\documentstyle[slide,helvetica]{article}

\begin{document}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\documentstyle[12pt]{article}

% \renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\arabic{subsection}} % 1.2 --> 2

%\pagestyle{headings}               %to fix page #


\newcounter{examplenumber}
\setcounter{examplenumber}{1}
\newcounter{examplesnumber}
\newcounter{exnum}
\newlength{\standard}     
\setlength{\standard}{17pt}         % = \parindent
\newlength{\exampletextwidth}
\setlength{\exampletextwidth}{\textwidth}
\addtolength{\exampletextwidth}{-59.6pt}

\def\printexamplenumber{(\arabic{examplenumber})}

\newcommand{\ex}[1]{\setcounter{exnum}{\value{examplenumber}}%
\addtocounter{exnum}{#1}(\arabic{exnum})}

%
% usage: "Compare the previous example, \ex{-1},
%         to \ex{0}, which follows."
%

\def\examplesform{\nobreak\list{\alph{examplesnumber}.}
		         {\leftmargin 2.8\standard
			 \topsep 0pt \partopsep=0pt
			 \labelwidth .6\standard \labelsep .2\standard
			 \usecounter{examplesnumber}}}
\let\endexamplesform=\endlist

\newcommand{\examples}[1]{\par
\vskip 9.0pt plus 3.0pt minus 5.0pt
\noindent\hskip 1.5\standard \nopagebreak
\llap{\printexamplenumber}\nopagebreak
\vskip-\baselineskip\nopagebreak
\begin{examplesform} 
#1\end{examplesform}
\vskip 9.0pt plus 3.0pt minus 5.0pt
\stepcounter{examplenumber}}

%  
% usage: "\examples
%           {\item Here is a numbered subsentence.
%            \item Here is another numbered subsentence.}"
%
% usage: "\examples
%           {\item[Speaker A:] Does he agree?
%            \item[Speaker B:] ---seems to.}
%
% If no optional argument is included, a, b, c ... are substituted
%

\newcommand{\example}[1]{\examples{\item[]{} {#1}}}

%
% usage: "\example
%           {This is a numbered sentence.\\
%            It can take up several lines.}"
%         
% usage: "\example {This is a numbered sentence.}"
%


\newcommand{\gloss}[4]
	   {\begin{tabular}[t]{*{#1}{@{\hspace{\tabcolsep}}l}}
	   #2\\
	   #3\\
            \multicolumn{#1}{l}{#4}
	   \end{tabular}}

%
% usage: 
% \gloss {n} {n-word foreign ex.} {n-word gloss} {translation}
%
% \example{\gloss {3}          
%    {mu-nthu &m-modzi &\'a-ma-s\^ek-a} 
%    {1-person &1-one  &1Su-PrsHab-laugh-ind}
%    {`One person usually laughs.'}}
%
% \examples
%    {\item \gloss {3}
%         {m-chi-pinda &ndi &mw-\^anga}
%         {18-7-room   &cop &18-ISgPoss}
%         {`The inside of the room is mine'}
%     \item \gloss {3}
%         {\bad{*}m-chi-pinda &ndi &ch-\^anga}
%         {18-7-room  &cop &7-ISgPoss}
%         {`The inside of the room is mine'}}
%


\newcommand{\longgloss}[3]
	   {\begin{tabular}[t]{*{#1}{@{\hspace{\tabcolsep}}l}}
	   #2\\
	   #3\\
	   \end{tabular}}

% Usage: \longgloss {n} {n-word foreign example} {n-word gloss}
% This glosses an example without a translation.
%
% \example
%     {\longgloss{n}
%                {n-word broken example filling the first line}
%                {n-word gloss}\\
%      \longgloss{m}
%                {m-word continuation of example}
%                {m-word gloss}\\
%      \nogloss{translation of n+m word example}
%     }
%

\newcommand{\nogloss}[1]
	   {\begin{tabular}[t]{p{\exampletextwidth}}
           #1\\
	   \end{tabular}}

