Swiss German Case and Verb Subcategorization @cite{shieber-1985} #
Swiss German uses the same four-case inventory as Standard German (NOM, ACC, GEN, DAT). The critical fact for @cite{shieber-1985}'s argument is that different verbs in cross-serial constructions subcategorize for different cases on their NP objects:
- hälfe ("help") requires dative
- lönd ("let") requires accusative
- aastriiche ("paint") requires accusative
This case-verb pairing is what makes Swiss German cross-serial dependencies produce the pattern a^m b^n c^m d^n (DAT-NPs, ACC-NPs, DAT-Vs, ACC-Vs), which is not context-free.
Swiss German uses the same 4-case inventory as Standard German.
Equations
Instances For
Verbs that participate in cross-serial subordinate clause constructions.
These are the verbs from @cite{shieber-1985}'s Swiss German data. Each subcategorizes for a specific case on its NP object.
- haelfe : CrossSerialVerb
hälfe "help" — requires dative NP object
- loend : CrossSerialVerb
lönd "let" — requires accusative NP object
- aastriiche : CrossSerialVerb
aastriiche "paint" — requires accusative NP object
Instances For
Equations
- Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.instBEqCrossSerialVerb.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Case required by each verb on its NP object.
This is the empirical fact that drives @cite{shieber-1985}'s proof: verbs sort into dative-subcategorizing and accusative-subcategorizing classes, and in the cross-serial construction the case on each NP must match the requirement of its corresponding verb.
Equations
- Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.verbObjectCase Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.CrossSerialVerb.haelfe = Core.Case.dat
- Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.verbObjectCase Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.CrossSerialVerb.loend = Core.Case.acc
- Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.verbObjectCase Fragments.SwissGerman.Case.CrossSerialVerb.aastriiche = Core.Case.acc
Instances For
The two case classes are genuinely distinct — hälfe requires dative while lönd requires accusative. This non-trivial case distinction is what produces the crossed agreement pattern a^m b^n c^m d^n.
lönd and aastriiche belong to the same case class (accusative).