Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs

Burushaski verb agreement and case marking phenomena are complex and have not been described adequately by any current theory of syntax. In particular, no explanation has yet been given as to why a variety of nominals can trigger agreement in the verbal prefix. In some cases the apparent subject triggers this agreement, in others the direct object appears to do so, in others the indirect object, in others the possessor of the direct object, in others a benefactive or source nominal. Also the constraints on the usage of ergative, absolutive and oblique case, and other indicators of grammatical relations on nominals, have been insufficiently characterized in the literature on Burushaski. In this paper I propose an account of these facts, and several others relating to Burushaski clause structure, within the framework of Relational Grammar.

Case, Word Order, and Language Learnability: Insights from Connectionist Modeling Gary Lupyan (il24@cornell.edu) Morten H. Christiansen (mhc27@cornell.edu) Department of Psychology Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 USA Abstract How does the existence of case systems, and strict word order patterns a↵ect the learnability of a given language? We present a series of connectionist sim- ulations, suggesting that both case and strict word order may facilitate syntactic acquisition by a se- quential learning device. Our results are consis- tent with typological data concerning the frequen- cies with which di↵erent type of word order pat- terns occur across the languages of the world. Our model also accommodates patterns of syntactic de- velopment across several di↵erent languages. We conclude that non-linguistic constraints on general sequential-learning devices may help explain the re- lationship between case, word order, and learnabil- ity of individual languages. Introduction In language acquisition, children are faced with many formidable tasks, yet they normally acquire most of their native language within the first five years of life. One of the most difficult of these tasks involves mapping a sequence of words onto some sort of interpretation of what that sequence is supposed to mean. That is, in order for the child to under- stand a sentence, she needs to determine the gram- matical roles of the individual words so that she can work out who did what to whom. Although the chil- dren appear to bring powerful statistical learning mechanisms to bear on the acquisition tasks (e.g., Sa↵ran, Aslin, & Newport 1996), the existence of linguistic universals common across radically di↵er- ent languages (Greenberg 1963) points to the pres- ence of innate constraints on such learning. Without such constraints, it becomes difficult to explain why there are few, if any, Object-Subject-Verb (OSV) languages (van Everbroeck, 1999) even though in principle such a language appears to be as good as any other. In this paper, we propose that these con- straints may arise from non-linguistic limitations on the sequential learning of statistical structure, and examine how this perspective may shed light on how children learn to map the words in sentences onto their appropriate grammatical roles. There are two major ways in which languages signal syntactic rela- tionships and grammatical roles—word order (WO), and case markings. In a strict WO language like En- glish, declarative sentences follow a Subject-Verb- Object (SVO) pattern. It is the occurrence of the subject in the first position, and the object in the second, that allows the hearer to comprehend who did what to whom. In contrast, languages such as Russian or Japanese allow multiple word orders and rely on case markings to disambiguate subjects from objects. For instance, Masha lubit Petyoo (SVO), Petyoo lubit Masha (OVS), and Lubit Petyoo Masha (VOS) are all grammatical in Russian and all mean Mary loves Peter (albeit with di↵erent emphases on the constituents), due to the nominative -a, and ac- cusative -u case markers. While long-standing theories describe acquisition of language through an innate language acquisition device (e.g., Pinker, 1995), an alternative approach that is gaining ground is the adaptation of linguistic structures to the human brain rather than vice versa (e.g., Christiansen, 1994; Kirby, 1998). On this ac- count, language universals may reflect non-linguistic cognitive constraints on learning and processing of sequential structure, rather than constraints pre- scribed by an innate universal grammar. Previ- ous work has shown that sequential-learning devices with no language-specific biases are better able to learn more universal aspects of language as com- pared to aspects encountered in rare languages (e.g., Ellefson & Christiansen, 2000; Christiansen & De- vlin, 1997; Van Everbroeck, 1999, 2001). Here, we examine the ways in which case markings and word order may function as cues for a sequen- tial learning device acquiring syntactic structure. In simulation 1, we model di↵erent word orders, and hypothesize that typologically common languages should be easier to learn by a sequential-learning device than the more rare ones. We expand on this idea in simulation 2 by studying the performance of networks trained on languages of varying degrees of case markings and flexibility. Finally, in simulation 3, we establish that our trained networks are able to mimic syntactic performance of children learn- ing English, Italian, Turkish, and Serbo-Croatian (Slobin and Bever, 1982).

