Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper argues based on data from Uyghur (Turkic) that clausal complementation structures involving a special form of the verb ‘say’ are actually adjunct clauses headed by the verb ‘say’ that merge at two heights: VP or TP. I demonstrate that properties unique to ‘say’ as a main verb extend to ‘say’ in these adjunct clauses. Accusative subjects are a primary focus, where it is shown that the re-analysis of clausal complementation has implications for Case Theory in Uyghur and beyond.

The operating theatre is the most crucial and costly department in a hospital due to its expensive resources and high patient admission rate. Efficiently allocating operating theatre resources to patients provides hospital management with better utilization and patient flow. In this paper, we tackle both tactical and operational planning over short-term to medium-term horizons. The main goal is to determine an allocation of blocks of time on each day to surgical specialties while also assigning each patient a day and an operating room for surgery. To create a balance between improving patients welfare and satisfying the expectations of hospital administrators, we propose six novel deterioration rates to evaluate patients total clinical condition deterioration. Each deterioration rate is defined as a function of the clinical priorities of patients, their waiting times, and their due dates. To optimize the objective functions, we present mixed integer programming (MIP) models and two dynamic programming based heuristics. Computational experiments have been conducted on a novel well-designed and carefully chosen benchmark dataset, which simulates realistic-sized instances. The results demonstrate the capability of the MIP models in finding excellent solutions (maximum average gap of 4.71% across all instances and objective functions), though, requiring large run-times. The heuristic algorithms provide a time-efficient alternative, where high quality solutions can be found in under a minute. We also analyse each objective function’s ability in generating high quality solutions from different perspectives such as patients waiting times, the number of scheduled patients, and operating rooms utilization rates. We provide managerial insights to the decision makers in cases where their intention is to meet KPIs and/or maintaining trade-offs between patients and administrators expectations, more fair assignments, or ensuring that the most urgent patients are taken care of first.

This paper addresses case assignment in Standard Arabic (SA). It shows that the current Agree-based accounts of case in SA are problematic, as they face problems accounting for case assignment in complex event nominals. Using Baker’s (2015) dependent case theory, we argue that there are two modalities of structural case assignment in SA, i.e., the dependent case and the Agree-based case, and that the latter is only available when the former fails to apply. It is also argued that case assignment takes place at Spell Out, the point where phase heads are merged into the structure. We provide evidence that vP in SA is a soft phase and we claim that v in SA is incapable of assigning the accusative case to the object, due to v’s deficiency. We also claim that a DP of the complex nominal type in SA is a hard phase. SA is argued to lack a case feature, and it is therefore neither a proper goal for case in the Agree-based case mechanism, nor is it a proper case trigger/competitor in the dependent case mechanism. We believe that the proposed account solves the problems that previous accounts of case in SA face.

Two distinct ideas about how morphological case is assigned exist in the recent generative literature: the standard Chomskyan view that case is assigned by designated functional heads to the closest NP via an agreement relationship, and an alternative view in which case is assigned to one NP if there is a second NP in the same local domain (Marantz 1991). We claim that these two ways of assigning case are complementary, based on data from the Turkic language Sakha. Accusative case and dative case in this language are assigned by Marantz-style configurational rules that do not refer directly to functional categories. This is shown by evidence from passives, agentive nominalizations, subject raising, possessor raising, and case assignment in PPs. In contrast, there is evidence that nominative and genitive are assigned by functional heads in the Chomskyan way, as shown by the distribution of nominative case and the relationship between case marking and agreement. The two methods of case assignment thus coexist, not only in Universal Grammar, but even in the grammar of a single language.

Focusing on the Shipibo language, I defend a simple \"dependent case\" theory of ergative case marking, where ergative case is assigned to the higher of two NPs in a clausal domain. I show how apparent failures of this rule can be explained assuming that VP is a Spell-Out domain distinct from the clause, and that this bleeds ergative case assignment for c-command relationships that already exist in VP and are unchanged in CP. This accounts for the apparent underapplication of ergative case marking with ditransitives, reciprocals, and dyadic experiencer verbs, as opposed to the applicatives of unaccusative verbs, which do have ergative subjects. Finally, I show how case assignment interacts with restructuring to explain constructions in which ergative case appears to be optional.

Case assignment and argument licensing in process nominals, that is, nouns such as destruction that are morphologically related to verbs, are assumed to operate in a verblike manner both within government-and-binding theory and, more recently, within the distributed morphology framework. The data from Russian challenge this approach and reveal that there is an important difference between the verbal and the nominal domains: case assignment in verbs is sensitive to the underlying argument structure, but in nominals to surface structure, that is, the collection of overt arguments. We propose a hierarchy of case-assignment rules that applies in the nominal domain. Moreover, within the nominal domain, case assignment is uniform: the same rules apply to different types of nominals, including prototypical process nominals and relational nouns. The main theoretical advantage of our lexicalist, constraint-based approach is that it can capture similarities between the verbal and the nominal domains, seen in the assignment of inherent and lexical cases, but also in their fundamental differences.

Park, Keunhyung and Stanley Dubinsky. 2021. [+Agent] conditioned Case assignment to nominalized VPs in Korean LFN constructions. Linguistic Research 38(1): 1-26. The aim of the current paper is to investigate how Case is assigned to non-canonical nominal expressions which are distinct from Case-marking on canonical subject and object arguments. More specifically, we focus on Case marking to nominalized verbs in Korean Long-Form negation constructions. As other nominal expressions get Case in Korean, the nominalized verbs with the -ci marker in Long-Form negation constructions can also get either NOM or ACC. However, the distributions of Case marking in this paper show that Case markers attached to the nominalized verbs are not randomly assigned, but it is systematically given depending on syntactic and semantic properties of the nominalized verbs. This paper proposes two distinct conditions as follows: the negated auxiliary verb anh (i) assigns only ACC Case to its nominalized verb complement or (ii) assigns either NOM or ACC Case allowing free Case alternation. To solve the puzzle of distinct Case assignment, this paper argues that agentivity is the important factor in deciding Case marking on the nominalized verb. Evidence from the data further proves that if nominalized verbs have +Agent feature, then the feature can percolate up to the Case assigner anh, and it eventually forces to assign only ACC Case back onto the nominalized verb. If not, the auxiliary verb anh cannot have +Agent feature and assigns either NOM or ACC. (University of South Carolina)

This article shows that accusative case and object agreement are not closely related in Amharic, a language in which both are morphologically overt. This suggests that it is wrong to generalize Chomsky's claim that agreement and case are both manifestations of the same Agree relation from subjects to objects across the board. I show that object agreements in Amharic are the true manifestations of Agree (not pronominal clitics), whereas accusative case is assigned independently, to the lower of two nominals in the same domain. The relationship between case and agreement can thus vary parametrically.

Finnish wh-movement exhibits internal roll-up movement with pied-piping and is therefore overtly successive-cyclic. On the other hand, its morphosyntax is nonlocal, suggesting countercyclic behavior. The existence of overtly cyclic computations and nonlocal agreement penetrating nearly every cyclic domain constitutes a near contradiction in this language. A solution is proposed which partially resurrects the notion of d-structure: grammatical operations are cyclic and operate in small phases (as indicated by Finnish successive cyclic wh-movement), but some operations, Agree in particular, access leftover copies of elements in situ and are not restricted by the phase impenetrability condition (PIC). PIC restricts operator/A-bar movement, not morphosyntax.

The aim of the current paper is to investigate how Case is assigned to non-canonical nominal expressions which are distinct from Case-marking on canonical subject and object arguments. More specifically, we focus on Case marking to nominalized verbs in Korean Long-Form negation constructions. As other nominal expressions get Case in Korean, the nominalized verbs with the -ci marker in Long-Form negation constructions can also get either NOM or ACC. However, the distributions of Case marking in this paper show that Case markers attached to the nominalized verbs are not randomly assigned, but it is systematically given depending on syntactic and semantic properties of the nominalized verbs. This paper proposes two distinct conditions as follows: the negated auxiliary verb anh (i) assigns only ACC Case to its nominalized verb complement or (ii) assigns either NOM or ACC Case allowing free Case alternation. To solve the puzzle of distinct Case assignment, this paper argues that agentivity is the important factor in deciding Case marking on the nominalized verb. Evidence from the data further proves that if nominalized verbs have +Agent feature, then the feature can percolate up to the Case assigner anh, and it eventually forces to assign only ACC Case back onto the nominalized verb. If not, the auxiliary verb anh cannot have +Agent feature and assigns either NOM or ACC. (University of South Carolina)