scholarly journals The Syntax of Arabic Vocatives

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hussein Al-Bataineh
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Proper Names ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Case Alternation ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Indefinite Article ◽  
Case Marking

This paper examines the syntactic structure of Arabic vocatives, focusing on Case-marking of vocatives. The assignment of accusative and nominative Case can be accounted for in the light of Hill (2017) and Larson (2014)’s proposals. Hill (2017) provides the basic structure of the vocative phrase, and Larson (2014) proposes the internal structure of DP. The combination of these proposals explains the derivation of Arabic vocatives and their Case alternation. This paper argues that indefinite vocatives are assigned accusative Case only if they are merged with an overt D -n, otherwise a nominative 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 once D raises to the light d. Regarding vocatives in demonstrative phrases, D-to-d movement is blocked because of the intervening constituent Dem, indicating that this operation is subject to the adjacency condition. The same analysis is applicable to definite vocatives occurring with the particle ʡayyuha.

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.

Complex negative adjectives in Japanese: The relation between syntactic and morphological constructions

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideki Kishimoto ◽  
Geert Booij
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Remarkable Property ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Complex Word ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Noun Incorporation

Japanese has a fairly large set of complex adjectives formed by combining a noun with the adjective nai ‘null, empty’. The complex negative adjectives have the remarkable property that they allow nominative case marking to appear inside them optionally. We argue that these complex negative adjectives can be classified into three classes, and that the differences in their syntactic behaviour can be accounted for by positing three distinct morphosyntactic configurations (ranging from a fully phrasal structure to a complex word involving morphological compounding). Some, though not all, complex negative adjectives with case marking show a behaviour which suggests that they constitute single lexical units, while at the same time their components are susceptible to syntactic operations that normally do not apply to the internal structure of words. The data on the Japanese complex adjectives illustrate that adjectives formed via quasi-noun incorporation do not constitute words in a strict morphological sense, in that the entire complexes behave as lexical units, while their components remain visible syntactically.

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.

scholarly journals Estonian Transitive Verb Classes, Object Case, and Progressive

Nordlyd ◽  
10.7557/12.30 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Tamm
Keyword(s):  
Class Membership ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Verb Classes ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Verb Classification

This article examines the relation between aspect and object case in Estonian and establishes a verb classification that predicts many facets of object case behavior. It is demonstrated that the aspectual opposition between perfectivity and imperfectivity correspond to the morphological opposition between genitive/nominative case marking and partitive object case marking. However, case marking of Estonian objects is shown to be an unreliable indicator for aspectual verb class membership. The verb classification proposed here is established on the basis of tests that involve only the partitive object case. These tests employ the Estonian progressive. The tests distinguish verb classes from each other according to the situations they typically describe and predict several conditions of case assignment of patterns.

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.

scholarly journals Determiners and quantifiers in Spanish: types, tests and theories

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-108
Author(s):  
Antonio Fábregas
Keyword(s):  
Proper Names ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Indefinite Article ◽  
Semantic Properties

This article provides an overview about the main facts and analytical options in the domain of determiners and quantifiers in Spanish. It covers the main classification of determiners and their basic syntactic and semantic properties (§1), the differences in behaviour between quantifiers and determiners in the strict sense (§2), the notion of definiteness and the contrasts in the use of the definite and indefinite articles (§3), the notion of specificity (§4) and the main types of quantifiers and how they can be identified (§5). In terms of analytical problems, it discusses whether determiners should be considered heads or not (§6), the areas within the determiner and quantifier domain (§7), the nature of the indefinite article as an element that shares properties with existential quantifiers (§8), the problems posed by proper names (§9) and the possible existence of phonologically null determiners in Spanish (§10). Conclusions are presented in §11.

Case Variation in Eastern Polynesian Spatial PPs

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-83
Author(s):  
David J. Medeiros
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Feature ◽  
Feature Matching ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Distributed Morphology ◽  
Common Pattern ◽  
Spatial Prepositions ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Genitive Case

This chapter examines variation in terms of case marking within complex spatial prepositions in Hawaiian and Māori. A dialect difference is proposed such that post-revitalization Māori patterns with Hawaiian in the realization of genitive case within spatial prepositions (the cross-linguistically more common pattern), to the exclusion of pre-revitalization Māori. Working within a model in which genitive case within spatial prepositions follows from syntactic structure, the unexpected non-genitive marking in pre-revitalization Māori is linked to the grammar of possession in that language, as contrasted with Hawaiian and post-revitalization Māori. The specific case marking variation is modeled in terms of morphological feature matching in a Distributed Morphology framework. Therefore, independent properties of the grammar of possession accounts for the observed micro-variation.

Rethinking Verb Second and Nominative case assignment

2020 ◽  
pp. 575-593
Author(s):  
Ermenegildo Bidese ◽  
Andrea Padovan ◽  
Alessandra Tomaselli
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Verb Second ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Spreading Model ◽  
Traditional Argument ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Finite Verb

Cimbrian is a German(ic) VO heritage language that does not display the linear V2 restriction: the DP subject can show up before the finite verb together with other constituents, while German-like verb-subject inversion only obtains with clitic pronouns. In recent literature on Cimbrian, pronominal subject inversion has been taken as a traditional argument in favour of mandatory V-to-C movement (assuming a split-C configuration). Building on this assumption, the syntax of the enclitic expletive subject, -da/-ta, (which shows up whenever the DP subject does not raise in the C-domain) makes the Cimbrian data particularly relevant, since it casts light on the correlation between V2 and Nominative case licensing. The stance in this chapter is that Nominative case in Cimbrian is assigned by C—as generally assumed for Germanic V2 languages—but in an idiosyncratic way: (i) it applies within the C domain, i.e. FinP; (ii) expletive -da/-ta absorbs Nominative case and acts as a defective goal with respect to the ‘low’ subject. On the basis of the feature-spreading model in Ouali (2008), the phasal head C in Cimbrian is taken to ‘KEEP’ its relevant ϕ‎- and T-features, to assign Nominative case in [Spec,FinP], and to triggering mandatory V-movement.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document