scholarly journals Secondary predication and default case

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Youngjun Jang ◽  
Siyoun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Small Clause ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Default Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Secondary Predication

This paper compares secondary predication constructions (including small clause complements, resultatives, and/or depictives) in English and Korean and argues that these two typologically different languages employ different modes of satisfying the Case Filter (Chomsky 1981) with regard to the Case of the subjects of secondary predication constructions. More specifically, we argue that the subject of the secondary predicate in English is Accusative Case-marked by the higher governing verb, while that in Korean is Nominative Case-marked by default. Evidence for default Nominative Case will be provided from Korean and other languages.  

scholarly journals Resultatives in Korean Revisited: Complementation versus Adjunction

Nordlyd ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjeong Son
Keyword(s):  
Complementation Analysis ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Case Markings

Korean resultatives are divided into two types depending on whether the subject of a resultative secondary predicate is assigned accusative case or nominative case. The former is comparable to selected object resultatives (e.g., Mary wipe the table clean), and the latter to unselected object resultatives (e.g., John screamed himself hoarse) in English. Korean resultatives have received a great deal of attention in the literature due to different case markings on the subject of a secondary predicate. However, there has been no agreement regarding whether Korean resultatives should be analyzed as small clause complements, similar to English, or adjunct phrases. Some argue that both resultative types are small clause complements (e.g., Kim 1999, Chang and Kim 2001), but some argue that only the selected object resultatives are true small clause type resultatives while the unselected object resultatives are VP adjuncts (e.g., Song 2005, Yeo 2006). A recent proposal by Shim and den Dikken (2007), however, suggests that both types should be analyzed as TP adjuncts. This paper defends the second position, a split analysis for the two types of resultatives: a complementation analysis for selected object resultatives, and an adjunction analysis for unselected object resultatives. Supporting evidence for the split analysis is provided by a few syntactic and semantic facts that lead to the conclusion that the two resultatives must be structurally distinguished from one another in terms of their complementhood/adjuncthood.

Canonical and reverse predication in the syntax of the active/passive diathesis alternation

2020 ◽  
pp. 147-187
Author(s):  
Marcel den Dikken
Keyword(s):  
External Argument ◽  
Passive Voice ◽  
Active Voice ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Internal Argument ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Secondary Predication ◽  
Predication Relation

This chapter defends an analysis of the active/passive alternation sharing with Collins’s smuggling proposal the idea that the participial VP occupies a specifier position above the external argument, but base-generating it in this position rather than moving it there. In both the active and the passive, the VP and the external argument are in a predication structure, with a RELATOR mediating the predication relation. The active voice builds a canonical predication structure, with the VP in the RELATOR’S complement position and the subject of predication as the specifier. In the passive voice, the VP is externally merged in the specifier of the RELATOR and the external argument in its complement. This analysis provides an explanation for obligatory auxiliation, the unavailability of accusative Case for the internal argument, Visser’s Generalization (the ban on personal passivization of subject control verbs), and the restrictions on referential dependencies and depictive secondary predication in passives.

scholarly journals The Derivation of Wh-Questions in Najrani Arabic

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 181
Author(s):  
Saud A. Mushait
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Phase Approach ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Edge Feature

