scholarly journals Absence of Case Marker in the Complement Position of the Noun Head and Satisfaction of Visibility Condition by Adjacency

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 603-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Tcheol Hong
2010 ◽  
Vol null (58) ◽  
pp. 3-27
Author(s):  
Chang-sop Kim
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Jegerski

This article reports a study that sought to determine whether non-native sentence comprehension can show sensitivity to two different types of Spanish case marking. Sensitivity to case violations was generally more robust with indirect objects in ditransitive constructions than with differential object marking of animate direct objects, even among native speakers of Spanish, which probably reflects linguistic differences in the two types of case. In addition, the overall outcome of two experiments shows that second language (L2) processing can integrate case information, but that, unlike with native processing, attention to a case marker may depend on the presence of a preverbal clitic as an additional cue to the types of postverbal arguments that might occur in a stimulus. Specifically, L2 readers showed no sensitivity to differential object marking with a in the absence of clitics in the first experiment, with stimuli such as Verónica visita al/el presidente todos los meses ‘Veronica visits the[ACC/NOM]president every month’, but the L2 readers in the second experiment showed native-like sensitivity to the same marker when the object it marked was doubled by the clitic lo, as in Verónica lo visita al/el presidente todos los meses. With indirect objects, on the other hand, sensitivity to case markers was native-like in both experiments, although indirect objects were also always doubled by the preverbal clitic le. The apparent first language / second language contrast suggests differences in processing strategy, whereby non-native processing of morphosyntax may rely more on the predictability of forms than does native processing.


2021 ◽  
pp. 132-136
Author(s):  
Т.З. Нгуен

Определение истинной видимости является основной морской метеорологической операцией дежурного офицера на борту. В условиях ограниченной видимости суда должны работать в соответствии с Правилом 19 Международных правил предотвращения столкновений на море. Однако в настоящее время нет документов, которые бы четко и количественно давались в руководстве по определению видимости на море. С другой стороны, системы управления безопасностью некоторых судоходных компаний выдают предупреждения, и дежурный офицер должен уведомить или вызвать капитана, когда видимость упадет до определенного предела. Это затрудняет для дежурного офицера принятие независимого решения об избежании столкновения в случае ухудшения видимости. В целях содействия решению актуальной морской проблемы, о которой говорилось выше, целью данной работы является исследование метода определения видимости на борту судна в определенных погодных условиях. Determining the true visibility is a basic marine meteorological operation of the duty officer on board. In the restricted visibility condition, vessels must sailing in accordance with Rule 19, International regulations for preventing collisions at sea. However, there are currently no documents that given clearly and quantitative in the guidance for determining visibility at sea. Otherwise, the warnings in the safety management systems of some shipping companies were given, and the officer of watch must inform or call the captain when the visibility reduced to a certain limit. This makes it difficult for the officer of watch to give the independent collision avoidance decision in the event of reduced visibility. In order to contribute to solve the actual maritime problem which is mentioned above, the goal of the paper is research on determine method of the visibility on board in a certain weather condition.


2020 ◽  
pp. 677-685
Author(s):  
Gerjan van Schaaik

There are a relatively small number of linguistic structures that seemingly consists of a noun expanded by a possessive suffix third-person singular and a locative, ablative, or instrumental case marker. They are used as adverbial phrases. The possessive element, however, has no antecedent, and that is why these constructions bear the semblance of postpositions more than that of real nouns. In particular, temporal constructions based on a noun denoting some moment, period, or duration behave like real postpositions in that they allow for indefinite and finite complements. Various postposition-like structures can also be used in predicate position and thus take a person marker. These constructions are typical for the description of mental states and mental content and of instances of intention, decision, and obligation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-92
Author(s):  
Michael Fortescue

Abstract The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis of a genetic link between Eskimo-Aleut and the Uralic languages is now reaching its second centenary. Two major problems with its advancement since Bergsland’s (1959) summary of its status are addressed in this article. The first of these is the lack of an obvious correlate of the ubiquitous Eskimo-Aleut (EA) relative case marker -m in Uralic; the other is the lack of an m-initial first person singular morpheme in EA to correlate with that of the Uralic languages. That the EA singular genitive/relative marker -m — as well as the instrumental/accusative singular -mək based on it — might be cognate with Uralic singular accusative -m was suggested already by Sauvageot (1953), but no firm conclusion on the matter has since been reached. This has remained a tantalizing possibility, despite the conflicting semantics. However, the remarkable morphosyntactic parallels between Eskimo-Aleut and Samoyedic in particular have grown more apparent with recent publications. A solution is proposed, linking the emergence of ergativity in the Eskimo-Aleut family with a reanalysis of the original nominative-accusative case marking system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document