Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi

Mohanan, Tara

doi:10.1007/bf00992779

Cited by 54 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this explanation for optionality is problematic because Noun Incorporation does not by itself provide an explanation for the optionality of Long Distance Agreement. Mohanan (1995) and Wescoat (2000Wescoat ( , 2001 point out that Incorporation of the sort that they assume does not block agreement -it seems to not affect agreement at all. Consider (51a, b), which Mohanan (1995) argues involve obligatory incorporation of the object.…”

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mohanan (1995) and Wescoat (2000Wescoat ( , 2001 point out that Incorporation of the sort that they assume does not block agreement -it seems to not affect agreement at all. Consider (51a, b), which Mohanan (1995) argues involve obligatory incorporation of the object.…”

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important for Butt that the object is the structurally most prominent non-overtly case- The fact that a (putatively) incorporated NP can agree plays an important role in Mohanan (1995) and Wescoat (2000Wescoat ( , 2001)'s analyses of Noun Incorporation in Hindi. These analyses postulate multiple levels of representation -on the level where agreement relationships are represented, the NP is not incorporated.…”

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…an optional rule of Noun Incorporation in the sense of Mohanan (1995). Incorporation is taken by Butt to block agreement between the object and the infinitive, and consequently between the infinitive and the main verb.…”

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu

Bhatt

2005

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

225

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper provides a new analysis of the phenomenon of Long Distance Agreement in HindiUrdu and argues for a dissociation between case and agreement. Long Distance Agreement involves a verb agreeing with a constituent inside the verb's clausal complement. Long Distance Agreement and Object Agreement in Hindi-Urdu are shown to involve the same structural configurations. They both involve a head (T ¼ ) agreeing with an argument whose case-features T ¼ does not value. In particular it is argued the operation Agree of Chomsky (1998, 1999, 2001) needs to be reformulated to be able to handle the facts of Hindi-Urdu Long Distance Agreement. The analysis is largely motivated on the basis of evidence from Hindi-Urdu but is shown to extend to the Long Distance Agreement facts of Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam (2001)) and Kashmiri (Subbarao and Munshi (2000)).

show abstract

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Butt Derives the Optionality Of Long Distance Agreement By Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu

Bhatt

2005

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

225

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Crosslinguistically, property-type objects are a subclass of indefinites in that they cannot refer to entities already established in a discourse context (Mohanan 1995, van Geenhoven 1998, Farkas and de Swart 2003 cf. the analysis of certain definites as property-type by Zimmermann 1992).…”

Section: Evidence From Definitenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce

Deal

2009

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ergative case, the special case of transitive subjects, raises questions not only for the theory of case but also for theories of subjecthood and transitivity. This paper analyzes the case system of Nez Perce, a "three-way ergative" language, with an eye towards a formalization of the category of transitive subject. I show that it is object agreement that is determinative of transitivity, and hence of ergative case, in Nez Perce. I further show that the transitivity condition on ergative case must be coupled with a criterion of subjecthood that makes reference to participation in subject agreement, not just to origin in a high argument-structural position. These two results suggest a formalization of the transitive subject as that argument uniquely accessing both high and low agreement information, the former through its (agreement-derived) connection with T and the latter through its origin in the specifier of a head associated with object agreement (v). In view of these findings, I argue that ergative case morphology should be analyzed not as the expression of a syntactic primitive but as the morphological spell-out of subject agreement and object agreement on a nominal.Keywords Nez Perce · ergativity · transitivity · case · agreement · anaphor agreement effect · Sahaptin The category of transitive subjectAn analysis of ergative case, the special case of transitive subjects, can only be as adequate as the theories of subjecthood and transitivity on which it rests. The lack of a complete and satisfying formal analysis of ergative case cannot be independent of the relatively meager attention afforded the study of transitivity within generative grammar, and lack of integration of what is known about transitivity with what is

show abstract

References

2003

Word Order and Scrambling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi

Cited by 54 publications

References 11 publications

Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu

Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu

Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About