No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Types of ergativity
Abstract
This paper makes two main contributions to our understanding of ergativity. First, it supports the claim that ergative is an inherent case, through a study of the Warlpiri lexicon: no ergative-marked subjects are derived, in accordance with Marantz’ Generalization. Second, it reanalyses syntactic ergativity in Dyirbal. It demonstrates that the language underlyingly has an ergative–nominative–accusative case system, with imperfect morphological realization of these cases. It further shows that syntactic ergativity in Dyirbal is not sensitive to the absolutive, but rather underlying nominative and accusative, regardless of morphological realization.
... consequences, unlike what has been shown for Ika and Eastern Ostyac by Baker (2014). In Section 3, we investigate the nature of these differentially marked subjects, using diagnostics from Deo & Sharma (2006) and Legate (2012Legate ( , 2014, and show that they do not share the properties of nominative or ergative subjects. We then present our analysis in Section 4, showing that the absence of ergative case marking on subjects is linked to their person licensing requirements. ...
... There are two possible approaches to the ergative case assignment on the 3 rd person subject. According to the first analysis, the ergative is a theta related inherent case valued on the subject in the specifier of vP (in keeping with Legate 2008Legate , 2012. ...
Punjabi, an Indo-Aryan language, has both aspect and person-based split ergativity; ergative subjects appear only in the perfective, and only 3 rd person subjects may bear ergative case. We analyze Punjabi 1 st /2 nd person subjects in the perfective and present evidence that they are neither ergative nor nominative. These DPs (determiner phrases) carry a [+person] feature that must enter into a valuation relation with a head, obeying Béjar and Rezac's (2003) Person Licensing Condition. This head, µ, we assume, lies between vP and TP (Tense Phrase) and values the raised 1 st /2 nd DPs as oblique. 3 rd person DPs remain in situ at vP and are ergative case-valued. The theoretical implication is that differential subject marking is a configurational phenomenon. The relative position of the subjects, determined by their person licensing requirements, is crucial to their differential case marking. We also show that Punjabi differential subject marking is independent of differential object marking.
... The same is not true of Italian, where PP complements do not seem to count for transitivity in the same way (13). This variation recalls the fact that DP objects with inherent case count for transitivity in some ergative languages, but not others (Legate 2012, Baker 2015, though the interspeaker variation is problematic. For example, in our Catalan survey, 21/57 speakers accepted the dative in (12) and 45/57 the accusative. ...
... The same is not true of Italian, where PP complements do not seem to count for transitivity in the same way (13). This variation recalls the fact that DP objects with inherent case count for transitivity in some ergative languages, but not others (Legate 2012, Baker 2015, though the interspeaker variation is problematic. For example, in our Catalan survey, 21/57 speakers accepted the dative in (12) and 45/57 the accusative. ...
... Walpiri, Niuean), there are also so-called 'syntactically ergative languages': both those which display ergative A-bar properties (i.e. ban A-bar extraction of transitive subjects) but accusative A-properties (Tagalog, Chukchi), and those which display ergative A-and A-bar properties, the so-called high absolutive languages, which fail to license absolutive objects in non-finite clauses -Q'anjob'al, Seediq (see Aldridge 2004Aldridge , 2008Legate 2008Legate , 2012Deal 2015;Coon, Pedro & Preminger 2014;Sheehan 2017). The contrast between high absolutive (high ABS) Q'anjob'al and low absolutive (low ABS) Chol (both Mayan languages) can be seen in: (i) the location of absolutive morphology on the aspect marker or verb respectively (4)-(5), (ii) the availability of absolutive case in aspectless nominalisations (6)- (7) and (iii) the possibility of A-bar extraction of the transitive ergative subject (8) (all data from Coon et al. 2014, see also Tada 1993). ...
This paper provides evidence for a kind of nominal licensing (Vergnaud licensing) in a number of morphologically caseless languages. Recent work on Bantu languages has suggested that abstract Case or nominal licensing should be parameterised (Diercks 2012, Van der Wal 2015a). With this is mind, we critically discuss the status of Vergnaud licensing in six languages lacking morphological case. While Luganda appears to systematically lack a Vergnaud licensing requirement, Makhuwa more consistently displays evidence in favour of it, as do all of the analytic languages that we survey (Mandarin, Yoruba, Jamaican Creole and Thai). We conclude that, while it seems increasingly problematic to characterise nominal licensing in terms of uninterpretable/abstract Case features, we nonetheless need to retain a (possibly universal) notion of nominal licensing, the explanation for which remains opaque.
... The importance of transitivity is also recognized by Hopper and Thompson (1982), "In many languages (and perhaps covertly in all languages) the transitivity relationship lies at the explanatory core of most grammatical processes". The central place of transitive constructions in language is reflected by its links with other constructions in language such as intransitive constructions (Dilin, 2008), the passive voice (Shibatani, 2006), and ergative constructions (Legate, 2012). ...
Linguistic studies suggest that transitivity is a prototypical concept which is gradable, and different types of transitive constructions reflect different degrees of transitivity. As such, the flexibility of transitive constructions is difficult for Chinese EFL learners. The author seeks to study how Chinese EFL learners use a particular type of transitive construction, those with neutral participants (TCNP), to reveal Chinese EFL learners’ conceptual features in using transitive constructions. The author selected three verbs in the study: enter, join and reach, then conducted a series of comparisons of their uses between a Chinese EFL learner corpus and a native learner. The author found that Chinese EFL learners’ uses are different in a number of ways: they tend to rely more on the transitive pattern and use less intransitive and passive voice pattern, to use more animate entities as subjects, especially the first person pronouns, but to use more inanimate entities as objects. However, in the comparisons between different levels of Chinese EFL learners, we found that all Chinese EFL learners use these verbs similarly with no regard to their English levels, indicating that Chinese EFL learners have no conceptual change in English. The author argues that the constraining effect of the prototypical transitive construction leads to the different uses of TCNPs by Chinese EFL learners in comparison with native speakers.
