A Reanalysis of Long Distance Agreement in Urdu

Butt, Miriam

doi:10.3765/bls.v19i1.1495

Cited by 7 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reduced complements of the type shown in (35) are also widespread. They are found in Mayan languages, for instance Tzotzil (Aissen 1987), Romance languages (Aissen and Perlmutter 1983;Rizzi 1978;Rosen 1990;Moore 1996), Germanic (Wurmbrandt 2001), Indo-Aryan languages, for instance Hindi/Urdu (as analysed by Butt 1993Butt , 1995Wunderlich 1994 (Butt 1993: 59) In (37a, b) the in®nitival (`drive') is de®cient as a verb (in particular, it lacks tense) and forms a single complex predicate with the verb. Butt suggests that this in®nitive is actually a verbal noun or a gerund.…”

Section: Structural Locality Ii: Restructuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐canonical agreement is canonical

Polinsky

2003

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the phenomenon of cross-clausal agreement, where the controller (trigger) of agreement and the agreement target seem to be in distinct local domains. It is argued that most instances of cross-clausal agreement can be reduced to properly local agreement and are thus unproblematic for theories of agreement. A typology of such apparent violations is proposed. In addition, the paper considers a more challenging instance of cross-clausal agreement where the controller and the target are indeed in distinct local domains (Long-Distance Agreement, LDA). It is demonstrated that LDA involves the relationship between the periphery of the embedded clause and the embedding verb. The attested cases of LDA argue for the syntactic conception of agreement that closely resembles government.

show abstract

Section: Structural Locality Ii: Restructuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐canonical agreement is canonical

Polinsky

2003

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…λy λx HELP(x,y) lexical: +lr default: +lr +hr −hr case: DAT NOM Another compelling example for lexical case assignment is given by the following minimal pair cited by Butt and King (1991) for Urdu. This language has a copula construction with ergative marking, translated by 'want', and another copula construction with accusative marking, translated by 'be obliged': Let us assume that the copula assigns the lexical feature [+lr] to the highest argument if it means 'want', while it assigns the feature [+hr] if it means 'be obliged'.…”

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the interaction of structural and semantic case

Wunderlich

Lakämper

2001

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider two variants of morphological case: structural case (such as accusative, ergative, or dative), which is encoded by abstract case features reflecting the semantic ranking of arguments, and semantic case (such as instrumental or directional), which encodes an additional semantic relation to be licensed by the meaning of the verb. Individual verbs may be lexically marked for either structural or semantic case. We show how a correspondence-theoretic approach can successfully describe the various patterns of structural case found in German. We then discuss instances of double object where structural case and semantic case compete with each other: under certain circumstances semantic case is favored, while under other circumstances structural case is favored. We mainly consider two scenarios, described by the respective rankings of STRUCTURAL CASE (which requires all objects to be realized by a structural case) and UNIQUENESS (which restricts a structural case to occur at most once in a clause). In particular, we analyze the different options for structural vs. semantic case in the dialects of Quechua.

show abstract

“…In Hindi-Urdu, the verb must agree with the highest nominative argument. This constraint results in three possible outcomes with clausal agreement (Butt, 1993).…”

Section: Standard Agreement In Hindi-urdumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following section describes two theoretical accounts for LDA in Hindi-Urdu. One (Butt, 1993), argues that LDA follows patterns of simple agreement, and that the embedded constituents are analyzed as NPs. In the second analysis, Bhatt (2005) argues for a new process, "AGREE", using previously known facts of LDA, and examples of anaphoric agreement, and restructuring.…”

Section: Analyses Of Lda In Hindi-urdumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Lexical Realizational Functional Grammar Analysis of Long-Distance Agreement in Ojibwe and Hindi-Urdu

turnbull¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I must also thank Dr. Ida Toivonen, for her involvement with my panel, and her valuable input during my defense and final writing stages.Many thanks to my incredible friends and colleagues, for their endless emotional support and words of encouragement. I would also like to thank my parents for their love and support, and valiant attempts at trying to understand what Linguistics is.Finally, for being with me through every late night, coffee run, thinking walk, and bout of incoherent yelling, thank you to my best friend, Breanna Stephney. I wouldn't have made it through this degree, let alone the last 10 years without you.

show abstract

A Reanalysis of Long Distance Agreement in Urdu

Abstract: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals (1993)

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Non‐canonical agreement is canonical

Non‐canonical agreement is canonical

On the interaction of structural and semantic case

A Lexical Realizational Functional Grammar Analysis of Long-Distance Agreement in Ojibwe and Hindi-Urdu

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About