DOCSLIB.ORG

A Construction Grammar Approach * Yoon-Suk Chung

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Construction Grammar Approach * Yoon-Suk Chung Tough construction in English: a Construction Grammar approach * Yoon-Suk Chung B.A. (Seoul National University) 1985 M.A. (Seoul National University) 1988 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1992 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Paul Kay, Chair Professor Charles J. Fillmore Professor Yoko Hasegawa Spring 2001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tough construction in English: a Construction Grammar approach Copyright 2001 by Yoon-Suk Chung Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Abstract Tough construction in English: a Construction Grammar approach by Yoon-Suk Chung Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Paul Kay, Chair This study proposes a new analysis of the Tough construction (TC) in the English language. This analysis is couched within the non-modular, non- derivational, unification and inheritance-based framework of Construction Grammar (CG). There are five major theoretical issues around which the study of the TC has revolved: (1) the identification of the TC in generative syntax as a species of either extraction or control; (2) the characterization of the tough predicate as either a raising or a control predicate; (3) the analysis of the/or-phrase as either a PP or a complementizer + lower subject; and the classification of the tough infinitival phrase as (4) a VP, an IP, or a CP, and as (5) either a complement or an adjunct. I argue that the TC is a species of neither extraction nor control, but rather of a third independent grammatical construction. I maintain that the tough predicate should be treated as a raising predicate and demonstrate how its apparent control properties can be accounted for by Brentano's thetic vs. categorical distinction. While I argue that the for-phrase should be analyzed as a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 PP by default in most cases, I also identify particular grammatical conditions in which it can be interpreted otherwise. I characterize the tough infinitival phrase as a gapped VP complement, attributing its apparent adjunct properties to this syntactic peculiarity. I argue that tough sentences may be illustrations of four different lexical constructions based mainly on the interpretation of the thetic vs. categorical readings, and on the form and function of the/or-phrase. I show that these four lexical constructions inherit a single abstract Tough Coinstantiation construction, which I demonstrate is both similar to and different from the extraction and control constructions. The differences demonstrate that the Tough Coinstantiation construction should be treated as an independent structure. The commonalities indicate that these three constructions inherit perhaps a more abstract construction, more directly connected with each other than was previously assumed in frameworks other than CG. This case study casts doubts on some common assumptions of grammatical theory and illuminates the desirability of a more flexible grammatical theory such as CG. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This small project is dedicated with my love to The Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, the only source of my salvation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii Table of contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 2 Theoretical framework: fundamentals of Construction Grammar 7 2.1 Construction Grammar, constructions, and constructs .................. 7 2.1.1 Is CG a study of idioms? ............................................................... 9 2.1.2 Types of constructions .................................................................. 10 2.2 Goals of CG.............................................................................................. 11 2.3 Psycholinguistic issues in CG ............................................................... 12 2.4 Grammatical data in CG ........................................................................ 12 2.5 Characteristics of CG.............................................................................. 13 2.5.1 Non-modular grammar ................................................................ 13 2.5.2 Generative grammar ...................................................................... 13 2.5.3 Non-derivational grammar ......................................................... 14 2.6 Formal objects of the representational system in CG...................... 15 2.6.1 Feature structures.......................................................................... 15 2.6.2 Unification ...................................................................................... 16 2.6.3 Inheritance ...................................................................................... 17 2.6.4 Constituent structures with feature structures ........................ 18 2.6.5 Feature structure trees.................................................................. 18 2.6.6 Unification procedures .................................................................. 19 2.6.7 Psycholinguistic claims about the formal representational system............................................................................................. 20 2.7 Feature architecture in CG .................................................................... 20 2.7.1 Phrasal roles .................................................................................... 