This thesis is an investigation of case morphology in a mixed language, Gurindji Kriol. Gurindji Kriol is spoken by the Gurindji people in northern Australia. It fuses Gurindji, which is a member of the Ngumpin-Yapa subgroup of the Pama-Nyungan family, with Kriol, which is an English-lexifier creole spoken across the north of Australia. Gurindji Kriol exhibits a structural split between the NP and VP systems, but is lexically quite mixed. Kriol provides much of the verbal grammar including tense and mood auxiliaries, and transitive, aspect and derivational morphology. Most of the NP structure is of Gurindji origin including case and derivational morphology. Lexically, nominals and verbs are derived from both source languages. In form, the various sub-systems of Gurindji Kriol bear a close resemblance to their source languages. However contact and competition between Gurindji and Kriol in the process of the formation of the mixed language has altered the function and distribution of these systems, including the Gurindji-derived case morphology. The aim of this thesis is three-fold: (i) to provide the first detailed socio-historical and grammatical description of Gurindji Kriol (§2 and §A1), (ii) to propose a path by which Gurindji case morphology was incorporated into the Gurindji Kriol clause (§3-§5), and (iii) to demonstrate changes in the use of four case markers quantitatively (§6-§9).

Este trabalho trata da organização de sintagmas nominais no armênio, revelando uma interação peculiar entre a expressão de definitude e a marcação morfológica de Caso e as conseqüências dessa relação para a organização estrutural desta língua. Mostra se que os sintagmas nominais são interpretados como definidos como resultado de atribuição de Caso estrutural, e que existe uma assimetria entre os Casos estruturais e os Casos inerentes quanto à atribuição de definitude. Como ponto de partida, discute-se o estatuto do sufixo n/y, chamado de artigo definido pela gramática tradicional do armênio. A investigação das propriedades morfossintáticas desse sufixo mostra que o mesmo é uma marca com características mistas, que atua na atribuição de definitude e Caso de uma maneira não atestada nas línguas naturais e questiona o recorte entre as funções de Caso e os meios de expressão de definitude. Baseando-nos nos trabalhos de Chomsky (1986b), Longobardi (1994) e Giusti (2002), propomos a reanálise do sufixo -n/y como uma marca de Caso estrutural, que transforma os sintagmas nominais em argumentos sintáticos, e é associada ao nível DP na estrutura frasal. Ademais, mostra-se que a ausência de marcação de Caso estrutural resulta numa série de restrições semântico-sintáticas nos sintagmas nominais (nus), a mais proeminente sendo o movimento desses sintagmas para uma posição antes do verbo, seguidos imediatamente pelo auxiliar. Isso leva a diferentes ordens superficiais para sintagmas marcados por Caso estrutural (SVO) e sintagmas nus (SOauxV). Tal evidência, junto com o quadro das características dos sintagmas nus no armênio, leva à análise dos mesmos como pseudo-incorporados, conforme proposto por Massam (2001) para o niueano, com a diferença de que o sintagma nu se adjunge à projeção funcional TP no armênio, sem passar pela operação de alçamento do predicado. Quanto à expressão de definitude nos Casos inerentes, mostramos que em contraste com os sintagmas nos Casos estruturais, que podem aparecer com ou sem marcação aberta de Caso e ter, respectivamente, leitura definida ou indefinida, os inerentes devem sempre carregar a morfologia casual e são ambíguos quanto à definitude. Nesse aspecto, analisamos as projeções nominais Genitivas e constatamos que, apesar da aparente semelhança superficial, as mesmas exibem propriedades distintas que correspondem a duas estruturas internas diferentes do sintagma nominal, viii podendo ser caracterizadas como duas classes distintas: o Genitivo Referencial, que aparece em Spec/DP e é interpretado como definido por se associar ao nível DP, e o Genitivo Modificador, que permanece no domínio do NP no percurso da derivação. As conclusões a que chegamos provam que mesmo sem possuir um artigo definido canônico, o armênio oferece evidências a favor da postulação do nível DP como universal, responsável pelas interpretações definidas dos sintagmas nominais. Nos Casos estruturais, a definitude vem da atribuição de Caso, enquanto no Genitivo (um exemplo de Caso inerente) vem da posição ocupada dentro do sintagma nominal. Por conseguinte, o presente trabalho traz uma contribuição teórica valiosa para a análise unificada das projeções nominais, além de auxiliar na elucidação de alguns assuntos empíricos controversos do armênio e abrir caminho para pesquisas futuras. / This thesis investigates the structural organization of noun phrases in Armenian, an Indo-European language with mixed properties, focusing on the interaction between Case and (in)definiteness. The main claim of the study is that, contrary to traditional view, Armenian has no (definite) article, and definiteness in this language is a result of structural Case marking on NPs. This claim has implications for the analysis of bare nominals as NPs that lack both Case and referential properties and are syntactically restricted to a peculiar configuration, resulting in different superficial orders for Case-marked (SVO) and bare noun phrases (SOauxV). Moreover, this analysis casts light on a rather intriguing question of how definiteness is expressed in inherent Cases. It is shown that, unlike structural Cases, which express a direct correlation between definiteness and Case, inherent Cases, more precisely Genitive NPs, are interpreted as (in)definite by associating themselves to distinct structural positions. The starting point of our discussion is the re-analysis of the suffix -n/y, traditionally classified as a definite article. Highlighting Case and (in)definiteness as two independent conditions on argumenthood (Chomsky (1986b), Longobardi (1994), Giusti (2002)) that are closely correlated in Armenian, we argue that this suffix is in fact a structural Case marker, which turns nominals into syntactic arguments, and is associated with DP level. Focusing on the morpho-syntactic behavior of bare nominals in Armenian, it is shown that in the absence of structural Case marking, their distribution is syntactically restricted to a position in which they appear to the left of the verb and must be adjacent to the auxiliary. This distribution is accounted for by adopting the pseudo-incorporation analysis of Massam (2001). We show that bare nouns in Armenian exhibit typical properties of pseudo-incorporated nominals, as lack of reference, number-neutrality, phrasal nature, among others. Turning our attention to Genitive constructions, which always appear with Case morphology, we analyze a number of properties that superficially distinguish two (main) types, which we propose to call Referential and Modifying Genitives. The difference between them is syntactic, as they have different structural representations: Spec/DP for Referential and NP domain for Modifying Genitive. x As a result, we conclude that there exists an asymmetry between inherent and structural Cases as to how they express definiteness. Moreover, we conclude that in spite of the fact that Armenian does not have canonical (definite) article, a DP level must be postulated for this language, as a projection responsible for the referentiality/definiteness of the noun phrases. Thus, this study contributes to the outgoing debates about the precise functions of D as universal category and provides a valuable theoretical contribution to the cross-linguistic investigations of nominal projections.

This thesis deals with direct object nouns case-marked differentially. According to the commonly assumed generalization nouns marked with ACC case are prototypical objects representing high transitivity, whereas nouns marked with non-accusative cases are not. However, such a view ignores the possibility of a much finer distinction and fails to account for empirical data from languages with rich case morphology, such as Ukrainian. Given the complexity of the phenomenon under study the main objective of our investigation is to account exhaustively for all possible instances of non-accusative case marking and case alternations on direct objects in Ukrainian trying to classify and analyze the data by specifying the factors that condition the distinction ‘accusative versus non-accusative case marking’ and by integrating the phenomenon of differential object marking (DOM) into a formal model. We present DOM as a phenomenon that, together with the phenomenon of unaccusativity, can be subsumed under a broader concept of non-accusativity (defined as inability of verbs to assign ACC case). In this context we show that in Ukrainian and French morphosyntactic case realization has semantic underpinnings and that issues related to case valuation emanate from the intersection of different phenomena – DOM and nominal incorporation, DOM and verb typology, DOM and the process of (de)transitivization, and so on. However, the (morphosyntactic) visibility of those points of intersection varies from one language to another. Generativist distinction between syntactic (abstract) and morphological cases as well as the functionalist idea that case markings can be characterized as morphemes having different functional applications constitute the basis of our analysis of data. Using the typological views of these two approaches on the category of case as guidelines in our classification of collected data, we resort to minimalist formalism. Case is treated as an uninterpretable feature and a clear distinction is drawn between two types of case valuation – case checking and case assignment. Structural cases are checked during verb-raising and inherent (lexical) cases (among which we find predicate and default cases) are assigned either by a weak (or defective) v or by (an overt or null) preposition (P) in situ.

