Search

This article will investigate the Arabic language and English language based on Syntax analysis. In this case, syntax had been viewed as the arrangement between certain word and the other word, or with the other units of language which has the higher level than the word, such as: phrase, clause, and sentence. Generally speaking, this research will investigate the Arabic language based the four main theory in syntax (Liliane Haegeman, 1998), such as: (1) transitivity, (2) X-bar theory, (3) theta theory, and (4) case theory. This article will focus comprehensively in elaborating the data, both in Arabic language and English language, comparatively based on these four main theories. The material objects in this research was the units of language which had been collected from the book of Al-Hikam aphorism in trilingual edition (Arabic, Indonesia, and English). The observation method had been used for collecting the data, after that, the data will be analysed with two main steps, they are: distributional method and comparative method. Transitive verbs in al-Hikam's aphorisms show God's behavior. The transitivity of verbs in Arabic is determined by the noun that comes after the verb. Meanwhile, based on the study of X-Bar theory in Arabic phrases that appear in al-Hikam's aphorisms, it can be concluded that the internal structure of noun phrases, that FN = N + Adj and FN = N + N. Furthermore, in the theta theory analysis, it can be concluded that FN in the form of (N + Adj) can occupy the AGENT position and FN in the form of (N + N) can occupy the PATIENT argument to form a propositional unit. Based on the case theory study, it can be concluded that the NOMINATIVE case is in the subject who acts as the AGENT, and the ACCUSATIVE case is in the direct object that becomes the object of the sufferer or target, namely acting as the PATIENT. The result of this research can be the new model of Arabic and English language analysis based on the syntax theory. Abstrak Artikel ini akan mengkaji bahasa Arab dan bahasa Inggris ditinjau dari sudut pandang sintaksis. Dalam hal ini, sintaksis dipandang sebagai pengaturan hubungan antara kata dengan kata, atau dengan satuan yang lebih besar dalam bahasa. Secara garis besar kajian ini akan menginvestigasi bahasa Arab ditinjau dari kajian empat teori sintaksis (Haegeman, 1998), yaitu: (1) transitivity, (2) X-bar theory, (3) theta theory, dan (4) case theory. Adapun secara khusus, artikel ini akan mengelaborasi data bahasa Arab dan bahasa Inggris secara komparatif berlandaskan pada keempat teori tersebut. Objek material dalam kajian ini adalah satuan kebahasaan (units of language) yang ada dalam kitab aforisme al-Hikam versi tiga bahasa (Arab, Indonesia, dan Inggris). Penjaringan data dilakukan dengan cara observasi kemudian data dianalisis dengan menggunakan dua tahap, yaitu: metode distribusional dan metode padan. Verba transitif dalam aforisme al-Hikam menunjukkan perilaku ketuhanan tertentu. Ketransitifan verba dalam bahasa Arab ditentukan oleh nomina yang muncul setelah verba. Sementara itu, berlandaskan pada kajian X-Bar theory dalam frasa bahasa Arab yang muncul dalam aforisme al-Hikam dapat disimpulkan struktur internal frasa nomina, bahwa FN = N + Adj dan FN = N + N. Selanjutnya dalam analisis theta theory, dapat disimpulkan bahwa FN yang berupa (N + Adj) dapat menduduki posisi agent dan FN yang berupa (N + N) dapat menduduki argumen patient untuk membentuk sebuah satuan proposisi. Berlandaskan pada kajian case theory dapat disimpulkan bahwa kasus nominatif berada dalam subjek yang berperan sebagai agent, dan kasus akusatif berada dalam objek langsung yang menjadi penderita atau sasaran, yaitu berperan sebagai patient. Kontribusi pembahasan dari kajian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan wawasan baru dalam kajian bahasa Arab dan bahasa Inggris yang ada di Indonesia, khususnya terkait dengan kajian sintaksis (Arab: Ilmu-Naḥwu).

