Case in Tiers

Yip, Moira; Maling, Joan; Jackendoff, Ray

doi:10.2307/415655

Cited by 204 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…______________________________________________________________________________________ 2. See Andrews 1976, Thráinsson 1979, Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson 1985, Yip, Maling and Jackendoff 1987, Sigurðsson 1989, 1992, 2002a, Jónsson 1996, 1997-1998, Barðdal 2001, Landau 2001, among many. -Icelandic nominals inflect for number (singular, plural), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), and case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is to say, case languages match AR 1 and AR 2 structurally in the same way as caseless languages, but, in addition, they apply PF realization rules, yielding the correct case forms. While languages like English have only a single layer of structural m-case C Str ('tier' in the terminology of Yip, Maling and Jackendoff 1987), thereby showing a very close correlation between the m-cases and AR 1 and AR 2 , languages like Icelandic, German, Russian and so on have both a layer or a cycle of inherent and structural m-cases, C Inh and C Str , each core argument bearing either inherent or structural m-case (see 148 Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson ______________________________________________________________________________________ the discussion in Yip, Maling and Jackendoff 1987, Marantz 2000, and in Sigurðsson 1989. 8 In contrast to these well-known and common case language types, Korean seems to apply double morphological case-marking or so-called case-stacking (see e.g.…”

Section: To Be a 'Subject'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

7. Icelandic non-nominative subjects

Sigurðsson¹

2004

Typological Studies in Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: To Be a 'Subject'mentioning

confidence: 99%

7. Icelandic non-nominative subjects

Sigurðsson¹

2004

Typological Studies in Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the second account, the nominal predicate receives its case from copying the case of the subject, with which it is co-indexed. In this approach the predicate nominal is assigned a special case -called 'predicative' by Yip et al (1987) -through the lexical entry of the verb 'to be' (i.e. the copula).…”

Section: Case-marking In Nominal Predicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of marked-S languages

Handschuh¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous case dependency theories include Yip et al (1987), Marantz (1991), Bittner and Hale (1996), McFadden (2004). to consider the syntax of another argument. It is this that constitutes the transitivity condition on ergative case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means we cannot capture the transitive subject simply as that core argument that remains for case-marking after absolutive is assigned (cf. Yip et al 1987). And we see in cases like (3) that the precise formulation of the transitivity condition on ergative case is non-trivial in Nez Perce: certain clauses with two referential arguments, for instance (3b), prohibit the ergative (and objective) case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce

Deal

2009

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ergative case, the special case of transitive subjects, raises questions not only for the theory of case but also for theories of subjecthood and transitivity. This paper analyzes the case system of Nez Perce, a "three-way ergative" language, with an eye towards a formalization of the category of transitive subject. I show that it is object agreement that is determinative of transitivity, and hence of ergative case, in Nez Perce. I further show that the transitivity condition on ergative case must be coupled with a criterion of subjecthood that makes reference to participation in subject agreement, not just to origin in a high argument-structural position. These two results suggest a formalization of the transitive subject as that argument uniquely accessing both high and low agreement information, the former through its (agreement-derived) connection with T and the latter through its origin in the specifier of a head associated with object agreement (v). In view of these findings, I argue that ergative case morphology should be analyzed not as the expression of a syntactic primitive but as the morphological spell-out of subject agreement and object agreement on a nominal.Keywords Nez Perce · ergativity · transitivity · case · agreement · anaphor agreement effect · Sahaptin The category of transitive subjectAn analysis of ergative case, the special case of transitive subjects, can only be as adequate as the theories of subjecthood and transitivity on which it rests. The lack of a complete and satisfying formal analysis of ergative case cannot be independent of the relatively meager attention afforded the study of transitivity within generative grammar, and lack of integration of what is known about transitivity with what is

show abstract

Case in Tiers

Cited by 204 publications

References 8 publications

7. Icelandic non-nominative subjects

7. Icelandic non-nominative subjects

A typology of marked-S languages

Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About