scholarly journals Resultatives in Korean Revisited: Complementation versus Adjunction

Nordlyd ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjeong Son
Keyword(s):  
Complementation Analysis ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Case Markings

Korean resultatives are divided into two types depending on whether the subject of a resultative secondary predicate is assigned accusative case or nominative case. The former is comparable to selected object resultatives (e.g., Mary wipe the table clean), and the latter to unselected object resultatives (e.g., John screamed himself hoarse) in English. Korean resultatives have received a great deal of attention in the literature due to different case markings on the subject of a secondary predicate. However, there has been no agreement regarding whether Korean resultatives should be analyzed as small clause complements, similar to English, or adjunct phrases. Some argue that both resultative types are small clause complements (e.g., Kim 1999, Chang and Kim 2001), but some argue that only the selected object resultatives are true small clause type resultatives while the unselected object resultatives are VP adjuncts (e.g., Song 2005, Yeo 2006). A recent proposal by Shim and den Dikken (2007), however, suggests that both types should be analyzed as TP adjuncts. This paper defends the second position, a split analysis for the two types of resultatives: a complementation analysis for selected object resultatives, and an adjunction analysis for unselected object resultatives. Supporting evidence for the split analysis is provided by a few syntactic and semantic facts that lead to the conclusion that the two resultatives must be structurally distinguished from one another in terms of their complementhood/adjuncthood.

scholarly journals Secondary predication and default case

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Youngjun Jang ◽  
Siyoun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Small Clause ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Default Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Secondary Predication

This paper compares secondary predication constructions (including small clause complements, resultatives, and/or depictives) in English and Korean and argues that these two typologically different languages employ different modes of satisfying the Case Filter (Chomsky 1981) with regard to the Case of the subjects of secondary predication constructions. More specifically, we argue that the subject of the secondary predicate in English is Accusative Case-marked by the higher governing verb, while that in Korean is Nominative Case-marked by default. Evidence for default Nominative Case will be provided from Korean and other languages.  

scholarly journals The Derivation of Wh-Questions in Najrani Arabic

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 181
Author(s):  
Saud A. Mushait
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Phase Approach ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Edge Feature

The study explores the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic and attempts to answer the following questions: (i) Can wh-questions in Najrani Arabic be derived in VSO or SVO or both?, and (ii) How can Najrani Arabic wh-questions be accounted for within Chomsky’s (2001,2005, 2013,2015 ) Phase approach? The objective of the study is to present a unified analysis of the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic and show the interaction between Najrani Arabic data and Chomsky’s Phase framework. It has been shown that Najrani Arabic allows the derivation of wh-questions from the argument and non-argument positions in VSO word order. Given this, we assume that VSO is the unmarked order for the derivation of wh-questions in Najrani Arabic. In VSO, the subject DP does not raise to Spec-TP because the head T does not have the EPP feature: the latter attracts movement of the former. The verb raises to the head T of TP, while the subject DP remains in-situ in Spec-vP. Moreover, in Najrani Arabic intransitive structures, the phase vP does not have a specifier because it does not have an external thematic argument whereas in transitive constructions the vP has. Concerning case assignment, the phase vP merges with an abstract tense af (fix) on the head T, which agrees with and assigns invisible nominative case to the subject wh-word man ‘who’. We assume that the phase head C is the probe and has the Edge feature which attracts the raising of the subject wh-phrase to Spec-CP. Besides, we argue that the light transitive head v has an Edged feature which attracts the raising of the object wh-phrase aish ‘what’ to be the second (outer) specifier of vP. Being the phase head, the v probes for a local goal and finds the object wh-phrase aish; the v agrees with and assigns accusative case to the object wh-phrase aish. As the TP merges with a null interrogative head C, the phase head C has an Edge feature that attracts the raising of the object wh-word aish to Spec-CP for feature valuation. Following this, the null copies of the moved entities left after movement receive a null spellout in the phonological level and, hence, cannot be accessed for any further operation.

scholarly journals Encasing the Absolutes

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Uroš Martinčič
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Small Clauses