The study explores the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic and attempts to answer the following questions: (i) Can wh-questions in Najrani Arabic be derived in VSO or SVO or both?, and (ii) How can Najrani Arabic wh-questions be accounted for within Chomsky’s (2001,2005, 2013,2015 ) Phase approach? The objective of the study is to present a unified analysis of the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic and show the interaction between Najrani Arabic data and Chomsky’s Phase framework. It has been shown that Najrani Arabic allows the derivation of wh-questions from the argument and non-argument positions in VSO word order. Given this, we assume that VSO is the unmarked order for the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic. In VSO, the subject DP does not raise to Spec-TP because the head T does not have the EPP feature: the latter attracts movement of the former. The verb raises to the head T of TP, while the subject DP remains in-situ in Spec-vP. Moreover, in Najrani Arabic intransitive structures, the phase vP does not have a specifier because it does not have an external thematic argument whereas in transitive constructions the vP has. Concerning case assignment, the phase vP merges with an abstract tense af (fix) on the head T, which agrees with and assigns invisible nominative case to the subject wh-word man ‘who’. We assume that the phase head C is the probe and has the Edge feature which attracts the raising of the subject wh-phrase to Spec-CP. Besides, we argue that the light transitive head v has an Edged feature which attracts the raising of the object wh-phrase aish ‘what’ to be the second (outer) specifier of vP. Being the phase head, the v probes for a local goal and finds the object wh-phrase aish; the v agrees with and assigns accusative case to the object wh-phrase aish. As the TP merges with a null interrogative head C, the phase head C has an Edge feature that attracts the raising of the object wh-word aish to Spec-CP for feature valuation. Following this, the null copies of the moved entities left after movement receive a null spellout in the phonological level and, hence, cannot be accessed for any further operation.

Case alignment in Kabyle Amazigh

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-379
Author(s):  
Lydia Felice
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Free State ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
African Languages ◽  
Default Case ◽  
Alignment System ◽  
Morphological Patterns

Abstract This paper examines the state alternation in Kabyle, arguing that state is the morphological realization of Case. The free state is accusative case, and the construct state is nominative case. Taking morphological patterns and syntactic distribution into account, Kabyle is found to be a Type 2 marked nominative language. Both states, or cases, are morphologically marked. The free state is the default case. This analysis accounts for the bulk of the distribution of free state and construct state nouns, and situates Kabyle as belonging to a typologically rare alignment system that is concentrated in Afroasiatic and African languages.

scholarly journals Small clauses in English and Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian / Male klauze u engleskom i bosanskom, hrvatskom i srpskom jeziku

2019 ◽  
pp. 181-208
Author(s):  
Izela Habul-Šabanović
Keyword(s):  
English Literature ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Small Clauses ◽  
Secondary Predication ◽  
Finite Verb

Small Clauses in English represent one of the basic concepts of modern generative grammar and they are characterized as minimal units of non-verbal predication, where the predication relation between the subject and the predicate is established in the absence of a finite verb form. In traditional grammars, they are generally referred to as “secondary predication” constructions. As the concept of a “small clause” is not familiar in the context of traditional descriptive grammars of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, the aim of this paper is to make a preliminary contrastive analysis of how these or similar constructions are realized in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian through translation equivalents and how they are treated in traditional grammars. Additionally, we have applied several tests typically used in English literature to prove the constituency of small clauses in order to establish whether or not these constructions could form a separate constituent at the sentence level in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as well.

scholarly journals Encasing the Absolutes

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Uroš Martinčič
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Small Clauses

The paper explores the issue of structure and case in English absolute constructions, whose subjects are deduced by several descriptive grammars as being in the nominative case due to its supposed neutrality in terms of register. This deduction is countered by systematic accounts presented within the framework of the Minimalist Program which relate the case of absolute constructions to specific grammatical factors. Each proposal is shown as an attempt of analysing absolute constructions as basic predication structures, either full clauses or small clauses. I argue in favour of the small clause approach due to its minimal reliance on transformations and unique stipulations. Furthermore, I propose that small clauses project a singular category, and show that the use of two cases in English absolute constructions can be accounted for if they are analysed as depictive phrases, possibly selected by prepositions. The case of the subject in absolutes is shown to be a result of syntactic and non-syntactic factors. I thus argue in accordance with Minimalist goals that syntactic case does not exist, attributing its role in absolutes to other mechanisms.

