Ergativity in Tongan
<p>In an ergative case system, the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) receive the same case, absolutive (ABS), while the subject of a transitive verb (A) receives a special case, ergative (ERG). Given the Principles and Parameters approach (Chomsky and...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2000
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1824459124033716224 |
|---|---|
| author | Otsuka, Y |
| author2 | Higginbotham, J |
| author_facet | Higginbotham, J Otsuka, Y |
| author_sort | Otsuka, Y |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>In an ergative case system, the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) receive the same case, absolutive (ABS), while the subject of a transitive verb (A) receives a special case, ergative (ERG). Given the Principles and Parameters approach (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993), ergative case marking should be derived from a UG parameter. The objective of this thesis is to postulate such a parameter that can account for various case-related phenomena.</p>
<p>In Tongan, an ergative pattern exists also at the syntactic level: S and O are treated as equivalent in some syntactic operations such as relativisation and coordination. I propose that this arises because ERG is a structural case associated with a structural position [Spec, Agrs]. Following Chomsky (1993), I assume that a structural case is assigned by feature checking in a Spec-head configuration. I also assume that only one Agr can be active in intransitive constructions: Agrs in accusative languages and Agro in ergative languages (Bobaljik 1993). However, the current approach differs from the standard account in that case features [ERG/NOM] and [ABS/ACC] are considered to be intrinsic to Agr(s), and not T and V. In effect, each case is associated with a unique structural position: ERG with [Spec, Agrs], ABS with [Spec, Agro] and Null with [Spec, TP]. The Tongan data show that syntactic ergativity arises because the relevant syntactic rules are sensitive to these structural positions.</p>
<p>There are also some phenomena in which S and A are treated as equivalent. I argue that such an accusative pattern arises in ergative languages when a syntactic rule is sensitive to theta-role. The accusative case system demonstrates relative stability because the contrast between the internal argument (O) and the external arguments (S/A) happens to show the same pattern. This hypothesis is also supported by the Tongan data.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2025-02-19T04:36:47Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oxford-uuid:ba05219e-cc40-4173-a901-e0a0c8492278 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-02-19T04:36:47Z |
| publishDate | 2000 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:ba05219e-cc40-4173-a901-e0a0c84922782025-02-04T12:25:35ZErgativity in TonganThesishttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06uuid:ba05219e-cc40-4173-a901-e0a0c8492278Tongan language -- Ergative constructionsEnglishHyrax Deposit2000Otsuka, YHigginbotham, J<p>In an ergative case system, the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive verb (O) receive the same case, absolutive (ABS), while the subject of a transitive verb (A) receives a special case, ergative (ERG). Given the Principles and Parameters approach (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993), ergative case marking should be derived from a UG parameter. The objective of this thesis is to postulate such a parameter that can account for various case-related phenomena.</p> <p>In Tongan, an ergative pattern exists also at the syntactic level: S and O are treated as equivalent in some syntactic operations such as relativisation and coordination. I propose that this arises because ERG is a structural case associated with a structural position [Spec, Agrs]. Following Chomsky (1993), I assume that a structural case is assigned by feature checking in a Spec-head configuration. I also assume that only one Agr can be active in intransitive constructions: Agrs in accusative languages and Agro in ergative languages (Bobaljik 1993). However, the current approach differs from the standard account in that case features [ERG/NOM] and [ABS/ACC] are considered to be intrinsic to Agr(s), and not T and V. In effect, each case is associated with a unique structural position: ERG with [Spec, Agrs], ABS with [Spec, Agro] and Null with [Spec, TP]. The Tongan data show that syntactic ergativity arises because the relevant syntactic rules are sensitive to these structural positions.</p> <p>There are also some phenomena in which S and A are treated as equivalent. I argue that such an accusative pattern arises in ergative languages when a syntactic rule is sensitive to theta-role. The accusative case system demonstrates relative stability because the contrast between the internal argument (O) and the external arguments (S/A) happens to show the same pattern. This hypothesis is also supported by the Tongan data.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Tongan language -- Ergative constructions Otsuka, Y Ergativity in Tongan |
| title | Ergativity in Tongan |
| title_full | Ergativity in Tongan |
| title_fullStr | Ergativity in Tongan |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ergativity in Tongan |
| title_short | Ergativity in Tongan |
| title_sort | ergativity in tongan |
| topic | Tongan language -- Ergative constructions |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT otsukay ergativityintongan |