Search Results

This chapter discusses an investigation of deponent verbs that bear the middle/passive morphology of the Greek language and take an object in the accusative case. It attempts to determine whether there exist any systematic factors from the areas of syntax and semantics that influence the presence of deponent verbs throughout the history of the Greek language. It is concluded that deponent verbs require an independent theoretical explanation, which is drawn from the properties of morphology.

This chapter discusses the agreement systems of two genetically and geographically disparate Arawak languages, Kurripako and Baure. While Kurripako exhibits semantic alignment, the differential treatment of Baure intransitive subjects relates to parts of speech. It is hypothesized, however, that the Baure system developed from one similar to that of Kurripako.

A full clause profiles a grounded instance of a process type. Conceptual archetypes function as the prototypical values of basic clause types and clausal elements. Languages naturally differ in their implementation of this general characterization, and within a language clauses are varied and complex. Subject and object are defined schematically as trajector and landmark, i.e. primary and secondary focal participant. In most languages a particular semantic role represents the typical choice of trajector: either agent or theme (a patient-like participant). Each is the starting point along a natural path: the path of energy flow in the case of agent, and a path based on conceptual autonomy in the case of theme. In varied proportions and for different grammatical phenomena, every language makes some use of these two basic strategies. This is the basis for nominative/accusative, ergative/absolutive, and agent/patient organization. It can be argued that subject is a grammatical universal when defined abstractly in terms of primary focal prominence. In addition to the most typical clausal organization, every language offers a variety of alternatives for special purposes. Voice alternations (such as active, passive, and middle) pertain to the semantic role of the participant focused as trajector. The trajector can also be a non-participant, e.g. a setting or location. There is comparable variation in the choice of landmark, resulting in different kinds of objects. In agent-oriented languages, clauses which choose the theme as trajector represent an important secondary option. The verb of a clause is often complex. In addition to incorporating nominal or adverbial elements, the verb can exhibit layers of morphological derivation, be a phrase instead of a single word, or even consist in a series of verb-like elements.

A localist case grammar — based on the relations locative, source, and absolutive (neutral, which is neither of these), and derivatively goal — is fleshed out in this chapter. Agentive is a non-locative source, and an absolutive is, in addition, a goal if it is dependent on the same predicator as such a source. This framework, in which the role of an argument may involve more than one relation, is applied to the description of grammatical (or logical) cases and bifunctional cases. The accusative in Latin, for example, may be a locative or a non-locative goal. Various notions of ‘patienthood’ are shown to involve such combinations. Genitives and partitives are given a localist interpretation using the same relations, with partitives, for instance, interpreted as an adnominal source. This is illustrated from Finnish, and the subject-selection hierarchy is defined in terms of these relations.

Lectures 22–5 are devoted to the use of prepositions in combination with case-forms. Lecture 22 addresses their placement before or (in anastrophe) after the noun, in a noun phrase, in a string of nouns in coordination, or fixed in old combinations. There follow (Lecture 23) some general remarks on the cases governed by prepositions, with special attention to the genitive in Greek, the ablative in Latin, and the accusative in both. Lecture 24 covers the general tendency towards increased use of prepositional expressions, and, on the other hand, the use of certain case-forms without prepositions. Combinations of preposition + adverb, and the occurrence and ordering of strings of more than one preposition/preverb are treated in Lecture 25. The last lecture in this chapter (Lecture 26) is on the meaning — and change of meaning — of individual prepositions. Some general remarks on semantic change are followed by two case-studies (Gk πρό and μετά).

Lectures 22–5 are devoted to the use of prepositions in combination with case-forms. Lecture 22 addresses their placement before or (in anastrophe) after the noun,in a noun phrase, in a string of nouns in coordination, or fixed in old combinations. There follow (Lecture 23) some general remarks on the cases governed by prepositions, with special attention to the genitive in Greek, the ablative in Latin, and the accusative in both. Lecture 24 covers the general tendency towards increased use of prepositional expressions, and, on the other hand, the use of certain case-forms without prepositions. Combinations of preposition + adverb, and the occurrence and ordering of strings of more than one preposition/preverb are treated in Lecture 25. The last lecture in this chapter (Lecture 26) is on the meaning — and change of meaning — of individual prepositions. Some general remarks on semantic change are followed by two case-studies (Gk πρό and μετά).