22 2.7.2 Synsem features ............................................................................. 23 2.7.2.1 Relational features ............................................................. 23 2.7.2.2 Intrinsic features ................................................................ 25 2.7.2.2.1 Syntactic features ................................................. 25 2.7.2.2.1.1 Head features .................................... 25 2.7.2.2.1.2 Level .features..................................... 26 2.7.2.2.2 Semantic features ................................................. 28 2.7.3 Valence features ............................................................................. 29 2.7.3.1 Valence, valence elements, and valence sets ............. 29 2.7.3.2 Valence alternation .......................................................... 30 2.7.3.2.1 Minimal vs. full valence .................................. 30 2.7.3.2.2 Minimal vs. augmented valence ................... 31 2.7.3.3 Valence satisfaction .......................................................... 33 2.7.3.4 Types of valence satisfaction .......................................... 33 2.7.3.4.1 Local instantiation ............................................. 33 2.7.3.4.2 Distant instantiation ......................................... 34 2.7.3.4.3 Double instantiation ......................................... 34 2.7.3.4.4 Coinstantiation ................................................... 34 2.7.3.4.5 Null instantiation .............................................. 35 2.7.4 Phon features .................................................................................. 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.8 Headed constructions in CG ................................................................. 37 2.8.1 The HC construction ..................................................................... 40 2.8.2 The XH construction ..................................................................... 42 2.8.2.1 The Subject-Predicate construction .................................. 43 3 Previous approaches to the Tough and related constructions in generative grammar..................................................................................... 45 3.1 Transformational approaches ............................................................... 45 3.2 Tough movement vs. tough deletion .................................................. 47 3.2.1 The tough movement analysis: Rosenbaum 1967 Postal 1971, Chomsky 1973, and Berman 1974 .......................... 47 3.2.2 The tough deletion analysis: Ross 1967, Lasnik & Fiengo 1974 ................................................................... 51 3.2.3 Arguments for the tough movement analysis .......................... 52 3.2.4 Arguments for the tough deletion analysis .............................. 57 3.2.5 Summary......................................................................................... 60 3.3 The WH-extraction analysis .................................................................. 62 3.3.1 WH-operator movement analyses ............................................. 63 3.3.1.1 Chomsky 1977 ............................... ...................................... 63 3.3.1.2 Chomsky 1981 ..................................................................... 66 3.3.1.3 Chomsky 1986 ..................................................................... 68 3.3.1.4 Browning 1987 .................................................................... 69 3.3.2 WH-operator insertion analyses ................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regular and Irregular Aspects of Grammatical Constructions Konrad Szcześniak, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland
    Regular and Irregular Aspects of Grammatical Constructions Konrad Szcześniak, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland This study focuses on two grammatical forms, the Incredulity Response Construction and the je vidět / vidieť construction. By analyzing their form and usage, I intend to weigh in on the debate concerning the importance of regularity and unpredictability inherent in grammatical constructions. The debate, initiated by Chomsky’s dismissal of idiosyncratic forms as peripheral, has gained momentum especially in recent years, with cognitive linguists uncovering more unpredictable aspects of language forms and claiming that language is primarily idiosyncratic, not regular. As a result, current cognitive linguistic descriptions of constructions highlight what is unpredictable and all but dismiss the regular aspects of constructions. The present study argues that the two sides—the predictable and the form-specific—coexist and thus have obvious implications for models of mental representations of language forms. By extrapolation, a recognition of a balance of the regular and irregular properties is relevant to our theorizing on how speakers learn and use constructions: just as the presence of idiosyncratic properties makes it necessary to memorize special cases of forms, the presence of regular properties can be assumed to ease the learning burden. An accurate description of any construction should attempt to detail both those aspects that can be predicted by rule and those that are endemic to a given construction and must be memorized. Keywords: grammatical construction, idiosyncrasy, regularity, IRC, je vidět / vidieť construction 1. Introduction The notions of irregularity, idiosyncrasy and unpredictability have received widely different treatments in major theoretical frameworks.
