Advertisement

The Locus of Ergative Case Assignment: Evidence from Scope

  • PRANAV ANAND
  • ANDREW NEVINS
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 65)

Keywords

Agree Relation Functional Head Case Assignment Verbal Agreement Perfective Aspect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aissen, Judith. 2003. ‘Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435-483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Artiagiota, Xabier. 2001. ‘Seemingly Ergative and Ergatively Seeming.’ In J. Herschensohn, E. Mallén, and K. Zagona, eds. Features and Interfaces: Essays Hellas Contreres, pp. 1 22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell. 1997. ‘Distributivity and Negation.’ In Anna Szabolsci, ed. Ways of Scope Taking. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1996. ‘Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases.’ In Chicago Linguistic Society 1996.Google Scholar
  6. Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Bittner, Maria & Ken Hale. 1996. ‘The structural determination of Case and agreement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1-68.Google Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993. ‘On ergativity and ergative unergatives.’ In Papers on Case & Agreement II. MITWPL 19.Google Scholar
  9. Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. ‘Scope reconstruction and A-movement.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 503-548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bresnan, Joan. 1994. ‘Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar.’ Language 70, 72-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Büring, Daniel, and Christine Gunlogson. 2000. Aren’t positive and negative questions the same? Manuscript, UCLA/UCSC.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cowper, Elizabeth. 1989. ‘Perfect -en is passive -en.’ In E. J. Fee and K. Hunt, eds. WCCFL 22 Proceedings, pp. 85–93.Google Scholar
  14. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  15. Enc, Mürvet. 1991. ‘The semantics of specificity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 22,1-25.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, D., and U. Sauerland. 1995. ‘Illusive scope of universal quantifiers.’ In Proceedings of NELS XXVI. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez, Luis. 2003. ‘From addressees to nominees: Dative overriding of human accusative subjects.’ Talk presented at the LSA meeting, 2003, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  18. Hook, Peter. 1990. ‘Experiencers in South Asian languages: A gallery.’ In M.K. Verma and K.P. Mohanan, eds. Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. CSLI.Google Scholar
  19. Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. ‘On the form and meaning of the perfect.’ In M. Kenstowicz., ed. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Johns, Alana. 1992. ‘Deriving ergativity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23,57-88.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, Kyle, and Satoshi Tomioka. 1997. ‘Lowering and mid-size clauses.’ In Katz, Kim, and Haike, eds.Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction.Google Scholar
  23. Kachru, Yamuna. 1987. ‘Ergativity, subjecthood, and topicality in Hindi-Urdu’. In R.M.W. Dixon, ed. Studies on Ergativity (a special volume of Lingua). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Kidwai, Ayesha. 2001. XP-adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi-Urdu. Oxford.Google Scholar
  25. Kuno, Susumu. 1971. ‘The position of locatives in existential sentences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 2, 333-378.Google Scholar
  26. Ladd, Robert. 1981. ‘A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of tag questions and negative questions.’ In Chicago Linguistics Society Vol. 17.Google Scholar
  27. Laka, Itziar. 1993. ‘Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative.’ In Papers on case and agreement I. MITWPL 18.Google Scholar
  28. Lavine, James, and Robert Freidin. 2002. ‘The subject of defective (T)ense in Slavic.’ Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1-2).Google Scholar
  29. Legate, Julie Anne. (this volume). ‘Split absolutive in Warlpiri.’Google Scholar
  30. Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A’ distinction and movement theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Mahajan, Anoop. 1992. ‘Specificity condition and the CED.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 510-516.Google Scholar
  32. Mahajan, Anoop. 2000. ‘Oblique subjects and Burzio’s generalization.’ In Eric Reuland, ed. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  34. Nash, Léa. 1995. Portée argumentale et marquage casuel dans les langues sov et dans les langue ergatives: l’example du géorgien. Doctoral Dissertation, Université Paris VIII.Google Scholar
  35. Nevins, Andrew, and Pranav Anand. 2003. ‘Some agreement matters.’ In G. Gardner and M. Tsujimura, eds. WCCFL 22 Proceedings, pp. 370 -383.Google Scholar
  36. Phillips, Colin. 1993. ‘Conditions on agreement in Yimas.’ In Papers on Case and Agreement I. MITWPL 18.Google Scholar
  37. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. ‘Quantifier-scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case, and licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Sigurdsson, Halldór. 2002. ‘To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 691-724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. von Stechow, Arnim, and Doris Penka. 2003. ‘N-words and negation in German.’ Presented at Datenvielfalt und Perspecktivenvielflat zwischen Universalität und Variation, Tübingen, January 2003.Google Scholar
  41. Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Woolford, Ellen. 1997. ‘Four way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 181-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • PRANAV ANAND
  • ANDREW NEVINS

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations