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.

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.

PSIs with Head-Like Properties

2021 ◽  
pp. 171-210
Author(s):  
Ahmad Alqassas
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Polarity Items ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Polarity Sensitive ◽  
Genitive Case

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.

Case marking in Russian eventive nominalizations: inherent vs. dependent case theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asya Pereltsvaig ◽  
Ekaterina Lyutikova ◽  
Anastasia Gerasimova
Keyword(s):  
Case Theory ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Case Marking

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.

Case Theory and Norwegian Impersonal Constructions: Subjects-Object Alternations in Active and Passive Verbs

1986 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arild Hestvik
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Passive Verbs ◽  
Forced Movement ◽  
Structural Positions

It is proposed that nominative and accusative Case are both assigned by structural positions at surface structure. From this it follows that Case-absorption is not and cannot be part of the definition of passive. It is shown that a definition of passive without Case-absorption captures the data of personal and impersonal passives in Norwegian with minimal machinery. It also accounts for Case-assignment in impersonal constructions with active verbs without any additional statements. The difference between English and Norwegian with respect to the “forced movement” in English passive is accounted for by appealing to a difference between the two languages in their permissibility of expletive subjects.

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.

Syntactic Markedness and Language Acquisition

1985 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Mazurkewich
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Native English Speaking

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the role played by linguistic universals in second language acquisition. Research reported here focuses on the acquisition of dative structures and dative questions in a passive context in English by French and Inuit (Eskimo) students. Data were also elicited from native English-speaking students to serve as the norm. The data are interpreted within the theory of markedness and core grammar, as well as Case theory. The results of the testing, showing that unmarked forms are acquired before marked ones, are consistent with the predictions made by the theory of markedness and the property of adjacency which is crucial for Case assignment.

scholarly journals Asimetrías gramaticales asociadas a la animacidad en la lengua vasca: una perspectiva tipológica / Animacy-based grammatical asymmetries in Basque: a typological perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Igartua ◽  
Ekaitz Santazilia
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Grammatical Gender ◽  
The Other ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
The One

This study provides a typological analysis of two phenomena related to case-marking in Basque. In both of them, animacy —or the distinction between what is animate and what is not— turns out to be determinant: we discuss case assignment to direct objects, on the one hand, and marking of locative cases, on the other hand. We have compared the two phenomena with diverse typological parallels in order to account for the variety of possible morphological strategies and identify particular conditions and restrictions. Furthermore, we have argued that differential object marking in Basque is a recent phenomenon, induced by language contact, whereas differential locative marking has an intralinguistic nature. Finally, we have defended that the role of animacy in both types of differential marking is different: in the first example it conditions case assignment and in the second it operates as a grammatical gender.

scholarly journals The syntax of Arabic vocatives

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 328-360
Author(s):  
Hussein Al-Bataineh
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Proper Names ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Indefinite Article ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Case Feature

Abstract This paper examines the syntactic structure of Arabic vocatives, focusing on case-marking of vocatives. The assignment of accusative and nominative-like case can be accounted for in the light of Hill (2017)’s proposal which provides the basic structure of the vocative phrase. This paper argues that in Arabic vocatives (i) the particle YAA is a transitive probe with valued [ACC-Case] and unvalued [2nd] and [Distance] features; (ii) The D has the unvalued case feature [u-Case], and it has both the [2nd] and [+Distance] features if it is a free pronoun and (iii) The vocative noun carries the valued [2nd] and [+/-Distance] features. Based on these assumptions, I argued that indefinite vocatives are assigned accusative case only if they are merged with an overt D -n, otherwise a nominative-like 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 by YAA. Regarding vocatives in demonstrative phrases, the existence of a null D prevents the vocative noun from being assigned an overt accusative case. Concerning vocative pronouns, only accusative case is assigned since the determiner carrying the [u-Case] feature is overt.

scholarly journals A Study of Grammatical Case Forms and their Directionality in Fulfulde: The Transformational Generative Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 514-525
Author(s):  
Idris Muhammad Bello
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Natural Data ◽  
Structural Case ◽  
The Right ◽  
Generative Approach ◽  
The Way

Case Theory interacts with Government Theory in its operation and so, cases are assigned to the complements of governors. Case assigners are the governors of their dependent clauses while the case receivers are the governed NPs. So, the purpose of the study is to survey case assignment in Fulfulde generally by identifying and analysing the elements of Fulfulde structures and their relationship in terms of structural case. Unstructured observation was the method used for eliciting data for this study. Adequate and natural data were recorded and analysed sentence by sentence, the way they were uttered by the native speakers. The Theoretical Framework adopted for data analysis by this study is Principle and Parameters Theory. The study discovered that in Government, apart from (V)erbs, (P)repositions and tensed INFL, (N)ouns, (A)djectives and Focus Markers FMs can also govern and assign case to their complements in Fulfulde. The study has proved that in Fulfulde, cases can be assigned either to the left or to the right, depending on the relation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document