This thesis deals with direct object nouns case-marked differentially. According to the commonly assumed generalization nouns marked with ACC case are prototypical objects representing high transitivity, whereas nouns marked with non-accusative cases are not. However, such a view ignores the possibility of a much finer distinction and fails to account for empirical data from languages with rich case morphology, such as Ukrainian. Given the complexity of the phenomenon under study the main objective of our investigation is to account exhaustively for all possible instances of non-accusative case marking and case alternations on direct objects in Ukrainian trying to classify and analyze the data by specifying the factors that condition the distinction ‘accusative versus non-accusative case marking’ and by integrating the phenomenon of differential object marking (DOM) into a formal model. We present DOM as a phenomenon that, together with the phenomenon of unaccusativity, can be subsumed under a broader concept of non-accusativity (defined as inability of verbs to assign ACC case). In this context we show that in Ukrainian and French morphosyntactic case realization has semantic underpinnings and that issues related to case valuation emanate from the intersection of different phenomena – DOM and nominal incorporation, DOM and verb typology, DOM and the process of (de)transitivization, and so on. However, the (morphosyntactic) visibility of those points of intersection varies from one language to another. Generativist distinction between syntactic (abstract) and morphological cases as well as the functionalist idea that case markings can be characterized as morphemes having different functional applications constitute the basis of our analysis of data. Using the typological views of these two approaches on the category of case as guidelines in our classification of collected data, we resort to minimalist formalism. Case is treated as an uninterpretable feature and a clear distinction is drawn between two types of case valuation – case checking and case assignment. Structural cases are checked during verb-raising and inherent (lexical) cases (among which we find predicate and default cases) are assigned either by a weak (or defective) v or by (an overt or null) preposition (P) in situ.

Este trabalho trata da organização de sintagmas nominais no armênio, revelando uma interação peculiar entre a expressão de definitude e a marcação morfológica de Caso e as conseqüências dessa relação para a organização estrutural desta língua. Mostra se que os sintagmas nominais são interpretados como definidos como resultado de atribuição de Caso estrutural, e que existe uma assimetria entre os Casos estruturais e os Casos inerentes quanto à atribuição de definitude. Como ponto de partida, discute-se o estatuto do sufixo n/y, chamado de artigo definido pela gramática tradicional do armênio. A investigação das propriedades morfossintáticas desse sufixo mostra que o mesmo é uma marca com características mistas, que atua na atribuição de definitude e Caso de uma maneira não atestada nas línguas naturais e questiona o recorte entre as funções de Caso e os meios de expressão de definitude. Baseando-nos nos trabalhos de Chomsky (1986b), Longobardi (1994) e Giusti (2002), propomos a reanálise do sufixo -n/y como uma marca de Caso estrutural, que transforma os sintagmas nominais em argumentos sintáticos, e é associada ao nível DP na estrutura frasal. Ademais, mostra-se que a ausência de marcação de Caso estrutural resulta numa série de restrições semântico-sintáticas nos sintagmas nominais (nus), a mais proeminente sendo o movimento desses sintagmas para uma posição antes do verbo, seguidos imediatamente pelo auxiliar. Isso leva a diferentes ordens superficiais para sintagmas marcados por Caso estrutural (SVO) e sintagmas nus (SOauxV). Tal evidência, junto com o quadro das características dos sintagmas nus no armênio, leva à análise dos mesmos como pseudo-incorporados, conforme proposto por Massam (2001) para o niueano, com a diferença de que o sintagma nu se adjunge à projeção funcional TP no armênio, sem passar pela operação de alçamento do predicado. Quanto à expressão de definitude nos Casos inerentes, mostramos que em contraste com os sintagmas nos Casos estruturais, que