... (Blake, 2001:59). With regards to Basque ergativity, controversy exists as to whether Basque ergativity is inherently (Oyharçabal, 1992;Chomsky, 1993;Woolford, 1997Woolford, , 2006Laka, 2006;Legate, 2008Legate, , 2012 or structurally assigned (Bobaljik, 1993;Laka, 1993;Chomsky, 2000Chomsky, , 2001Anand & Nevins, 2012;Rezac et al., 2011;Preminger, 2012;Arregi & Nevins, 2012;Siebecker & Kramer, 2014). Under the inherent view, it has been suggested that there is no disassociation between theta role and case assignment (Laka, 2006), postulating that case is assigned in the initial position where the subject is generated. ...
... É proposto então que a atribuição de Caso se dá a partir de uma relação de regência, ou seja, de c-comando e de localidade. Chomsky (2000) Woolford (1997), Massam (2002), Legate (2003Legate ( , 2012, entre outros. 26 Woolford (2006) adota o modelo de McGinnis (1996McGinnis ( , 1998McGinnis ( , 2001, segundo o qual há dois tipos diferentes de núcleos v dentro da estrutura/fase vP, a saber: o v A que introduz o argumento externo (agente) e o v G que introduz o argumento alvo. ...
This dissertation aims to study the verbal agreement system in Brazilian Sign Language. More specifically, I investigate the regular agreement verbs and the backward agreement verbs based on the recent findings under the Minimalist Program and the theory about agreement, Case and ergativity (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001; Miyagawa 2010; Legate 2008; Woolford 2006; among others). Thus, I propose that regular agreement verbs show a nominative array of agreement; in which the subject of the sentence bears nominative Case and the object is marked with accusative Case. This Case assignment configuration gives rise to a SUBJECT SUBJVERBOBJ OBJECT agreement array. On the other hand, backward agreement verbs show an ergative agreement pattern; in which the subject gets inherent ergative Case and the object bears nominative Case. This distribution results in a SUBJECT OBJVERBSUBJ OBJECT agreement array. I also discuss the mechanism that allows the object of a backward agreement verb to bear a nominative Case in situ and that allows the agreement between v and the ergative subject, to wit: the movement of v to T, thereby resulting in the complex head T+v. This complex head turns the object visible to the ϕ-probe in T and also makes possible an Agree relation between the ϕ-probe carried along with v and the ergative subject of the sentence. In this dissertation, I also deal with the auxiliary (AUX) in Brazilian Sign Language. I propose that AUX is actually a topic marker that indicates that both subject and object moved to a topic position (consequently, I will notate it as xIXy). In this sense, I propose that xIXy is situated in an intermediary projection between CP and TP: αP (Miyagawa, 2010).
... Novamente, recorremos à proposta de Woolford (2006) 7 , segundo a qual apenas o núcleo (little-)v é capaz de licenciar Caso inerente. Assim, a autora faz duas predições: v atribui Caso 7 Ver também Woolford (1997), Massam (2002), Legate (2003), entre outros. ...
This paper intends to delineate a syntactic derivation for verbal agreement in Brazilian Sign Language. More specifically, we analyze regular agreement verbs and backward agreement verbs. Following the recent framework of the Generative Theory concerning this topic (CHOMSKY, 2000, 2001; MYIAGAWA, 2010; WOOLFORD, 2006; BAKER, 2008; BITTNER AND HALE, 1996; and others), we claim that sentences with a regular agreement verb show a nominative agreement pattern, in which the subject bears nominative Case and the object bears accusative Case. On the other hand, sentences with a backward agreement verb show an ergative agreement pattern, in which the subject receives inherent ergative Case and the object bears nominative Case.
... Looking at the history of Case theory in the Government & Binding (GB) era of Universal Grammar in the modern sense (see Lasnik, 2008, for a review), it appears as if thematic roles were as close as we could get to rationalizing Case in terms of independently given 'semantic' notions. 1 When thematic roles, which clearly help to rationalize non-structural Case ('inherent' and 'lexical' Case: cf. Woolford, 2006;Legate, 2008Legate, , 2012 give out, structural Case seems to transpire as an apparently meaninglesspurely 'syntactic'aspect of grammatical organization, reflecting a formal licensing constraint on nominal arguments with no deeper rationale. This prevailing uncertainty over the nature of structural Case reflects our deeper and equally prevailing uncertainty over the independent rationale of grammar itself, insofar as the latter goes beyond what seems minimally required to make a system based on lexical meaning semantically compositional. ...
Case marking has long resisted rationalization in terms of language-external systems of cognition, representing a classical illustration in the generative tradition for an apparently purely ‘formal’ or ‘syntactic’ aspect of grammatical organization. I argue that this impasse derives from the prevailing absence of a notion of grammatical meaning, i.e. meaning unavailable lexically or in non-linguistic cognition and uniquely dependent on grammatical forms of organization. In particular, propositional forms of reference, contrary to their widespread designation as ‘semantic’, are arguably not only grammar-dependent but depend on relations designated as structural ‘Cases’. I further argue that these fail to reduce to thematic structure, Person, Tense, or Agreement. Therefore, Case receives a rationalization in terms of how lexical memory is made referential and propositional in language. Structural Case is ‘uninterpretable’ (bereft of content) only if a non-grammatical notion of meaning is employed, and sapiens-specific cognition is (implausibly) regarded as unmediated by language.