ABSTRACTThis cross-linguistic study investigates the relative importance of validity in terms of the strengths of syntactic cues and cue processing cost in sentence comprehension by French and Spanish children (4; 6–6; 6). The notion of cue cost refers to the distinction between local and topological processing types. Choices of the agent (cue strength) and latencies (cue cost) were collected through the acting out of sentences containing different syntactic cues. These cues (word order, clitic pronoun, verbal agreement plus accusative prepositionain Spanish) are ordered on a continuum from the most topological (word order) to the most local (prepositiona). The analysis of cue strengths reveals that, while for French children a linguistic cue is all the stronger the more topological it is (verbal agreement < clitic pronoun < word order), for Spanish children a cue is all the stronger the more local it is (word order < clitic pronoun < verbal agreement < prepositiona). The fact that Spanish children's latencies are always shorter (2150 msec) than those of French children (3110 msec) must be related to the effect of the prepositionawhich permits efficient role assignments with minimal cost. These results stress the importance of locality in sentence processing. On the other hand, a comparison with our similar adult cross-linguistic data demonstrates that the impact of cue cost changes over time.

ABSTRACTCase marking is the major cue to sentence interpretation in Japanese, whereas animacy and word order are much weaker. However, when subjects and their cases markers are omitted, Japanese honorific and humble verbs can provide information that compensates for the missing case role markers. This study examined the usage of honorific and humble verbs as cues to case role assignment by Japanese native speakers and second-language learners of Japanese. The results for native speakers replicated earlier findings regarding the predominant strength of case marking. However, when case marking was missing, native speakers relied more on honorific marking than word order. In these sentences, the processing that relied on the honorific cue was delayed by about 100 ms in comparison to processing that relied on the case-marking cue. Learners made extensive use of the honorific agreement cue, but their use of the cue was much less accurate than that of native speakers. In particular, they failed to systematically invoke the agreement cue when case marking was missing. Overall, the findings support the predictions of the model and extend its coverage to a new type of culturally determined cue.

In a well-known book, Hawkins (1986), expanding on an original idea by Sapir (1921), attributes a number of typological differences between German and English to the fact that German uses morphological means (i.e. case) to distinguish grammatical relations, whereas English makes use of a strict-SVO word order. Dutch seems problematic to Hawkins’ generalisation, in that neither case nor word order can be used consistently to express the basic grammatical relations. Using verb agreement as an extra parameter, Dutch can be integrated in Hawkins’ typology. In addition, data from Scandinavian languages and Afrikaans indicate that Hawkins’ notion of ‘grammatical word order’ can be replaced by a more precise word order feature, viz. the possibility to place verbs in between subjects and objects in all sentence types.

Effects of case marking and word order on syntactic parsing in Finnish were examined by registering readers’ eye fixation patterns while they read single sentences for comprehension. Target nouns appearing towards the beginning of the sentence took one of three grammatical roles: subject, object, or adverbial. The subject phrase in the sentence-initial position is the canonical order in Finnish, but the two other word orders are less frequent. In one experimental condition, the grammatical role of the target noun was signalled by a case inflection attached to the preceding adjective modifier; in the second condition this was not the case. The results showed a facilitation effect in sentence parsing due to case marking. Similarly, there was an effect of word order, where the canonical SVO order was associated with greater processing ease than were non-canonical word orders. The two factors interacted so that there was no effect of case marking for the SVO order, but a significant case marking effect for the two marked word orders. The same pattern of results showed up as both immediate and delayed effects. The results speak against the notion of head licensing proposed by Abney (1989) and Prichett (1991).

Several studies found cross‐linguistic structural priming with various language combinations. Here, we investigated the role of two important domains of language variation: case marking and word order, for transitive and ditransitive structures. We varied these features in an artificial language learning paradigm, using three different artificial language versions in a between‐subjects design. Priming was assessed between Dutch (no overt case marking, SVO word order) and a) an SVO order version, b) a case marking version, and c) an SOV order version. Similar within‐language and cross‐linguistic priming was found in all versions for transitives, indicating that cross‐linguistic structural priming was not hindered. In contrast, for ditransitives we found similar within‐language priming for all versions, but no cross‐linguistic priming. The finding that cross‐linguistic priming is possible between languages that vary in morphological marking or word order, is compatible with studies showing cross‐linguistic priming between natural languages that differ on these dimensions.

