The Structural Source of Split Ergativity and Ergative Case in Georgian

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léa Nash
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Functional Head ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Split Ergativity

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.

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.

scholarly journals French imperatives, negative ne, and non-subject clitics

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-47
Author(s):  
PAUL ROWLETT
Keyword(s):  
Functional Head ◽  
Negative Feature ◽  
Subject Clitics ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Diachronic Development ◽  
Inflectional Features

ABSTRACTThis article focuses on the behaviour of negation and clitics in the context of French imperatives. Standard descriptions contrast positive Fais-le ! (with enclisis) with negative (Ne) le fais pas ! (with proclisis). I adopt a view of imperatives in terms of a pragmatic irrealis mood feature associated with Rizzi's (1997) exploded CP and defective/impoverished morphology which allows inflection and irrealis mood features to be checked on a single functional head. Thus, positive imperatives can check all their grammatical features before merger of any clitics, which (following Shlonsky, 2004) will therefore be enclitic. The presence of negation, when realised as a grammatical feature on an (overt or null) functional head within the clausal trunk, prevents this from happening because negation intervenes between the relevant inflection and mood features in the universal hierarchy underlying the Rizzi/Cinque exploded CP/IP. Outside cliticisation contexts, the difference has no surface impact: Viens ! vs. (Ne) viens pas ! In cliticisation contexts, in contrast, there is a surface difference: negative imperatives cannot check all their inflectional features at the point at which clitics are merged, and clitics will not therefore be enclitic. Regionally/stylistically marked forms like Fais-le pas !, in which proclisis and negation co-occur, must be deemed to have a radically different structure, with no negative feature projected within the inflectional domain. Such forms are argued to be a natural (and therefore expected) innovation within Jespersen's cycle of diachronic development.

Nominal agent incorporation in Indonesian

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Myhill
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
The World

One of the most important types of grammatical process in the languages of the world is that involving the intransitivization of a transitive verb and the deletion or demotion of its subject or direct object. The first such process to be analysed was passivization, involving the demotion of a transitive subject to an oblique role or its deletion altogether; this process is central to all linguistic theories and has been known as long as linguistics has been studied.

scholarly journals ВСИЧКО Е НАРЕД С ГЛАГОЛА (ИНОВАЦИОННИТЕ ПРОЦЕСИ ТРАНЗИТИВАЦИЯ И ДЕРЕФЛЕКТИВАЦИЯ С ЦЕЛ ПРИПИСВАНЕ НА КАУЗАТИВНОСТ) / EVERYTHING IS FINE WITH THE VERB (INNOVATION PROCESSES OF TRANSITIVIZATION AND DEREFLEXIVIZATION AS A MEANS OF ATTRIBUTING CAUSATIVITY)

2021 ◽  
Vol 68 (PR) ◽  
pp. 165-178
Author(s):  
TEODORA RABOVYANOVA
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Identification ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Reflexive Verbs ◽  
Verb Meaning ◽  
Communicative Effect ◽  
Innovation Processes

The paper presents a summary of the observations on the tranisitivization and dereflexivization of Bulgarian verbs as a means of attributing causativity. The majority of the newly formed verbs that we analyze are causative while others may, under certain conditions and in particular sentences, exemplify the causative rule. The lability of morphological identification regarding the transitivity – intransitivity distinction is the reason to examine the excerpted verbs as being either A- or Р-labile. The following tendency can be observed: P-lability has to do with causativity, while A-labile verbs are not-causative. In such cases the subject does not undergo changes neither in their intransitive nor in their transitive use. With P-labile verbs, the subject of the intransitive verb becomes the object of the transitive verb. There are some ambiva-lent verbs, such as minavam (pass), premina (pass over), svetna (light up), spomagam (facilitate), stigna (reach), treniram (train). Although the second group contains 40 causatives and the third group has 3 verbs, the lability procedure is not applicable because of the difference between the reflexive with the se- (се) marker and the transitive verb, i.e. the mismatch in form also means non-lability. The examples in the third group can also be viewed as the absolute use of the transitive verb meaning. The changes in the verbs indicate a change in the way contemporary Bulgarians think – the causative verbs serve as an expression of an active position, while the interplay between transitive and intransitive and/or reflexive and non-reflexive verbs has mostly pragmatic purposes, such as achieving a certain communicative effect, attractiveness, informality. Keywords: labile verbs, A-lability, P-lability, the lexico-grammatical category of transitivity ‒ intransitivity, causativity, Bulgarian language

Accusative and Ergative in Hindi

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anoop Mahajan
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Split Ergativity

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.

On the heterogeneity of deaccusative reflexives

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-419
Author(s):  
Axel Holvoet
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Unitary Operation ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Reflexive Verbs

Abstract The article deals with the notions of deaccusative and antipassive reflexives. The term ‘deaccusative’ is used in the literature to refer to what appears to be a derivation reflexivizing a transitive verb and replacing its direct object with an oblique object. The term suggests a unitary operation, and its function has been identified, in recent work, as antipassive. The aim of this paper is to show that, though some ‘deaccusatives’ are antipassive, the group of verbs sometimes referred to as deaccusatives is, in fact, a heterogeneous conglomerate comprising a few minor constructions but also pairings of reflexive and non-reflexive verbs that are due to alternations in argument marking with specific lexical classes or simply to diachronic accident.

scholarly journals Kata Kerja Transitif dan Intransitif dalam Bahasa Arab dan Bahasa Indonesia (Studi Linguistik Kontrastif)

Studi Arab ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Izzudin Mustafa ◽  
Tubagus Kesa Purwasandy ◽  
Isop Syafe'i
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Type ◽  
Arabic Language ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Intransitive Verb ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Data Collection Technique ◽  
Linguistic Approach ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

