LINGUIST List 18.2437|
Sat Aug 18 2007
Qs: Accusative Case
Editor for this issue: Dan Parker
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Message 1: Accusative Case
From: Elizabeth Coppock <coppockstanford.edu>
Subject: Accusative Case
E-mail this message to a friend
In Hungarian 'focus-raising' (a form of long-distance movement like
wh-movement), a subject from a finite subordinate clause can exhibit
accusative case when raised into the matrix clause (e.g. Kiss 1987). This
is illustrated in (1a), where the subject of the embedded clause shows
accusative case in the matrix clause. It would normally be nominative, as
(1) a. János-t mond-t-am hogy jön.
John-Acc say-Past-1.sg Comp come.3.sg
'It was John who I said is coming.'
b. Az-t mond-t-am hogy János jön.
It-Acc say-Past-1sg Comp John.Nom come.3.sg.
'I said that John is coming.'
This is a tiny bit like an ECM/Raising-to-object construction (as in ''We
expect John to be coming''), in that the subject of the lower clause seems
to be assigned accusative case in the upper clause, except that (i) the
embedded clause is finite, and (ii) the matrix accusative does not seem to
function as an object, as I found in my work on this subject for my first
qualifying paper at Stanford.
A somewhat similar phenomenon seems to exist in Korean (e.g. Hong 1985),
where the subject of an embedded finite clause gets accusative case in a
matrix clause (2a). It would normally be nominative as in (2b).
(2) a. Tom-nun Swuni-lul chencay-la-ko mitkoiss-ta
Tom-Top Swuni-Acc genius-Dec-Comp believe-Dec
'Tom believes Swuni to be a genius.'
b. Tom-nun Swuni-ka chencay-la-ko mitkoiss-ta
Tom-Top Swuni-Nom genius-Dec-Comp believe-Dec
‘Tom believes that Swuni is a genius.’
Other constructions that look like subject-to-object raising from a finite
clause, in Austronesian languages and Japanese, are discussed in chapter 10
of Davies and Dubinsky (2004).
Is anyone aware of other languages that have anything like this? Any
examples or references would be welcome. Evidence regarding the object
status of the accusative element would also be helpful.
Hong, S. 1985. A and A’ Binding in Korean and English: GB Parameters. PhD
dissertation, U. of Connecticut.
É. Kiss, K. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Akadémiai Kiado.
Davies, William, and Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and
Control: A course in syntactic argumentation. London: Blackwell.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.