Again on relative clause and subordination in Latin

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gualtiero Calboli
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Central Point ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law

AbstractI started from the relative clause which occurs in Hittite, and in particular with the enclitic position of the relative pronoun. This is connected with the OV position and this position seems to have been prevailing in Hittite and PIE. The syntactic structure usually employed in Hittite between different clauses is the parataxis. Nevertheless, also the hypotaxis begins to be employed and the best occasion to use it was the diptych as suggested by Haudry, though he didn't consider the most natural and usual diptych: the law, where the crime and the sanction build a natural diptych already in old Hittite. Then I used Justus' and Boley's discussion on the structure of Hittite sentence and found a similarity with Latin, namely the use of an animate subject as central point of a sentence. With verbs of action in ancient languages the subject was normally an animate being, whereas also inanimate subject is employed in modern languages. This seems to be the major difference between ancient and modern structure of a sentence, or, better to say, in Hittite and PIE the subject was an animate being and this persisted a long time, and remained as a tendency in Latin, while in following languages and in classical grammar the subject became a simple nominal “entity” to be predicated and precised with verb and other linguistic instruments. A glance has been cast also to pronouns and particles (sometimes linked together) as instruments of linking nominal variants of coordinate or subordinate clauses and to the development of demonstrative/deictic pronouns. Also in ancient case theory a prevailing position was assured to the nominative case, the case of the subject.

Two puzzles on the nominative particle ga in Japanese

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-243
Author(s):  
Noriko Kawasaki
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Semantic Content ◽  
Japanese Language ◽  
Conversational Implicature ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Semantic Account ◽  
The Subject

Abstract Back in the 1970s, Kazuko Inoue observed that some active sentences in Japanese allow a prepositional subject. Along with impersonal sentences pointed out by S.-Y. Kuroda, such examples suggest that the nominative subject is not an obligatory element in Japanese sentences. While this observation supports the hypothesis that important characteristics of the Japanese language follow from its lack of (forced-)agreement, Japanese potential sentences require the nominative ga on at least one argument. The present article argues that the nominative case particle ga is semantically vacuous even where a ga-marked phrase is indispensable or the ga-marked phrase is construed as exhaustively listing. Stative predicates require a ga-marked phrase because they can ascribe a property to an argument only by function application. The exhaustive listing reading arises by conversational implicature when the presence of a ga-marked phrase signals that a topic phrase is being avoided. The discussion leads to a semantic account of subject honorification whereby the honorification only concerns the semantic content of the predicate, and does not involve agreement with the subject. It is also shown that sentences with a prepositional subject allow zibun only as a long-distance anaphor, which indicates that they do lack a subject with the nominative Case.

Case and Agreement

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Hagstrom
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
General Overview ◽  
The Past ◽  
Default Case ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Agreement Morphology

Children’s use of case and agreement morphology offers a window into the structure of their developing grammatical systems. Children acquiring English commonly produce accusative pronouns in subject position, and use verb forms lacking agreement morphology. The systematic patterns in these errors and correlations between them have been the subject of a great deal of research over the past few decades. This chapter lays out some of the results to date and the theoretical interpretations they have led to, as well as points of debate on methodology. The discussion centers around English, with other languages considered where predictions differ, and the topics include a general overview of the relation of case and agreement, optional/root infinitives, default case, and morphological access.

Indirect object in Manchu-Tungus languages: structural and semantic aspect (in the Orok language)

2020 ◽  
pp. 243-260
Author(s):  
L. V. Ozolinya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Functional Aspects ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Object Composition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
First Time ◽  
Semantic Aspect ◽  
Trivalent Verbs

For the first time, the paper provides the analysis of the Oroc language object as a syntactic unit combining the semantic and functional aspects of transitive or non-transitive verbs. In the Manchu-Tungus languages, the object is found to be expressed in the morphological forms of the case: direct – in the accusative case and the possessive forms of the designative case, indirect – in the forms of oblique cases. Constructions with indirect objects, the positions of which are filled with case forms of nouns, designate the objects on which the action is aimed, objects from which the action is sent or evaded, objects-addresses, objectsinstruments, etc. Both transitive or non-transitive verbs can take the position of the predicate. The necessary (direct object) and permissible (indirect object) composition of objects in the verb is determined by its valences: bivalent verbs open subjective (subject) and objective (direct object) valences; trivalent verbs reveal subjective, subjective-objective (part of the subject or indirect subject) and objective (indirect object) valences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document