Genitive case-marked subject in Modern Mongolian Орчин цагийн монгол хэлний харьяалахын тийн ялгалаар хэлбэржсэн өгүүлэгдэхүүн
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper presents peculiarities of the genitive case marked subject in Modern Khalkha Mongolian. First, we argue that subordinate clauses with genitive case- marked subjects in Modern Mongolian are CP. Second, we provide an explanation for certain conditions of genitive subject constructions in Modern Mongolian (MM). Third, we attempt to show that genitive case-marked subjects are semantically restricted and information is structurally marked in MM.
“Орчин цагийн монгол хэлний харьяалахын тийн ялгалаар хэлбэржсэн өгүүлэгдэхүүн” судалгааны өгүүлэлд орчин цагийн монгол хэлний харьяалахын тийн ялгалаар хэлбэржсэн өгүүлэгдэхүүний онцлогийг өгүүлсэн болно. Нэгдүгээрт, угсарсан нийлмэл өгүүлбэрийн бүх төрлийн гишүүн өгүүлбэрт харьяалахын тийн ялгалаар хэлбэржсэн өгүүлэгдэхүүн илэрч байна. Хоёрдугаарт, харьяалахын тийн ялгалаар хэлбэржсэн бүтцүүдийн тодорхой шинжүүдийг тайлбарлана. Гуравдугаарт, утгазүйн хувьд хязгаарлагдмал, хэлбэрийн хувьд тэмдэглэгддэг, бусад тийн ялгалаар сэлгэх боломжтой, тодотгол гишүүн өгүүлбэрт ордог харьяалахын тийн ялгалаар хэлбэржсэн өгүүлэгдэхүүний талаар өгүүлэх болно.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Aygen.G (2007) Syntax and Semantics of Genitive Subject-Case in Turkic. California Linguistic Notes. Volume XXXII No. 2 Spring
Banno.O (2013) On Ga/No Conversion: A diachronic Corpus-based Study. 第4 回コーパ ス日本語学ワークショップ予稿集, 国立国語 究所, 177-186.
Blake. B.J (2004) Case. Cambridge University Press
Breul.C. (2005) Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Choi Dong-Guen (2008) Solongos ba Mongol helnii ugsiig aimaglah tuhai (Lexicology of Korean and Mongolian) Republic of Korea. Seoul. Journal of the Korean Association for Mongolian Studies. Volume 8. 125-144
Drubig H.B. (2000) Toward a typology of focus and Focus constructions. Linguistics.41.1.1-50
Hale K. 2002. On the Dagur Object Relative: Some Comparative Notes.Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 11, 109–122, 2002., Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands.
Hawkins. E. A. (2000). Relative clauses in Hawaiian. In Leo Pasifica: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics, ed. by Steven Roger Fischer and Wolfgang B. Sperlich, 127– 141. Institute of Polynesian Languages and Literatures Monograph 2. Auckland: Institute of Polynesian Languages and Literatures
Hiraiwa.K (2000) On nominative-genitive conversion, in MIT working papers in linguistics 39: A few from Building E39. Cambridge, Mass. 66-125.
Herd.J (2004) Genitive relative constructions in Polynesian. Proceedings of the 2004 annual conference of the Canadian linguistic Association
Jaklin Kornfilt (1984) Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish, Ph.D dissertation, Harvard university, Cambridge, Massachusette
Klaus von Heusinger& Jaklin Kornfilt (2005) The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic languages 9:3-44
Luiz.L (2009) Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford University Press
Miyagawa.S (2008) Genitive in Altaic, Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics4, MIT Working papers in Linguistics
Miyagawa.S (2011) Genitive Subjects in Altaic and Specification of Phase. Lingua 121:1265-1282.
Miyagawa.S (2012) Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order, Leading Linguistics Series, Routledge.
Mizuno.M (1995) Preference Ordering of Subject Form in Modern Mongolian, Tokyo University Linguistic Papers, March
Rizzi L. (1997) The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery, in: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar, Kluwer Amsterdam, 281-337
Smith.H (2006) Restrictiveness in case theory. Cambridge
Tserenpil.D, Kullmann.A (2005) Mongolian Grammar. Ulaanbaatar
Watanabe.A (1996) “A cross-linguistic perspective on Japanese nominative –genitive conversion and its implecations for Japanese syntax” In Current topics in English and Japanese. ed. Nakamura.M, Hitsuzi Shobo. 341-369.
Bazarragchaa.M (1998) Hariyalahin tiin yalgalin utgig angilah ni (Classification of the genitive case), Ulaanbaatar, Gurvan Erdene University Bulletin Volume 2. 7-49
Bazarragchaa.M (1999) Mongol helnii uiliin tiin yalgal (Verb Cases of Mongolian) Ulaanbaatar
Byambadorj.B (2006) Orchin tsagiin mongol helnii helber sudlal (Morphology of Modern Mongolian) Ulaanbaatar
Byambasan.P (1987) Uil ugiin todotgon holboh nuhtsul (Verbal determining suffix) Ulaanbaatar, Institute of Linguistic, Science Academy of Mongolia Bulletin Volume 4. 86-108
Luvsanvandan.Sh (1956, 2010) Mongol helnii zuin surah bichig, Ulaanbaatar
Luvsanvandan.Sh (1957) Orchin tsagiin mongol hel (Modern Mongolian) Ulaanbaatar
Mongol hel shinjleliin tailbar toli bichig (Encyclopedic dictionary of Mongolian linguistics) 2014: Ulaanbaatar,
Munkh-Amgalan.Y (2014): Orchin tsagiin mongol helnii helber sudlal (Morphology of Modern Mongolian) Ulaanbaatar
Orchin tsagiin mongol hel (Modern Mongolian) 2004, Ulaanbaatar
Purev-Ochir.B (2001) Orchin tsagiin mongol helnii ӧgüülberzüi (Syntax of modern Mongolian) Ulaanbaatar
Rinchen.B (1967) Mongol bichgiin helnii zui (Mongolian Grammar) Ulaanbaatar
Unurbayan.Ts (2004) Orchin tsagiin mongol helnii helber sudlal (Morphology of Modern Mongolian) Ulaanbaatar.