Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Parametric Syntax of Aspectually Conditioned Split-Ergativity

  • Chapter
ERGATIVITY

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 65))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anand, P., and A. Nevins. (this volume). ‘The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. 1976. ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages.’ In C. Li, ed., Subject and topic, 1-23. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, M., and K. Hale. 1996. ‘Ergativity: Towards a theory of heterogeneous class.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531-601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, B. 1976. ‘On ergativity and the notion of subject: Some Australian cases.’ Lingua 39, 281-300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, J. 1993. ‘On ergativity and ergative unaccusatives.’ MIT working papers in linguistics 19, 45-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, J., and P. Branigan. (this volume). ‘Eccentric agreement and multiple Case-checking.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. 1994. ‘The projection of arguments.’ University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, 19-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. 1998. ‘Deriving the passive without theta roles.’ In S. Lapointe et al., eds., Morphology, pp. 60-99, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnie, A. and P. Cash Cash (this volume). ‘Tree-geometric relational hierarchies and Nuumiipuutímt (Nez Perce) Case.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of theTheory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework.’ In R. Martin et al., eds., Step by Step, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase.’ In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A life in Language, pp. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1978. ‘Ergativity.’ In W. P. Lehman, ed., Syntactic Typology, pp. 329-394. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1979. ‘Degrees of ergativity: Some Chukchee evidence.’ In F. Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, pp. 219-240. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1981. ‘Ergativity and grammatical relations in Kalaw Lagaw Ya (Saibai Dialect).’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 1-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1984. ‘Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages.’ Linguistics 22, 857-864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLancey, S. 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns.’ Language 57, 626-657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. ‘Ergativity.’ Language 55, 59-138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. 1991. ‘Thematic proto roles and argument selection.’ Language 67, 547-619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations.’ In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20, pp. 53-109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. 1981. Georgian Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holisky, D. A. 1981. Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoop, H. de. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hout, A. 1998. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, T. Holloway. 1994. ‘SpecAgrP and Case: Evidence from Georgian.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 91-110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. 1992. ‘Deriving ergativity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 57-87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachru, Y. 1980. Aspects of Hindi Grammar. New Delhi: Manohar Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibrik, A. E. 1985. ‘Toward a typology of ergativity.’ In J. Nichols and A. Woodbury, eds., Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laka, I. 1993. ‘Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusative that assign accusative.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 149-172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laka, I. (this volume). ‘Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: The case of Basque.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hanjung. 2002. Parallel Optimization in Case Systems: Modeling Variability in Form and Meaning. Ms., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legate, J. (this volume). ‘Split absolutive.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. 1983. On the Nature of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyle, J. 1997. Aspects of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, W. 1994. Syntactic Projections of the Semantics of Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, M. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, A. 1989. ‘Agreement and agreement phrases.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 217-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, A. 1992. ‘The specificity condition and the CED.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 510-516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, A. 1996. ‘Universal grammar and the typology of ergative languages.’ In A. Alexiadou and T. A. Hall, eds., Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, pp. 35-57. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Camb,idge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. 1991. ‘Case and licensing.’ In Proceedings of ESCOL 91, 234-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, D. 2001. ‘Pseudo noun incorporation.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 153-197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massam, D. (this volume). ‘Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative: Arguments from Niuean.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. 1991. ‘Active/Agentive case marking and its motivation.’ Language 67, 510-546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murasugi, K. 1992. Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movements in Accusative and Ergative Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, M. B. 1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka, Y. (this volume). ‘Syntactic ergativity in Tongan: Resumptive pronouns revisited.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D. 1982. ‘Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject.’ In P. Jacobson and G. Pullum, eds., The Nature of Syntactic Representation, pp. 283-340. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G. 1997. Aspect and Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, N. 2002. Movement in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, E., and S. Rosen. 1998. ‘Delimiting events in syntax.’ In W. Geuder and M. Butt, eds., The Projection of Arguments, pp. 135-164. Stanford, Calf.: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, E., and S. Rosen. 2000. ‘Event structure and ergativity.’ In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 187-238. Stanford, Calf.: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. 1984. ‘The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations.’ In D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, eds., Relational Grammar 2, pp. 38-77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. 1994. Case and Agreement in Hindi: A GB approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M. 1994. Perfectivity, Definiteness, and Specificity: A Classification of Verbal Predicates in Hindi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreng, B. (this volume). ‘Antipassive morphology and Case assignment in Inuktitut.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsedryk, Y. (this volume). ‘The split verb as a source of morphological ergativity: The case of Russian and its northern dialects.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, L. 2000. ‘Event structure in syntax.’ In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 145-185. Stanford, Calf.: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ura, H. 1994. Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase Structure Theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics #7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ura, H. 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ura, H. 2001. ‘Case.’ In M. Baltin and C. Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 334-373. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R. 1981. ‘Grammatical relations in ergative languages.’ Studies in Language 5, 361-394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R., and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhaar, J. 1990. ‘How transitive is intransitive?’ Studies in Language 14, 93-168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiltschko, M. (this volume). ‘On ergativity in Halkomelem Salish (and how to split and derive it).’

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner, A. Z. 1994. Boolean Event Lattices and Thematic Roles in the Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Modification. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. HIROYUKI URA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, ON, Canada

    ALANA JOHNS

  2. University of Toronto, ON, Canada

    DIANE MASSAM

  3. University of Toronto, ON, Canada

    JUVENAL NDAYIRAGIJE

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

URA, H. (2006). A Parametric Syntax of Aspectually Conditioned Split-Ergativity. In: JOHNS, A., MASSAM, D., NDAYIRAGIJE, J. (eds) ERGATIVITY. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation