David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Robert Pensalfini & Norvin Richards (eds.), MITWPEL 2: Papers on Australian Languages. Dep. Linguistics, MIT (2000)
Ergative languages make up a substantial percentage of the world’s languages. They have a case system which distinguishes the subject of a transitive verb from that of an intransitive, grouping the latter with the object — that is, the object of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb are in the same case, which we refer to as the nominative. However, ergative languages differ from one another in important ways. In Greenlandic Eskimo the nominative, whether it is a subject or an object, is syntactically prominent in the clause, much like a subject in English; but in Warlpiri, the nominative is not prominent, more like an object. The variable prominence of the nominative manifests itself as well in the semantics, e.g., default scope of indefinite and quantified nominals. Using data from Greenlandic Eskimo and Warlpiri, and from Hindi, which represents a split ergative system, this paper develops a general theory of case which explains the observed differences amongst ergative languages. In addition, the theory is designed to account for the accusative language type, represented by English.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maria Bittner & Ken Hale (1996). The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27 (1):1–68.
Maria Bittner (1987). On the Semantics of the Greenlandic Antipassive and Related Constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 53:194–231.
R. Triomphe (1979). Metamorphoses in the Linguistic Relationship Subject- Object: The Ergative Concept. Diogenes 27 (105):8-37.
Gontzal Aldai (2008). From Ergative Case Marking to Semantic Case Marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford University Press.
Merold Westphal (2007). The Prereflective Cogito as Contaminated Opacity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (S1):152-177.
Maria Bittner (1995). Quantification in Eskimo: A Challenge for Compositional Semantics. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer. 59--80.
Maria Bittner & Ken Hale (1995). Remarks on Definiteness in Warlpiri. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer.
G. Dumezil (1979). Concerning the Ergative. Diogenes 27 (105):4-7.
Andrew Carnie & Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.) (2000). The Syntax of the Verb Initial Languages. Oxford University Press.
Frederick E. Crowe (2003). The Puzzle of the Subject as Subject in Lonergan. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (2):187-205.
Marek Rosiak (2006). Formal and Existential Analysis of Subject and Properties. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):285-299.
Anna Szabolcsi (2009). Overt Nominative Subjects in Infinitival Complements in Hungarian. In Marcel den Dikken & Robert Vago (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 11. John Benjamins. 251–276.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads8 ( #182,336 of 1,140,267 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #142,694 of 1,140,267 )
How can I increase my downloads?