The Case on external argument is affected by the presence of modal auxiliary in the transitive verb string. In such constructions, the external argument is not marked with the ergative Case even when the verb string consists of perfective aspect, which is morphological marked on the modal auxiliary that usually follows the main verb, as shown in (4a) below. Rather, the external argument is marked with the nominative Case and it is in agreement with the verb string for gender, number, and person. On the other hand, it does not affect the nominative Case to external argument. Even it does not change when the verb string consists of imperfective aspect, which is, in a similar fashion, morphologically marked on the modal auxiliary, as in (4b). …show more content…
ਉਸ ਤੋਂ ਕੁਰਸੀ ਹਿਲਾਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਗਈ। ʊs t̪õ kʊrsi hɪlai nəhĩ ɡəi he-INS chair.F.SG.NOM move-PFV.F.SG not go-PFV.F.SG
‘He is not able to move the chair.’
The external argument in both the examples (5a & b) is marked with the instrumental Case because of the presence of the capabilitative auxiliary ɟa. In addition, the transitive verbal string agrees with the internal argument in both examples.
5.2.2. A Minimalist analysis of simple transitive verb constructions in Punjabi
Under this section, we will present a Minimalist analysis of each pattern of the projection of transitive verb in Punjabi discussed above. In addition to this, we will also try to address the Case checking and agreement facts involved in such constructions. Discussion starts with the analysis of first pattern, which is conditioned with the imperfective or perfective aspectual morphology in the verbal string. In addition, with such conditions, the constructions can be further seen into three types; first, when the aspect is imperfective, the external argument is in nominative Case and agrees with the verbal string for φ-features.
(6) a. ਮੁੰਡੇ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ। (6) mʊnɖe roʈi kʰãd̪e
…show more content…
Subsequently, the verb raises to the functional head Asp to check the aspectual features (perfective in this case), which is required for derivation to converge. Along with this, we are repeating the same assumption here again that the derivational process involves TP, which is the projection of head T with Ø (zero) value and carries [+finite] feature along with EPP and nominative Case
The argument posited by Sider (S1) can be seen as an argument by elimination, where the premises if accepted, reject the possibility of S2 and S3. As such, the argument suffers from whether the re...
Fromm, Erich. “The Nature of Symbolic Language.” Class Handout: English 101. Cerro Coso Community College, 2010. 121-26. Print.
Premise one is a generalized argument, premise two is a specific argument, and the conclusion is the result of both premises. An explanation is due to be provided for how the argument posed obeys the two rules for a good argument. There are two rules for a good argument:
Throughout the course of the essay, I will discuss two different attempts to defend truth-functionality: the principle ‘assert the stronger instead of the weaker’ and the supplemented equivalence thesis. The principle was proposed by Grice in his William James lectures on ‘Logic and Conversation’ as a conversational explanation of why a conditional - which has been interpreted using the truth-table for the material conditional - can fail to be assertible even though the negation of its antecedent or the truth of the consequent is assertible. Whereas, Jackson defends a version of the equivalence thesis he refers to as the supplemented equivalence thesis in ‘On Assertion and Indicative Conditionals’. I intend to argue that Jackson successfully refutes the Gricean attempt to defend truth-functionality and provides convincing reasons to suggest that the equivalence thesis is worth saving. In order to evaluate these attempts at defending truth-functionality, I shall begin by defining some basic terms.
Rizzi (1997) depends on a few features, that syntactic movement is “last resort” or that it must be a necessary “quasi-morphological” requirement, and that these requirements are Criteria requirements, “the presence of a head entering into the required Spec-head configuration with the preposed phrase”. Criteria requirements, unlike feature checking, will not disappear. Finally, Rizzi must also assume within the relativized minimality theory, Empty Category Principle (ECP), and the Head Movement Constraint (HMC) and therefore head government. The rele...
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
This structure shows the two initial premises which he argues, in detail, to be correct and in the case that they are correct a logically valid conclusion.
In respect to the distinction of voice, Turner uses the example of a Gullah speaker saying, “they beat him” instead of the English syntactic phrase, “he was beaten” (Turner, 209). Thus, distinctive voice is eliminated by the use of the objective case as opposed to passive verbs in English. This syntactical framework can be found in the African languages of Ewe, Yoruba, Twi, Fante, and Ga (Turner, 209). Similarly to the languages of Ewe and Yoruba, the verb /de/ is the Gullah language is used as a prepositional verb. Also, in the Gullah language verbs are often used in pairs or phrases, which is reflective of the languages of the Ewe and Twi people (Turner,
Donnellen (1966) criticized the Russell and Strawson’s view. He claimed that there are attributive and referential uses of definite description. The former is about attributively using definite description in an assertion which stating something about “A is B”. The latter is about speaker using the description to let the audience to know what is “A is B” about. Donnellen claimed that Russell focus on former and Strawson focus on latter.
Pragmatics Aspects: Deixis and Distance, reference and inference, conversational implicature, anaphoric and cataphoric reference, presupposition, entailment, direct and indirect speech acts and speech events, cultural context and cross cultural pragmatics, conversational analysis and background knowledge, denotation and connotation meaning, the four maxims and hedges.
6. Behavior under Negation: Since conventional implicatures are independent from at-issue meaning, and are (almost) always ‘speaker oriented’, they normally survive under negation, in if-clauses,
We can distinguish from Quirk et al. (1985) that there are four syntactic functions for adverbisals: adjuncts, subjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts.
Second, due to the absence of the grammaticalized progressive aspect in German the durative qualities in Präsens, Präteritum and Futur I cannot be expressed morphologically. To convey the continuative nature of a situation German relies on the inherent qualities of the verb, the context of the verb, lexical expressions and other lexical means (e.g. adverbials).
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433-458.
What this paper will do is to find effective methods that can help students comprehend Type 2 conditional sentence better. Firstly, there will be a critique of Miss Wong’s teaching approach, and then you will see a detailed design of a grammar activity. Following it, a discussion and its theoretical rationale will be presented. Finally, a summary about the effective ways will be made.