\newcommand{\bad}[1]{\leavevmode\llap{#1}}

% doesn't work inside \nogloss environment yet
% usage: \examples
%           {\item \bad{?}Here is a questionable sentence.
%            \item \bad{*}And here is a bad sentence.
%            \item \bad{\#}Don't forget the slash for this one.}

\newcommand{\pslabel}[1]{$_{\mbox{\sc{#1}}}$}

% usage: " [...]\pslabel{vp}" gives rom VP subscript to right
% bracket 
 

\newcommand{\xbar}[1]{$\overline{\mbox{#1}}$}

% usage: "...either an S or an \xbar{S}"


\newcommand{\xdblbar}[1]{$\overline{\overline{\mbox{#1}}}$}

% usage: "\xdblbar{X} is the maximal projection of X"



\newcommand{\gap}{$\underline{\hspace{1em}}$} 

\newcommand{\sub}[1]{$_{#1}$}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



\pagestyle{headings}
%\nologo
\renewcommand{\footstring}{11-721: Grammars and Lexicons}
\topmargin 0pt
\footheight 16pt
\footskip 30pt
\textheight 650pt

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Grammatical Relations}

Grammatical relations will be the focus of much of this course.  
They will appear in your grammar writing exercise, and they are
central to Lexical Functional Grammar.\\[10pt]  

The grammatical relations most commonly discussed by linguists are
{\bf subject, and (direct) object}.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Necessity of Grammatical Relations}

Comrie (page 66) points out that {\bf many linguists have attempted to
do away with grammatical relations and make due with just semantic or
pragmatic roles}. For example, to explain English word order, they
would say that the topic comes first in the sentence or the argument
that is highest on the scale of control comes first instead of saying
that the subject comes first.\\[10pt]

Chomsky's theories have never acknowledged the existence of
grammatical relations.  However, grammatical relations appear in
Chomsky's theories as artifacts of the structure of the
sentence and the verb's assignment of case and semantic roles to it's
arguments.\\[10pt]

We will not review all of the arguments for the existence of
grammatical relations now, but will procede with the assumption that
they are necessary for the description of human languages, and are
{\bf particularly useful for illustrating what diverse languages have
in common}.  (Review the comparison of passive constructions in
different languages.)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Tests for Grammatical Relations}

Tests are important so that you do not have to rely on vague
definitions of subject and object.  If the definition is vague,
linguists might not agree on how to apply it.  A test is supposed to
be formulated so that linguists can apply the test reliably and
reproducibly and always get the same results.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{}

Another reason why tests are important:  This is how you will make
decisions when you write a grammar.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Tests for Grammatical Relations}

\noindent{\bf Coding Properties:} Coding properties help speakers of
the language determine who did what to who.  For example, in a
sentence with the nouns {\it Sam\/} and {\it Sue\/} and the verb {\it
saw\/}, who is the actor/subject and who is the undergoer/object?
\\[10pt] 

In English, word order is the strongest coding property.  The subject
is the noun phrase just to the left of the verb and the object is the
noun phrase just to the right.  {\sc 3sg} verb agreement is a weaker
coding property for subject.  Macwhinney (Psychology Dept., CMU) did
experiments where people had to judge which noun was the actor in {\it
ungrammatical\/} sentences with conflicting coding properties.

\example{\bad{*} The horses kicks the cow.}

\noindent{\bf Behavioral Properties:} Behavioral properties have to
do with how grammatical relations behave in different syntactic
constructions.  This will become more clear when we look at some
examples.  


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Coding Properties}

{\bf Agreement:} In many languages, verbs {\it agree\/} with their
subjects.  This means that the verb changes (usually by getting an
affix) according to the number, person, and sometimes gender of the
subject.  

\noindent
In English which verb agreement is a coding property of subjects, but
not objects.  Agreement can be used as a test for subjecthood in
English.

