A Parametric Syntax of Aspectually Conditioned Split-Ergativity

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Volumn 65, Issue , 2006, Pages 111-141

  Ura, Hiroyuki ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Ergative Parameter; Grammatical Aspect; Grammatical Relation; Lexical Aspect; Perfect Aspect

Indexed keywords

EID: 85101976520     PISSN: 09244670     EISSN: 22150358     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_5     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Anand, P., and A. Nevins. (this volume). ‘The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope.’
2. Anderson, S. 1976. ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages.’ In C. Li, ed., Subject and topic, 1–23. New York: Academic Press.
3. Bittner, M., and K. Hale. 1996. ‘Ergativity: Towards a theory of heterogeneous class.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531–601.
4. Blake, B. 1976. ‘On ergativity and the notion of subject: Some Australian cases.’ Lingua 39, 281–300.
5. Bobaljik, J. 1993. ‘On ergativity and ergative unaccusatives.’ MIT working papers in linguistics 19, 45–88.
6. Bobaljik, J., and P. Branigan. (this volume). ‘Eccentric agreement and multiple Case-checking.’
7. Borer, H. 1994. ‘The projection of arguments.’ University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, 19– 47.
8. Borer, H. 1998. ‘Deriving the passive without theta roles.’ In S. Lapointe et al., eds., Morphology, pp. 60–99, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
9. Carnie, A. and P. Cash Cash (this volume). ‘Tree-geometric relational hierarchies and Nuumiipuutímt (Nez Perce) Case.’
10. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of theTheory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
11. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
12. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
13. Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework.’ In R. Martin et al., eds., Step by Step, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
14. Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase.’ In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A life in Language, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
15. Comrie, B. 1978. ‘Ergativity.’ In W. P. Lehman, ed., Syntactic Typology, pp. 329–394. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
16. Comrie, B. 1979. ‘Degrees of ergativity: Some Chukchee evidence.’ In F. Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, pp. 219–240. New York: Academic Press.
17. Comrie, B. 1981. ‘Ergativity and grammatical relations in Kalaw Lagaw Ya (Saibai Dialect).’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1, 1–42.
18. Comrie, B. 1984. ‘Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages.’ Linguistics 22, 857–864.
19. DeLancey, S. 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns.’ Language 57, 626–657.
20. Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. ‘Ergativity.’ Language 55, 59–138.
21. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Dowty, D. 1991. ‘Thematic proto roles and argument selection.’ Language 67, 547–619.
23. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations.’ In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20, pp. 53–109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
24. Harris, A. 1981. Georgian Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Holisky, D. A. 1981. Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books.
26. Hoop, H. de. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. New York: Garland.
27. van Hout, A. 1998. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. New York: Garland.
28. King, T. Holloway. 1994. ‘SpecAgrP and Case: Evidence from Georgian.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 91–110.
29. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
30. Johns, A. 1992. ‘Deriving ergativity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 57–87.
31. Kachru, Y. 1980. Aspects of Hindi Grammar. New Delhi: Manohar Publications.
32. Kibrik, A. E. 1985. ‘Toward a typology of ergativity.’ In J. Nichols and A. Woodbury, eds., Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Laka, I. 1993. ‘Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusative that assign accusative.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 149–172.
34. Laka, I. (this volume). ‘Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: The case of Basque.’
35. Lee, Hanjung. 2002. Parallel Optimization in Case Systems: Modeling Variability in Form and Meaning. Ms., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
36. Legate, J. (this volume). ‘Split absolutive.’
37. Levin, B. 1983. On the Nature of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
38. Lyle, J. 1997. Aspects of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
39. McClure, W. 1994. Syntactic Projections of the Semantics of Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
40. McGinnis, M. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
41. Mahajan, A. 1989. ‘Agreement and agreement phrases.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 217–252.
42. Mahajan, A. 1992. ‘The specificity condition and the CED.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 510–516.
43. Mahajan, A. 1996. ‘Universal grammar and the typology of ergative languages.’ In A. Alexiadou and T. A. Hall, eds., Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, pp. 35–57. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
44. Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge,, Mass.: MIT Press.
45. Marantz, A. 1991. ‘Case and licensing.’ In Proceedings of ESCOL 91, 234–253.
46. Massam, D. 2001. ‘Pseudo noun incorporation.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 153–197.
47. Massam, D. (this volume). ‘Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative: Arguments from Niuean.’
48. Mithun, M. 1991. ‘Active/Agentive case marking and its motivation.’ Language 67, 510–546.
49. Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
50. Murasugi, K. 1992. Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movements in Accusative and Ergative Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
51. Olsen, M. B. 1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. New York: Garland.
52. Otsuka, Y. (this volume). ‘Syntactic ergativity in Tongan: Resumptive pronouns revisited.’
53. Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Perlmutter, D. 1982. ‘Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject.’ In P. Jacobson and G. Pullum, eds., The Nature of Syntactic Representation, pp. 283-340. Dordrecht: Reidel.
55. Ramchand, G. 1997. Aspect and Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Richard, N. 2002. Movement in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
57. Ritter, E., and S. Rosen. 1998. ‘Delimiting events in syntax.’ In W. Geuder and M. Butt, eds., The Projection of Arguments, pp. 135–164. Stanford, Calf.: CSLI.
58. Ritter, E., and S. Rosen. 2000. ‘Event structure and ergativity.’ In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 187–238. Stanford, Calf.: CSLI.
59. Rosen, C. 1984. ‘The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations.’ In D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen, eds., Relational Grammar 2, pp. 38–77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60. Safir, K. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Singh, J. 1994. Case and Agreement in Hindi: A GB approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.
62. Singh, M. 1994. Perfectivity, Definiteness, and Specificity: A Classification of Verbal Predicates in Hindi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
63. Spreng, B. (this volume). ‘Antipassive morphology and Case assignment in Inuktitut.’
64. Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
65. Tsedryk, Y. (this volume). ‘The split verb as a source of morphological ergativity: The case of Russian and its northern dialects.’
66. Travis, L. 2000. ‘Event structure in syntax.’ In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 145–185. Stanford, Calf.: CSLI.
67. Ura, H. 1994. Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase Structure Theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics #7.
68. Ura, H. 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
69. Ura, H. 2001. ‘Case.’ In M. Baltin and C. Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 334–373. Oxford: Blackwell.
70. Van Valin, R. 1981. ‘Grammatical relations in ergative languages.’ Studies in Language 5, 361–394.
71. Van Valin, R., and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Verhaar, J. 1990. ‘How transitive is intransitive?’ Studies in Language 14, 93–168.
73. Wiltschko, M. (this volume). ‘On ergativity in Halkomelem Salish (and how to split and derive it).’
74. Wyner, A. Z. 1994. Boolean Event Lattices and Thematic Roles in the Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Modification. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.