The paper explores the issue of structure and case in English absolute constructions, whose subjects are deduced by several descriptive grammars as being in the nominative case due to its supposed neutrality in terms of register. This deduction is countered by systematic accounts presented within the framework of the Minimalist Program which relate the case of absolute constructions to specific grammatical factors. Each proposal is shown as an attempt of analysing absolute constructions as basic predication structures, either full clauses or small clauses. I argue in favour of the small clause approach due to its minimal reliance on transformations and unique stipulations. Furthermore, I propose that small clauses project a singular category, and show that the use of two cases in English absolute constructions can be accounted for if they are analysed as depictive phrases, possibly selected by prepositions. The case of the subject in absolutes is shown to be a result of syntactic and non-syntactic factors. I thus argue in accordance with Minimalist goals that syntactic case does not exist, attributing its role in absolutes to other mechanisms.

The emergence of functional case marking in initial varieties of Polish L2

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacopo Saturno ◽  
Marzena Watorek
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Target Sentence ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Elicited Imitation ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Comprehension Task ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Case Markings

Abstract This paper addresses the acquisition of L2 inflectional morphology after only a few hours of exposure. Eighty-nine participants with five different L1s and no experience of the L2 took part in a specially designed 14-hour L2 Polish course, during which they were tested on their developing morphosyntactic skills at various times. The present paper uses a Comprehension task and an Elicited Imitation task to probe learners’ ability to use nominative and accusative case markings to infer and express the subject and object. The study is designed to isolate variables such as the task employed to elicit L2 data, target sentence word order, time of exposure to the L2 input, and learners’ L1. The results show that while the majority of learners stick to a word order principle, some managed to identify and systematically apply the target-like use of inflectional morphology. Various intermediate strategies make it possible to identify a hierarchy of task difficulty. Both time of exposure and the learner’s L1 proved to be significant predictors of performance.

Again on relative clause and subordination in Latin

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gualtiero Calboli
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Central Point ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law

AbstractI started from the relative clause which occurs in Hittite, and in particular with the enclitic position of the relative pronoun. This is connected with the OV position and this position seems to have been prevailing in Hittite and PIE. The syntactic structure usually employed in Hittite between different clauses is the parataxis. Nevertheless, also the hypotaxis begins to be employed and the best occasion to use it was the diptych as suggested by Haudry, though he didn't consider the most natural and usual diptych: the law, where the crime and the sanction build a natural diptych already in old Hittite. Then I used Justus' and Boley's discussion on the structure of Hittite sentence and found a similarity with Latin, namely the use of an animate subject as central point of a sentence. With verbs of action in ancient languages the subject was normally an animate being, whereas also inanimate subject is employed in modern languages. This seems to be the major difference between ancient and modern structure of a sentence, or, better to say, in Hittite and PIE the subject was an animate being and this persisted a long time, and remained as a tendency in Latin, while in following languages and in classical grammar the subject became a simple nominal “entity” to be predicated and precised with verb and other linguistic instruments. A glance has been cast also to pronouns and particles (sometimes linked together) as instruments of linking nominal variants of coordinate or subordinate clauses and to the development of demonstrative/deictic pronouns. Also in ancient case theory a prevailing position was assured to the nominative case, the case of the subject.

Two puzzles on the nominative particle ga in Japanese

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-243
Author(s):  
Noriko Kawasaki
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Semantic Content ◽  
Japanese Language ◽  
Conversational Implicature ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Semantic Account ◽  
The Subject

Abstract Back in the 1970s, Kazuko Inoue observed that some active sentences in Japanese allow a prepositional subject. Along with impersonal sentences pointed out by S.-Y. Kuroda, such examples suggest that the nominative subject is not an obligatory element in Japanese sentences. While this observation supports the hypothesis that important characteristics of the Japanese language follow from its lack of (forced-)agreement, Japanese potential sentences require the nominative ga on at least one argument. The present article argues that the nominative case particle ga is semantically vacuous even where a ga-marked phrase is indispensable or the ga-marked phrase is construed as exhaustively listing. Stative predicates require a ga-marked phrase because they can ascribe a property to an argument only by function application. The exhaustive listing reading arises by conversational implicature when the presence of a ga-marked phrase signals that a topic phrase is being avoided. The discussion leads to a semantic account of subject honorification whereby the honorification only concerns the semantic content of the predicate, and does not involve agreement with the subject. It is also shown that sentences with a prepositional subject allow zibun only as a long-distance anaphor, which indicates that they do lack a subject with the nominative Case.