... She also proposes that inherent case is licensed by the v head that introduces the external argument. Legate (2012) makes an important amendment to this, by suggesting that ergative case should not be linked to the agent theta role alone. All external theta roles including causative, experiencer, instrumental can also get ergative case. ...
This paper discusses ergative subject constructions with unergatives in the perfective aspect in an Indo-Aryan language Punjabi. Our main thesis is that ergative case marking on unergative subjects is determined neither by (i) the transitivity of lexical (unergative) verbs nor by (ii) the case valuing properties of light verbs. We present evidence suggesting that Punjabi unergatives are transitives with overt cognate/implicit objects and yet take ergative subjects optionally. Moreover, light verbs – that as lexical verbs, take obligatory ergative subjects – either opt for optional ergative or obligatory nominative in unergative-light verb complexes. We propose that ergative is an inherent case assigned to the external argument in the specifier of v, in instances when nominative case valuation by C-T is prevented by phase boundaries.
This paper addresses syncretism patterns differential object marking (DOM) constructed with oblique morphology (dative, locative, genitive) induces cross-linguistically. It is shown that enriched case hierarchies (Starke 2017, Caha 2019, a.o.), which are also extended to ergative-absolutive systems, derive all these syncretisms. Enriched case hierarchies also capture crucial properties of the oblique DOM types discussed here: i) such categories have the syntax of direct objects, as types of structural accusatives, and not obliques, making their oblique appearance rather a matter of PF syncretism; ii) at the same time, oblique DOM can show syntactic differences from unmarked accusatives, motivating the need for more than one instance of the accusative in the hierarchy.
Languages display global preferences for transitive, intransitive or underspecified roots in their verbal lexicon and correspondingly for the use of processes for deriving related concepts with different valency (cf. Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8. 149–211). This classification is particularly relevant when applied to psych verbs, since variable linking is a widely recognized feature of this domain. This paper reports on the results of a larger typological study, involving 26 languages from 15 language families, aimed at investigating directionality in the psych alternation. In our data, most languages show preferences for one of the alternation strategies (augmented, reduced, undirected) which is then pervasive in their psych inventory, while the alternative patterns are marginally represented. Furthermore, the Indo-European languages of Europe stand out in being detransitivizing in the psych domain whereas transitivizing and underspecified languages do not show areal patterns. Moreover, we found a significant impact of alignment type on the occurrence of alternation strategies to the effect that reducing strategies are significantly less frequent in languages with ergative traits compared to languages without ergative traits. Our data also showed a positive effect of alignment in the undirected strategies meaning that undirected pairs are significantly more frequent in languages with ergative traits.
The westernmost languages of the Austronesian family show verbal alternations that are traditionally referred to as a voice system. This paper investigates the syntax of the voice system in Mandar, a language of the South Sulawesi subfamily. It argues that this alternation tracks alternations in argument structure, determines patterns of Case-Licensing in the voice p , and positions a single argument, the pivot, to raise to the highest a -position in the clause. The process that positions the pivot is decomposed into two steps: first, a process of Object Shift that moves definite arguments out of the vp and second, a process that places the pivot in spec,tp as the result of Case-Licensing by t ⁰ . Evidence for this analysis is drawn from contexts where the external argument undergoes {\bar{\textsc {a}}} A ¯ -extraction and the internal argument is definite. In that context, the language employs a special construction which allows the external argument to be the pivot, allows the internal argument to undergo Object Shift, and provides the means to Case-License it within the v p . I refer to this construction as the Agent Focus and argue that it has a syntax similar to the analogous construction in the Mayan languages of the Q’anjob’alan subfamily.
Some recent work has argued that agreement and case-assignment dependencies between a functional head and a nearby NP are not part of the syntactic derivation proper, but take place in the postsyntactic, morphological component of the grammar. I argue that this view is correct, by showing that one of its largely unexplored predictions has real empirical payout. The prediction is that the dependency-forming properties of functional heads, being morphological in nature, are mutable, and may be conditioned by nearby roots and functional structure. I focus here on Voice heads in Choctaw, and my starting assumption is that, by default, (the Voice head which introduces a specifier) agrees with its specifier (the external argument) and (i.e. specifier-less Voice, found in unaccusatives) does not agree with anything. However, I propose that in some environments, does launch a -probe, and it results in agreeing with the internal argument. I refer to these configurations as ‘low ergatives’. A small survey of previous work on case and agreement dependencies suggests (a) that the case-assignment properties of functional heads are mutable in the same way, and (b) that the reverse is attested – in some environments fails to launch a -probe. This is consistent with a purely morphological model of agreement and case-assignment: just as the exponence and interpretation of functional heads can be conditioned by adjacent roots and functional material, so too can the dependency-forming properties of those heads be conditioned in the same way.