Lectures 22–5 are devoted to the use of prepositions in combination with case-forms. Lecture 22 addresses their placement before or (in anastrophe) after the noun, in a noun phrase,in a string of nouns in coordination, or fixed in old combinations. There follow (Lecture 23) some general remarks on the cases governed by prepositions, with special attention to the genitive in Greek, the ablative in Latin, and the accusative in both. Lecture 24 covers the general tendency towards increased use of prepositional expressions, and, on the other hand, the use of certain case-forms without prepositions. Combinations of preposition + adverb, and the occurrence and ordering of strings of more than one preposition/preverb are treated in Lecture 25. The last lecture in this chapter (Lecture 26) is on the meaning — and change of meaning — of individual prepositions. Some general remarks on semantic change are followed by two case-studies (Gk πρό and μετά).

Lectures 22–5 are devoted to the use of prepositions in combination with case-forms. Lecture 22 addresses their placement before or (in anastrophe) after the noun, in a noun phrase, in a string of nouns in coordination,or fixed in old combinations. There follow (Lecture 23) some general remarks on the cases governed by prepositions, with special attention to the genitive in Greek, the ablative in Latin, and the accusative in both. Lecture 24 covers the general tendency towards increased use of prepositional expressions, and, on the other hand, the use of certain case-forms without prepositions. Combinations of preposition + adverb, and the occurrence and ordering of strings of more than one preposition/preverb are treated in Lecture 25. The last lecture in this chapter (Lecture 26) is on the meaning — and change of meaning — of individual prepositions. Some general remarks on semantic change are followed by two case-studies (Gk πρό and μετά).

Lectures 22–5 are devoted to the use of prepositions in combination with case-forms. Lecture 22 addresses their placement before or (in anastrophe) after the noun, in a noun phrase, in a string of nouns in coordination, or fixed in old combinations. There follow (Lecture 23) some general remarks on the cases governed by prepositions,with special attention to the genitive in Greek, the ablative in Latin, and the accusative in both. Lecture 24 covers the general tendency towards increased use of prepositional expressions, and, on the other hand, the use of certain case-forms without prepositions. Combinations of preposition + adverb, and the occurrence and ordering of strings of more than one preposition/preverb are treated in Lecture 25. The last lecture in this chapter (Lecture 26) is on the meaning — and change of meaning — of individual prepositions. Some general remarks on semantic change are followed by two case-studies (Gk πρό and μετά).

This chapter demonstrates that in the Slavic languages the accusative case arises on the internal argument of a ‘base’ verb whose event structure (lexical/semantic aspect) is compositional, whereas lexical case-marking occurs with atelic base verbs whose event structure is never compositional. A syntactic analysis is provided to account for this pattern.

This chapter argues that there are three positions relevant for the interpretation of objects. Objects in Spec,v are interpreted as [+a]. Objects in Spec,V (or the higher spec position within the phase) can be interpreted as specific/referential or generic. Finally, objects in situ can only be interpreted as non-specific/non-referential. The optionality of specific readings contrasts with the obligatoriness of the [+a] feature and reinforces the hypothesis that only the edge of a phase is a locus for interpretation rules.

This chapter argues that clitic left dislocation and clitic right dislocation are the outcome of a movement rule while hanging topics are initially merged outside the clause proper. The trigger of movement cannot be a feature in the probe but a feature in the moving item, as shown by sub-extraction. Recent analyses of clitic right dislocation are critiqued and the claim that it is located in the mid-field maintained. Finally, it is argued that Romance pronominal clitics are verbal affixes and evidence is presented against the BigDP hypothesis.

