the double-object verb zeigen ‘show’, which suggests that the direct object (DO) is generated higher than the indirect object (IO), this paper argues for the canonical surface order of IO>DO as base order. Highlighting the exceptional status of Grewendorf's examples, building on Featherston & Sternefeld’s (2003) quantitative acceptability rating study, and exploiting the fact that zeigen can also be used as inherently reflexive with idiomatic meaning, and we appeal to Bruening's (2010) theory of idiom formation as well as the Encyclopedia within Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1997, Embick & Noyer 2007) and propose a flexible Spell-Out mechanism within a derivational approach to binding (e.g. Hornstein 2001 and Zwart 2002) that can override narrow syntactic case licensing by realizing nominals with different morphological case.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1600
Author(s):  
Dan Du ◽  
Chunxiang Wu

“Patient + Agent + Ergative verb”, in fact, it is a kind of absolutive structure, in which word order and case marking contribute to its formation. It assumes that “Patient + Ergative verb” is the basis syntactic structure, which generates “Patient + Agent + Ergative verb”. And it verifies the hypothesis by checking of light verbs, the characteristics of split-ergativity and Case Hierarchy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-226
Author(s):  
Petros Karatsareas

In Cappadocian and Pharasiot, the two main members of the inner Asia Minor Greek dialect group, the head nouns of NPs found in certain syntactic positions are marked with the accusative if the relevant NPs are definite and with the nominative if the NPs are indefinite. This differential case marking (dcm) pattern contrasts with all other Modern Greek dialects, in which the accusative is uniformly used in the relevant syntactic positions. After revisiting recent proposals regarding the synchronic status of dcm in Cappadocian and Pharasiot, I show how the two dialects developed this ‘un-Greek’ feature in the model of Turkish, which marks the head nouns of direct object NPs with an accusative suffix only if they take a specific reading leaving non-specific direct object NPs unmarked. I subsequently trace the diachronic trajectory of this contact-induced innovation within the two dialectal systems, seeking to explain why dcm was gradually lost in Cappadocian but preserved in Pharasiot.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document