The article argues that the syntactic behavior of non-absolutive subjects of finite clauses in the Nakh-Daghestanian language Chirag Dargwa is a result of their interaction with two different functional heads in a clause: v and T. Discussing empirical data from Chirag, I present the puzzling behavior of person agreement, which shows selective sensitivity to arguments in the ergative, dative, and genitive cases. The primary evidence comes from the periphrastic causative, which displays some typologically unusual properties in case marking and agreement. I show that the ability to trigger person agreement is not an intrinsic property of ergative, dative, and genitive DPs in Chirag, but rather is endowed to the highest DP in T’s c-command domain over the course of the derivation. I propose that all non-absolutive subjects start out as DPs assigned inherent case and a theta-role by v , and that T further assigns structural nominative case to the DP in Spec, v P, thus making it accessible to φ-probes.
I show that case syncretism obeys the same *ABA restriction previously observed in case-sensitive suppletion: no Vocabulary-Insertion rule can apply to both an inherent case and an unmarked core case (nominative/absolutive) without also applying to another core case (accusative/ergative). The case hierarchy that these effects motivate is one where the ergative is consistently put in the same box as the accusative, separately from all inherent cases. This offers a new kind of argument in favor of dependent-case theories, whereby accusative and ergative are both structurally assigned to nominals that stand in an asymmetric c-command relation to another as-yet-caseless nominal nearby.
Applicatives of unaccusatives provide a crucial test case for the inherent-case view of ergativity. If ergative is assigned only to external arguments, in their θ-positions, there can be no “raising to ergative” in applicative unaccusatives; an internal argument subject can never receive ergative case. In this article, I present evidence from Nez Perce (Sahaptian) that this prediction is false. In Nez Perce applicative unaccusatives, the theme argument raises over the applicative argument and is accordingly marked with ergative case. Nez Perce thus demonstrates raising to ergative. Departing from Baker’s (2014) conclusions for similar phenomena in Shipibo (Panoan), I argue that apparently nonlocal movement of the theme in the raising-to-ergative pattern involves not a covert adpositional structure, but rather a response to independently motivated constraints on antilocal movement and remnant movement.
This paper proposes that feature values emerge dynamically from the interaction between features and the internal/structural and language-external environments. Feature values constitute a second, flexible layer around a selected sub-set of innate features, and effect linguistic variation within dialects and typologically related languages. Big, structural changes however originate from restricted changes in feature composition themselves, often the result of adding a new feature to the language-particular sub-set or repurposing some existing feature. Relevant analogies with biological variation are discussed in favor of the multi-level approach to linguistic variation proposed here.
The papers assembled in this volume aim to contribute to our understanding of the human capacity for language: the generative procedure that relates sounds and meanings via syntax. Different hypotheses about the properties of this generative procedure are under discussion, and their connection with biology is open to important cross-disciplinary work. Advances have been made in human-animal studies to differentiate human language from animal communication. Contributions from neurosciences point to the exclusive properties of the human brain for language. Studies in genetically based language impairments also contribute to the understanding of the properties of the language organ. This volume brings together contributions on theoretical and experimental investigations on the Language Faculty. It will be of interest to scholars and students investigating the properties of the biological basis of language, in terms the modeling of the language faculty, as well as the properties of language variation, language acquisition and language impairments.
Some languages showing morphological ergativity in case and/or agreement also show ergative patterns in core syntactic domains - syntactic ergativity. The most-studied type of syntactic ergativity is a ban on the ? movement of ergative subjects; an additional type concerns the distribution of absolutives in nonfinite clauses. This article first presents the standard view of syntactic ergativity, which is closely connected to the treatment of ergative as an inherent case. Evidence from Shipibo suggests that a ban on ergative ? extraction does not require inherent ergative. This points to a view of syntactic ergativity centered around morphological case discrimination. One consequence is that pure head-marking languages cannot feature a true ban on ergative extraction, because ergative morphological case is not in use. This conclusion highlights the challenging tasks of diagnosing extraction restrictions in pure head-marking languages, as in the Mayan and Salish families, and of distinguishing extraction restrictions from instances where extraction merely interacts with agreement. A variety of crosslinguistic evidence suggests that agreement/extraction interactions are fully possible in morphologically ergative languages, and not only for ergative arguments. Special morphology in the context of transitive subject extraction is therefore not necessarily evidence of syntactic ergativity.
Many morphologically ergative languages display asymmetries in the extraction of core arguments: while absolutive arguments (transitive objects and intransitive subjects) extract freely, ergative arguments (transitive subjects) cannot. This falls under the label “syntactic ergativity” (see, e.g. Dixon 1972, 1994; Manning 1996; Polinsky to appear(b)). These extraction asymmetries are found in many languages of the Mayan family, where in order to extract transitive subjects (for focus, questions, or relativization), a special construction known as the “Agent Focus” (AF) must be used. These AF constructions have been described as syntactically and semantically transitive because they contain two non-oblique DP arguments, but morphologically intransitive because the verb appears with only a single agreement marker and takes an intransitive status suffix (Aissen 1999; Stiebels 2006). In this paper we offer a proposal for (i) why some morphologically ergative languages exhibit extraction asymmetries, while others do not; and (ii) how the AF construction in Q’anjob’al circumvents this problem. We adopt recent accounts which argue that ergative languages vary in the locus of absolutive case assignment (Aldridge 2004, 2008a; Legate 2002, 2008), and propose that this variation is present within the Mayan family. Based primarily on comparative data from Q’anjob’al and Chol, we argue that the inability to extract ergative arguments does not reflect a problem with properties of the ergative subject itself, but rather reflects locality properties of absolutive case assignment in the clause. We show how the AF morpheme -
on
circumvents this problem in Q’anjob’al by assigning case to internal arguments.
