Case variation: Viruses and star wars

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann

doi:10.1017/s033258651300005x

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a more refined way, we could try to apply to this alternation Sigurðsson (2012) system of regular vs. quirky morphological cases in Icelandic. According to Sigurðsson (2012), the expression of m(orphological)-case corresponds to the Externalization component, i.e., to the different ways of assignment or realization of PF-exponents with respect to underlying syntactic features.…”

Section: Synchronic Approaches According To Different Linguistic Oriementioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Sigurðsson (2012), the expression of m(orphological)-case corresponds to the Externalization component, i.e., to the different ways of assignment or realization of PF-exponents with respect to underlying syntactic features. Crucially, his system acknowledges the presence of “third factor” properties, namely, markedness of the PF-exponents.…”

Section: Synchronic Approaches According To Different Linguistic Oriementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sigurðsson (2012) himself acknowledges his system as descriptive, because, he says, it is the only thing we can do when dealing with the Externalization component of the language.…”

Section: Synchronic Approaches According To Different Linguistic Oriementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learners did not have any other option than acquiring the quirky pattern as “exceptional,” as it is still acquired nowadays, i.e., by means of some special morphological rule assigning genitive case to the relevant objects at the Externalization component of the language (Sigurðsson, 2012). This is also in line with the theories about competing grammars coexisting in a single speaker at different linguistic levels, as stated in the introductory theoretical section.…”

Section: A Formal Diachronic–synchronic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Understanding Grammars through Diachronic Change

Madariaga

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I will vindicate the importance of syntactic change for the study of synchronic stages of natural languages, according to the following outline. First, I will analyze the relationship between the diachrony and synchrony of grammars, introducing some basic concepts: the notions of I-language/E-language, the role of Chomsky's (2005) three factors in language change, and some assumptions about language acquisition. I will briefly describe the different approaches to syntactic change adopted in generative accounts, as well as their assumptions and implications (Lightfoot, 1999, 2006; van Gelderen, 2004; Biberauer et al., 2010; Roberts, 2012). Finally, I will illustrate the convenience of introducing the diachronic dimension into the study of at least certain synchronic phenomena with the help of a practical example: variation in object case marking of several verbs in Modern Russian, namely, the verbs denoting avoidance and the verbs slušat'sja “obey” and dožidat'sja “expect,” which show two object case-marking patterns, genitive case in standard varieties and accusative case in colloquial varieties. To do so, I will review previous descriptive and/or functionalist accounts on this or equivalent phenomena (Jakobson, 1984 [1936]; Clancy, 2006; Nesset and Kuznetsova, 2015a,b). Then, I will present a formal—but just synchronic—account, applying Sigurðsson (2011) hypothesis on the expression of morphological case to this phenomenon. Finally, I will show that a formal account including the diachronic dimension is superior (i.e., more explanative) than purely synchronic accounts.

show abstract

Section: Synchronic Approaches According To Different Linguistic Oriementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synchronic Approaches According To Different Linguistic Oriementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sigurðsson (2012) himself acknowledges his system as descriptive, because, he says, it is the only thing we can do when dealing with the Externalization component of the language.…”

Section: Synchronic Approaches According To Different Linguistic Oriementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Formal Diachronic–synchronic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding Grammars through Diachronic Change

Madariaga

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We employ H. Á. Sigurðsson's (2012aSigurðsson's ( , 2012b notion of case stars in syntax to account for case assignment. Case stars are translated to morphological case at PF and realized at Vocabulary Insertion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

Sigurðsson¹,

Šereikaitė²

2023

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze genitive of negation (GN) in Lithuanian. When the verb is negated, GN is realized on an object that would otherwise be realized as accusative. We demonstrate that Lithuanian GN is a syntactic (in line with Arkadiev 2016) and morphological phenomenon in contrast to Russian GN, whose realization is influenced by semantic factors (e.g. Kagan 2013). It differs from Russian (Pesetsky 1982) in that (i) it is always assigned to a DP which would otherwise bear structural accusative regardless of its semantic properties, and (ii) it cannot affect a structural nominative DP regardless of whether it is an external or internal argument. Lithuanian GN, in this respect, is similar to Polish GN (e.g. Przepiórkowski 2000, Witkoś 2008). We offer a three-layered approach to case, arguing that GN is a reflection of structural object case, assigned in syntax, then translated to morphological genitive case at PF and, finally, realized at Vocabulary Insertion (Halle & Marantz 1993). Thus, structural object case has two morphological realizations: as genitive under negation or as accusative in the absence of negation. Lithuanian also exhibits long-distance GN (Arkadiev 2016), showing that case boundaries can cross non-finite clauses without an overt CP element, suggesting these are not phases.

show abstract

DP Internal Argument—The Causative Alternation

Wood

2015

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Case variation: Viruses and star wars

Cited by 11 publications

References 42 publications

Understanding Grammars through Diachronic Change

Understanding Grammars through Diachronic Change

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

DP Internal Argument—The Causative Alternation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About