FOUR-WAY CASE SYSTEMS: ERGATIVE, NOMINATIVE, OBJECTIVE AND ACCUSATIVE
FOUR-WAY CASE SYSTEMS: ERGATIVE, NOMINATIVE, OBJECTIVE AND ACCUSATIVE
复制标题
四维格系统：作格、主格、宾格和宾格
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ellen Woolford
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ellen Woolford
在分析内兹珀斯人的四路格系统的背景下，本文提出了有关格理论的三个主张的证据。第一，作格不是主格或宾格那样的结构格;相反，作格是与格那样的词汇格。其次，与普遍语法只允许对象有一个结构格的通常假设相反，实际上普遍语法中有两个结构对象格：一个，这里称为“客观格”，在Spec Agr-O中被分配/检查，并且与对象一致性相关联，如果语言具有对象一致性。每个子句有一个客观情况的限制。另一个在这里被称为“解释性格”，由VP内部的V分配/检查，并且从不与对象一致性相关联。每个子句可以有一个以上的结构性解释格。第三个主张是，下面的描述性概括普遍适用：在具有词汇格主语的从句中（例如，作格或与格），最高宾语不能有结构化的格（尽管该宾语可以有宾语格）。这种概括以及促使Burzio（1986）概括的事实是一种更广泛的概括的表现，这种概括支配着一个动词可以分配的最大数量的解释性格。
In the context of an analysis of the four-way Case system of Nez Perce, this paper presents evidence for three claims concerning Case theory. First, ergative is not a structural Case like nominative or accusative; instead, ergative is a lexical Case like the dative. Second, contrary to the usual assumption that UG allows for only one structural Case for objects, there are, in fact, two structural object Cases available in UG: one, termed ’objective Case‘ here, is assigned/checked in Spec Agr-O and is associated with object agreement, if the language has object agreement. There is a limit of one objective Case per clause. The other, termed ’accusative Case‘ here, is assigned/checked by V inside VP and is never associated with object agreement. There may be more than one structural accusative Case per clause. The third claim is that the following descriptive generalization holds universally: in a clause with a lexically Cased subject (e.g., ergative or dative) the highest object cannot have structural accusative Case (although that object can have objective Case). That generalization and the facts that motivated Burzio‘s (1986) generalization are manifestations of a broader generalization governing the maximum number of accusative Cases that a verb can assign.