Copyright of Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Middle Breton (MB) presents a singular anomaly of pronominal argument coding. Objects are accusative proclitics save in two constructions, where coding is split by person: 3rd unique enclitics ~ 1st/2nd accusative proclitics. The constructions are HAVE, from Insular Celtic mihi est, where the new coding replaces inflectional nominatives (cf. Latin mihi est ~ sunt); and imperatives, where it replaces accusative enclitics in V1 (cf. French aide-moi ~ ne m'aide pas). The evolution is traced in light of a crosslinguistic construction type that suggests its nature, noncanonical subject + 3rd nominative ~ 1st/2nd accusative object. Part I: (1) Decomposition of HAVE as dative clitic + BE from Brythonic throughout "conservative" varieties of Breton. (2) Breton-Cornish innovation of nonclitic datives for mihi est and their subjecthood. Part II: (3) Brythonic unavailibility of mesoclisis in V1 and Breton-Cornish nonagreement with nominative objects, resulting in independent > enclitic pronouns for accusative objects of imperatives and nominative objects of mihi est. (4) MB alignment of imperatives with mihi est in 3rd person, restriction on nominative enclitics, and recruitment of 1st/2nd person accusative proclitics upon loss of mesoclisis. (5) Transition to accusative objects in "innovative" varieties and subject-object case interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sasak is spoken language used by Sasak speakers in Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara. This language is included into Bali-Sasak-Samawa subgroup. Most of the linguists and researchers constructed this language using SVO, but they do not explore the possible movement of the Noun Phrases (NPs) as the basis of constructing its structure. So, it is a need to have the possibility of the NPs movement whether the predicates in Sasak require one or two argument. Data used in this writing are taken through documentary method. They are analyzed using case theory proposed by Chomsky. The analysis shows that both raising verbs and raising adjective involve phrases case. They do not allow structural case movement. In addition, both induce raising. However, they are different in selecting source of NP movement; raising verbs finite or non finite clause, and raising adjective finite clause. Passivization also induces NP-movement in Sasak. Moreover, passive verbs in Sasak can be followed by preposition of locative or not depend on the notion of the verbs used. It has the same analogy with unaccusativity verbs. They lack of internal argument and cannot assign accusative case.

From the standpoint of clinical-legal methodology, this paper tries to investigate a useful but very ambiguous category: the case theory. By this expression, scholars mean the detailed and consistent story that tells how facts happen and why. Both lawyers and clients use it to build a legal strategy for defending the latter ones in trials. Under this premise, the author tries to investigate some dilemmas, starting from the differences between 'fact', 'case', and 'fattispecie'. The chosen perspective is hermeneutic since facts are constructed and re-constructed in a sociocultural and legal context where lawyers, clients, witnesses, judges, and jury - each one playing their own part - try to build, interpret, argue and value a case theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses an asymmetry in Spanish ECM structures whereby NP passivization improves if the embedded clause is a non-infinitive. The facts are accounted for by assuming that structural Case can only be assigned once within a relevant domain (a phase; cf. Chomsky 2000, 2001). This raises non-trivial questions about Case competition and Case resistance facts, opening new perspectives on the study of the Case/agreement systems and their parametric variation.

This study reviews and analyzes checking system in modern Persian according to Case and Theta features in Minimalist approach. In this study which is done by analytical-descriptive methods, the way structural cases such as Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Ablative, and Oblique are checked and theta roles are checked in structures that have complex predicates are considered. All structural cases of nominals are checked through spec-Head relation and theta roles are checked under merge. What is important to notice is that “Ra:” plays a significant role in checking accusative case and theta role of the object; if it is morphologically apparent. The other point is that in checking non accusative cases, there is a close relation between theta roles as features and checking system. On the other hand there is no meaningful relation among structural case and theta roles in nominals and we cannot subdivide complex predicates according to this criterion.

Taking Paul (2015) as a starting point, this article discusses different approaches concerning the contribution made by Chinese to general syntactic theory and typology. It demonstrates that the solution of basic questions such as the precise inventory of lexical categories can have far-reaching consequences for more general issues such as case theory, linearization, head parameter and the status of typological universals.

I argue that the so-called “possessive adjectives” are not really adjectives, but pronouns (D-projections). Agreement features on possessors do not compete with genitive-marking, as it seems at first sight: they never attach directly to DP, but rather to KP (i.e. to a projection of Case), as shown by the obligatory presence of a possessive suffix (which I analyze as K) separating the root from the agreement morpheme. I argue that this explains why the unvalued f-features of the possessor do not agree with the inherent f-features (I show that some agreeing possessors do have inherent f-features): concord applies inside a DP-phase, and given that DP is a phase, the features attached to K above DP belong to the phase of the possessee rather than to the phase of the possessor. Further evidence for this proposal comes from agreeing genitive markers attached at the phrasal level and from agreeing markers attached to a genitive morpheme. I then discuss the implications of this analysis for the theory of structural case: given that agreeing possessors can represent structural case, but their K must be specified as possessive from the beginning of the derivation, structural case cannot be considered to be unvalued case. Moreover, the fact that case concord is often found among agreeing possessors also shows that one and the same K head can have structural case in need of licensing and an unvalued Case feature valued by concord. Finally, I propose an account for agreeing possessors which seem to be doubly marked, both by a case ending or possessive suffix + agreement (at the word level) and by a preposed agreement marker attached at the phrasal level.

Hauser et al. (2002) suggest that the human language faculty emerged as a genetic innovation in the form of what is called here a ‘keystone factor’—a single, simple, formal mental capability that, interacting with the pre-existing faculties of hominid ancestors, caused a cascade of effects resulting in the language faculty in modern humans. They take Merge to be the keystone factor, but instead it is posited here that Merge is the pre-existing mechanism of thought made viable by a principle that permits relations interpretable at the interfaces to be mapped onto c-command. The simplified minimalist architecture proposed here respects the keystone factor as closely as possible, but is justified on the basis of linguistic analyses it makes available, including a relativized intervention theory applicable across Case, scope, agreement, selection and linearization, a derivation of the A/A’-distinction from Case theory, and predictions such as why in situ wh-interpretation is island-insensitive, but susceptible to intervention effects.

Purpose -- The purpose of this study was to suggest pragmatic ways of dealing with the business-to-business (B2B) theory/practice gap. Design/methodology/approach -- Reflecting on experience both as a researcher and practitioner. Findings -- B2B marketing is characterized by complexity. There is no straight way to harmonize the relationship between its theory and practice but there are ways to make the two benefit from each other. A dilemma is that academics and practitioners are rewarded for different types of achievements. Research limitations/implications -- Scholars can be made aware of the need for close involvement through action research and case theory to secure access to high-quality data in a complex B2B reality, and to their mission to contribute better real world based theory. Practical implications -- The article can make practitioners aware of the value of grand theory to improve the pragmatic use of mid-range theory as it materializes in models, checklists and heuristics. Originality/value -- The simultaneous emphasis on explicit and tacit knowledge in both theory generation and practice, and a framework of theory generation that sorts out substantive, mid-range and grand theory relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I outline the Peeling theory of Case (Starke 2005) and apply it to Case phenomena in adpositional phrases. The Peeling theory says that DPs are base generated with a number of Case related functional projections on top of them, and when they move to the left, they strand some of these projections in situ. To test this theory and the specific predictions it makes, I look at phenomena where a single adposition allows its complement to surface in various Cases and phenomena where a single adposition allows for its complement to either precede or follow. In each case that we will look at, we will be interested in what semantic factors govern such alternations and in what way the DP helps bring about the contrast.

This remark argues for the Case-theoretic concept of Case as a syntactic licensing requirement of DPs related to their case morphology, against alternatives where DPs need no syntactic licensing, or where their case morphology is unrelated to it. The argument is made from constraints on combining exceptional Case marking (ECM) and the double object construction, where there is a single object Agree/Case locus for two DPs. The mechanisms and nature of Case are briefly examined. The appendix sketches an extension to wager-class ECM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article explores the relationship between intuition, introspection and the observation of naturally occurring utterances in linguistic inquiry. Its focus is on the problems that this relationship poses in cognitive approaches to semantics and case theory within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. Given the increasing commitment of linguistics to providing “usage-based” explanations, the article concentrates on two assumptions that underpin the cognitive theory of language, viz. (i) the proposed definition of meaning and the favoured encyclopaedic conception of linguistic semantics and (ii) the decision not to distinguish between intuition and introspection as different methods of inquiry, in addition to corpus analysis. In the second part of the article, a case study is presented that examines an influential cognitive account of the meaning of the accusative and dative cases with two-way prepositions in German. Its aim is to clarify how problems of semantic analysis at the syntax–semantics interface relate to questions concerning the empiricalness of linguistic inquiry, the role of introspective judgments and the status of linguistic intuition. It shows that the investigation of potentially large sets of corpus data provides indispensable information to reach sufficiently general conclusions, but it is equally important to establish the intersubjective, language-specific semantic values (“signifiés”) of cases on the basis of intuition, as distinguished from introspection. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article discusses the passive of reflexive verbs in German and Icelandic. This passive poses a challenge for Binding Principle A as it can be shown that its implicit argument, although semantically the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun, is not the formal, i.e., syntactic antecedent of this reflexive pronoun. Furthermore, this passive is problematic for standard theories of case because structural accusative on the reflexive pronoun in object position survives the passivization process. A solution to these two theoretical challenges is provided within a theoretical setup, which uses syntactic Agree-relations to calculate the effects of both Binding as well as Case Theory. Such a system is enriched with the concept of Default Agreement, which acts as a last resort syntactic repair strategy for unvalued Agree-chains. I argue that only in the context of passives of reflexive verbs in German and Icelandic Default Agreement can formally provide an antecedent for the reflexive pronoun and, thereby, trigger dependent accusative case on it. Such a formally repaired syntactic structure shows, however, a specific conceptual restriction: only inherently reflexive and naturally reflexive verbs can enter the construction because only such verbs facilitate the computation of a reflexive interpretation in the absence of a DP acting as the syntactic antecedent of the reflexive pronoun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines accusative-instrumental case alternations in Lithuanian, which is limited to four semantic classes of verbs: verbs of throwing, verbs of moving body parts, verbs of making sound and verbs of dressing/wearing clothing. Traditional grammars (e.g. Ambrazas 2006) have claimed that there is no semantic difference between the two cases in these contexts, but I will show that there is such a difference, albeit a subtle one. This allows us to understand why this alternation is possible: there is a difference in event structure, resulting in a different interpretation of the argument. When the argument is affected, or changed, accusative is used, and when it is peripheral to the event, the instrumental is used. This has implications for case theory, which aims to explain case licensing in structural terms. I will argue that if a different morphological case is licensed, there is a difference in structure. By expanding the vP into multiple heads representing the subevents of a single event, we can reduce the accusative/instrumental alternation to a difference in structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article identifies six major misperceptions and errors in the application of theory in direct practice to establish the need for a conceptual tool capable of teaching direct practice and managing the practice environment. Such a tool is introduced as part of the previous article: “Decision Tree: A Conceptual Tool for Best Practices” (p. 37). The six errors and misperceptions are as follows: (1) one theory is as good as another theory, (2) nomothetic theory is interchangeable with practice theory, (3) a single theory can accommodate complex case data, (4) any theory can explain everything and anything, (5) eclecticism does no harm, (6) theory does not matter anyway. Case examples illustrating these errors are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teaching a process of case theory construction provides students with a systematic approach to make sense of clients and formulate accurate assessments. Through a theory of the case students can account for problematic factors, explain the client, draw from the relevant literature and successfully intervene. Case material illustrates the importance of students' incorporation of the biological, psychological and social in their case theory construction. These three domains not only provide the requisite social work breadth in assessment, but also build the foundation for a broad-based social work intervention that is germane to client problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]