Invited Speaker: Jason Merchant (University of Chicago) - 11:30-12:30

Absolutive Case in Tagalog
Edith Aldridge (Northwestern University) - 9:00-9:40

This paper presents an ergative analysis of case in the Philippine language Tagalog. This
analysis correctly accounts for the dichotomy between two types of semantically transitive
clause. One is syntactically transitive and other is antipassive. I crucially show that structural
case is available for the object in the former but not in the latter. I additionally show how a
popular alternative analysis of Tagalog syntax, which is based on a mechanism of “case
agreement”, cannot account for the differences between the two constructions, in particular the
distribution of structural case in the language.

The Passive Evidential Strategy in Lithuanian
James Lavine (Bucknell University) - 9:45-10:25

This paper explores a non-passive use of passive-participial morphology in Lithuanian to mark an emerging evidential system. The main empirical observation is the unexpected appearance of passive morphology on the auxiliary itself, with all predicate types, including zero-place and unaccusatives. The result is a wide range of evidential meanings with no overt evidential marker. The central claim is that the evidential strategy in Lithuanian is non-finite tense. Additional evidence for this analysis comes from a second evidential strategy in the language based on the periphrastic perfect, where the mere omission of the be auxiliary also yields an evidential reading.

On the Role of Animacy and the Participants in the Eventuality in Case Assignment in Korean
Jong-Bok Kim and Peter Sells (Kyung Hee University and Stanford University) - 10:30-11:10

In some languages, adverbials may be case-marked in the accusative,  and provide a boundedness to an event. However, in Korean, duration and frequency adverbials may appear in accusative or nominative, with no apparent difference in their temporal or aspectual semantic contribution.  Our paper builds on and refines previous work, in particular Maling, Jun, and Kim (2001).  We argue for two factors influencing adverbial case, both of which favor accusative.  One is the animacy of the subject, regardless of predicate type, and the other is a generalized notion of `activity' with respect to the predicate, which includes statives which can be true at intervals (Dowty 1979).

Constructional Case
Joost Zwarts (Radboud University Nijmegen) - 1:30-2:10

This paper argues that Dative/Accusative marking in German PPs does not easily fit into the existing types of case (inherent, structural, lexical).  I will show that case markers in German PPs do not correspond to different spatial thematic roles. Also, there is no syntactic reason to assume that Dative and Accusative occupy different structural positions. But treating case marking as purely lexical does not account for the clear overall semantic pattern. In my proposal case in German PPs is constructional: preposition and case are two parts of a semantically non-compositional
construction that is paradigmatically meaningful.

The morphosyntax of (non-)case-marking in Nez Perce: Case or Voice?
Amy Rose Deal (UMass Amherst) - 2:15-2:55

The surface realizations of two-participant clauses in Nez Perce divide into two classes: one with case-marking (Type 1), and one without (Type 2). On a Case analysis (Woolford 1997, Carnie and Cash Cash 2005), Type 1 is ergative/objective, whereas Type 2 is nominative/accusative. On a voice analysis (Rude 1985, Crook 1999), Type 1 is active, whereas Type 2 is antipassive. Here, I present evidence that Type 2 morphosyntax (i.e., no case marking) corresponds to two separate structures. One of these structures is a true antipassive, whereas one contains transitive syntax but intransitive case-marking. Thus, both voice and Case analyses are required.

A'-movement after m-case
Toshikazu Ikuta (Indiana University) - 3:00-3:40

I argue that A’-movement operates on the PF side after morphological case (m-case) assignment, which also operates on the PF side. While it has been widely assumed that A’-movement operates in overt syntax or S-Structure (e.g., Huang, 1982), I challenge this point by showing incoherence of surface orders to LF structures. Also, it will be
shown that A’-movement on the PF side is consistent with the linear morphological case assignment system proposed by Yip et al. (1987), since that system does not accommodate A’-movement under the assumption that A’-movement takes place in the overt syntax.

Structural case and dependency marking: a neo-Jakobsonian view
Jan-Wouter Zwart (Groningen) - 4:00-4:40

In traditional dependency theory, the objective (accusative) case is taken to mark a verb-object dependency
relation. This paper argues instead that structural objective case marks a subject-predicate dependency
relation, where the dependency is expressed by a particular term of the predicate, the object. This implies that the
availability of structural objective case depends not on properties of the verb, but on properties of the subject.
We show that the approach (a) allows for a natural explanation of the ergative case-marking pattern, and (b)
accounts for a number of cases where the accusative does not express verb-object dependency.

---

Questions or comments? Contact us here: