Romanian nominal structure, proforms, and genitive case checking

2002 ◽  
pp. 287-300
Author(s):  
Edward J. Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Nominal Structure ◽  
Genitive Case

scholarly journals Reviving the genitive. Prescription and practice in the Netherlands (1770–1840)

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Krogull ◽  
Gijsbert Rutten
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Extreme Case ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
National Language ◽  
Prepositional Phrases ◽  
Historical Sociolinguistics ◽  
The One ◽  
Genitive Case

AbstractHistorical metalinguistic discourse is known to often prescribe linguistic variants that are not very frequent in actual language use, and to proscribe frequent variants. Infrequent variants that are promoted through prescription can be innovations, but they can also be conservative forms that have already largely vanished from the spoken language and are now also disappearing in writing. An extreme case in point is the genitive case in Dutch. This has been in decline in usage from at least the thirteenth century onwards, gradually giving way to analytical alternatives such as prepositional phrases. In the grammatical tradition, however, a preference for the genitive case was maintained for centuries. When ‘standard’ Dutch is officially codified in 1805 in the context of a national language policy, the genitive case is again strongly preferred, still aiming to ‘revive’ the synthetic forms. The striking discrepancy between metalinguistic discourse on the one hand, and developments in language use on the other, make the genitive case in Dutch an interesting case for historical sociolinguistics. In this paper, we tackle various issues raised by the research literature, such as the importance of genre differences as well as variation within particular genres, through a detailed corpus-based analysis of the influence of prescription on language practices in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Dutch.

Phrase Structure and Movement in Japanese

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

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

scholarly journals NOMINALISASI BAHASA BALI (BB)

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
I Wayan Saryana
Keyword(s):  
Short Stories ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Folk Tales ◽  
Word Level ◽  
Nominal Structure

[Title: Nominalization in Balinese Language] The study deal with the process of nominal formation (nominalization) and Nominal structure of Balinese language. The data being analyzed is obtained from the researcher’s intuition that is the gained from language potency of the researcher as a native Balinese speaker. In addition, the data was also gained from Balinese texts such as novels, short stories, and folk tales. As a reference in analyzing the data it is applied X-bar theory developed by N, Chomsky and his adherers from the beginning of 1970-s. The most important essence of this theory is that every phrase structure has head. In other words, that every phrase structure is endocentric in nature. At the initial phrase, this theory was developed to describe phrasal category, then it was applied for clausal level. Recently, this theory is applied to analyze word level (Xo). Nouns in Balinese can be base and derived nouns. Derived nouns can be formed through some process: affixation, compounding, reduplication, and derivation of clauses. Nouns in Balinese can place syntactical functions such as subject, predicate, object, complement, and adverb.

Animacy shift and layers of nominal structure

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 99-106
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Verhoeven
Keyword(s):  
Nominal Structure

scholarly journals Adnominal possessive constructions in Mordvin, Mari and Permic

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-168
Author(s):  
Polina Pleshak
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Syntactic Function ◽  
Genitive Case

This paper deals with adnominal possessive constructions in Moksha, Erzya, Meadow Mari, Hill Mari, Izhma Komi and Udmurt. The two main constructions that encode possessive relations in all the languages of the sample are the same: Dependentmarking and Double-marking. Izhma Komi also uses Head-marking and Juxtaposition. However, a more fine-grained analysis helps to find out many differences between the languages of the sample. Firstly, restrictions on the use of the genitive case and possessive markers can be slightly different in these languages. Secondly, there are factors that influence marking of NP elements (both the Head and the Dependent) in different ways. These factors are semantic relations, animacy hierarchy and syntactic function of an NP.Аннотация. Полина Плешак: Посессивные конструкции в мордовских, марийских и пермских языках. В данной статье обсуждаются результаты исследования приименных посессивных конструкций в мокшанском, эрзянском, луговом марийском, горномарийском, ижемском коми и удмуртском. Две основные стратегии, кодирующие посессивные отношения во всех рассматриваемых языках, – зависимостное маркирование и двойное маркирование, а также дополнительно вершинное маркирование и конструкция с соположением в ижемском коми. Однако более детальный анализ позволяет выявить большое количество различий между языками выборки. Во-первых, как генитив, так и посессивные показатели имеют разные области применения в разных языках. Во-вторых, существуют факторы, по-разному влияющие на маркирование членов ИГ (как вершины, так и зависимого). Таковыми являются семантические отношения, иерархия одушевлённости и синтаксическая позиция ИГ.Ключевые слова: внутригенетическая типология, посессивные конструкции, зависимостное маркирование, двойное маркирование, генитив, посессивный показатель, семантические отношения, иерархия одушевлённости, финно-угорские языкиKokkuvõte. Polina Pleshak: Adnominaalsed possessiivkonstruktsioonid mordva, mari ja permi keeltes. Artikkel käsitleb adnominaalseid possessiivkonstruktsioone mokša, ersa, niidumari, mäemari, ižmakomi ja udmurdi keeltes. Kaks põhikonstruktsiooni, mis possessiivseid suhteid väljendavad, on kõikides käsitletud keeltes samad: laiendi markeerimine ja topeltmarkeering. Ižmakomi keeles kasutatakse ka põhja markeerimist ja jukstapositsiooni. Peenekoelisem analüüs aitab aga käsitletavate keelte vahel leida rohkelt erinevusi. Esiteks võivad nendes keeltes mõneti erineda genitiivi ja possessiivmarkerite kooskasutuse piirangud. Teiseks on faktoreid, mille mõju tõttu markeeritakse NP elemente erinevalt (seda nii põhisõna kui ka laiendi puhul). Need faktorid on semantilised suhted, elususe hierarhia, ja NP süntaktiline funktsioon.Märksõnad: intrageneetiline tüpoloogia, possessiivkonstruktsioonid, laiendi markeering, topeltmarkeering, genitiiv, possessiivmarker, semantilised suhted, elususe hierarhia, soome-ugri keeled

Differential object marking in Catalan

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Alexandrina Irimia ◽  
Anna Pineda
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Differential Object Marking ◽  
Theoretical Contribution ◽  
The Core ◽  
Nominal Structure ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Widespread Phenomenon ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Object Marking ◽  
Case Feature

Abstract In this paper we provide a comprehensive picture of differential object marking in Catalan, focusing on both the empirical facts and their theoretical contribution. We support some important conclusions. First, Catalan differential object marking is quite a robust and widespread phenomenon, contrary to what prescriptive grammars assume. Second, we show that, from a formal perspective, Catalan differential object marking cannot be completely subsumed under hierarchical generalizations known as scales. The contribution of narrow syntax mechanisms and nominal structure is fundamental, supporting recent views by López (2012) or Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2010, 2013a, b), a.o. Building on these works as well as on observations initially made by Cornilescu (2000) and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2007), a.o., we adopt an analysis under which canonical, animacy-based differential marking results from the presence of an additional (PERSON) feature, beyond Case. This structural make-up is not only at the core of differences marked objects exhibit from unmarked objects with a Case feature, but also derives the prominence of differential marking on (animates) under information-structure processes, in the high left (and right) periphery, in contexts of the type discussed by Escandell-Vidal (2007a, b, 2009).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document