{"title":"Crosslinguistic variation in partitives","authors":"P. Sleeman, S. Luraghi","doi":"10.1075/lv.21020.lur","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21020.lur","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42406678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines a structure in the Bantu language Kinande, namely the so-called sociative causative, where partitive morphology occurs on a nominal without giving the nominal an NP-related partitive interpretation. We argue that the source of the partitivity in this construction lies in the co-extensiveness relation (incrementality relation) between the causing and the caused subevent. Partitive morphology on the nominal signals obligatory licensing of the theme so that it can be properly mapped to the co-extensive subevents.
{"title":"Partitive sharing – How to help in Kinande","authors":"M. Irimia, Patricia Schneider-Zioga","doi":"10.1075/lv.21001.iri","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21001.iri","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper examines a structure in the Bantu language Kinande, namely the so-called sociative causative, where partitive morphology occurs on a nominal without giving the nominal an NP-related partitive interpretation. We argue that the source of the partitivity in this construction lies in the co-extensiveness relation (incrementality relation) between the causing and the caused subevent. Partitive morphology on the nominal signals obligatory licensing of the theme so that it can be properly mapped to the co-extensive subevents.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47906713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article takes a closer look at the partitive genitive constructions in Latvian, their structure, semantics, and syntactic functions. With the help of a corpus analysis, an attempt has been made to find out what determines gender and number agreement variations between the partitive genitive constructions in subject position and the predicate, if it comprises a declinable participle. Attention was paid to such features as subject animacy, voice of the predicate, word order (SV / VS), quantifier lexeme and grammatical number of the genitive. 320 examples with partitive genitive constructions were selected from The Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian LVK2018, including such quantifier lexemes as daļa ‘part’, skaits ‘number’, vairums ‘quantity’, vairākums ‘majority’, puse ‘half’, daudzums ‘amount / quantity’, lērums ‘bagful’, simts ‘hundred’, tūkstotis ‘thousand’, daudz ‘much/many’, maz ‘little / few’. The best results are given by the combination of values ‘animate’, ‘active’ and ‘SV’, in which 93.24% of the examples are partitive genitive agreement. Data analyzed so far suggest that quantifiers involving the semantic element of partitivity (e.g., daļa ‘part’) favor partitive genitive agreement, whereas quantifiers lacking this semantic element favor quantifier agreement. This is an exploratory quantitative study on agreement tendencies in Latvian.
{"title":"Partitive genitive constructions and agreement variations in Latvian","authors":"Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane","doi":"10.1075/lv.20019.kal","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20019.kal","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article takes a closer look at the partitive genitive constructions in Latvian, their structure, semantics, and syntactic functions. With the help of a corpus analysis, an attempt has been made to find out what determines gender and number agreement variations between the partitive genitive constructions in subject position and the predicate, if it comprises a declinable participle. Attention was paid to such features as subject animacy, voice of the predicate, word order (SV / VS), quantifier lexeme and grammatical number of the genitive. 320 examples with partitive genitive constructions were selected from The Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian LVK2018, including such quantifier lexemes as daļa ‘part’, skaits ‘number’, vairums ‘quantity’, vairākums ‘majority’, puse ‘half’, daudzums ‘amount / quantity’, lērums ‘bagful’, simts ‘hundred’, tūkstotis ‘thousand’, daudz ‘much/many’, maz ‘little / few’. The best results are given by the combination of values ‘animate’, ‘active’ and ‘SV’, in which 93.24% of the examples are partitive genitive agreement. Data analyzed so far suggest that quantifiers involving the semantic element of partitivity (e.g., daļa ‘part’) favor partitive genitive agreement, whereas quantifiers lacking this semantic element favor quantifier agreement. This is an exploratory quantitative study on agreement tendencies in Latvian.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42670231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we provide a survey of the diachronic development of the Russian second genitive (Gen2). As endpoints of this development, we consider data from Russian dialects representing different dialect groups. Assumedly, the expansion of Gen2 started off as ‘recycling’ of the genitive of a declension type that became obsolete already in the pre-written period. Nouns of this declension type were adopted by another declension, carrying their old genitive over as a variant form. This alternative ending started spreading, always as a variant, to other nouns in the adoptive declension. As the survey of the literature shows, in the course of this expansion new constraints evolved, including phonological, morphophonological, phonotactic, syntactic and semantic conditioning. While there is no declension class or even individual nouns where Gen2 became the only option, it expanded to different extents in different dialects. We believe that the diversity of functions associated with the form, the range of language-internal factors driving its expansion, as well as the current geographic distribution of constraints on its formation weaken the claim that emergence of Gen2 as a morphological category dedicated to partitive was due to contact with the languages of the Circumbaltic area, a suggestion made on a macro-areal basis and also based on comparison with the northern dialects alone. While we cannot argue that the data we present disproves the contact factor, we would at least expect that the increased granularity of dialectal data would provide some data to support it. This is not what happens, which we consider to be an argument against contact-induced change. The aim of the paper is two-fold: to present a synopsis of the discussions of the history of Gen2 and a survey of the data on the use of Gen2 in the dialects, both firsthand and available from the literature; and to question the role of contact in the emergence of the new category of Gen2 in Russian.
{"title":"The second genitive in the history of Russian and across its dialects","authors":"Alexandra Ter-Avanesova, Michael Daniel","doi":"10.1075/lv.21004.ter","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21004.ter","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this paper, we provide a survey of the diachronic development of the Russian second genitive (Gen2). As endpoints of this development, we consider data from Russian dialects representing different dialect groups. Assumedly, the expansion of Gen2 started off as ‘recycling’ of the genitive of a declension type that became obsolete already in the pre-written period. Nouns of this declension type were adopted by another declension, carrying their old genitive over as a variant form. This alternative ending started spreading, always as a variant, to other nouns in the adoptive declension. As the survey of the literature shows, in the course of this expansion new constraints evolved, including phonological, morphophonological, phonotactic, syntactic and semantic conditioning. While there is no declension class or even individual nouns where Gen2 became the only option, it expanded to different extents in different dialects. We believe that the diversity of functions associated with the form, the range of language-internal factors driving its expansion, as well as the current geographic distribution of constraints on its formation weaken the claim that emergence of Gen2 as a morphological category dedicated to partitive was due to contact with the languages of the Circumbaltic area, a suggestion made on a macro-areal basis and also based on comparison with the northern dialects alone. While we cannot argue that the data we present disproves the contact factor, we would at least expect that the increased granularity of dialectal data would provide some data to support it. This is not what happens, which we consider to be an argument against contact-induced change.\u0000The aim of the paper is two-fold: to present a synopsis of the discussions of the history of Gen2 and a survey of the data on the use of Gen2 in the dialects, both firsthand and available from the literature; and to question the role of contact in the emergence of the new category of Gen2 in Russian.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46045629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the emergence of the partitive case in the three western-most branches of the Uralic language family, which are Saamic and Finnic in North Europe, and Mordvinic in Central Russia. The Finnic languages represent the outer edge of development in the partitive from an earlier ablative case, which used to manifest ‘source’, a specific property of spatial relations. In Finnic the partitive case is a multifunctional and conceptually distinct case, an inflectional category which has developed highly specific functions in object marking, negative phrase and as a case of non-canonical subject. Traces of this development are found in Saamic and Mordvinic as well, whereas other Uralic languages don’t share this kind of secondary development and functional extension. The development of this particular affix consists of several stages, special bottlenecks, enhancing functional properties and triggering the reanalysis of an inherited affix *-ta/-tä. This article focuses on the diachrony of this particular affix with special emphasis on western Uralic.
{"title":"Diachronic bottlenecks of the Uralic (ablative-)partitive","authors":"R. Grünthal","doi":"10.1075/lv.21003.gru","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21003.gru","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article discusses the emergence of the partitive case in the three western-most branches of the Uralic language family, which are Saamic and Finnic in North Europe, and Mordvinic in Central Russia. The Finnic languages represent the outer edge of development in the partitive from an earlier ablative case, which used to manifest ‘source’, a specific property of spatial relations. In Finnic the partitive case is a multifunctional and conceptually distinct case, an inflectional category which has developed highly specific functions in object marking, negative phrase and as a case of non-canonical subject. Traces of this development are found in Saamic and Mordvinic as well, whereas other Uralic languages don’t share this kind of secondary development and functional extension. The development of this particular affix consists of several stages, special bottlenecks, enhancing functional properties and triggering the reanalysis of an inherited affix *-ta/-tä. This article focuses on the diachrony of this particular affix with special emphasis on western Uralic.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49593769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In several ancient and modern Indo-European languages, the partitive-genitive may be used in place of the accusative to encode the second argument of two-place verbs. In Ancient Greek the two types of object encoding can alternate with change-of-state verbs, alternation being viewed as connected with degrees of patient affectedness: the partitive-genitive encodes partially affected objects. Alternation also extends to experiential verbs, which are typically characterized by a low degree of transitivity and do not imply any change of state of the object-stimulus. Rather than concentrating on the implications of case alternation on the construal of the object, I consider the effects of variation on the whole construction, and argue that genitive vs. accusative marking of the object (NomGen vs. NomAcc constructions) reflects the construal of the subject-experiencer. While the different construal of the experiencer in terms of degrees of control cross-linguistically often results in non-nominative encoding of the experiencer, in Ancient Greek it is object encoding that affects the construal of the experiencer and reflects a scale based on possible control. The distribution of constructions with experiential verbs shows that NomAcc is typical of verbs of sight, thought, intellectual knowledge and emotions connected to sight and awareness, such as wonder and fear. NomGen is connected with touch, smell, taste, memory, forgetfulness, care and desire. In the in-between area, verbs of hearing, learning and verbs of affection may feature both accusative and genitive encoding, thus constituting a fuzzy transition area. The connection between sight and other experiential verbs that feature accusative encoding reflects an embodied conceptualization of experiential situations.
{"title":"Beyond affectedness – partitive objects and degrees of agenthood in Ancient Greek","authors":"S. Luraghi","doi":"10.1075/lv.21002.lur","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21002.lur","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In several ancient and modern Indo-European languages, the partitive-genitive may be used in place of the accusative to encode the second argument of two-place verbs. In Ancient Greek the two types of object encoding can alternate with change-of-state verbs, alternation being viewed as connected with degrees of patient affectedness: the partitive-genitive encodes partially affected objects. Alternation also extends to experiential verbs, which are typically characterized by a low degree of transitivity and do not imply any change of state of the object-stimulus. Rather than concentrating on the implications of case alternation on the construal of the object, I consider the effects of variation on the whole construction, and argue that genitive vs. accusative marking of the object (NomGen vs. NomAcc constructions) reflects the construal of the subject-experiencer. While the different construal of the experiencer in terms of degrees of control cross-linguistically often results in non-nominative encoding of the experiencer, in Ancient Greek it is object encoding that affects the construal of the experiencer and reflects a scale based on possible control. The distribution of constructions with experiential verbs shows that NomAcc is typical of verbs of sight, thought, intellectual knowledge and emotions connected to sight and awareness, such as wonder and fear. NomGen is connected with touch, smell, taste, memory, forgetfulness, care and desire. In the in-between area, verbs of hearing, learning and verbs of affection may feature both accusative and genitive encoding, thus constituting a fuzzy transition area. The connection between sight and other experiential verbs that feature accusative encoding reflects an embodied conceptualization of experiential situations.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42861798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The object has two variants in Estonian: partial object (in partitive, the functionally unmarked variant) and total object (in genitive or nominative). We examine the variation in object case in Estonian texts from the 17th to the 20th century, focusing on the 19th century and regarding this variation as an indicator in assessing the sociolinguistic variation of Estonian in texts. The texts of Old Literary Estonian were written by German scholars for whom Estonian was a collective interlanguage. In the 19th century the development of written Estonian came gradually into the hands of native speakers, who were surrounded by a predominantly German-language cultural space. In the Estonian of Germans the total object was overused. The 19th-century texts written by native Estonians represent an amalgam of native language and earlier interlanguage, they show fluctuations, and overuse of the partial object. By the turn of the 20th century, object case usage has stabilized.
{"title":"Partitive, genitive or nominative?","authors":"H. Metslang, Külli Habicht","doi":"10.1075/lv.20016.met","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20016.met","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The object has two variants in Estonian: partial object (in partitive, the functionally unmarked variant) and\u0000 total object (in genitive or nominative). We examine the variation in object case in Estonian texts from the 17th to the 20th\u0000 century, focusing on the 19th century and regarding this variation as an indicator in assessing the sociolinguistic variation of\u0000 Estonian in texts. The texts of Old Literary Estonian were written by German scholars for whom Estonian was a collective\u0000 interlanguage. In the 19th century the development of written Estonian came gradually into the hands of native speakers, who were\u0000 surrounded by a predominantly German-language cultural space. In the Estonian of Germans the total object was overused. The\u0000 19th-century texts written by native Estonians represent an amalgam of native language and earlier interlanguage, they show\u0000 fluctuations, and overuse of the partial object. By the turn of the 20th century, object case usage has stabilized.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42288356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the literature it is often assumed that partitive pronouns can only be used in combination with elliptical objects of transitive or unaccusative verbs. Some counterevidence has been provided as well, however, showing that partitive pronouns may also occur with intransitive verbs. In this paper it is investigated, by means of a Grammaticality Judgment Task, if native speakers of Italian and Dutch accept the use of the partitive pronoun with three types of intransitive verbs, in combination with an elliptical quantified adverbial NP. It is shown that both groups of participants were quite ready to accept the partitive pronoun in these cases, in some contexts more than in others. Various explanations for the results are considered and one more specific suggestion is made to account for the data, also based on a comparison with other constructions and other languages.
{"title":"Partitive pronouns in intransitive contexts in Italian and Dutch","authors":"P. Sleeman","doi":"10.1075/lv.21018.sle","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21018.sle","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In the literature it is often assumed that partitive pronouns can only be used in combination with elliptical objects of transitive or unaccusative verbs. Some counterevidence has been provided as well, however, showing that partitive pronouns may also occur with intransitive verbs. In this paper it is investigated, by means of a Grammaticality Judgment Task, if native speakers of Italian and Dutch accept the use of the partitive pronoun with three types of intransitive verbs, in combination with an elliptical quantified adverbial NP. It is shown that both groups of participants were quite ready to accept the partitive pronoun in these cases, in some contexts more than in others. Various explanations for the results are considered and one more specific suggestion is made to account for the data, also based on a comparison with other constructions and other languages.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46353331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We investigate optional predicate agreement in Santiago Tz’utujil (Mayan). Several generalizations emerge: (i) inanimate arguments base-generated as complements control agreement optionally; (ii) some animate arguments base-generated as complements control agreement optionally; (iii) all arguments base-generated as specifiers control full agreement obligatorily. We propose that two conditions must be met for the operation Agree to succeed, resulting in the exponence of all the features of the agreement controller. First, a goal must be visible (bear the right feature). Second, a goal must be accessible (be in the right structural position). If one or both conditions are not met, Agree fails, but the derivation converges and 3sg agreement is exponed. While Agree is deterministic, surface optionality arises when the operation fails. We use optional agreement to diagnose the syntactic structure of understudied constructions in Mayan (nominalizations, Agent Focus). We discuss microvariation, highlighting methodological considerations that arise when assuming an I-language approach.
{"title":"Optional agreement as successful/failed Agree","authors":"Paulina Lyskawa, Rodrigo Ranero","doi":"10.1075/lv.20013.lys","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20013.lys","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We investigate optional predicate agreement in Santiago Tz’utujil (Mayan). Several generalizations emerge: (i) inanimate\u0000 arguments base-generated as complements control agreement optionally; (ii) some animate arguments base-generated as complements control\u0000 agreement optionally; (iii) all arguments base-generated as specifiers control full agreement obligatorily. We propose that two conditions\u0000 must be met for the operation Agree to succeed, resulting in the exponence of all the features of the agreement controller. First,\u0000 a goal must be visible (bear the right feature). Second, a goal must be accessible (be in the right structural position). If one or both\u0000 conditions are not met, Agree fails, but the derivation converges and 3sg agreement is exponed. While Agree is\u0000 deterministic, surface optionality arises when the operation fails. We use optional agreement to diagnose the syntactic structure of\u0000 understudied constructions in Mayan (nominalizations, Agent Focus). We discuss microvariation, highlighting methodological considerations\u0000 that arise when assuming an I-language approach.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44708686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we provide a comprehensive picture of differential object marking in Catalan, focusing on both the empirical facts and their theoretical contribution. We support some important conclusions. First, Catalan differential object marking is quite a robust and widespread phenomenon, contrary to what prescriptive grammars assume. Second, we show that, from a formal perspective, Catalan differential object marking cannot be completely subsumed under hierarchical generalizations known as scales. The contribution of narrow syntax mechanisms and nominal structure is fundamental, supporting recent views by López (2012) or Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2010, 2013a, b), a.o. Building on these works as well as on observations initially made by Cornilescu (2000) and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2007), a.o., we adopt an analysis under which canonical, animacy-based differential marking results from the presence of an additional (PERSON) feature, beyond Case. This structural make-up is not only at the core of differences marked objects exhibit from unmarked objects with a Case feature, but also derives the prominence of differential marking on (animates) under information-structure processes, in the high left (and right) periphery, in contexts of the type discussed by Escandell-Vidal (2007a, b, 2009).
{"title":"Differential object marking in Catalan","authors":"M. Irimia, Anna Pineda","doi":"10.1075/lv.20009.iri","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20009.iri","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper we provide a comprehensive picture of differential object marking in Catalan, focusing on both the\u0000 empirical facts and their theoretical contribution. We support some important conclusions. First, Catalan differential object\u0000 marking is quite a robust and widespread phenomenon, contrary to what prescriptive grammars assume. Second, we show that, from a\u0000 formal perspective, Catalan differential object marking cannot be completely subsumed under hierarchical generalizations known as\u0000 scales. The contribution of narrow syntax mechanisms and nominal structure is fundamental, supporting recent\u0000 views by López (2012) or Ormazabal and Romero (2007, 2010, 2013a, b), a.o. Building on these works as well as on observations initially made by Cornilescu (2000) and Rodríguez-Mondoñedo\u0000 (2007), a.o., we adopt an analysis under which canonical, animacy-based differential marking results from the presence\u0000 of an additional (PERSON) feature, beyond Case. This structural make-up is not only at the core of differences marked objects\u0000 exhibit from unmarked objects with a Case feature, but also derives the prominence of differential marking on (animates) under\u0000 information-structure processes, in the high left (and right) periphery, in contexts of the type discussed by Escandell-Vidal\u0000 (2007a, b, 2009).","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42867641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：