No description available.

Il est proposé que le hindi ne possède que des verbes statifs, et que seul le verbe «être» du hindi possède de véritables caractéristiques verbales, notamment l'accord en personne. En effet, toute proposition en hindi est constituée par deux arguments, le Site et la Cible. Les expressions dynamiques en hindi dépendent donc de syntagmes nominaux complexes événementiels (Grimshaw 1990), des participes ne pouvant exprimer que des actions simples. L'expression des actions complexes ou «causatives» requiert des moyens supplémentaires, d'où le rôle de la particule-sujet n-e dans certaines utilisations des participes perfectif et gérondif, en raison de leur aptitude présumée à évoquer la partie «causée» des actions complexes. Il est proposé en outre que le sujet n-e en fournit le sens de la partie «causative». ______________________________________________________________________________

This dissertation explores the question of whether Tagalog, a language of the Philippines, is an ergative language. It is claimed that Tagalog is best characterized as neither accusative nor ergative but rather as a language that is a hybrid of these two language types. Tagalog's hybrid nature is neatly captured structurally within Principle and Parameters theory using VP internal subjects. In terms of Case, Tagalog not only has nominative-absolutive Case checking and ergative Case checking but it also makes extensive use of inherent accusative Case assignment. As a result, Tagalog has both a (NOM ACC) basic transitive sentence type, like accusative languages, and a (ERG ABS) basic transitive sentence type, like ergative languages. A specific structural analysis is given for these basic sentences under an Economy approach. This analysis is extended to account for complex sentences including sentences involving morphological causatives, conjunction reduction and raising.

No description available.