This study investigates the use of progressives with mental verbs in courtroom talk and shows a range of subjective meanings which are not delivered by the simple form. Looking at the data from a British libel trial, it explores patterned co-occurrences with first-person subjects vs. second- and third-person subjects, revealing both emphatic, polite and interpretative uses of the analyzed items. In addition, context-sensitivity and speaker status (judge vs. other participants) are shown to be significant factors affecting both the choice of verbs and their interactional configurations. The findings reveal not only well-established uses of “progressive statives” (wonderandthink) but also less conventional ones which convey intensity and expressivity (e.g.,understand,rememberandwant). It is also revealed that the use of progressives with mental verbs differs from the deployment of progressives with communication verbs. In both groups of verbs, however, the interpretative meaning is common. In sum, the study situates progressives with mental verbs among stancetaking resources which speakers employ to share their thoughts, wishes and desires, and to position themselves against other interactants and their propositions.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the 'Save PDF' action button.

This study investigates children's changing sensitivity to processing cues for identifying agent (word order, case marking, and animacy) as a function of proficiency in a second language. English-speaking learners of Japanese need to appropriately adjust cue strengths in moving from a rigid SVO language to one in which SOV word order is a good general processing strategy, but case marking must ultimately be relied on if it conflicts with this order. English-speaking children in grades K–7 in an immersion school were asked to identify the agent for a set of audiotaped sentences in English and Japanese. The children in this study learned to use SOV word order, lexical semantics, and canonical case marking, but they do not provide evidence of appropriately exploiting noncanonical case marking. We suggest that these results might be accounted for by the context in which input is processed in immersion school classrooms.

This book provides an overview of the grammatical structure of the language Yurakare, an unclassified and previously undescribed language of central Bolivia. It consists of 8 chapters, each describing different aspects of the language. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the Yurakare people and their language. Chapter 2 describes the phonology of the language, from the individual sounds to the stress system. In chapter 3 the morphology of Yurakare is introduced, i.e. the parts of speech, and the different morphological processes. Chapter 4 is a description of the noun phrase and contains information about nouns, adjectives, postpositions and quantifiers. It also discusses the categories associated with the noun phrase in Yurakare, such as number, possession, collectivity/distributivity, diminutive. In chapter 5, called 'Verbal agreement, voice and valency' there is a description of the argument structure of predicates, how arguments are expressed and how argument structure can be altered by means of voice and valency-changing operations such as applicatives, causative and middle voice. In chapter 6 there is an overview of verbal morphology, apart from the morphology associated with voice, valency and cross-reference discussed in chapter 5. There is also a description of adverbs in the language in this chapter. Chapter 7 discusses formal and functional properties of modal and aspectual enclitics. In chapter 8, finally, the structure of the clause (both simplex and complex) is discussed, including the switch-reference system and word order. The book ends with two text samples.

Does language dominance modulate knowledge of case marking in Hindi-speaking bilinguals? Hindi is a split ergative language with a rich morphological case system. Subjects of transitive perfective predicates are marked with ergative case (-ne). Human specific direct objects, indirect objects, and dative subjects are marked with the particle -ko. We compared knowledge of case marking in Hindi–English bilinguals with different dominance patterns: 23 balanced bilinguals and two groups of bilinguals with Hindi as their weaker language: 24 L2 learners of Hindi with age of acquisition (AoA) of Hindi in adulthood and 26 Hindi heritage speakers with AoA of Hindi since birth in oral production and acceptability judgments. The balanced bilinguals outperformed the English-dominant bilinguals; the L2 learners and the heritage speakers, who showed similar lower command of the Hindi case marking system, with the exception of -ko marking as a function of specificity with direct objects. We consider how dominant language transfer, AoA of Hindi, and input factors may explain the acquisition and knowledge of morphology in Hindi as the weaker language.

different directions. Other changes such as the spread of particular syntactic constructions are due to loanwords, particularly from French. Sayahi has shown, for example, that the analytical forms of the expression of possession in North African dialects are more widely used with borrowed French words.In addition,among the many interesting insights of this study is that the High and Low “varieties are substantially different structurally and it is not only because of their intense contact with other languages [such as French], as is often believed by speakers and policymakers” (201). With the widening differences between the Low and the High varieties, and the increased awareness of the communicative functionality of the Low varieties, diglossia could end, thus leading to the emergence of new languages. Providing its new perspective, Sayahi’s book is a welcome addition to the research within the field of multilingualism, language contact, and bilingualism in North Africa. University of Delaware Ali Alalou TRISTRAM, ANNA. Variation and Change in French Morphosyntax: The Case of Collective Nouns. Oxford: Legenda, 2014. ISBN 978-1-907975-95-0. Pp. 178. $99. While language variation and change have been the focal point for linguists on this side of the Atlantic, Tristram argues that studies on morphosyntactic variation in French studies are lacking due to a focus on phonology and dialectology as well as denial of variation and change in the French language. Tristram’s book is thus a welcome contribution. It investigates verbal agreement with collective nouns such as majorité, minorité, partie, moitié, and foule, as in “une foule de voitures de deuil encombrait les abords de l’hôtel” versus “une foule de détails ont été omis” (1). The book’s ambitious objectives and approaches encompass quantitative, qualitative, synchronic, and diachronic methods using sociolinguistic interviews, Cloze tests, analysis of a large corpus from the database Frantext, and a survey of norms taught in French grammar textbooks. Tristram points out that it is difficult to define collective nouns, since “French studies are often not explicit about which nouns are included and which are excluded in the delimitation of the class” (17). Her review of the literature confirms disagreement about how referents are conceptualized. Quite a bit of space is devoted to English collective nouns, providing a basis for a comparative study. Tristram describes the methodological challenges of gathering a satisfactory sampling and explains the reasoning behind the use of each technique. Sociolinguistic interviews, for example, offer “authentic data [...] and more control over the sociolinguistic profile of the participants” (46). The author’s consideration of the social factors influencing the use of collective nouns is uneven. Gender and education are deemed relevant (a full chapter is devoted to the impact of education) but surprisingly, ethnicity and regional factors were excluded from the study, which may undermine the author’s wide-ranging goals. As an example of her findings, Tristram’s Cloze test for 286 FRENCH REVIEW 89.3 Reviews 287 majorité reveals a tendency among young French speakers (ages fourteen and fifteen) toward plural verbs. They used a plural verb in 66.67% of cases, as compared to 56.25% for adults over sixty (87). She also found that definite and indefinite articles influence agreement: older speakers use a singular verb with la foule 100% of the time, but only 64.29% with une foule (93). Tristram’s review of the historical use of collective nouns shows variation over time. Through the eighteenth century, for example, use of plural verbs rose from 12.5% of cases to 37.31% and then declined to 31.78% (99). Her examination of twentieth-century grammar textbooks found that they approached verbal agreement with collective nouns flexibly, with no apparent change over time. This book undertakes so much that the reader sometimes feels lost in its multifaceted methodology and lengthy endnotes.A more straightforward research design and more concise writing style, along with more examples and discussions focused specifically on the results, would have helped to put the grammar in context and done greater justice to Tristram’s tremendous effort and rich data. Nonetheless, her book is an interesting invitation to learn about morphosyntactic variation in French using a variety of methodologies and corpora. Manhattan...

In order to understand how children cope with the enormous variation in structures worldwide, developmental paths need to be studied in a sufficiently varied sample of languages. Because each study requires very large and expensive longitudinal corpora (about one million words, five to seven years of development), the relevant sample must be chosen strategically. We propose to base the choice on the results of a clustering algorithm (fuzzy clustering) applied to typological databases. The algorithm establishes a sample that maximizes the typological differences between languages. As a case study, we apply the algorithm to a dozen typological variables known to have an impact on acquisition, concerning such issues as the presence and nature of agreement and case marking, word order, degrees of synthesis, polyexponence and inflectional compactness of categories, syncretism, the existence of inflectional classes etc. The results allow deriving small samples that are maximally diverse. As a side result, we also note that while the clustering algorithm allows maximization of diversity for sampling purposes, the resulting clusters themselves are far from being discrete and therefore do not reflect a natural partition into basic language types.

The aim of the study is to provide a typological description of the essential features of Japanese and a detailed analysis of selected problems this poses. They appear above all in connection with inflection categories, parts of speech, case marking, omission of phrase (sentence) members, personal reference, and verbal deixis. The central typological topics are morphological characterization (agglutination, analytic/synthetic, etc.), word order, case marking, head/dependent marking, and pro-drop. The study casts light on the systematic connections between these aspects of Japanese and gives a typologically coherent account of the language.