Abstract
In Mongolian the subject of embedded object clauses can occur not only in the morphologically unmarked form, but also in the accusative. Sidestepping the question whether these NPs are raised to object position, we focus here on the conditions underlying this alternation. The results of two questionnaires indicate that the accusative is clearly preferred if the embedded subject is immediately preceded by and more prominent than the matrix subject (otherwise both the unmarked and the accusative forms are possible and there is no clear preference). We explain this by the interaction of three principles: (i) the prominence principle (P1), stating that the most prominent NP in a sequence of NPs is the matrix subject, (ii) the accusative principle (P2), stating that an accusative marked NP is not the matrix subject, and (iii) the first argument principle (P3), stating that the first NP in a sequence of NPs is the matrix subject. If the first NP in a sequence of NPs is followed by a more prominent morphologically unmarked NP, then P1 and P3 conflict, predicting low acceptability judgements. Assuming that case morphology, unlike word order information, overrides the prominence principle, no conflict arises if the second NP is accusative, resulting in better acceptability judgements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We have used the following glosses based on the Leipzig Glossing Rules: ABL  =  ablative, ACC  =  accusative, CVB  =  converb, DAT  =  dative, GEN  =  genitive, HAB  =  habitual, INF  =  infinitive, INS  =  instrumental, NOM  =  nominative, NPST  =  non-past, PRS  =  present tense, PST  =  past tense.
- 2.
For further details on when subject of subordinate clauses scramble into the superordinate clause, see von Heusinger et al. (2011, Sect. 4).
- 3.
To avoid potential confusion, we emphasise that the glosses indicate morphological case, not syntactic case (see e.g. Spencer 2009 for a clear exposition of the relevance of this distinction). So, the lack of glossing information on some direct objects simply indicates that this object is morphologically unmarked, and should not be taken to imply that it is in the syntactic case nominative.
- 4.
See Aissen (2003, p. 440) for the notion of harmonic alignment of prominence scales.
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.
Binnick, R.I. 1979. Modern Mongolian: A transformational syntax. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Butt, M. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Hoop, H., and M. Lamers. 2006. Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In Case, valency, and transitivity, ed. L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, and P. de Swart, 269–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Hoop, H., and A. Malchukov. 2008. Case marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565–587.
de Swart, P. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, LOT Publications.
Guntsetseg, D 2009. Differential object marking in (Khalkha-) Mongolian. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 5), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL) 58, ed. R. Shibagaki and R.Vermeulen, 115–129.
Guntsetseg, D. 2010. The function of accusative case in Mongolian. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL) 61, ed. H. Maezawa and A. Yokogoshi, 139–153.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 1993. Nominalizations. London/ New York: Routledge.
Kuno, S. 1976. Subject raising in Japanese. In Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, ed. M. Shibatani, 17–49. New York: Academic Press.
Næss, Å. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schlesewsky, M., and I. Bornkessel. 2004. On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension. Lingua 114: 1213–1234.
Spencer, A. 2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In The Oxford handbook of case, ed. A. Malchukov and A. Spencer, 185–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Heusinger, K., U. Klein, and D. Guntsetseg. 2011. The case of embedded subjects in Mongolian. Lingua 121: 48–59.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the workshop on Case, Word Order, and Prominence in Nijmegen (2007) and at the workshop Non-Canonical Perspectives on Case in Konstanz (2008). We would like to thank the participants at these two workshops for their helpful comments. Moreover, we would also like to thank Sam Featherston, Jaklin Kornfilt, Reiko Vermeulen as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies. This research was funded by the German Science Foundation (Project C2 Case and Referential Context in the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context), which we gratefully acknowledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klein, U., Guntsetseg, D., von Heusinger, K. (2012). Case in Conflict: Embedded Subjects in Mongolian. In: Lamers, M., de Swart, P. (eds) Case, Word Order and Prominence. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1462-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1463-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)