    [Show full text]
  • Verbal Case and the Nature of Polysynthetic Inflection
    Verbal case and the nature of polysynthetic inflection Colin Phillips MIT Abstract This paper tries to resolve a conflict in the literature on the connection between ‘rich’ agreement and argument-drop. Jelinek (1984) claims that inflectional affixes in polysynthetic languages are theta-role bearing arguments; Baker (1991) argues that such affixes are agreement, bearing Case but no theta-role. Evidence from Yimas shows that both of these views can be correct, within a single language. Explanation of what kind of inflection is used where also provides us with an account of the unusual split ergative agreement system of Yimas, and suggests a novel explanation for the ban on subject incorporation, and some exceptions to the ban. 1. Two types of inflection My main aim in this paper is to demonstrate that inflectional affixes can be very different kinds of syntactic objects, even within a single language. I illustrate this point with evidence from Yimas, a Papuan language of New Guinea (Foley 1991). Understanding of the nature of the different inflectional affixes of Yimas provides an explanation for its remarkably elaborate agreement system, which follows a basic split-ergative scheme, but with a number of added complications. Anticipating my conclusions, the structure in (1c) shows what I assume the four principal case affixes on a Yimas verb to be. What I refer to as Nominative and Accusative affixes are pronominal arguments: these inflections, which are restricted to 1st and 2nd person arguments in Yimas, begin as specifiers and complements of the verb, and incorporate into the verb by S- structure. On the other hand, what I refer to as Ergative and Absolutive inflection are genuine agreement - they are the spell-out of functional heads, above VP, which agree with an argument in their specifier.
    [Show full text]
  • Resultatives at the Crossroads Between the Lexicon and Syntax: Where Are They Formed
    Resultatives at the Crossroads between the Lexicon and Syntax Hans C. Boas1 International Computer Science Institute/ UC Berkeley 1 Introduction The sentences in (1) are examples of transitive resultative constructions which are composed of the following elements: an agent NP, an activity-denoting verb, a postverbal patient NP, and a resultative phrase which expresses the change of state or location of the patient as a result of the event expressed by the matrix verb. (1) a. Claire painted the door red. c. Chris drank Martin under the table. b. Pat ran his Nikes threadbare. d. Nicole danced Sascha tired. Resultative constructions have received much attention over the last decade because their syntactic and semantic distribution constitutes a challenge to theories within the Principles and Parameters framework (henceforth: P & P), such as the Small Clause Theory or the Binary Branching Analysis. There has, by no means, been any consensus as to whether the semantic predication relation that holds between the postverbal NP and the resultative phrase should be encoded syntactically, or not. This paper has two main goals. In the first part, I want to challenge the assumption that purely syntactic analyses are indeed the best way to account for the distribution of resultative constructions. The discussion focuses on the theory-internal syntactic motivations that underlie the individual analyses of resultative constructions within the P & P framework. In the second part, I will discuss a lexicalist approach to resultatives in terms of complex predicates. I will propose three different kinds of lexical rules, each forming a complex predicate in a different way.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign-Based Construction Grammar: an Informal Synopsis IVA N A
    September 4, 2012 3 Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis IVA N A. SAG 1 Introduction This chapter1 is intended as an introduction to some of the central notions of Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG).2 For a more general discussion of SBCG, including an informal, high-level summary of the framework, its historical development, motivation, and relation to other approaches to gram- mar, the reader is referred to Sag et al. this volume. 1.1 Preliminaries SBCG is a framework blending ideas developed over a quarter century of re- search in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG3) with those pre- 1Above all, I’d like to thank Paul Kay for hours of discussion and useful feedback at every stage in the seemingly endless process of writing this chapter. I’m also grateful to Chuck Fillmore and Laura Michaelis for many useful discussions of both content and exposition and for com- ments on an earlier draft, which was also been improved by the comments of Rui Chaves, Adele Goldberg, Bill Croft, Adam Przepiórkowski, Russell Lee-Goldman, and Hans Boas. In addition, discussions with the following people have been quite helpful: Farrell Ackerman, Emily Bender, Dan Flickinger, Mark Gawron, Andreas Kathol, Beth Levin, Bob Levine, Stefan Müller, Frank Van Eynde, Tom Wasow, Gert Webelhuth, and Steve Wechsler. None of the views expressed here should be attributed to any of these individuals; nor should they be held responsible for any remaining errors. 2SBCG owes a considerable debt to the implementation work carried out within CSLI’s LinGO Lab and the DELPHIN consortium, whose grammar development efforts have proceeded in paral- lel with the evolution of SBCG.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ergativity Parameter Holmer, Arthur
    The ergativity parameter Holmer, Arthur 2001 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Holmer, A. (2001). The ergativity parameter. (Working Papers, Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics; Vol. 48). http://www.ling.lu.se/disseminations/pdf/48/Holmer.pdf Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics 1 Working Papers 48 (2001), 101–113 The ergativity parameter Arthur Holmer1 1. Introduction Within the field of syntactic typology, which seeks to describe and classify the range of grammatical phenomena extant in the world’s languages, one of the most important problems is whether or not a given language is ergative.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar
    COGNITIVE SCIENCE 10, l-40 (1986) An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar RONALD W. LANGACKER University of California, San Diego Cognitive grammar takes a nonstandard view of linguistic semantics and grammatical structure. Meaning is equated with conceptualization. Semantic structures are characterized relative to cognitive domains, and derive their value by construing the content of these domains in a specific fashion. Gram- mar is not a distinct level of linguistic representation, but reduces instead to the structuring and symbolization of conceptual content. All grammatical units are symbolic: Basic categories (e.g., noun ond verb) are held to be notionally definable, and grammatical rules are analyzed as symbolic units that are both complex ond schematic. These concepts permit a revealing account of gram- maticol composition with notable descriptive advantages. Despite the diversity of contemporary linguistic theory, certain fundamental views enjoy a rough consensus and are widely accepted without serious question. Points of general agreement include the following: (a) language is a self-contained system amenable to algorithmic characterization, with suf- ficient autonomy to be studied in essential isolation from broader cognitive concerns; (b) grammar (syntax in particular) is an independent aspect of lin- guistic structure distinct from both lexicon and semantics; and (c) if mean- ing falls within the purview of linguistic analysis, it is properly described by some type of formal logic based on truth conditions. Individual theorists would doubtlessly qualify their assent in various ways, but (a)-(c) certainly come much closer than their denials to representing majority opinion. What follows is a minority report. Since 1976, I have been developing a linguistic theory that departs quite radically from the assumptions of the currently predominant paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructions: a New Theoretical Approach to Language
    Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.5 May 2003 219 Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language Adele E. Goldberg Linguistics Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801-0168, USA A new theoretical approach to language has emerged in the ‘core’ of language. Mainstream generative theory the past 10–15 years that allows linguistic observations argues further that the complexity of core language cannot about form–meaning pairings, known as ‘construc- be learned inductively by general cognitive mechanisms tions’, to be stated directly. Constructionist approaches and therefore learners must be hard-wired with principles aim to account for the full range of facts about that are specific to language (‘universal grammar’). language, without assuming that a particular subset of the data is part of a privileged ‘core’. Researchers in this Tenets of constructionist approaches field argue that unusual constructions shed light on Each basic tenet outlined below is shared by most more general issues, and can illuminate what is constructionist approaches. Each represents a major required for a complete account of language. divergence from the mainstream generative approach and, in many ways, a return to a more traditional view of Constructions – form and meaning pairings – have been language. the basis of major advances in the study of grammar since Tenet 1. All levels of description are understood to the days of Aristotle. Observations about specific linguistic involve pairings of form with semantic or discourse constructions have shaped our understanding of both function, including morphemes or words, idioms, particular languages and the nature of language itself. But partially lexically filled and fully abstract phrasal only recently has a new theoretical approach emerged that patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • A Neurolinguistic Model of Grammatical Construction Processing
    A Neurolinguistic Model of Grammatical Construction Processing Peter Ford Dominey1, Michel Hoen1, and Toshio Inui2 Downloaded from http://mitprc.silverchair.com/jocn/article-pdf/18/12/2088/1756017/jocn.2006.18.12.2088.pdf by guest on 18 May 2021 Abstract & One of the functions of everyday human language is to com- construction processing based on principles of psycholinguis- municate meaning. Thus, when one hears or reads the sen- tics, (2) develop a model of how these functions can be imple- tence, ‘‘John gave a book to Mary,’’ some aspect of an event mented in human neurophysiology, and then (3) demonstrate concerning the transfer of possession of a book from John to the feasibility of the resulting model in processing languages of Mary is (hopefully) transmitted. One theoretical approach to typologically diverse natures, that is, English, French, and Japa- language referred to as construction grammar emphasizes this nese. In this context, particular interest will be directed toward link between sentence structure and meaning in the form of the processing of novel compositional structure of relative grammatical constructions. The objective of the current re- phrases. The simulation results are discussed in the context of search is to (1) outline a functional description of grammatical recent neurophysiological studies of language processing. & INTRODUCTION ditransitive (e.g., Mary gave my mom a new recipe) One of the long-term quests of cognitive neuroscience constructions (Goldberg, 1995). has been to link functional aspects of language process- In this context, the ‘‘usage-based’’ perspective holds ing to its underlying neurophysiology, that is, to under- that the infant begins language acquisition by learning stand how neural mechanisms allow the mapping of the very simple constructions in a progressive development surface structure of a sentence onto a conceptual repre- of processing complexity, with a substantial amount of sentation of its meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Thematic Roles in Somali: a Principles and Parameters Approach
    Advances in Language and Literary Studies ISSN: 2203-4714 Vol. 6 No. 5; October 2015 Flourishing Creativity & Literacy Australian International Academic Centre, Australia Thematic Roles in Somali: A Principles and Parameters Approach Ahmad M. Saidat (Corresponding author) Department of English Language, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University P.O. BOX, 20 Ma'an 71111, Jordan E-mail: [email protected] Mamdouh A. Alenazy Department of English Language, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University P.O. BOX, 20 Ma'an 71111, Jordan E-mail: [email protected] Doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.5p.104 Received: 04/05/2015 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.5p.104 Accepted: 20/07/2015 Abstract This study describes the thematic roles of Somali; a language that manifests unorthodox grammatical structures due to the use of the focus particle. A mapping of some language features related to the semantic-syntactic interface is carried out. The effect of the meaning of the lexical items is tested to whether it affects the syntactic structures of the sentences. It was found that the word order of Somali is determined by pragmatic and sociolinguistics factors. The focus particle of Somali plays a key-role in the Surface structure of the sentences. However; the thematic roles of the language appear not to be influenced by the grammatical manifestation of the language at the surface structure. Rather, they are determined at the deep structure level. Somali, being a pro-drop language, shows that predicates require obligatory external arguments while internal arguments are determined by the verb class and kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar IVA N A
    September 4, 2012 1 Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar IVA N A. SAG,HANS C. BOAS, AND PAUL KAY 1 Background Modern grammatical research,1 at least in the realms of morphosyntax, in- cludes a number of largely nonoverlapping communities that have surpris- ingly little to do with one another. One – the Universal Grammar (UG) camp – is mainly concerned with a particular view of human languages as instantia- tions of a single grammar that is fixed in its general shape. UG researchers put forth highly abstract hypotheses making use of a complex system of repre- sentations, operations, and constraints that are offered as a theory of the rich biological capacity that humans have for language.2 This community eschews writing explicit grammars of individual languages in favor of offering conjec- tures about the ‘parameters of variation’ that modulate the general grammat- ical scheme. These proposals are motivated by small data sets from a variety of languages. A second community, which we will refer to as the Typological (TYP) camp, is concerned with descriptive observations of individual languages, with particular concern for idiosyncrasies and complexities. Many TYP re- searchers eschew formal models (or leave their development to others), while others in this community refer to the theory they embrace as ‘Construction Grammar’ (CxG). 