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.

Prepositional “where” in Southern Italian Dialects

2020 ◽  
pp. 114-132
Author(s):  
Nicola Munaro ◽  
Cecilia Poletto
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Structural Configuration ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Italian Dialects

This chapter investigates a phenomenon attested in some Southern Italian varieties, where a form identical to the wh-item meaning “where” can be used as a locative preposition. Since most of the dialects considered here only use P-where in cases of quasi-inalienable locative possession, this chapter adopts the recent proposal that the structural configuration of inalienable possession is to be interpreted as a RelatorP whose predicative head functions as the relator between the possessor, located in the specifier position, and the possessee, that is, the locative noun, sitting in the complement position. It also proposes that P-where exploits a sort of reduced relative in which the null classifier-like element PLACE located in the internal structure of the wh-item undergoes raising to the highest functional specifier; the reduced relative clause is taken to occupy the specifier of a bigger small clause, whose complement is represented by the RelatorP containing the actual lexical nouns.

scholarly journals The Role of Debris-Rich Ice in Flow Near the Margins of Glaciers (Abstract)

1986 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 201 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.W. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Shear Plane ◽  
Conveyor Belt ◽  
Physical Geography ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Ice Caps ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
Flow And Sediment Transport ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Shear Planes

The margins of many ice sheets and ice caps are marked by the presence of alternating layers of debris-laden and clean ice. The role of this ice in flow and sediment transport near the margins of glaciers has been the subject of considerable controversy between glacial geologists and glaciologists for over three decades. Glacial geologists (Goldthwait, 1951, 1960, 1971, 1975; Bishop, 1957; Souchez, 1967, Boulton, 1970, 1972; Hambrey, 1976) commonly refer to the debris-bearing ice bands as “thrust planes” or “shear planes”, apparently seeing them as reverse faults which transport rock debris from the glacier bed to the surface in a “conveyor-belt-like” manner (Goldthwait, 1975, p. 192). As supporting evidence for the shear-plane mechanism, glacial geologists have offered only qualitative observations and none seem to have actually observed it in action. Glaciologists on the other hand, particularly Weertman (1961), Hooke (1968; 1973), and Hooke and Hudleston (1978), have objected to this concept on physical grounds and have presented convincing arguments for doubting that it is mechanically sound. In spite of the controversy surrounding it, the shear-plane mechanism has gained wide acceptance among geologists and physical geographers and has been perpetuated in recent years through a number of popular introductory geology and physical geography textbooks (e.g. Embleton and King, 1975; Judson, Deffeyes, and Hargraves, 1976; Leet, Judson, and Kauffman, 1978; Press and Siever, 1982; Hamblin; 1982).

Verbless predicative structures across Romance

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-637
Author(s):  
NICOLA MUNARO
Keyword(s):  
Small Clause ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Functional Head ◽  
Phase Extension ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Small Clauses ◽  
Apparent Similarity

This article develops an analysis of a verbless predicative structure attested throughout Romance: in this type of reduced clause the predicate linearly precedes the subject and is separated from it by a clear intonational break, while the missing verb is interpreted as a silent copula. I argue that this structure should be viewed as the result of three movement steps: the first step is to be identified with predicate inversion, that is, extraction of the predicate from the complement position of the predicative small clause to a higher specifier position thanks to phase extension, followed by raising of the predicate to the specifier of SubjP to check the EPP feature, and finally to the specifier of the left-peripheral projection FocusP in order to check a focus feature. The present analysis is based on the crucial, and independently motivated assumption, that the process of phase extension, produced by raising of the small clause internal relator R° to a higher functional head F°, is limited to small clauses associated with individual-level predicates. The verbless predicative structure is then compared to an analogous construction in which the preposed predicate is preceded by awh-item, arguing that, despite their apparent similarity, the two structures should be clearly distinguished.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document