[email protected] | |
3275638434 | |
Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Antipassivization and Pivot Construction in Ergative Languages
WANG Ran
Full-Text PDF XML 224 Views
DOI:10.17265/1539-8080/2019.01.002
University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, USA
Topics on antipassivization and pivot construction in ergative languages have drawn many discussions among linguists. Different approaches and accounts have been proposed. However, ergative-absolutive case assignment and phenomena like split ergativity are still harsh questions for linguists to offer a natural and proper explanation. This present paper, based on the discussion on Manning’s Inverse Grammatical Relation account (Manning, 1995), proposes a modified approach on case assignment and antipassivization rule for the pivot construction of certain ergative languages within HPSG framework. This would bring more lights to the understanding of ergativity in the future.
ergativity, antipassivization, pivot construction
Anderson, S. R. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Subject and topic (pp. 1-23). New York: Academic Press.
Blake, B. J. (2001). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bobaljik, J. D. (1992). Nominally absolutive is not absolutely nominative. In The Proceedings of the Eleventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 44-60). Stanford, C. A.: Stanford Linguistic Association.
Butt, M. (2006). Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, J. (1976). Walmatjari: Nominative-ergative or nominative-accusative. In Papers in Australian linguistics (pp. 1-30). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Manning, C. D. (1995). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations (Dissertation).