Ho Ki. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-145). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter Chapter 2 --- Background of the research --- p.4 / Chapter 2.1 --- Some principles of syntax --- p.4 / Chapter 2.2 --- The anatomy of the ergative construction in English --- p.6 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Properties of the ergative construction --- p.8 / Chapter 2.3 --- The anatomy of the passive construction in English --- p.10 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Properties of the passive construction --- p.11 / Chapter 2.4 --- Problems in learning the ergative construction --- p.12 / Chapter 2.5 --- Different approaches to the learning of English ergative construction --- p.16 / Chapter 2.5.1 --- Differences in L1 and L2 acquisition --- p.16 / Chapter 2.5.2 --- The Subset Principle and the learning of ergative construction --- p.19 / Chapter 2.5.3 --- The role of negative evidence in L2 acquisition --- p.20 / Chapter 2.6 --- Some theoretical issues in SLA --- p.22 / Chapter 2.6.1 --- Different kinds of knowledge in SLA --- p.23 / Chapter 2.6.2 --- """Focus on form"" VS ""Focus on forms"" type of instruction in SLA" --- p.25 / Chapter 2.6.3 --- The role of awareness in SLA --- p.26 / Chapter 2.6.4 --- The role of input in SLA --- p.27 / Chapter 2.6.5 --- The role of output in SLA --- p.32 / Chapter 2.7 --- Issues under investigation --- p.34 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Methodology --- p.37 / Chapter 3.1 --- Subjects --- p.38 / Chapter 3.2 --- Experimental Design --- p.38 / Chapter 3.3 --- Research instruments --- p.44 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Formal grammar teaching materials --- p.45 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- The interpretation task --- p.46 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- The production task --- p.49 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- The grammaticality judgement task --- p.50 / Chapter 3.3.4.1 --- The grammaticality judgement task in the pretest --- p.51 / Chapter 3.3.4.2 --- The grammaticality judgement task in the posttests --- p.54 / Chapter 3.3.5 --- Free production task --- p.56 / Chapter 3.4 --- Scoring Method --- p.57 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- The grammaticality judgement task --- p.57 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- The interpretation task and production task --- p.59 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- The free production task --- p.59 / Chapter 3.5 --- Statistical procedures --- p.60 / Chapter 3.6 --- Presentation of results --- p.62 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- Results: Key findings --- p.64 / Chapter 4.1 --- Overall results --- p.66 / Chapter 4.2 --- Results by subtype of ergative --- p.69 / Chapter 4.3 --- Detailed results of grammaticality judgement task --- p.73 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Detailed results of the interpretation task groups (with grammar lesson) --- p.74 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Detailed results of the interpretation task group (with grammar lesson) compared with the mere interpretation task group --- p.79 / Chapter 4.3.3 --- Detailed results of the production task groups --- p.81 / Chapter 4.3.4 --- Detailed results of the interpretation task group compared with the production task group --- p.84 / Chapter 4.4 --- Analysis of key findings of the grammaticality judgement tests --- p.86 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- Differences between the treatment groups (the interpretation task group) and the other groups (the no task group and the control group) --- p.86 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- Differences between the interpretation task group and the mere interpretation task group in the posttest --- p.88 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Differences between the interpretation task group and the production task group in the second posttest --- p.89 / Chapter 4.5 --- Free production task results --- p.89 / Chapter 4.5.1 --- The free production task results of the interpretation task groups and the production task group --- p.90 / Chapter 4.5.2 --- The free production task results of the interpretation task group (with grammar instruction) compared with the production task group --- p.92 / Chapter 4.6 --- Summary --- p.92 / Chapter Chapter 5 --- Results: Further observations --- p.95 / Chapter 5.1 --- The discrepancy in students' response towards the verbs which belong to the same verb category --- p.95 / Chapter 5.1.1 --- Paired ergatives (Judgement data) --- p.96 / Chapter 5.1.2 --- Paired ergatives (Error analysis) --- p.97 / Chapter 5.1.3 --- Unpaired ergatives (Judgement data) --- p.98 / Chapter 5.1.4 --- Unpaired ergatives (Error analysis) --- p.100 / Chapter 5.2 --- Failure of the students in learning the unpaired ergatives --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Judgement data for unpaired ergatives --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Error analysis for unpaired ergatives --- p.104 / Chapter 5.3 --- The treatment effects in School A and School B --- p.107 / Chapter 5.4 --- Results of the interpretation task and the production task --- p.111 / Chapter 5.5 --- Summary --- p.113 / Chapter Chapter 6 --- Discussion --- p.115 / Chapter 6.1 --- The effect of the interpretation task (with grammar instruction) vs. the interpretation task (without grammar instruction) --- p.117 / Chapter 6.2 --- The effect of the production task --- p.119 / Chapter 6.3 --- The effect of interpretation task vs. the production task --- p.121 / Chapter 6.3.1 --- Students' performance in the grammaticality judgement task in the pretest-posttest comparisons --- p.121 / Chapter 6.3.2 --- Students' performance in the free production task in the posttest --- p.126 / Chapter 6.3.3 --- The role of the interpretation task in L2 acquisition --- p.128 / Chapter 6.4 --- Further observations --- p.131 / Chapter 6.4.1 --- Inconsistency of grammaticality judgement within a verb category --- p.131 / Chapter 6.4.2 --- The discrepancy in the performance of students in School A and School B --- p.132 / Chapter 6.4.3 --- The degree of difficulty of interpretation task VS. production task --- p.135 / Chapter 6.5 --- Limitations of the present study --- p.137 / Chapter 6.6 --- Summary of findings --- p.138 / Chapter 6.7 --- Conclusion --- p.139 / References --- p.141 / Appendix I Results tables for Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 --- p.1 / Appendix II The interpretation task --- p.12 / Appendix III The production task --- p.19 / Appendix IV Teaching material --- p.25 / Appendix V The grammaticality judgement task --- p.29 / Appendix VI The free production task --- p.32 / Appendix VII Results tables --- p.35 / Appendix VIII Mean scores of students in the grammaticality judgement tasks --- p.55

Aspect splits can affect agreement, Case, and even preposition insertion. This paper discusses the functional ‘why’ and the theoretical ‘how’ of aspect splits. Aspect splits are an economical way to mark aspect by preserving or suppressing some independent element in one aspect. In formal terms, they are produced in the same way as coda conditions in phonology, with positional/contextual faithfulness.This approach captures the additive effects of cross-cutting splits. Aspect splits are analyzed here from Hindi, Nepali, Yucatec Maya, Chontal, and Palauan.

