Dialectal Variations of the Korean Subject Case Markers ‘-i’, ‘-ka’, ‘-i-ka’ and ‘-ika’: An OT Account

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 39-60
Author(s):  
Chang-Kook Suh
Keyword(s):  
Case Markers

scholarly journals General location across languages: On the division of labour between functional and lexical items in spatial categories

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco-Alessio Ursini
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Spatial Terms ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
At Home

AbstractIn many languages, it is possible to describe the location of any entity with respect to a landmark object without specifying the exact place that the locatum occupies (e.g. English at in at home). Such vocabulary items usually contrast with items that belong to the same categories but have more restricted senses (e.g. on top of in on top of the shelf). Thus, the degree of “abstractness” that such spatial case markers can convey usually depends on the organization of the lexicon and grammar of spatial terms in each language. The goal of this paper is to explore these properties across a small sample of languages and offer an account of this variation that is connected to previous theories of spatial case markers (e.g. adpositions). Our key proposal is that the morpho-syntactic structure of spatial case markers and their phrases can license a clear division of labour between functional and lexical spatial senses. However, intermediate solutions blurring categories and semantic boundaries are shown to be possible. We formalize this proposal via a fragment of Lexical Syntax, and show that degrees of distinction between ‘functional’ and ‘lexical’ sense types and categories can be modelled via a unified account.

scholarly journals Introduction: Shades of partitivity: Formal and areal properties

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-619
Author(s):  
Tabea Ihsane ◽  
Elisabeth Stark
Keyword(s):  
Geographical Distribution ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Formal Description ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Case Markers

AbstractAt the heart of this special issue are partitive elements (i. e., partitive articles, partitive pronouns, and partitive case markers) which can express different “shades” of partitivity, namely true partitivity, pseudopartitivity, or indefiniteness, that is, the absence of a part-whole relation in the meaning, in contrast to (pseudo)partitivity. Since these partitive elements express (at least) two such notions, as they can be truly partitive but often are not, the questions around partitivity are complex, interrelated and challenging. This special issue, with a strong and wide crosslinguistic (typological) coverage, deals with two overarching topics: first, the geographical distribution of partitive elements and the identification of potential instances of language contact, and, second, sometimes in combination with the first topic, the formal description and explanation of different partitive constructions.

scholarly journals Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-174
Author(s):  
Martin Haspelmath
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
General Pattern ◽  
General Level ◽  
Full Generality ◽  
Coding Efficiency ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

Abstract Argument coding splits such as differential (= split) object marking and split ergative marking have long been known to be universal tendencies, but the generalizations have not been formulated in their full generality before. In particular, ditransitive constructions have rarely been taken into account, and scenario splits have often been treated separately. Here I argue that all these patterns can be understood in terms of the usual association of role rank (highly ranked A and R, low-ranked P and T) and referential prominence (locuphoric person, animacy, definiteness, etc.). At the most general level, the role-reference association universal says that deviations from usual associations of role rank and referential prominence tend to be coded by longer grammatical forms. In other words, A and R tend to be referentially prominent in language use, while P and T are less prominent, and when less usual associations need to be expressed, languages often require special coding by means of additional flags (case-markers and adpositions) or additional verbal voice coding (e.g., inverse or passive markers). I argue that role-reference associations are an instance of the even more general pattern of form-frequency correspondences, and that the resulting coding asymmetries can all be explained by frequency-based predictability and coding efficiency.

The processing of case in near-native Spanish

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Jegerski
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Case Marker ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Ditransitive Constructions

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.

Phrase Structure and Movement in Japanese

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamoru Saito
Keyword(s):  
Complex Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Discourse Particles ◽  
Nominal Structure ◽  
Clausal Comparatives ◽  
The Right ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Operator Movement

Japanese exhibits some unique features with respect to phrase structure and movement. It is well-known that its phrase structure is strictly head-final. It also provides ample evidence that a sentence may have more complex structure than its surface form suggests. Causative sentences are the best-known example of this. They appear to be simple sentences with verbs accompanying the causative suffix, -sase. But the causative suffix is an independent verb and takes a small clause vP complement in the syntactic representation. Japanese sentences can have a rich structure in the right periphery. For example, embedded clauses may contain up to three overt complementizers, corresponding to Finite (no), Interrogative (ka), and Report/Force (to). Matrix clauses may end in a sequence of discourse particles, such as wa, yo, and ne. Each of the complementizers and discourse particles has a selectional requirement of its own. More research is required to settle on the functional heads in the nominal structure. Among the controversial issues are whether D is present and whether Case markers should be analyzed as independent heads. Various kinds of movement operations are observed in the language. NP-movement to the subject position takes place in passive and unaccusative sentences, and clausal comparatives and clefts are derived by operator-movement. Scrambling is a unique movement operation that should be distinguished from both NP-movement and operator-movement. It does not establish operator-variable relations but is not subject to the locality requirements imposed on NP-movement. It cannot be PF-movement as it creates new binding possibilities. It is still debated whether head movement, for example, the movement of verb to tense, takes place in the language.

scholarly journals The origins of the western Uralic s-cases revisited: historiographical, functional-typological and Samoyedic perspectives

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (63) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jussi Ylikoski
Keyword(s):  
Local Case ◽  
Daunting Task ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Dominant Theory

The paper presents a comprehensive reappraisal of the origins of the so-called s-cases in Saami, Finnic, Mordvin and Mari. According to the received view, the element *-s- that is present in most of the basic local case markers in these languages originates in the so-called *s-lative whose origin has remained unknown. As the dominant theory suffers from various methodological shortcomings, alternative proposals have also been presented yet largely ignored. As the first functionally and typologically substantiated hypothesis on the issue, the paper proposes that the s-cases originate in Proto-Uralic postpositional phrases. Confronting the daunting task of identifying cognates of the s-cases elsewhere, it is proposed that they can be related to at least the Samoyed local cases with the element *-ntə-.

Grammaticalization of Ergative Case Marking

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
William B. McGregor
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Developmental Pathways ◽  
Tense And Aspect ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
Case Markers

This chapter overviews some of the patterns of emergence and development of ergative case markers in the world’s languages. What shines through most clearly is diversity: the range of possible source morphemes, constructions, and developmental pathways is much broader than might be expected. Rarely, it is possible to identify lexical sources for ergative case markers. More common sources are other case markers (notably instrumental, genitive, oblique, and ablative), and indexical items (such as demonstratives and pronominals); other possible sources include directional elements and focus markers. Ergative case markers can also be the sources of further grammatical developments, and can develop into markers of other grammatical categories, including other cases and verbal categories such as tense and aspect. Some observations are also included on the emergence and development of ergative case marking in language contact situations.

Prosody of Case Markers in Urdu

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benazir Mumtaz ◽  
Massimiliano Canzi ◽  
Miriam Butt
Keyword(s):  
Case Markers

The use of blocking and inhibition training in processing instruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Henry
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Learner Performance ◽  
Structured Input ◽  
Targeted Instruction ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Case Markers ◽  
Slight Advantage

Abstract Previous research has suggested that L2 learners often use non-target processing strategies to understand sentences, but that these strategies can be changed through targeted instruction that directs their attention to different linguistic forms or structures. The present study explores the effects of pretraining ‘blocking’ practice—a novel type of training designed to help learners inhibit the application of a strict word-order based processing strategy—prior to receiving a traditional Structured Input (SI) training focused on OVS word order and accusative case markers in German. The study compares three groups of third-semester German learners who completed three different activities in one training session: (1) SI with blocking practice (+BP), (2) SI preceded by explicit information (+EI), and (3) SI without EI or blocking practice (−EI). The effects of training were measured by sentence-level interpretation and production tasks administered as a pretest, posttest, and four-week delayed posttest. Learner performance was also assessed during training. Results in all assessment measures indicated that EI was most effective, but that blocking practice lent a slight advantage over −EI groups during and after training. These results are discussed in the context of studies on processing instruction and learned attention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document