Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T18:48:47.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2023

EINAR FREYR SIGURÐSSON  and
MILENA ŠEREIKAITĖ Open the ORCID record for MILENA ŠEREIKAITĖ [Opens in a new window]
EINAR FREYR SIGURÐSSON
Affiliation:
The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, [email protected]
MILENA ŠEREIKAITĖ
Affiliation:
Princeton University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze genitive of negation (GN) in Lithuanian. When the verb is negated, GN is realized on an object that would otherwise be realized as accusative. We demonstrate that Lithuanian GN is a syntactic (in line with Arkadiev 2016) and morphological phenomenon in contrast to Russian GN, whose realization is influenced by semantic factors (e.g. Kagan 2013). It differs from Russian (Pesetsky 1982) in that (i) it is always assigned to a DP which would otherwise bear structural accusative regardless of its semantic properties, and (ii) it cannot affect a structural nominative DP regardless of whether it is an external or internal argument. Lithuanian GN, in this respect, is similar to Polish GN (e.g. Przepiórkowski 2000, Witkoś 2008). We offer a three-layered approach to case, arguing that GN is a reflection of structural object case, assigned in syntax, then translated to morphological genitive case at PF and, finally, realized at Vocabulary Insertion (Halle & Marantz 1993). Thus, structural object case has two morphological realizations: as genitive under negation or as accusative in the absence of negation. Lithuanian also exhibits long-distance GN (Arkadiev 2016), showing that case boundaries can cross non-finite clauses without an overt CP element, suggesting these are not phases.

Keywords

casegenitive of negationLithuanianmorphologysyntax
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 161 - 212
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and detailed comments which greatly improved the paper. Thanks go to Nikita Bezrukov, David Embick, Julie Legate and Jim Wood for comments and conversations on the paper. Furthermore, we would like to thank the audiences where the paper was presented: PLC 42 in 2018, CLS 54 in 2018, WCCFL 36 in 2018, FMART at UPenn in 2020, the syntax reading group at Yale in 2020 and NYU Syntax Brown Bag in 2021. We would also like to thank our consultants: Viktorija Barauskaitė, Laimutis Grigonis, Ieva Šereikaitė, Raminta Šereikienė, Ernesta Vytienė. The names of the authors are alphabetically ordered.

