Abstract
AbstractThe nominative, the accusative and the dative have been recently argued to stand in proper containment to one another. In contrast to more traditional decompositions which posited no such containment, this new decomposition has been shown to account for the absence of ABA exponence patterns for this triplet of cases, i.e. for the fact that no rule of exponence applies in both nominative and dative without also applying in the accusative. We point out that, in addition to its desirable predictions regarding *ABA, the more recent decomposition also makes an undesirable prediction about the derivation of ABB patterns, as we show based on data from Indo-European languages. We argue that a third theory—under which the accusative is properly contained within the dative, but the nominative and the accusative do not stand in a containment relation to one another—accounts for all the relevant facts.
Funder
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference86 articles.
1. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Arsenault, Paul. 2007. Marking the unmarked: Exceptional patterns of syncretism in English and Hindi. In Actes du Congrès de l’ACL 2007, ed. Milica Radišić.
3. Baerman, Matthew. 2004. Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80: 807–827.
4. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bailyn, John F., and Andrew Nevins. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In Inflectional identity, eds. Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins, 237–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献