We investigate the nature of morphological ergativity through the ergative/split-S system of Basque. We show that in Basque ergative case and agreement reflect structural rather than inherent Case: Agree/Move rather than selection. Evidence comes from the core distinctions between these dependency types, including ergative-absolutive alternations due to absolutive Exceptional Case Marking of external arguments and raising-to-ergative of internal arguments. In consequence, structural Agree/Case systems cannot be reduced to a nominative-accusative basis with an inherent ergative, as has been proposed. Our investigation sheds light on the nature of structural ergativity in Basque. First, ergativity like nominativity comes from the T-system, whereas absolutivity and accusativity are in the v-system. Second, ergative agreement can occur under unbounded c-command through Agree, like nominative, accusative, and absolutive case and agreement, but ergative case requires movement to Spec,T, bearing out the ergative as a ‘marked’ structural Case. Third, structural Agree/Case systems are parametrizable to give both ergative and accusative alignments and islands of exceptionality within each. We develop a theoretical account of these results in the Agree framework of the Principles-and-Parameters approach, building on previous theories of structural ergativity.
Focusing on the Shipibo language, I defend a simple “dependent case” theory of ergative case marking, where ergative case is assigned to the higher of two NPs in a clausal domain. I show how apparent failures of this rule can be explained assuming that VP is a Spell-Out domain distinct from the clause, and that this bleeds ergative case assignment for c-command relationships that already exist in VP and are unchanged in CP. This accounts for the apparent underapplication of ergative case marking with ditransitives, reciprocals, and dyadic experiencer verbs, as opposed to the applicatives of unaccusative verbs, which do have ergative subjects. Finally, I show how case assignment interacts with restructuring to explain constructions in which ergative case appears to be optional.
This chapter presents an absolute explanation for universal patterns. The following criteria should converge to identify true universals: (1) universals have no exceptions (for what does not arise by change cannot be subverted by it either). That is, they are violable only in virtue of more highly ranked universal constraints. (2) Universals are process-independent. (3) Universals can be manifested in 'emergence of the unmarked' effects. (4) Universals constitute pathways for analogical change. (5) Universals are embedded in grammars as constraints and can interact with other grammatical constraints. Choosing as testing grounds Binding Theory and split ergativity in morphosyntax, and voicing neutralization and sonority in phonology, it is argued that criteria do converge rather cleanly in each case.
A kind of case marking-termed variously active, active-neutral, active-inactive, active-static, stative-active, agentive, agent-patient, split S, and split intransitive-is shown to be less arbitrary than is sometimes assumed. Its semantic bases can be missed if sought only in immediate one-to-one correspondences between meaning and form. Case systems of this kind are often the products of successive diachronic developments, each individually motivated. Several factors can obscure the motivations, including not only crosslinguistic differences in detail, but also shifts of defining features over time, grammaticization, and lexicalization. To explain why these case systems have the shapes they do, we must appreciate both the diversity of features that can underlie them and the dynamic processes that mold them.
Léa Nash (1996) 1. Die Hypothese Folgende Tatsachen sollten laut Nash (1996) durch eine Analyse der Ergativität erklärt werden: Der Ergativ ist, im Gegensatz zum Akkusativ nie unmarkiert, und er besitzt oft weitere Funktionen (z.B. Lokativ, Instrumental, Genitiv). Es existiert anscheinend keine Ergativsprache mit Verbmittelstellung, also SVO oder OVS. Dieses leistet laut Nash die IESH: (1) The Internal Ergative Subject Hypothesis (IESH) a. Das Agens wird VP-intern verkettet. b. Es gibt keine Kategorie v. Es ergeben sich folgende Strukturen für Akkusativ-und Ergativsprachen: (2) Struktur in Akkusativsprachen vP¨¨ vP¨vP¨¨ ¨ r r r Agens v ¨ ¨ ¨ r r r v VP¨¨ VP¨VP¨¨ r r Patiens V Struktur in Ergativsprachen VP¨¨ VP¨VP¨¨ ¨ ¨ r r r r Agens V ¨ ¨ r r Patiens V Da v, das in Akkusativsprachen den Akkusativ valuiert, in Ergativsprachen nicht exi-stiert, wird kein Akkusativ zugewiesen. Der Absolutiv bzw. Nominativ wird in beiderlei Sprachtypen von T lizenziert. Der Ergativ wird als lexikalischer Kasus analysiert. 2. Satzstellung Annahme: Das Verb nimmt sein Argument immer zur Linken. Dann ergeben sich für die Satzstellung in Ergativsprachen die zwei Möglichkeiten in (3), wegen des Fehlens von v steht (4) für Ergativsprachen nicht zur Verfügung.
Linguistics Version of Record
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Stanford University, 1994. Submitted to the Department of Linguistics. Copyright by the author.
Professor Ferenc Kiefer of the Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was instrumental in bringing early transformational grammar to Europe. His extensive work contributes substantially to making a connection between the grammatical theory and other areas of linguistics. The 17 essays in this book celebrate his career by continuing to explore inter-area research in linguistics: pragmatics in grammar (de Groot, van Riemsdijk, Dressler & Barbaresi, Comrie), semantic compositionality and pragmatics (Wunderlich, Partee, Borschev, Szabo, Bach), logical structures and universals in semantics and pragmatics (van der Auwera, Bultinck, Burton-Roberts, Harnish, Wierzbicka) dialogue and thematic structure (Jonasson, Doherty, Hajicova, Panevova, Sgall, Allwood, Fraser).
This chapter examines the “strong minimalist thesis” (SMT) that language is an optimal solution to interface conditions that must be satisfied by the faculty of language. SMT emerged within the principles-and-parameters framework of generative grammar and involves efficient computation that requires the restriction of computational resources as well as minimization of computations. The chapter suggests that Merge constitutes the sole computational operation in narrow syntax and proposes a No Tampering Condition (NTC) to prevent Merge from making internal changes to the syntactic objects (SOs) to which it applies. It first reviews some recent and ongoing work in the general framework of the so-called Minimalist Program before turning to the theory of phases, the Inclusiveness Condition, and the Phase Impenetrability Condition. It also discusses two forms of Merge, external merge and internal merge, the latter of which is driven by edge features of lexical items.
Agreement plays a central role in modern generative grammar. The present collection brings together contributions from experts on various aspects of agreement systems in the world’s languages in an attempt to formulate formal and substantive universals in this domain. All the papers contained here focus on the formalization of the mechanisms of agreement and on the relationship between case and agreement. All the papers propose solutions by seriously examining cross-linguistic data from the usual Germanic and Romance languages to Lummi, Greek, Hindi, Turkish and other Turkic languages, Japanese, Tsez, Masaai, Russian, Arabic, Basque, Warlpiri, Kaltakungu, and Bantu.
egrettably, there are all too many candidates that qualify as imminent and very serious crises. Several should be high on everyone's agenda of concern, because they pose literal threats to human survival: the increasing likelihood of a terminal nuclear war, and environmental disaster, which may not be too far removed. However, I would like to focus on narrower issues, those that are of greatest concern in the West right now. I will be speaking primarily of the United States, which I know best, and it is the most important case because of its enormous power. But as far as I can ascertain, Europe is not very different This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.
Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
The relationship between the meaning of words and the structure of sentences is an important area of research in linguistics. Studying the connections between lexical conceptual meaning and event structural relations, this book arrives at a modular classification of verb types within English and across languages. Ramchand argues that lexical encyclopedic content and event structural aspects of meaning need to be systematically distinguished, and that thematic and aspectual relations belong to the latter domain of meaning. The book proposes a syntactic decompositional view of core verbal meaning, and sets out to account for the variability and systematicity of argument structure realisation across verb types. It also proposes an interesting view of lexical insertion.
Abstract The theory,of Case and,agreement,presented,in Bittner and,Hale 1996 reduces,the traditional distinction between,syntactic and,morphological,ergativity to a,structural difference — namely, opacity or transparency of VP to government from C. This hypothesis,is tested,against,detailed,evidence,from,Inuit (opaque) and,Warlpiri (transparent). The complex,Case and,agreement,systems,of both languages,are fully accounted for, and it is shown that the proposed structures further explain other structure-sensitive phenomena (minimal scope options, obviation, and A′-control). In each area, the differences with respect to transparency have predictable consequences, and the similarities follow from universal syntactic principles. Keywords: Case, agreement, A′-binding, scope, Inuit, Warlpiri. 2 Contents
We analyze Case in terms of independent constraints on syntactic structures — namely, the Projection Principle (inherent Case), the ECP (marked structural Case), and the theory of extended projections (the nominative, a Caseless nominal projection). The resulting theory accounts for (1) the government constraint on Case assignment, (2) all major Case systems (accusative, ergative, active, three-way, and split), (3) Case alternations (passive, antipassive, and ECM), and (4) the Case of nominal possessors. Structural Case may correlate with pronominal agreement because the former can, and the latter must, involve antecedent-government by a functional head. However, neither phenomenon implies the other.
This article examines the relationship between and morphological case, arguing that morphological case realizes Case features in a postsyntactic morphology, according to the Elsewhere Condition. A class of prima facie ergative-absolutive languages is identified wherein intransitive subjects receive nominative Case and transitive objects receive accusative Case; these are realized through a morphological default, which is often mislabeled as absolutive. Further support comes from split ergativity based on a nominal hierarchy, which is shown to have a morphological source. Proposals that case and agreement are purely morphological phenomena are critiqued.
The Anatolian branch of Indo-European is characterized by a split-ergative case-marking system in which neuters inflect ergatively and common-gender nouns inflect accusatively; its ergative case originated via the reanalysis of an unproductive neuter instrumental marker in null-subject transitive clauses. A development from instrumental to ergative also occurred in the prehistory of the Gorokan languages of Papua New Guinea, and it is suggested that this process is a general mechanism for the development of split ergativity of this type. The well-known NP hierarchy discovered by Silverstein receives a natural interpretation as a hierarchy of instrumentality.
Multiple marking systems refer to case, agreement, and word order patternings that make use of more than two positions, agreement patterns or case markings, such as the phenomena of split ergativity and differential object marking. It is proposed here that such systems are sensitive to a particular version of phase theory. In particular it is argued that each phase consists of a single argument, the predicate that introduces it and a temporal operator. Since each phase is independently sent to the LF and PF interfaces, it is claimed each phase contains a restrictor and a nuclear scope for the argument in question. It is mapping to these phase internal scopal positions that gives rise to the appearance of argument (accessibility) hierarchies that seem to govern multiple marking systems.
Volume 1 of Non-nominative Subjects (NNSs) presents the most recent research on this topic from a wide range of languages from diverse language families of the world, with ample data and in-depth analysis. A significant feature of these volumes is that authors with different theoretical perspectives study the intricate questions raised by these constructions. Some of the central issues include the subject properties of noun phrases with ergative, dative, accusative and genitive case, case assignment and checking, anaphor–antecedent coreference, the nature of predicates with NNSs, whether they are volitional or non-volitional, possibilities of control coreference and agreement phenomena. These analyses have significant implications for theories of syntax and verbal semantics, first language acquisition of NNSs, convergence of case marking patterns in language contact situations, and the nature of syntactic change.
A fundamental issue of current linguistic theory is whether grammatical relations are reducible to the categories of constituent structure and morphology, or whether they should be treated as an independent level of representation defined in terms of the functions SUBJECT, OBJECT, etc. For instance, Williams (1980) defines generalizations governing control in terms of c-command, a relation on constituent structures, while Bresnan (1982) argues that functional structures, not constituent structures, contain the information needed to provide a universal theory of control. The Australian Aboriginal language, Warlpiri, provides valuable evidence bearing on the issue. As Hale (1982, 1983) and Nash (1980) have shown, Warlpiri has extremely free word-order, discontinuous expressions and extensive zeroanaphora. Thus, in its surface constituency relations Warlpiri differs radically from languages such as English. We will show that the generalizations governing control and obviation in Warlpiri are best expressed in terms of universal grammatical functions rather than the structural and morphological categories of the language. After motivating the need for references to SUBJECT and OBJECT functions in the control and obviation system, we will give an explicit account of these phenomena in terms of the lexical-functional theory of grammar (LFG). A controlled clause is a clause, one of whose arguments is obligatorily left unexpressed under identity with an argument in another clause. We use the term obviation (a term borrowed by Hale (1982) from American Indian linguistics) to refer to the exclusion of certain possible controllers or antecedents for arguments. For example, in an obviation system the antecedent of a certain anaphor may be required not to be a subject. Warlpiri has an elaborate obviation system for determining the reference of controlled subjects in nonfinite clauses of contemporaneous action (Hale 1982, 1983, Nash 1980). These clauses, like all non-finite clauses, are formed * This paper is a substantially revised version of a paper with the same name that was presented at the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, and published in the Proceedings of that conference. We gratefully acknowledge the generosity of Kenneth Hale in providing most of the information on which this paper is based, and in making many helpful comments on earlier drafts. We would also like to thank Mary Laughren for providing information, and Peter Austin, Jane Grimshaw, Ronald Kaplan, Lori Levin, K. P. Mohanan, Joan Maling, David Nash, Peter Peterson and Annie Zaenen for comments on earlier drafts and on the analysis of Warlpiri that underlies this paper. Several anonymous NLLT reviewers made very useful criticisms.
A formal approach to the typology of differential object marking (DOM) is developed within the framework of Optimality Theory. The functional/typological literature has established that variation in DOM is structured by the dimensions of animacy and definiteness, with degree of prominence on these dimensions directly correlated with the likelihood of overt case-marking. In the present analysis, the degree to which DOM penetrates the class of objects reflects the tension between two types of principles. One involves iconicity: the more marked a direct object qua object, the more likely it is to be overtly case-marked. The other is a principle of economy: avoid case-marking. The tension between the two principles is resolved differently in different languages, as determined by language-particular ranking of the corresponding constraints. Constraints expressing object markedness are derived throughharmonic alignment of prominence scales. Harmonic alignment predicts a corresponding phenomenon ofdifferential subject marking. This too exists, though in a less articulated form.
The grammar of Warlpiri, an Aboriginal language of Central Australia, exhibits a number of properties which have come to be associated with the typological label 'non-configurational,' including, among others, (i) free word order, (ii) the use of syntactically discontinuous expressions, and (iii) extensive use of null anaphora. The present paper represents a report on work in progress dealing with the question of the position of warlpiri, and other languages of the type it represents, in a typology defined by a general theory of natural language. Specifically, I am concerned with the question of whether there exists a unified explanation for the concurrence in Warlpiri of certain properties, including those mentioned above, which distinguish it observationally from languages of another type, to which the label 'configurational' has been applied and which includes, among others, English. I To put the question in other words: Is there a parameter, clearly definable within a general theory of language, from which the observed differences between the two linguistic types follow straightforwardly? Free word order is amply exemplified in any sufficiently large body of Warlpiri narrative or conversation. Moreover, to an extraordinary degree, it is true of Warlpiri that sentences containing the same content words in different linear arrangements count as repetitions of one another. Thus, for example, a sentence like (1) below may be rendered with the subject, object, and verb in any order, the only requirement being that the element which * I would like to thank a number of Warlpiri speakers and colleagues in Warlpiri linguistics for helping me to learn what I know of Warlpiri grammar: Sam Japangardi Johnson, George Jampijinpa Robertson, Robin Japanangka Granites, Paddy Jupurrula Stuart, Darby Jampijinpa, Dinny Japaljarri Anderson, Mary Napaljarri Laughren, David Jungarrayi Nash, and Jane Nangala Simpson. And I wish to dedicate this paper to the memory of the late Mick Jupurrula Connell who got me started on the study of Warlpiri. I am also extremely grateful to Ann, Adrian, and Frank for urging me to write this essay, and especially to Sally, Caleb, and Ezra for making it possible for me to do so. None of the above mentioned people is to be blamed for shortcomings and distortions in this paper. 1 The terms 'configurational' and 'non-configurational' are used in Chomsky, 1981, where a number of thought-provoking suggestions are made concerning the grammar of Japanese, assuming it to be non-configurational, as suggested in Farmer, 1980. I use these terms in essentially the same sense, though I am contrasting what might be termed "canonical" exemplars of the types (Warlpiri vs. English), while recognizing that many languages present mixed testimony in the extent to which they exhibit the superficial characteristics of non-configurational languages.
