Russian Adversity Impersonals and Split Ergativity

2013 ◽  
pp. 247-264
Author(s):  
Katrin Schlund
Keyword(s):  
Split Ergativity

Complete and defective agreement in Kutchi

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-288
Author(s):  
Stefan Keine ◽  
Trupti Nisar ◽  
Rajesh Bhatt
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Stark Contrast ◽  
Verbal Agreement ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Split Ergativity ◽  
Do So

We describe and analyze the previously undocumented verbal agreement system of Kutchi (Indo-Aryan). We argue that Kutchi instantiates a novel type of split ergativity. First, it exhibits an aspect split in that agreement in non-perfective clauses behaves on a par with agreement in intransitive perfective clauses, in stark contrast to transitive perfective clauses. A striking property of Kutchi is that these asymmetries manifest themselves in the richness of agreement. In the former configurations, the verb agrees with the subject for person, number and gender. In the latter, on the other hand, agreement is systematically defective and reliable fails to cross-references certain φ-features. In addition to this aspect split, Kutchi displays a person split: While the verb normally agrees with the subject, it surprisingly fails to do so in transitive perfective clauses with a 1st person subject. Instead, it is the object that triggers agreement in these configurations, likewise in a defective manner. We will argue that these agreement asymmetries are syntactic in nature rather than morphological. Our analysis builds on, and extends, previous work by Laka (2006) and Coon (2010).

The Structural Source of Split Ergativity and Ergative Case in Georgian

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léa Nash
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Functional Head ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Split Ergativity

On the basis of the study of split ergativity in Georgian, this chapter defends a simple principle according to which the difference between a nominative and an ergative behaviour of the same language, and possibly across languages, consists in the capacity of the transitive subject to be theta-licensed, and by consequence case-licensed, in a position outside vP only in the nominative type. An outcome of this difference is that the transitive subject in ergative languages is licensed in vP, which is also the minimal domain containing the direct object. As both arguments of the transitive verb stay in vP, they are case-licensed by the same c-commanding functional head, according to the mechanism of Dependent Case (DC) assignment as originally proposed by Marantz (1991). The reason why one functional head marks two arguments in a language is due to the functional impoverishment between T and vP.

Split Ergativity in Cavineña

1985 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Camp
Keyword(s):  
Split Ergativity

Split Ergativity in Syntax and at Morphological Spellout

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Woolford
Keyword(s):  
Social Contexts ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Split Ergativity

In a split ergative case pattern, not all subjects that could be marked with ergative case are. A language with a split ergative case pattern is called a split ergative language, but linguists disagree as to what other properties qualify a language as split ergative: an ergative case pattern in combination with a nominative-accusative agreement pattern, or an ergative case and agreement pattern in a language where no syntactic rules make reference to ergative case, or a language with two classes of verbs, only one of which takes an ergative subject. This chapter illustrates the well-known types of ergative splits involving person and aspect, and a range of less well-known types involving stage versus individual level predicates, proximate versus obviate subjects, and different social contexts. Most ergative splits appear to be present in syntax, with the clear exception of person splits which are argued to be purely morphological.

scholarly journals Georgian stem formants and nominalization

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Gallagher Flinn
Keyword(s):  
Verbal Nouns ◽  
Historical Origin ◽  
Split Ergativity

The Georgian verb system is complex, and in many cases the function and meaning of certain morphemes is not entirely clear. One such morpheme, the stem formant, appears in both non-perfect verbs and nominal structures. Although they are usually associated with aspect in the verb, I propose that there are several advantages to treating stem formants as nominal heads bearing the feature [+collective]. If stem formants are nominalizers, then several facts about their distribution can be explained, including their historical origin, their presence in abstract and verbal nouns, and their absence from verbs which assign ergative case to their subjects. Doing so also makes it possible to bring Georgian split ergativity closer in line with other analyses of ergative splits in Basque (Laka, 2006) and Chol (Coon, 2013)

Accusative and Ergative in Hindi

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anoop Mahajan
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Split Ergativity

This chapter examines the nature of case licensing of the direct object in ergative constructions in Hindi, a split ergative language. Split ergativity in Hindi is conditioned by aspect – perfective transitive constructions display ergative case marking while non-perfective clauses do not. The chapter argues that in Hindi the morphologically bare direct object in an ergative construction is case licensed by T(ense) and not by little v as argued recently by Legate (2008) and others. The evidence for this proposal comes from examining the syntax of perfective and imperfective prenominal relative clauses, an empirical domain in Hindi that has not been previously examined from the perspective of case licensing. The restrictions found on what arguments can be relativized in prenominal relative clauses provide crucial evidence for the nature of case licensing in Hindi participial clauses and that evidence in turn bears upon the nature of object case licensing in ergative constructions.

scholarly journals Indo-Aryan ergativity and its analogues in languages of Central and Western Eurasia

2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-76
Author(s):  
Boris Zakharyin
Keyword(s):  
Significant Feature ◽  
Arts And Sciences ◽  
Split Ergativity ◽  
Western Eurasia

Abstract Boris Zakharyin. Indo-Aryan ergativity and its analogues in languages of Central and Western Eurasia. The Poznań Society for the Advancement of Arts and Sciences, PL ISSN 0079-4740, pp. 63-75 Ergativity, being a typologically significant feature, serves as basis for a bunch of genetically and structurally different languages of Eurasia. The paper suggests the bird’s eye view of its manifestation in the selected samples of Indo-Iranian, Tibeto-Burman, Caucasian and Euskara (the Basque language of Spain). The provided analysis allows to assume that split ergativity displayed by certain Indo-Iranian languages is of the same (participial) origin and partially may have also been influenced by contact-factors. Consistent ergativity characterizing the majority of the Caucasian languages and Euskara is a phenomenon of semo-syntactic nature realizing itself on all the grammatical levels.

scholarly journals An Analysis on Syntactic Derivation of “Patient + Agent + Ergative Verb”

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1600
Author(s):  
Dan Du ◽  
Chunxiang Wu
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Light Verbs ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Split Ergativity ◽  
Syntactic Derivation

“Patient + Agent + Ergative verb”, in fact, it is a kind of absolutive structure, in which word order and case marking contribute to its formation. It assumes that “Patient + Ergative verb” is the basis syntactic structure, which generates “Patient + Agent + Ergative verb”. And it verifies the hypothesis by checking of light verbs, the characteristics of split-ergativity and Case Hierarchy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document