This chapter investigates the evolution of the argument structure of (psychological) transfer verbs from Latin to Romance. It proposes that the original Latin structure — a construction labelled as accusative alternation in parallelism with the locative alternation or the dative alternation — consists of a small clause selected by the verb and headed by a final coincidence abstract preposition that relates two NP arguments. The Latin abstract preposition would be replaced by a lexical preposition in Romance as a consequence of the loss of case noun morphology and the extension of the use of prepositions. This change would yield in Old Romance two alternating structures that semantically differ in the SOURCE or GOAL meaning of the preposition. This semantic difference becomes crucial to the development of the argument structure in Modern Romance.

This chapter argues that the concept of verbal ergativity is not monolithic structurally. It shows three different configurations in which the external argument is absent: (a) there is no v-layer on top of VP; consequences: no external argument, no accusative Case; (b) there is a v-layer on top of VP, and vcontains a passive morpheme; consequences: the passive morpheme absorbs the external argument and accusative Case; and (c) there is a v-layer on top of VP and no external argument is generated; consequences: accusative Case is available. These three configurations correspond to (simplex) ergative constructions, passive constructions, and experiencer object constructions, respectively. The theoretical assumptions required to reach this result are: the verb phrase is/can be a layered constituent; the external argument is the specifier of v; structural accusative Case is checked in vP; the passive morpheme is generated in v, it absorbs the thematic role and the Case features of v; and vmay or may not have a phrase generated in its specifier position. As to the concept of ‘unaccusativity’, the chapter concludes that it lacks any theoretical relevance. The availability of accusative Case is an automatic consequence of the presence of v.

This chapter treats all aspects of verbal syntax, including some topics bordering on morphology, such as the finite/non-finite distinction, the reflexive verbs, and auxiliaries. The main parts of the chapter have to do with complements and adjuncts, and with word order within the VP, where both OV and VO are found. The latter is argued to be the underlying order in Old Norse. Verbs take all kinds of complements: NPs in all cases except the nominative, PPs, finite and non-finite clauses, and small clauses (‘accusative with infinitive’).

In Plautus and Terence a present infinitive in the accusative and infinitive construction can be posterior in meaning. The future infinitive, which also occurs under these circumstances, is the only possibility in the classical era. The present infinitive with posterior time reference is subject to certain restrictions in the early period. It can only be used if the verb (with its complements) is telic in meaning; it is particularly frequent if the subjects of the superordinate verb and of the infinitive are identical; and it occurs more often than expected if the infinitive is dare ‘to give’.

Most of the sigmatic infinitives (type impetrāssere ‘to achieve’) occur in accusative and infinitive constructions with future time reference. Since in this constellation they could be replaced not only by future infinitives, but also by present infinitives, their precise meaning remains unclear. There is one instance of a sigmatic infinitive after the modal verb posse (‘to be able to’). While the sigmatic infinitive could only be replaced by a present tense infinitive here, the conclusion cannot be that all sigmatic infinitives are inherently present-tense infinitives; the token, clearly employed to mark a higher register, could be a ‘false archaism’.

The chapter starts with an outline of some basic notions concerning grammatical relations and their marking. We introduce the notions of nominative-accusative languages, and then turn to canonical ergative systems. Many Amazonian languages have ergative, or split ergative systems, conditioned by various parameters (including the meaning of a noun phrase, the meaning of a verb, and tense and aspect). Paumarí, an Arawá language spoken south of the River Amazon, combines a nominative-accusative and an ergative-absolutive system. The choice between the two is conditioned by discourse factors. There is agreement among the scholars about whether Proto-Carib was nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive: this is the essence of the Carib conundrum. At the end of the chapter we look at grammatical relations and language contact, and conclude that while the emergence of nominative-accusative systems is often due to language contact, ergative-absolutive traits are typically inherited from the proto-language.

This chapter proposes that an ergative language becomes split-ergative by a reanalysis of its antipassive construction as syntactically transitive. A split-ergative language then can evolve into an accusative language through the further reanalysis of transitive ergative clauses as passive. It illustrates this continuum with the ergative language Tagalog, the split-ergative languages Malagasy and Seediq, and the predominantly accusative standard Indonesian.