References

Adamson, Luke & Šereikaitė, Milena. 2019. Representing gender and defaults: Evidence from Lithuanian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.1, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2020. On Iranian case and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38, 671–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleksandravičiūtė, Skaistė. 2013. The semantic effects of the Subject Genitive of Negation in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 4, 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas, Geniušienė, Emma, Girdenis, Aleksas, Sližienė, Nijolė, Tekorienė, Dalija, Valeckienė, Adelė and Valiulytė, Elena. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cori. 2013. Case and event structure in Russian and Lithuanian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cori. 2015. Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Voice and argument structure in Baltic, 289–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. Long-distance genitive of negation in Lithuanian. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 37–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2012. Participial complementation in Lithuanian. In Gast, Volker & Diessel, Holger (eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective: Data-driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax, 285–334. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2017. Two types of non-agreeing participles in Lithuanian: Implications for the theories of agreement and case. Presented at 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Zurich, Switzerland, 10–13 September.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlamaz, Ümit & Baker, Mark C.. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax 21.3, 195–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard Harvey. 1980. Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria & Brun, Dina. 2002. Specificity matters: A new look at the new genitive of negation in Russian. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, 47–66. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria A. 1996. Structural connections in syntax and processing: Studies in Russian and Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 1997. Genitive of negation is obligatory. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 5. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2004. The case of Q. In Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Luisa Rivero, Maria & Stojanović, Danijela (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12, 1–35. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2001. Covert movement and the genitive of negation in Polish. Linguistics in Potsdam 15, 1–85.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2010. A spurious genitive puzzle in Polish. In Hanneforth, Thomas & Fanselow, Gisbert (eds.), Language and logos: Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics, 17–47. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Walkow, Martin. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 951–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir & Partee, Barbara H.. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In Hajičová, Eva, Petr, Sgall, Hana, Jirí & Hoskovec, Tomáš (eds.), Travaux de Circle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série), vol. 4, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Malden, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Malden, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven & Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1993. Negated adjunct phrases are really partitive. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 2, 280–305.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 2006. Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). In Abraham, Werner & Leisiö, Larisa (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function, 29–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germain, Allison. 2017. Non-nominative subjects in Russian and Lithuanian: Case, argument structure, and anaphor binding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie & Armoskaite, Solveiga. 2015. The illusion of the NP/DP divide: Evidence from Lithuanian. Linguistic Variation 15.1, 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harizanov, Boris & Gribanova, Vera. 2019. Whither head movement? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37.2, 461–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125, 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2002. Unaccusative syntax in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2006. Non-agreement, unaccusativity, and the external argument constraint. In Lavine, James E., Franks, Steven, Filip, Hana & Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 14: The Princeton University meeting, 172–188. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2013. The genitive of negation in Russian. Language and Linguistics Compass 7.12, 647–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2005. Intranzityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai [Types of intransitive sentences: existential, locative and possessive sentences]. In Holvoet, Axel & Mikulskas, Rolandas (eds.), Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [The exploration of grammatical functions], 139–160. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2016. Argument marking in Baltic and Slavonic pain-verb constructions. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 83–107. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl. 2016. Realizing morphemes in the Icelandic noun phrase. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ingason, Anton Karl & Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. The interaction of adjectival structure, concord and affixation. In Lamont, Andrew & Tetzloff, Katie (eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 89–98. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2007. Property-denoting NPs and non-canonical genitive case. In Friedman, Tova & Gibson, Masayuki (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XVII, 148–165. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2013. Semantics of genitive objects in Russian. A study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2020. Opacity in agreement. In Smith, Peter W., Mursell, Johannes & Hartmann, Katharina (eds.), Agree to agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme, 149–179. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kibort, Anna & Maskaliūnienė, Nijolė (eds.). 2016. Passive constructions in Lithuanian: Selected works of Emma Geniušienė. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozhanov, Kirill. 2017. Studying variation in case marking: The genitive of negation in Aukštaitian dialects of Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 8, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. The event argument and the semantics of voice. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26.4, 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13.1, 75–117.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2006. Is there a passive evidential strategy in Lithuanian? Proceedings from the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 41–55. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2010. Mood and a transitivity restriction in Lithuanian: The case of the inferential evidential. Baltic Linguistics 1, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2013. Passives and near-passives in Balto-Slavic: On the survival of accusative. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian (eds.), Non-canonical passives, 185–213. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James E. 2016. Variable realization in Lithuanian impersonals. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 107–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne, Akkuş, Faruk, Šereikaitė, Milena & Ringe, Don. 2020. On passives of passives. Language 96.4, 771–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991/2000. Case and licensing. In Reuland, Eric (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 11–30. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2006. Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane & Ndayiragije, Juvénal (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 27–46. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikulėnienė, Danguolė & Morkūnas, Kazys. 1997. Dveniškių šnektos tekstai [Texts of Dieveniškės dialect]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1988. The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Pakerys, Jurgis. 2006. Veiksmo pavadinimo konstrukcija lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje [Action noun constructions in Lithuanian grammar]. In Holvoet, Axel & Mikulskas, Rolandas (eds.), Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai [The exploration of nominal constructions: the studies of Lithuanian grammar], 121–149. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Borschev, Vladimir. 2002. Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001, 102. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/102.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Borschev, Vladimir. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In Young, Robert B. (ed.), Proceedings from SALT XIV, 212–234. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Testelets, Yakov & Yanovich, Igor. 2011. Russian genitive of negation alternations: The role of verb semantics. Scando-Slavica 57, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1998. Genitive of negation in Russian. Proceedings of IATL 13, 167–190.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. The Genitive of negation and aspect in Russian. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 111–140.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. Case assignment and the complement/adjunct dichotomy. Ph.D. dissertation, Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2000. Long distance genitive of negation in Polish. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 119–158.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam & Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2013. The syntax of distance distributivity in Polish: Weak heads in LFG via restriction. Proceedings of LFG13, 482–502.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil “case stacking” and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16, 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Řezáč, Milan. 2008. Phi-agree and theta-related case. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, Mara Luisa. 2003. Reflexive clitic constructions with datives: syntax and semantics. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 11, 469–494.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1992. Thematic constraints on selected constructions in English and Polish. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. Rise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic linguistics 4, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2014. Independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Grammatical relations and their non-canonical encoding in Baltic, 257–301. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. Deriving case, agreement and Voice phenomena in syntax. Ph.d. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr, Šereikaitė, Milena & Pitteroff, Marcel. 2018. The structural nature of non-structural case: On passivization and case in Lithuanian. Proceedings of LSA 3.31, 1–15.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006. Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement Systems, 201–237. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 403–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012a. Case variation: Viruses and star wars. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35, 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012b. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 191–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirtautas, Vytautas. 1971. Konstrukcijų buvo matyti, girdėti…struktūra [The structure of constructions One could see/hear]. Kalbotyra 22, 71–79.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. A realizational approach to case. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), The proceedings of the LFG’03 conference, 387–401. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case. Implications for morphosyntax. In Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej & de Swart, Peter (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2009. Realization-based morphosyntax: The German genitive. In Steinkrüger, Patrick O. & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), On inflection, 173–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraunienė, Birutė, Razanovaitė, Auksė & Jasionytė, Erika. 2015. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. In Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole (eds.), Voice and argument structure in Baltic, 323–365. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2006. Case alternations and the Icelandic passive and middle. In Manninen, Satu, Nelson, Diane, Hiietam, Katrin, Kaiser, Elsi & Vihman, Virve (eds.), Passives and impersonals in European Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://goo.gl/Ihgh4S.Google Scholar
Szucsich, Luka. 2002. Case licensing and nominal adverbials in Slavic. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, 249–270. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2020. Voice and case phenomena in Lithuanian morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2021. Active existential in Lithuanian: Remarks on Burzio’s generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 52.4, 747–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šereikaitė, Milena. 2022. Impersonals, passives, and impersonal pronouns: Lessons from Lithuanian. Syntax 25.2, 188–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1977/2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on “Filters and control,” April 17, 1977. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 3–15. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willim, Ewa. 2020. Polish impersonal middles with a dative as syntactically derived experience events. In Rozwadowska, Bożena & Bondaruk, Anna (eds.), Beyond emotions in language. Psychological verbs at the interfaces, 245–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. Genitive of negation in Polish and single-cycle derivations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 247–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Burzio’s generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects. In Brandner, Ellen & Zinzmeister, Heike (eds.), New perspectives on Case Theory, 299–327. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar