tailieunhanh - Modern Grammars of Case anderson phần 3

Tham khảo tài liệu 'modern grammars of case anderson phần 3', ngoại ngữ, ngữ pháp tiếng anh phục vụ nhu cầu học tập, nghiên cứu và làm việc hiệu quả | 88 Modern Grammars of Case 17 a. The wind opened the door b. The door was opened by the wind There is no motivation for introducing a further semantic relation Force Huddleston 1970 in this latter instance either or for its assimilation to Instrumentals Fillmore 1971 5 b . The displaced Force in 17b is marked with by as a non-propositional agent . Instrumental is only circumstantial. The differentiation between the preverbal arguments in the Kewa sentences in 18 from Palmer 1994 48 citing Franklin 1971 62 thus doesn t reflect a distinction in participant role 18 a. aa-me repena poa-a man-AGT tree cut-did The man cut the tree b. rai-mi ta-a axe-iNS hit-did The axe hit it Both arguments are Agentive. The morphology marks a difference in prototypicality of the Agent. Moreover by using the instrumental inflection for the non-prototypical it reflects the fact that such arguments are often circumstantial instrumentals . This does not mean that the argument in b is instrumental any more than the use of the same inflection for participant Agentive and circumstantial instrumental in a number of ergative languages such as Tabasaran see means that the former are instrumentals . The wide interpretation of Agentive described here also means that the very limited relevance of case to coordination also invoked by Fillmore 1968a as involving a principle requiring the sharing of case by conjuncts is highlighted given the awkwardness of combining diVerent kinds of Agentive particularly prototypical and inanimate. 19 a. John and a hammer broke the window b. John and the march of time my finger the wind high temperature nobody the Neanderthal man broke the window Fillmore 1968a suggested that the anomalous character of 19a reflects a constraint on the coordination of arguments having diVerent case relations. Now it may be that such a preference for shared semantic relation may underlie the unacceptability of some coordinations. But clearly that is not all that is involved as .