![]() ![]() nominative case and verbal agreement (in an accusative language). In this paper I have examined several instances in which an oblique constituent acquires canonical subject marking, i.e. Semantically, the correlation of the nominative case with agenthood and/or volitionality/control parallels emphasis in that agenthood can be viewed as prominence on the level of semantic roles whereas emphasis as prominence in terms of pragmatics. With time adverbials, the nominative case encodes emphasis on the time value referred to by the adverbial against the set of contextually potential alternatives. to signal that the subject referent is unexpected on the background of the set of the discursively salient alternative referents. in terms of contrastive topic or topic shift, focus/new information), i.e. Pragmatically, (overt) nom-inative NPs are predominantly used in the subject position to signal emphasis (e.g. In addition to subjects, the nominative case also codes " direct " nominative objects and nominative time adverbials. first and second person) pronouns, only the combination of the nominative marking with verbal agreement justifies analyzing an NP as a subject. Syntactically, the nominative marking is a necessary but not sufficient condition to claim subjecthood in fact, different nominative NP types correlate with subjecthood to different degrees in Baltic. Morphologically, the Baltic nominative case is marked in almost all declensions and numbers by dedicated affixes. The paper is a semasiological study of the nominative case in Baltic languages, including morphological and primarily syntactic and semantic-pragmatic aspects. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |