Morphology - CASE AGREEMENT

Question 1

TYPES OF MARKING

OF VERBAL DEPENDENTS

Answer 1

Arguments
> Core (subject, object)
>Non-core (indirect object or oblique)

Adjuncts.
> Additional, non-grammatical information

3 ways of marking:

1. Word order – not morphological marking.
2. Agreement.
3. Case marking.

Question 2

Agreement

Answer 2

Morphological features of an element
reflect some grammatical features of another element.
Typically concerns:
 Person
 Number
 Gender
 Case

> EG. gender and number agreement in Spanish

a. la elefanta negr-a
b. las elefantas negr-as
c. el gato negr-o
d. los gatos negr-os

> EG Case agreement in Warlpiri

Subjects agree in person, number (and gender)
E.g. subject pronouns.
I go.
He goes.

Question 3

Verbal agreement

Answer 3

A common means of identifying core arguments. 
EG French
Je le vois.
Je=le=v-ois.
1SG.S-3sg.M.O-see-PRES:SG
‘I see him/it.’

> Up to 4 arguments can be cross-referenced on the verb.
5 unattested.
- Processing limitations?
- And no need for it?

Question 4

Typological agreement hierarchy

Answer 4

Convergence in which arguments are marked on the verb.

SUBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > OTHER

Question 5

What is a case system?

Answer 5

Case markers indicate the role/meaning of their heads.
> I.e. how to interpret them.

LANGUAGE SPECIFIC!

Latin has 6 cases (+ some vestigial).
German has 4 cases:
 Nominative
 Accusative
 Dative
 Genitive

Turkish has 15 cases eg:
 Inclusive or comitative: ‘with/having’.
 Essive ‘be like’.
 Conditional (apprehensive) ‘in case of’.

Question 6

examples of cases

Answer 6

NOMINATIVE: clause subject (S/A)
GENITIVE: possession (of)
DATIVE: indirect object (to/for)
ACCUSATIVE: direct object (O)
ABLATIVE: misc. adjuncts
LOCATIVE: location adjunct (vestigial)
VOCATIVE: direct address

Question 7

Non-local/Local Cases

Answer 7

NON-LOCAL is for VERBAL ARGUMENTS
>Grammatical information.
>>Usually just a handful w Relatively stable labels (w exceptions)
- Nominative, accusative.
- Ergative, absolutive.
- Dative (for indirect objects).

LOCAL is for ADJUNCTS
> “semantic information”
»Great diversity. (Sometimes several dozens.)
» Less stable labels.
The most common ones are listed in the Leipzig Glossing rules.
-E.g. ‘abessive’ in Turkish / ‘privative’ in Australian languages

Question 8

How many cases?

Answer 8

WALS = 261 samples, highest = hungarian w/ 21

Reported highest: 53
>Tabassaran (NE Caucasian, Russia) (Comrie 1981)
-There are only 4 non-local.
- There rest is local.
- Including fine locational nuances.

Rich case morphology:
 Eastern Europe
 Australia
 Some in West Asia, American languages.

Limited case morphology
 Africa
 Western Europe
 Amazon

Question 9

Cross-linguistic patterns in case systems

Answer 9

If a language develops more than 8 distinct cases
then there will be cases that express
different notions of location with case inflection

as in tabassaran or finnish (15 cases, 9 = locations)

Case hierarchy (Blake 1994)
NOM > ACC/ERG > GEN > DAT > LOC > ABL/INST > others

Implicational scale of which arguments are marked by case:
Inverted from agreement!
Case marking preferences
OTHER > INDIRECT OBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > SUBJECT

Agreement preferences
SUBJECT > DIRECT OBJECT > INDIRECT OBJECT > OTHER

in langs with case AND agreement
there is little overlap
one picks up where othre stops
 ‘Higher’ core arguments tend to be expressed on the head.
 ‘Lower’ and non-core on the dependent.

AGREEMENT = HEADMARKING

CASE= DEPENDENT MARKING

Question 10

Morphological complexity

Answer 10

A topic of typological enquiry of itself.
»Linguists ponder about what makes languages difficult.
» A question about language and cognition.
»> Ideological (e.g. creole, notion of ‘primitive’ languages…)

Complexity in Murrinh Patha?
> Complex grammatical possibilities.
» Not so complex in use (Forshaw et al. 2012).

Quantity is not complexity!

Question 11

measuring morphological complexity

Answer 11

1. Complexity as impredictability.
   » Complexity understood as the ‘size of the rule’
   needed to account for the system.
2. Complexity as redundance/ambiguity
3. Complexity as covertness.
   » With fewer forms they can be more ambiguity.
   »Generates semantic complexity.
   » Makes the language harder to learn and master.

THEORY-ORIENTED COMPLEXITY

• Objective measures, e.g. ‘entropy index’
• Typologists

USER-ORIENTED COMPLEXITY

• Subjective: how difficult is it to learn?
• Sociolinguists, psycholinguists

So far the theorization is peacemeal.
»Linguists have not agreed on what complexity is.
» Or on how to classify languages as more or less complex.
» Some have abandoned the notion of global complexity.
- Across a whole language.
- Pellegrino et al. (2009) about phonological complexity.
»In favor of sub-complexity.
- Local, within subdomains for each languages.

Question 12

External factors for complexity

Answer 12

1. Age of the language.
   » Languages develop complexity over time.
   EG. creoles, considered more simple. Parkvall (2008)
   » But in experiment, users simplify irregularities.
2. History of contact (may involve simplification)
3. Culture and language ideologies.
   »Demographics and linguistic ecology
   »> Number of languages, population sizes