Search

"Patient + Agent + Ergative verb", in fact, it is a kind of absolutive structure, in which word order and case marking contribute to its formation. It assumes that "Patient + Ergative verb" is the basis syntactic structure, which generates "Patient + Agent + Ergative verb". And it verifies the hypothesis by checking of light verbs, the characteristics of split-ergativity and Case Hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper first claims that the Inverse Agreement Constraint and the Person-Case Constraint attested in overlapping sets of Uralic languages are manifestations of the same Inverse Topicality Constraint, requiring that the structural hierarchy of topicalized constituents correspond to the ranking of their referents in the Animacy/Topicality Hierarchy. Then it argues that it is the hypothesized Inverse Topicality Constraint that also underlies the Person-Case Constraints restricting the cooccurrence of clitics in ditransitive and ergative-absolutive constructions across languages. It is shown that alternative analyses of the Person-Case Constraint, e.g., those deriving it from the mechanism of multiple Agree, cannot account for the whole range of data attested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author claims that a) the encoding of the core constituents in the Old Hurrian perfective forms reveals some residual non-ergative (active) features, b) this preergative type of encoding coexisted with the ergative one, c) the mixed active-ergative type of encoding of Old Hurrian was replaced in Late (Mitannian) Hurrian by the typically ergative one, d) the language of the Tižadal-inscription, the earliest known Hurrian text, was not ergative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In ergative constructions, the agent of a transitive verb is in the ergative case and the theme is in the absolutive case. By contrast, in biabsolutive constructions, both the agent and theme of a transitive verb appear in the absolutive case. This paper presents and analyzes the biabsolutive construction in two Nakh-Dagestanian languages, Lak and Tsez. Despite many surface similarities, the biabsolutive constructions in Lak and Tsez call for different syntactic analyses. We argue that the biabsolutive construction in Lak is an instance of restructuring in the presence of an aspectual head bearing a progressive (imperfective) feature. Tsez biabsolutive constructions, on the other hand, are biclausal; we argue that the theme and the lexical verb are contained in a PP complement selected by a light verb. Related languages may be classified as “Lak-type” or “Tsez-type” based on the behavior of their biabsolutives. The existence of two underlying structures for one surface pattern in Nakh-Dagestanian poses a learnability problem for a child acquiring a language with biabsolutive constructions. We outline a set of strategies used by a learner who must compare the available input data with a set of structural hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two majors patterns of core term marking are found cross-linguistically: an accusative pattern in which P is the only core syntactic role marked by a case form distinct from the quotation form of nouns or by an adposition, and an ergative pattern in which A is the only core syntactic role marked by a case form distinct from the quotation form of nouns or by an adposition. Current case terminology is adapted to the description of systems consistently following one of these two patterns, but is difficult to extend to core term marking systems characterized by alignment variations. Moreover, several minor patterns are attested, characterized by a wider use of marked case forms or adpositions, and current terminology fails to provide convenient labels for case forms or adpositions occurring in such patterns. It is argued that: (a) in languages in which nouns are inflected for case, the case form coinciding with the quotation form of nouns should be labeled in a uniform way, irrespective of the uses it may have in syntactic constructions, (b) new labels should be coined for marked case forms or adpositions used in S/A or S/P role. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Agreement in Itelmen is represented by means of both prefixes and suffixes. While the prefixes reference subjects (of both transitive and intransitive verbs), the suffixal agreement morphemes on a given verb may reference the subject, the object, or an oblique argument, or some combination of these. We propose that the proper characterization of the factors that determine which arguments control suffixal agreement involves a division of labour between morphology and a notion of discourse prominence/salience. In essence, we propose that the suffixal agreement morpheme is an object agreement marker, but the features of the subject are reflected in this position when the object lacks the relevant features (for example, we treat third person as the lack of a person feature), or is absent altogether (thus, intransitive verbs agree twice with their subjects). When a verb occurs with an oblique as well as a direct object, discourse salience will determine which of these non-subject arguments will control object agreement. In addition to providing a description of a complex range of facts from Itelmen, the paper sheds light on the nature of “multiple exponence” and the role of “competition” among affixes for a particular position in the verbal agreement system.