In the context of an analysis of the four-way Case system of Nez Perce, this paper presents evidence for three claims concerning Case theory. First, ergative is not a structural Case like nominative or accusative; instead, ergative is a lexical Case like the dative. Second, contrary to the usual assumption that UG allows for only one structural Case for objects, there are, in fact, two structural object Cases available in UG: one, termed objective Case here, is assigned/checked in Spec Agr-O and is associated with object agreement, if the language has object agreement. There is a limit of one objective Case per clause. The other, termed accusative Case here, is assigned/checked by V inside VP and is never associated with object agreement. There may be more than one structural accusative Case per clause. The third claim is that the following descriptive generalization holds universally: in a clause with a lexically Cased subject (e.g., ergative or dative) the highest object cannot have structural accusative Case (although that object can have objective Case). That generalization and the facts that motivated Burzios (1986) generalization are manifestations of a broader generalization governing the maximum number of accusative Cases that a verb can assign.
This paper examines the placement of aspect and agreement clitics in Warlpiri. A common misconception regarding clitic placement
in Warlpiri is cleared up: clitic placement does not depend on syllable count. It is also shown that these clitics do not
uniformly appear in second position, syntactically or phonologically, making the standard label of “second position clitics”
a misnomer. An analysis is developed in terms of syntactic head movement combined with local morphological reordering. The
discussion also reveals a genuine morphological first word phenomenon, whereby a preverb may be split from its associated
verb.
In addition to the division in Case theory between structural and nonstructural Case, the theory must distinguish two kinds of nonstructural Case: lexical Case and inherent Case. Lexical Case is idiosyncratic Case, lexically selected and licensed by certain lexical heads (certain verbs and prepositions). Inherent Case is more regular, associated with particular theta-positions: inherent dative Case with DP goals, and ergative Case with external arguments. Lexical and inherent Case turn out to be in complementary distribution with respect to theta-positions: only themes/internal arguments may have lexical Case, and only external arguments and DP goals may have inherent Case. This complementary distribution can be accounted for under recent views of vP structure that place both external arguments and (shifted) DP goals outside the VP proper at the point at which nonstructural Case is licensed. Claims in the literature that the more regular datives and ergatives are actually structural Cases are based on faulty or misleading diagnostic tests.
this article was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, grant 410-95-0979, and by FCAR of Quebec, grant 94ER0578. I have had the opportunity to discuss various of the issues in this article in a syntax seminar at McGill University and in colloquium talks at the University of Pennsylvania, USC, and the University of California-Irvine. In addition, I have benefited from discussing these issues with Lisa Travis, Nigel Duffield, O.T. Stewart, Miwako Uesako, Hironobu Hosoi, Mika Kizu, and Jim McGilvary, . I thank all these people and groups for their valuable input.
Case and licensing Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio's Generalization
- A Marantz
Marantz, A., 1991. Case and licensing. In: Westphal, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp. 234–253. Reprinted in Reuland, E., (Ed.), Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio's Generalization. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp. 11–30.
Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral Dissertation
- E Aldridge
Aldridge, E., 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral Dissertation. Cornell University.
Dyirbal ergativity. Paper Presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting
- J A Legate
Legate, J.A., 2008c. Dyirbal ergativity. Paper Presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. Legate, J.A., 2009. On case and syntactic ergativity in Dyirbal. University of Pennsylvania manuscript.
Argument Structure in Hindi Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movement in Accusative and Ergative Languages. Doctoral dissertation Warlpiri preverbs and verb roots
- T Mohanan
- Csli
- Ca Stanford
- K G Murasugi
- Mit
- Ma Cambridge
- D Nash
Mohanan, T., 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI, Stanford, CA. Murasugi, K.G., 1992. Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movement in Accusative and Ergative Languages. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Nash, D., 1982. Warlpiri preverbs and verb roots. In: Swartz, S. (Ed.), Papers in Warlpiri Grammar: In Memory of Lothar Jagst. Work papers of SIL-AAB, series A (vol. 6). SIL-AAB, Berrimah, N.T., pp. 165–216.
On phases Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory
- N Chomsky
Chomsky, N., 2008. On phases. In: Freidin, R., Otero, C.P., Zubizarreta, M.L. (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 133–166.
Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on 'Filters and Control Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory
- J.-R Vergnaud
Vergnaud, J.-R., 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on 'Filters and Control,' April 17, 1977. In: Freidin, R., et al. (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3–15.
Minimalist inquiries
- N Chomsky
Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89–155.
Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax Warlpiri dictionary. Available online through
- G C Ramchand
Ramchand, G.C., 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Swartz, Steve, 2006. Warlpiri dictionary. Available online through: http://aiatsis.gov.au/aseda/docs/index.html.
For example, the word 'who' shows full specification of ergative-nominative-accusative 16 : (12) wanydyu / wanya / References Aissen Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy
- However
However, three distinct cases must be recognized. For example, the word 'who' shows full specification of ergative-nominative-accusative 16 : (12) wanydyu / wanya / References Aissen, J., 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. NLLT 21, 435–483.
Warlpiri Lexicography group Warlpiri-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary Electronic files
- M Laughren
Laughren, M., Warlpiri Lexicography group, 2007. Warlpiri-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Electronic files, University of Queensland, deposited at ASEDA, AIATSIS. Legate, J.A., 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. Doctoral Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.