Case Domains -From GB to Split-Infl Hypothesis in Minimalism


resulting in the Split-Infl Hypothesis and ..

The main characteristic of is the evident lack of any overt Case assigning Agreement (or Tense). Specifically speaking, all of the utterances found in files 1-7 use either , (cf. ex. b,c), or demonstrate some sort of construction (see note 6); while Tense Inflections (e.g., 3per/prs. ) are left omitted (see §1.2.3 for Table). Consider the following token examples taken from files 1-7:

Consider, for example, the quote from Dixon (1994) wherethis hypothesis is presented as textbook knowledge (also see Harrisand Campbell (1995:263)).

Adopting the Split Infl Hypothesis, ..

Butt further proposes that the ergative pattern in modern Urdu/Hindiis an instance of historical stability rather than an example of aradical accusative-to-ergative shift.

Urdu/Hindi does not display this kind of a split, but itcan be found in the closely related language of Punjabi, forexample.

The above arguments are tantamount to readdressing outstanding issues regarding the analysis of D. Firstly, if we assume the DP-analysis (cf. Abney), it remains unclear whether or not a determiner (e.g., ) should be analyzed as the Head (D) or Specifier of a DP. Secondly, an NP analysis for D still remains an option. An example of a similar dilemma is illustrated in Radford (1990: 68ff) who claims that early possessors--like determiners--are in Spec-NP (e.g., , , etc.) and not in Spec-DP. This analysis gives him a readily available account for the lack of Case (genitive ) for such examples--i.e., the Case Filter was seen as being inoperative due to the lack of the functional category D.

To take modern Urdu/Hindi  as an example again: this form isoften described as a postposition in the literature (e.g., Davison2000, Mahajan 1990).

Griffin | Subject (Grammar) | Clause

Examples (4) and (5) illustratethe Nepali and Gujarati patterns, respectively.

Ergative morphology in most Indo-Aryan languages furthermore shows a split along the lines of tense/aspect.

William Earl Griffin The University of Texas at Austin 1

Assamese, for example, does not seem toexhibit such a split (Devi 1986).

Another very common split crosslinguistically is the so-calledNP-split, whereby only a subset of the nominals may display ergativemorphology.

18/12/2017 · The Split-INFL Hypot..

Passive/Participle to Ergative With respect to language change, theconnection to a passive forms the basis for a hypothesis that ergativeconstructions arise from former passive constructions via a reanalysisof the following type:The precise morphology involved on the verb was a participle in Sanskrit which has either been lost or retained as aglide or an in most of the modern Indo-Aryan languages.

07/11/2008 · How to Cite

In the audience the masters sit quietly with the consumers to watch the play. In the rafters, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Frederick Taylor see past the spotlight, and are able to see systems and standards that would proscribe and influence more ethical corporate behavior. A few activist shine McSpot-lights, flash lights really, here and there on the stage, but that light is dampened by the brilliance of the PR light show, a spectacle to behold. Each time the spotlight moves to a well known actor, there is thunderous applause. Sounds are heard, but they do not fit the plot being played out on this stage. Noises are heard, but we can not make out the voices and do not know if the disturbances are necessary to this plot. Maybe some scene change is about to take place. This is a story of great and lesser influences. It is titled the "Jeux de Verite" by some French play writer named Michel Foucault. The spot light moves and invites the audience's gaze to follow. There are louder sounds that draw our attention away from the shadows.

Auxiliary vs INFL in Bantu | SpringerLink

Firstly, consider the feature . The most natural way to determine if Case had been properly assigned to (Spec of DP) would be to examine if the Head V(erb) is correctly spelled-out for its Spec features. For example, consider the following sentence: . The Spec-features of the Head V(erb) requires a Nominative specifier for its subject: e.g., [Spec=Nom]. In this sense, it is clear that the DP must carry Nominative case--if it were to carry Objective case, the derivation would crash: e.g., . Hence, it remains a feature of the Head (V) to determine if the case requirements of a Spec (D) are being met. The token examples in (4) cannot maintain whether or not case is specified in the above sense: all forms of verbs taken here are non-specified in all the crucial areas (i.e. the Spec features of the Head Verbs in question do not contain the relevant feature specification.