Accusative case in passives

2021 ◽  
pp. 122-132
Author(s):  
Grant Goodall
Keyword(s):  
Accusative Case

The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Harley
Keyword(s):  
External Argument ◽  
Event Argument ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Korean And English

Following Pylkkänen (2002), among others, many of the functions of the vP have been distributed between two independent projections: VoiceP and vP. Pylkkänen proposed a “bundling” parameter: some languages project a single bundled Voice/vP, and all functions depend on that single projection, and others project VoiceP and vP separately, and functions are distributed. The chapter first reviews the roles ascribed to these projections: (i) external argument introduction, (ii) event argument introduction, (iii) accusative case checking, (iv) introduction of causative or inchoative semantics, (v) verbalizing of nonverbal material, and (vi) demarcating a cycle. The chapter then reviews support for Pylkkänen’s parametric view of Voice-bundling from, e.g., Hiaki, Turkish, Korean, and English. Results on causatives from Key (2013) and Jung (2014) suggest that the projection sequence dominating v may form part of a predetermined projection hierarchy. The constraint against stacking productive morphological causatives may thus be attributed to the extended verbal projection.

Copular clauses in Dene languages: Argument structure and interpretation

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-254
Author(s):  
Nicholas Welch ◽  
Marie-Louise Bouvier White
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Semantic Content ◽  
Compositional Semantics ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Lifetime Effects ◽  
Copular Clauses

AbstractA widely accepted assumption in both the syntactic and semantic literature is that copulas lack semantic content. A consequent question is how to explain the existence in certain languages of two copular verbs that give rise to different interpretations. Such is the case in numerous languages of the Dene family (formerly known as Athapaskan). We explain this situation with the hypothesis that the copulas realize an underlying three-copula system differing in argument structure. Differences between the interpretations of copular clauses in these languages originate in the compositional semantics of these structures, not in any lexical semantic differences.This hypothesis successfully predicts the distributional differences between the surface forms of the Dene copulas, such as their compatibility with adjuncts of time and intentionality, interactions with accusative case, and semantic lifetime effects.

Accusative case in passives

Linguistics ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant Goodall
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Standard View ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Passive Construction ◽  
Chinese And English

Abstract The standard explanation for Ν Ρ movement in the passive construction has been that the N P must move into the nominative position because no accusative case is available. This paper examines the implications for this view of some double-object constructions in Mandarin Chinese and English that are ungrammatical as active clauses but improve significantly as passives. These facts are unexpected under the standard view of passives, but I suggest that they can be explained if we assume that the second object is not licensed for case in the active versions but is able to check accusative case in the passive version, thus arguing that accusative case is available in passive clauses.

On Middle applicatives

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Current Paper ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
The Core ◽  
Light Verb ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Syntactic Derivation ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Special Strategy

Abstract The Mandarin bǎ-construction has been one of the most well studied subjects in Chinese grammar. Although the previous studies have achieved some exciting results, the exact nature of bǎ and the syntactic derivation of the bǎ-construction remain largely controversial. The current paper constitutes an attempt to clarify the two issues under the minimalist framework. In particular, while keeping in line with the little v analysis of bǎ proposed by Sybesma 1999; Lin 2001 among others, I argue that there is a Middle applicative projection (an affected applicative) between V and v; the bǎ-NP is formed by a movement of VP-internal arguments to Spec.ApplPmid, which can optionally be occupied by gěi, and it gets an accusative Case from bǎ in v. With this analysis, we can better account for the core syntactic and semantic properties of bǎ-constructions. Furthermore, I will show that the proposed applicative approach has some interesting consequences for Taiwanese ka-constructions, a near counterpart of Mandarin bǎ-constructions. Finally, I will compare bǎ-constructions to languages with differential object marking in arguing that Mandarin uses a special strategy – light verb marking to mark the specific/affected objects.

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