\noindent
Some unclear cases: There-Insertion and Locative Inversion

\examples{\item There are people in the room.
\item \bad{*} There is people in the room.
\item \bad{*} There are a person in the room.}

\examples{\item In this village live many people.
\item \bad{*} In this village lives many people.
\item \bad{*} In this village live an important person.}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Coding Properties}

\noindent
{\bf Agreement with subject and object:}  See handout from Van Valin's
Book. 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Coding Properties}

{\bf Word Order:} In some languages, the order of words in the
sentence determines which noun phrase is the subject and which is the
object.\\[10pt]

A test for subjecthood in English:  The subject comes before the verb
with no other noun phrase in between (except for apposatives and
parentheticals -- {\it The president, Bill Clinton, said\/ \ldots},
{\it The president, a man who keeps his word, said \/\ldots}).\\[10pt]

What does the word order test tell you about the sentences with
there-insertion and locative inversion?  Does it give the same result
as the agreement test?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Coding Properties}

{\bf Case Marking:} In many languages, a particular case marking,
usually nominative, can be used as a test for subjecthood.  However,
it is also true that in many languages, a non-nominative noun phrase
(usually an experiencer) can be the subject.\\[10pt]

\noindent
See handout from Van Valin's book.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Non-Nominative Subjects}

\noindent
See handout from Van Valin's book.\\[10pt]

\noindent
How do we know that it is the subject if it is not nominative?
(Non-nominative subjects usually fail another coding test for subjects
too --- at least in European languages, verbs don't agree with
non-nominative subjects.  There is a significant, maybe universal,
connection between nominative case and verb agreement.)  We call them
subjects because they pass other tests for subjecthood, usually
behavioral tests.\\[10pt]

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{(Non-)Universality of Coding Properties}

There isn't any coding property that works as a test for subjecthood
in all languages.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Nominative-Accusative\\ and Ergative-Absolutive Languages} 


\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline \\
{\bf A} & \parbox{4.5in}{{\it He\/} broke the glass, {\it He\/} ate the
apple, {\it He\/} cut the bread, {\it He\/} saw the boy}\\
\hline \\
{\bf S} & \parbox{4.5in}{{\it He} ran, {\it He\/} worked, {\it He\/}
ate, {\it He\/} fell}\\ 
\hline \\
{\bf O} &  \parbox{4.5in}{He saw {\it the boy\/}, hit {\it the boy}}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\[10pt]
Nominative-Accusative languages have one case, accusative, for O and
another case, nominative for S and A. \\[10pt]

Ergative-Absolutive languages have one case, ergative, for A and
another case, absolutive for S and O.\\[10pt]

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Examples of\\ Ergative-Absolutive Case Marking}

{\bf Burushaski}, (isolate\footnote{An isolate is not related to any
other known languages.}, Pakistan), (Manning, {\it Ergativity\/})\\[10pt]

\examples{
\item \longgloss {2}
{ne & h\'{i}r-e}
{the.{\sc masc} & man-{\sc erg}}\\
\longgloss {2}
{phal\'{o} & b\'{o}k-i}
{seed.{\sc pl}.{\sc abs} & sow.{\sc pret}-{\sc 3sg}.{\sc masc}.{\sc
S}}\\
\nogloss
{{\it The man planted the seeds.}}

\item \gloss {3}
{ne & h\'{i}r & y\'{a}lt-i}
{the.{\sc masc} & man.{\sc abs} & yawn.{\sc pret}-{\sc 3sg}.{\sc masc}.{\sc S}}
{{\it The man yawned.}}}

{\bf Greenlandic Eskimo}, (Manning, {\it Ergativity\/})\\[10pt]

\examples{
\item \gloss {3}
{Oli-p & neqi & neri-vaa}
{Oli-{\sc erg} & meat.{\sc abs} & eat-{\sc ind.tr.3sg.3sg}}
{{\it Oli eats meat.}}

\item \gloss {2}
{Oli & sinippoq}
{Oli.{\sc abs} & sleep-{\sc ind.intr.3sg}}
{{\it Oli sleeps.}}}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{How can you tell if a language is ergative-absolutive 
or nominative-accusative?}

\begin{verbatim}
1.  You have to find two sentences, one with
a transitive verb and one with an intransitive 
verb. (A transitive verb has a subject and an
object.  An intransitive verb just has a 
subject.)

