Evidence from Sason Arabic for Ā-Movement Feeding Case-Licensing Relations

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Faruk Akkuş
Keyword(s):  
Case Licensing

Equidistance returns

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Longenbaugh ◽  
Maria Polinsky
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Object Shift ◽  
Case System ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Text Content ◽  
Semantic Object

Abstract Modern generative linguistic theory furnishes a variety of general principles that appear to be at work in the grammar of all the world’s languages. One of the most basic and uncontroversial of these principles is that Agree/Move operates according to the constraint Attract Closest, which dictates that the closest suitable goal must be the target for the relevant operation (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995, 2000; Richards 1998). The Polynesian language Niuean (Tongic subgroup, predicate initial word order, ergative-absolutive case system) presents a well known challenge to the universality of {Attract Closest}. The challenge manifests in a variety of distinct constructions in Niuean, but the best known case involves an operation first documented by Seiter (1980), which he terms “raising.” Specifically, Niuean raising appears to license an A-type dependency between the subject position of the matrix clause and the object position of an immediately embedded clause. This is illustrated in (1), where the semantic object of the embedded subjunctive clause, Sione, appears as the syntactic subject of the matrix predicate maeke. (1) To maeke a Sione$_{1}$ [ke lagomatai he ekekafo $t_{1}$]. fut possible abs Sione sbj help erg doctor ‘It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.’ (lit.: Sione is possible that the doctor help [him]) Granting that the filler-gap dependency in (1) is A-type, this is both a clear violation of {Attract closest} (Rizzi 1992; Chomsky 1995; Richards 1998) and a typological anomaly. Our aim in this paper is to argue that such apparent violations of {Attract Closest} are only that. Specifically, we show first that the challenge inherent in Seiter’s raising construction is pervasive throughout the language: in general, objects are accessible to syntactic operations even if the intervening clause-mate subject is also a licit target. In other words, Niuean clause-mate subjects and objects are equally accessible to syntactic operations. Then, we argue that this typologically uncommon equal-accessibility follows from the convergence of several otherwise independently attested operations: (i) a configurational system of case licensing, with a $v$P as the case computation domain; (ii) obligatory object shift to Spec($v$P); (iii) an EPP on T triggering V/VP-raising rather than DP externalization. The resulting basic clause structure is then as below, so that Niuean adheres to standard locality constraints. (2)

Minimalist C/case

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson
Keyword(s):  
Landing Site ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
T System

This article discusses A-licensing and case from a minimalist perspective, pursuing the idea that argument NPs cyclically enter a number of A-relations, rather than just a single one, resulting in event licensing, case licensing, and φ-licensing. While argument case commonly reflects Voice-v relations, canonical A-movement is driven by higher elements, either in the C-T system or in a superordinate v-system (in ECM constructions). In addition, there is a distinction to be drawn between the triggering of A-movement, by for example C, and the licensing of the landing site, by for instance T, C-probing leading to tucking-in into Spec,T. Much of the evidence presented comes from quirky case constructions in Icelandic and from ECM and raising constructions in Icelandic and English. It is argued that T in ECM constructions inherits φ-licensing from the matrix vφ, regardless of the case properties of vφ.

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.

Intransitivity and the Development of Ergative Alignment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Aldridge
Keyword(s):  
Common Source ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Inherent Case ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Genitive Case

This chapter surveys pathways that have been proposed for how ergative alignment develops diachronically in an accusative language. The most common source cited for ergative alignment is a clausal nominalization. This is because the v (or n) in the nominalization has the same case-licensing featural composition as transitive v in an ergative language: 1) the external argument in the specifier is assigned inherent (typically genitive) case; and 2) there is no structural licensing capability for an object. After reanalysis, the external argument continues to receive inherent case, and the object values nominative case with T, resulting in an ergative pattern in transitive clauses. Other proposed sources are also typically intransitive constructions lacking accusative objects and in which the external argument is assigned inherent case or is packaged as a PP, for example possessive constructions and passives

Case and word order in Lithuanian

2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN FRANKS ◽  
JAMES E. LAVINE
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Unusual Case ◽  
Clause Structure ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
General Clause ◽  
Direct Objects ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Do So

This paper examines the unusual case and word order behavior of objects of infinitives in Lithuanian. In addition to lexically determined case idiosyncrasy, Lithuanian exhibits syntactically determined case idiosyncrasy: with infinitives in three distinct constructions, case possibilities other than accusative obtain. These cases (dative, genitive, and nominative) depend on the general clause structure rather than on the particular infinitive. Moreover, unlike ordinary direct objects, these objects appear in a position preceding rather than following the verb. It is argued that they move to this position in order potentially to be accessible for Case assignment by some higher Case-assigning head. In this way we unify the two superficially unrelated properties of non-canonical word order and Case. This movement, however, is not feature-driven in the sense of standard minimalist Case-licensing mechanisms. We characterize it as ‘agnostic’ in that it applies to an object with unvalued Case features, if that object reaches a point in the derivation where it has no recourse but to move because failure to do so would be fatal.

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 Binding German (In)direct Objects: Spell-Out Strategies for Disambiguation

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Nicholas Twiner ◽  
Vera Lee-Schoenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Direct Object ◽  
Distributed Morphology ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Binding Data ◽  
Acceptability Rating ◽  
Canonical Surface ◽  
Direct Objects ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Idiomatic Meaning

Despite Grewendorf’s (1988) well-known German binding data with the double-object verb zeigen ‘show’, which suggests that the direct object (DO) is generated higher than the indirect object (IO), this paper argues for the canonical surface order of IO>DO as base order. Highlighting the exceptional status of Grewendorf's examples, building on Featherston & Sternefeld’s (2003) quantitative acceptability rating study, and exploiting the fact that zeigen can also be used as inherently reflexive with idiomatic meaning, and we appeal to Bruening's (2010) theory of idiom formation as well as the Encyclopedia within Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1997, Embick & Noyer 2007) and propose a flexible Spell-Out mechanism within a derivational approach to binding (e.g. Hornstein 2001 and Zwart 2002) that can override narrow syntactic case licensing by realizing nominals with different morphological case.

scholarly journals Appearance and Existence in Mandarin Chinese

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-140
Author(s):  
Niina Ning Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Functional Element ◽  
Transitive Verb ◽  
Base Position ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Embedded Clauses ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Predication Relation

Abstract In Mandarin Chinese, the string of three overt elements in a row, a locative, a verb, and a nominal, asserts the existence of the entity denoted by the nominal in the location. This paper argues that the verb is contained in an adjunct, whereas the locative in its base position and the nominal establish a matrix predication relation. Thus, instead of the overt verb, the head of the matrix predicate of the construction is null. Moreover, a new analysis is provided to explain the obligatory argument sharing between the verb and the matrix predication of the construction. Furthermore, the paper argues that the agent of a transitive verb in certain types of embedded clauses needs to be Case-licensed by either the v of the selecting verb, as in an ECM construction, or a local c-commanding functional element, such as a complementizer, as in the English infinitive for construction. This Case-licensing explains why the transitive verb in the string has no agent. The research shows that the syntactic strategies to license abstract Cases in Chinese are similar to the ones found in other languages. Finally, the paper argues that the post-verbal -zhe is an adessive marker when it occurs in a non-progressive context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document