podem aparecer com ou sem marcação aberta de Caso e ter, respectivamente, leitura definida ou indefinida, os inerentes devem sempre carregar a morfologia casual e são ambíguos quanto à definitude. Nesse aspecto, analisamos as projeções nominais Genitivas e constatamos que, apesar da aparente semelhança superficial, as mesmas exibem propriedades distintas que correspondem a duas estruturas internas diferentes do sintagma nominal, viii podendo ser caracterizadas como duas classes distintas: o Genitivo Referencial, que aparece em Spec/DP e é interpretado como definido por se associar ao nível DP, e o Genitivo Modificador, que permanece no domínio do NP no percurso da derivação. As conclusões a que chegamos provam que mesmo sem possuir um artigo definido canônico, o armênio oferece evidências a favor da postulação do nível DP como universal, responsável pelas interpretações definidas dos sintagmas nominais. Nos Casos estruturais, a definitude vem da atribuição de Caso, enquanto no Genitivo (um exemplo de Caso inerente) vem da posição ocupada dentro do sintagma nominal. Por conseguinte, o presente trabalho traz uma contribuição teórica valiosa para a análise unificada das projeções nominais, além de auxiliar na elucidação de alguns assuntos empíricos controversos do armênio e abrir caminho para pesquisas futuras. / This thesis investigates the structural organization of noun phrases in Armenian, an Indo-European language with mixed properties, focusing on the interaction between Case and (in)definiteness. The main claim of the study is that, contrary to traditional view, Armenian has no (definite) article, and definiteness in this language is a result of structural Case marking on NPs. This claim has implications for the analysis of bare nominals as NPs that lack both Case and referential properties and are syntactically restricted to a peculiar configuration, resulting in different superficial orders for Case-marked (SVO) and bare noun phrases (SOauxV). Moreover, this analysis casts light on a rather intriguing question of how definiteness is expressed in inherent Cases. It is shown that, unlike structural Cases, which express a direct correlation between definiteness and Case, inherent Cases, more precisely Genitive NPs, are interpreted as (in)definite by associating themselves to distinct structural positions. The starting point of our discussion is the re-analysis of the suffix -n/y, traditionally classified as a definite article. Highlighting Case and (in)definiteness as two independent conditions on argumenthood (Chomsky (1986b), Longobardi (1994), Giusti (2002)) that are closely correlated in Armenian, we argue that this suffix is in fact a structural Case marker, which turns nominals into syntactic arguments, and is associated with DP level. Focusing on the morpho-syntactic behavior of bare nominals in Armenian, it is shown that in the absence of structural Case marking, their distribution is syntactically restricted to a position in which they appear to the left of the verb and must be adjacent to the auxiliary. This distribution is accounted for by adopting the pseudo-incorporation analysis of Massam (2001). We show that bare nouns in Armenian exhibit typical properties of pseudo-incorporated nominals, as lack of reference, number-neutrality, phrasal nature, among others. Turning our attention to Genitive constructions, which always appear with Case morphology, we analyze a number of properties that superficially distinguish two (main) types, which we propose to call Referential and Modifying Genitives. The difference between them is syntactic, as they have different structural representations: Spec/DP for Referential and NP domain for Modifying Genitive. x As a result, we conclude that there exists an asymmetry between inherent and structural Cases as to how they express definiteness. Moreover, we conclude that in spite of the fact that Armenian does not have canonical (definite) article, a DP level must be postulated for this language, as a projection responsible for the referentiality/definiteness of the noun phrases. Thus, this study contributes to the outgoing debates about the precise functions of D as universal category and provides a valuable theoretical contribution to the cross-linguistic investigations of nominal projections.