This research aims to determine contrastive linguistic, transitive dan intransitive verb in arabic language and Indonesian language, and to determine similarities and differences between both of them. This research uses descriptive analytic method with contrastive linguistic approach. Subject of this research is contrastive linguistic contrastive theory and transitive and intransitive verb. Data collection technique is carried out through documentation studies, while the data analysis technique is done by selecting the data obtained, then collected for analysis and conclusions. The results of this research are the contrastive linguistic is method for analyzing language to find similarities and differences in order to find principles that can be applied practically. In Arabic and Indonesian language, transitive verb is verb that has objects and complement, while intransitive verb is verb that does not have objects and complement. The equation between the two is that both languages have one-object and two-object transitive verb, while the difference is that Indonesian has semitransitive sentence type but Arabic language does not have, Arabic language has three-object verb but Indonesian language does not have, Arabic language has different between transitive verb and preposition but Indonesian language does not have.

scholarly journals Eventualities under deadjectival nominalizations

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Villalba
Keyword(s):  
Slight Modification ◽  
Functional Structure ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Functional Head ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Standard Tests

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.4pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;" lang="EN-US">In this paper the behavior of deadjectival nominalizations in Spanish is studied regarding the presence of an eventuality reading. It is shown that whereas abstract nominalizations (<em>la belleza del libro </em>&lsquo;the beauty of the book&rsquo;) clearly encode an eventuality according to standard tests, neuter nominalizations (<em>lo bello del libro</em> &lsquo;the beautiful part of the book&rsquo;) lack any eventuality reading altogether. It is argued that the difference lies in the different kind of nominalization process involved. As for abstract nominalizations, after the nominalizer is merged, the nominal functional head Classifier will encode the stative eventuality derived from the adjective root. In the case of neuter nominalizations, we lack any nominal functional structure, but rather the AP is directly selected by the neuter determiner, which, following a suggestion by McNally &amp; de Swart (2012), is the syntactic realization of Chierchia&rsquo;s (1982) </span><sup><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-ansi-language: CA; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">&Ccedil;</span></sup><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;" lang="EN-US"> (&lsquo;</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;" lang="EN-US">cap&rsquo;) operator, which shifts a property into its entity correlate. Moreover, a slight modification of this semantic operation allows a simple and principled analysis of the difference between the two main neuter deadjectival nominalizations.</span></p>

scholarly journals TINDAK TUTUR DIREKTIF INTERAKSI GURU DAN ANAK PADA TAMAN KANAK-KANAK DI KABUPATEN GOWA

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Nawir ◽  
Gusnawaty Gusnawaty ◽  
Asriani Abbas
Keyword(s):  
Figurative Language ◽  
Concrete Noun ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Language Style ◽  
Word Classes ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Language Styles ◽  
Descriptive Method

This study discusses the comparison of language style in novel Atheist by Achdiat Karta Miharja and novel Telegram by Putu Wijaya. The aims of this study are (1) to describe the embodiment of language styles in novels Atheist and novels Telegram, and (2) to describe the comparison of language styles in novels Atheist and novels Telegram. This research is a qualitative research using descriptive method. The approach used in this research is stylistic approach. Sources of data in this study is a text that contains the style of rhetorical language and figurative style of language. The results show that: (1) the style of language used in the novel Atheist is the style of language; Hyperbole, simile, metaphor, personification, antonomasia, and sarcasm. The style of language found in the novel Telegram namely; Hyperbole, simile, metaphor, personification, antonomasia, and metonimia. Based on the language style found, there are three types of word classes used as word choice in realizing the style of figurative language and style of rhetorical language, namely; Nouns, verbs, and adjectives. (2) The similarity between novels Atheist and novels Telegram is the similarity of hyperbola-style, personification, and antonomasia-forming structures. The difference between the novel Atheist and the novel Telegram lies in the metaphorical style marker which in the novel Atheist is a transitive verb, while in the novel Telegram is a concrete noun.

Agreement in Kuki-Chin languages of Barak valley

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauthang Haokip
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Future Tense ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Plural Form ◽  
Barak Valley ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Subject Agreement ◽  
Person Agreement

Abstract This paper discusses the agreement system of five Kuki-Chin (KC) languages of Barak valley, viz. Saihriem, Hrangkhol, Chorei, Sakachep, and Ronglong. The paper has an introduction, and five sections dedicated to agreement in different contructions: intransitive structures, transitive structures, agreement with the same person, agreement with ditransitive verbs, and agreement in hortative and imperative constructions. The discussion of agreement is further divided into subparts by paradigm; non-future, future and negative; and by languages. As in most KC languages, the Barak valley KC languages exhibit both preverbal and postverbal agreement clitics. The preverbal agreement clitics are homophonous with the possessive pronouns which occur before a noun. In intransitive constructions, the future affirmative paradigm has the same subject agreement clitics as the non-future paradigm. But unlike the non-future paradigm, the agreement clitics occur mostly after the verb and before the future tense marker in the future paradigm. In intransitive constructions, the postverbal agreement clitic shows up only in the future negative paradigm. As in the case of preverbal agreement clitics, the subject NP of an intransitive verb in the future negative paradigm can be dropped, and it can be recovered from its corresponding postverbal agreement clitics. Across the Barak valley KC languages, a transitive verb agrees with its object for the 1st person. Saihriem is the only language which shows number distinction for the second person object. If a verb takes more than one object, one with an inanimate direct object and the other with an indirect human object, the human indirect object takes precedence over the inanimate direct object for agreement. The Imperative construction takes the regular pre-verbal subject agreement marker for 1st and 3rd person in both the singular and plural form. On the contrary, the second person does not take any agreement marker. However, the number (singular and plural of the person) is distinguished in the imperative marker itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document