1For comments and valuable discussions, we are grateful to Bill Croft, Chuck Fillmore, Adele Goldberg, Stefan Müller, and Steve Wechsler. We also thank the people mentioned in footnote 8 below. 2The nature of these representations has changed considerably over the years. Seminal works include Chomsky 1965, 1973, 1977, 1981, and 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Grammar with Reference to Passive Construction in Arabic
    International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture (LLC) March 2017 edition Vol.4 No.1 ISSN 2410-6577 Cognitive Grammar with Reference to Passive Construction in Arabic Dr. Bahaa-eddin Hassan Faculty of Arts, Sohag University, Egypt Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine Cognitive Grammar (CG) theory with reference to the active and the passive voice construction in Arabic. It shows how the cognitive approach to linguistics and construction grammar work together to explain motivation beyond the use of this syntactic construction; therefore, formal structures of language are combined with the cognitive dimension. CG characterizations reveal the limitations of the view that grammatical constructions are autonomous categories. They are interrelated with conceptualization in the framework of cognitive grammar. The study also accounts for the verbs which have active form and passive meaning, and the verbs which have passive form and active meaning. Keywords: Cognitive Grammar, Voice, Arabic, Theme-oriented. 1. Introduction In his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Chomsky represented each sentence in a language as having a surface structure and a deep structure. The deep structure represents the semantic component and the surface structure represents the phonological approach. He explained that languages’ deep structures share universal properties which surface structures do not reveal. He proposed transformational grammar to map the deep structure (semantic relations of a sentence) on to the surface structure. Individual languages use different grammatical patterns for their particular set of expressed meanings. Chomsky, then, in Language and Mind, proposed that language relates to mind. Later, in an interview, he emphasized that language represents a state of mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Basque As a Nominative-Accusative Language
    BASQUE AS A NOMINATIVE-ACCUSATIVE LANGUAGE Rebecca Tollan University of Toronto This paper considers how ergative alignment in Basque differs from that found in other ergative languages and how this system may be derived. In other ergative languages (E.g. Bandjalang, Warlpiri), all intransitive verbs have absolutive case subjects, regardless of any theta-related distinctions between agent and theme. In Basque, however, absolutive case appears only on subjects of unaccusative verbs. Unergative verbs pattern with transitive verbs in the sense that their sole (agent) argument is assigned ergative case. Previous analyses of ergativity (e.g. Chomsky 1991, Legate 2002) have related case marking to distinctions between transitive and intransitive verbs. Such analyses are not consistent with Basque data, however, given that the ergative-absolutive split in this language relates to verb agentivity rather than transitivity. I suggest that Basque can be analysed as a structural nominative-accusative language in which apparent ergative-absolutive patterning arises due to a particular property of non-agentive v (namely, the presence of Case). 1. Introduction One of the properties which set Basque apart from its neighbouring Indo- European languages is its Ergative-Absolutive case marking system. The main contrast between Ergative-Absolutive and Nominative-Accusative languages lies in subject-object patterning: in ergative languages (e.g. Basque, Inuktitut, Warlpiri) intransitive subjects pattern with transitive objects (generally speaking), whilst in accusative languages (E.g. English, French) transitive and intransitive subjects pattern together. This is summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1: Ergative and Accusative alignment and case marking patterns a. Nominative-accusative Transitive subject = Nominative Intransitive subject Object = Accusative I would like to thank Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, Alana Johns, the University of Toronto Syntax and Semantics Research group and the audiences of MOTH 2013 and CLA 2013 for helpful feedback and discussion.
    [Show full text]