2.  Look at the case markers morphemes on 
    a.  the subject of the transitive verb
    b.  the subject of the intransitive verb
    c.  the object of the transitive verb

(Please ask me if you don't know how to ident
-ify the subject and object.  We will go over 
this in class, but I expect you to have some 
idea now of what subject and object are.)

3.  For a nominative-accusative language, a 
and b are the same.  That is, the case mor
-pheme on the subject of the transitive verb
 and the subject of the intransitive 
verb are the same.

For an ergative-absolutive language, b and c
are the same.  That is, the case morpheme 
of the subject of the intransitive verb and 
the object of the transitive verb are the 
same.  

For example, page 7 of the lecture notes:
1.  Greenlandic Eskimo Sentence 4a has a 
transitive verb.  Sentence 4b has an 
intransitive verb.

2. a. The subject of the transitive verb 
      is "oli" with case marker  "-p".
   b. The subject of the intransitive 
      verb is "oli" with an empty case 
      marker.  That is, no suffix is 
      added to "oli".
   c. The object of the transitive verb 
      is "neqi" with an empty case marker 
      (no suffix).   

3. The empty case marker on b and c is 
   the same, so this is an ergative
   -absolutive language.  The suffix "-p" 
   is the ergative marker, and when there 
   is no suffix, the noun is in absolutive
   case. 

   See below for a discussion of empty 
   case markers.  Absolutive is called 
   the "unmarked case" in Greenlandic 
   Eskimo because they don't use a suffix 
   for it.

Another Example, Latin: 

1.  Sentence with a transitive verb:
    Oli-us libr-um videt.
    Oli    book    saw

    Sentence with an intransitive verb:
    Oli-us dorm... 
    (don't remember the verb form)
    Oli    slept

2.  a.  The subject of the transitive 
        verb is "oli" and it's case 
        marker  morpheme is "-us"
    b.  The subject of the intransitive 
        verb is "oli" and it's case marker 
        is "-us".
    c.  The object of the transitive verb 
        is "libr-" and it's case marker is 
        "-um".

3.  Since a and b are the same, Latin is a 
    nominiative-accusative language.  In these 
    sentences, the nominative morpheme is "-us"
    and the accusative morpheme is "-um".  In 
    many other nominative-accusative languages, 
    the nominative case is unmarked.
\end{verbatim}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Marked and Unmarked Cases}

A case is {\it unmarked\/} if there is no morpheme separate from the
noun stem.  In nominative-accusative languages, nominative case might
be unmarked, whereas accusative is almost always marked with an overt
morpheme.  In ergative-absolutive languages, absolutive case might be
unmarked, whereas ergative is almost always marked. \\[10pt]

Ergative-absolutive can be shortened to ergative and
nominative-accusative can be shortened to accusative, naming just the
marked cases.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Oblique Case}

The term {\it oblique case\/} usually refers to anything other than
nominative, accusative, or absolutive for example, dative, locative,
instrumental etc.  Prepositional phrases (e.g., {\it with a stick\/},
{\it on the table\/}, etc.) are also called oblique.  Whether or not
ergative is an oblique case is the subject of much research.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\slidehead{Variations on\\ Ergative and Accusative Systems}


Case systems can be complicated.  {\it Split ergative\/} systems use
both ergative and accusative case marking systems.  For example, Hindi
and Urdu use ergative case when the aspect is perfective and
accusative case when the aspect is not perfective.\\[10pt]


Examples of variations from standard accusative case systems are:
Tagalog (Phillipines) uses different allomorphs of case markers for
common and proper nouns (Schachter page 8-9);  Russian and Finnish use
genitive/partitive case for direct objects of negative sentences
(Comrie, pages 65 and 120) and accusative case for direct objects in
non-negative sentences.\\[10pt]

Comrie (Chapter 6) points out that it is common to use Ergative case
only for subjects that are low in animacy and/or definiteness.  It is
also common to use accusative case only for objects that are high in
animacy and/or definiteness.  (See also the Yidiny examples on page
~67). 

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\end{document}
