Abstract
In this paper, we propose a uniform motivation for subject case alternations that align with distinctions in tense and aspect and those that align with a distinction between stage- and individual-level predication. We argue that both follow from an economical use of case marking that is made possible by grounding. If the argument function of an event participant can be determined on the basis of information available in the here and now, the use of case marking can be judged redundant and suspended because of economy.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the audiences of the TIN-dag 2009 and the workshop on Finiteness and Non-finiteness (Tallinn 2009) for their useful comments, and Andrej Malchukov for fruitful discussion. Also we thank two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve this paper. Sander Lestrade acknowledges the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for financial support (Grant 275-78-001, The exaptation of argument marking). Finally, thanks go to John Bateman for suggesting the term grounding.
Abbreviations
- 1,2,3
first, second, third person
- ANT
anterior
- ERG
ergative
- HORT
hortative
- IMPF
imperfective
- M
male
- NOM
nominative
- PERF
perfective
- PRES
present
- PRON
pronominal
- REAL
realis
- SG
singular
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tikaram Poudel. 2007. Distribution of the ergative in Nepali. Manuscript, University of Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English: University of Massachusetts, PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals & linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–657.10.2307/414343Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138.10.1017/CBO9780511611896Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Andrej Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117. 1636–1656.10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010Search in Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Andrej Malchukov. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4). 565–587.10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565Search in Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2005. Differential case-marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, 321–346. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50015-XSearch in Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2008. Ergative case-marking in Hindi. In H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 63–78. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5_4Search in Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Peter de Swart (eds.), 2008. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The space of case: Radboud University Nijmegen, PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Helen de Hoop. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121(1). 35–47.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.003Search in Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1985. The extended accusative/restricted nominative in perspective. In F. Plank (ed.), Relational typology, 269–311. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110848731.269Search in Google Scholar
Poudel, Tikaram. 2007. Ergativity and stage/individual level predications in Nepali and Manipuri. Manuscript, University of Konstanz.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1993. The grammar of space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Swart, Peter de. 2003. The case mirror. Radboud University Nijmegen, MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Swart, Peter de. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radboud University Nijmegen, PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Swart, Peter de. 2011. Sense and simplicity: Bidirectionality in differential case marking. In Anton Benz & Jason Mattausch (eds.), Bidirectional optimality theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1979. On the origin of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Toward a theory of grammatical relations, 269–311. New York: Academic press.Search in Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Case patterns. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 509–545. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Search in Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2007. Aspect splits as contextual faithfulness. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 2000. The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of Semantics 17. 243–262.10.1093/jos/17.3.243Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
