This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. ‘Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435-483.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de Gruyter.
Artiagiota, Xabier. 2001. ‘Seemingly Ergative and Ergatively Seeming.’ In J. Herschensohn, E. Mallén, and K. Zagona, eds. Features and Interfaces: Essays Hellas Contreres, pp. 1 – 22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell. 1997. ‘Distributivity and Negation.’ In Anna Szabolsci, ed. Ways of Scope Taking. Kluwer.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1996. ‘Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases.’ In Chicago Linguistic Society 1996.
Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bittner, Maria & Ken Hale. 1996. ‘The structural determination of Case and agreement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1-68.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993. ‘On ergativity and ergative unergatives.’ In Papers on Case & Agreement II. MITWPL 19.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. ‘Scope reconstruction and A-movement.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 503-548.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. ‘Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar.’ Language 70, 72-131.
Büring, Daniel, and Christine Gunlogson. 2000. Aren’t positive and negative questions the same? Manuscript, UCLA/UCSC.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. MIT Press.
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1989. ‘Perfect -en is passive -en.’ In E. J. Fee and K. Hunt, eds. WCCFL 22 Proceedings, pp. 85–93.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Enc, Mürvet. 1991. ‘The semantics of specificity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 22,1-25.
Fox, D., and U. Sauerland. 1995. ‘Illusive scope of universal quantifiers.’ In Proceedings of NELS XXVI. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Gonzalez, Luis. 2003. ‘From addressees to nominees: Dative overriding of human accusative subjects.’ Talk presented at the LSA meeting, 2003, Atlanta.
Hook, Peter. 1990. ‘Experiencers in South Asian languages: A gallery.’ In M.K. Verma and K.P. Mohanan, eds. Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. CSLI.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form. Blackwell.
Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. ‘On the form and meaning of the perfect.’ In M. Kenstowicz., ed. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johns, Alana. 1992. ‘Deriving ergativity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23,57-88.
Johnson, Kyle, and Satoshi Tomioka. 1997. ‘Lowering and mid-size clauses.’ In Katz, Kim, and Haike, eds.Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction.
Kachru, Yamuna. 1987. ‘Ergativity, subjecthood, and topicality in Hindi-Urdu’. In R.M.W. Dixon, ed. Studies on Ergativity (a special volume of Lingua). Elsevier.
Kidwai, Ayesha. 2001. XP-adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi-Urdu. Oxford.
Kuno, Susumu. 1971. ‘The position of locatives in existential sentences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 2, 333-378.
Ladd, Robert. 1981. ‘A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of tag questions and negative questions.’ In Chicago Linguistics Society Vol. 17.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. ‘Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative.’ In Papers on case and agreement I. MITWPL 18.
Lavine, James, and Robert Freidin. 2002. ‘The subject of defective (T)ense in Slavic.’ Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1-2).
Legate, Julie Anne. (this volume). ‘Split absolutive in Warlpiri.’
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A’ distinction and movement theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1992. ‘Specificity condition and the CED.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23, 510-516.
Mahajan, Anoop. 2000. ‘Oblique subjects and Burzio’s generalization.’ In Eric Reuland, ed. Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization. John Benjamins.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI.
Nash, Léa. 1995. Portée argumentale et marquage casuel dans les langues sov et dans les langue ergatives: l’example du géorgien. Doctoral Dissertation, Université Paris VIII.
Nevins, Andrew, and Pranav Anand. 2003. ‘Some agreement matters.’ In G. Gardner and M. Tsujimura, eds. WCCFL 22 Proceedings, pp. 370 -383.
Phillips, Colin. 1993. ‘Conditions on agreement in Yimas.’ In Papers on Case and Agreement I. MITWPL 18.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. ‘Quantifier-scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.
Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case, and licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Sigurdsson, Halldór. 2002. ‘To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 691-724.
von Stechow, Arnim, and Doris Penka. 2003. ‘N-words and negation in German.’ Presented at Datenvielfalt und Perspecktivenvielflat zwischen Universalität und Variation, Tübingen, January 2003.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. Oxford University Press.
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. ‘Four way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 181-227.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
ANAND, P., NEVINS, A. (2006). The Locus of Ergative Case Assignment: Evidence from Scope. In: JOHNS, A., MASSAM, D., NDAYIRAGIJE, J. (eds) ERGATIVITY. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4186-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4188-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)