In this thesis, I propose a theory of ergativity in which NP arguments are checked for Case by moving to projections of agreement at LF. The Case-marking pattern of an ergative language arises when transitive subjects move to the projection of agreement usually associated with objects (AGR.o), while transitive objects and intransitive subjects move to the projection of subject agreement (AGR.s). While this proposal assigns the same underlying structure to clauses in an ergative language (unlike Marantz, 1984), it does have distinctive syntactic effects. In this it contrasts with a purely morphological approach to ergativity, such as that of Anderson (1976). / Arguments can move to the specifier position of agreement, or adjoin to its maximal projection. Movement cannot take place across the same kind of position as the landing site, which leads us to predict that transitive subjects cannot undergo grammatical extraction in an ergative language. This prediction turns out to be correct in a number of languages, including Chamorro, Mam, and other members of the Mayan group. Our theory also allows for a plausible account of split ergativity--non-canonical patterns in an otherwise ergative language where transitive and intransitive subjects are marked the same, but behave differently under extraction. / The proposal that NPs are not checked for Case until LF entails that they remain in their base positions at S-structure. Evidence for this claim is adduced from the distribution of empty pronoun arguments whose contents must be identified. Our prediction is that transitive subjects in an ergative language will interfere in the identification of an empty object pronoun, since it is closer to the pronoun than its legitimate identifier, AGR.s. This is also shown to be the case.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 539-582). / Also available by subscription via World Wide Web / xxiv, 582 leaves, bound in 2 v. 29 cm

No description available.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This dissertation documents the emergence of a new language, Light Warlpiri, in the multilingual community of Lajamanu in northern Australia. It then examines the acquisition of Light Warlpiri language, and of the heritage language, Lajamanu Warlpiri, by children. Light Warlpiri has arisen from contact between Lajamanu Warlpiri (a Pama-Nyungan language), Kriol (an English-based creole), and varieties of English. It is a Mixed Language, meaning that none of its source languages can be considered to be the sole parent language. Most verbs and the verbal morphology are from Aboriginal English or Kriol, while most nouns and the nominal morphology are from Warlpiri. The language input to children is complex. Adults older than about thirty speak Lajamanu Warlpiri and code-switch into Aboriginal English or Kriol. Younger adults, the parents of the current cohort of children, speak Light Warlpiri and code-switch into Lajamanu Warlpiri and into Aboriginal English or Kriol. Lajamanu Warlpiri and Light Warlpiri, the two main input languages to children, both indicate A arguments with ergative case-marking (and they share one allomorph of the marker), but Lajamanu Warlpiri includes the marker much more consistently than Light Warlpiri. Word order is variable in both languages. Children learn both languages from birth, but they target Light Warlpiri as the language of their everyday interactions, and they speak it almost exclusively until four to six years of age. Adults and children show similar patterns of ergative marking and word order in Light Warlpiri. But differences between age groups are found in ergative marking in Lajamanu Warlpiri - for the oldest group of adults, ergative marking is obligatory, but for younger adults and children, it is not. Determining when children differentiate between two input languages has been a major goal in the study of bilingual acquisition. The two languages in this study share lexical and grammatical properties, making distinctions between them quite subtle. Both adults and children distribute ergative marking differently in the two languages, but show similar word order patterns in both. However the children show a stronger correlation between ergative marking and word order patterns than do the adults, suggesting that they are spearheading processes of language change. In their comprehension of sentences in both Lajamanu Warlpiri and Light Warlpiri, adults use a case-marking strategy to identify the A argument (i.e. N+erg = A argument, N-erg = O argument). The children are not adult-like in using this strategy at age 5, when they also used a word order strategy, but they gradually move towards being adult-like with increased age.