Agreement Vs. Case Marking In Direct Objects

Thomas McFadden: 2004. The position of the morphological case in the derivative: A study on the syntactic-morphology interface. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. In (ii), only correspondence with the indirect object is recorded on the verb. In (iii), however, the two internal arguments are marked. In this case, a nominological specification, whose featural specification is not discretely reflected by the morphology of the object convention in the perfective, triggers the marking in the imperfect. This disparity does not necessarily cause the source of the two phenomena to be divided, the two arguments of the double construction of objects could be targeted by the agreement of φ in (ii) on multiple Agree. The conditions of exposure to the results of several φ relationships could then limit the hidden relationship to only one of the two relationships (. B for example, Anagnostopoulou 2005; Nevins 2011; See also Hiraiwa 2001, 2005). Unlike the parent of the object, it does not face a similar exposure problem, which leads to several objects marked in (iii).

I will come back to the issue of the multiple agreement of section 4.3. Rodriguez-Mondoédo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects: accepting and marking the differential object. PhD diss., University of Connecticut. Bhatt, Rajesh. 2007. Unakkusativitet und Falllizenzierung. Lecture at McGill University. It is useful that languages have a means of discernment between subjects and objects, as well as between arguments A, S and O. This is useful so that phrases like „Tom hit Fred“ cannot be interpreted as „Fred hit Tom“. Tripartenal alignment systems achieve this differentiation by encoding S, A and O in different ways.

However, this is not structurally economic and tripartite systems are relatively rare, but having all arguments labelled in the same way makes arguments ambiguous. In addition to the principle of distinction, a principle of profitability seems to work. It is more effective to have as few cases as possible without compromising intelligibility. In this way, the dual constraints of efficiency and profitability have produced a system that distinguishes two types of arguments.