Case Valuation in Transitive Clauses: A Comparative Study of Punjabi and English Syntax

Keywords: Case valuation, Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT), Punjab, English, ergative, nominative


Abstract Views: 549

Case is a morphological realization on a noun phrase (NP) to represent the NP's grammatical relationship with the main verb of the clause. With respect to case, languages, in many cases, can be broadly divided into two alignment systems, i.e., ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative. In the former type of languages, e.g., Punjabi, the subjects usually receive an ergative post position in transitive clauses (with perfective aspect) while in the latter type of languages, e.g., English, the subject, i.e., in nominative case receives, no post position. There has been a widespread controversy on whether ergative is a structural case or a lexical/inherent case and how the arguments are, i.e., subject and objects valued case in case of ergative clauses. With this ongoing debate in the background, this study aims to compare the marking of case on the arguments, i.e., subjects and objects in the transitive clauses of English and Punjabi. The study is conducted under the minimalist framework of Chomsky (2008), who emphasized on Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT): language provides the best possible solution to the interface conditions imposed by other systems of the human mind, i.e., related to meaning and sound, which interact with language through their interfaces Conceptual Intentional (C-I) and Sensori-Motor (SM) respectively. In this framework, a feature valuation mechanism is induced by the probes, i.e., C and v*. The study finds that in split ergative languages (the languages which take both case patterns, i.e., nominative and ergative) like Punjabi, the EA, i.e., subjects of perfective transitive clauses are assigned the ergative case by the functional heads v* at [Spec-v*] while the IA, i.e., objects are valued accusative case by the same functional head v* under Agree operation. A consequence of this finding concludes that T has default agreement in such languages, which is possible because Punjabi (like its other South Asian counterparts, e.g., Urdu-Hindi, Bengali, and Kashmiri) is a pro-drop language. So, it is easy to assume that EPP and Agree features of T are an option.

Keywords: Case valuation, Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT), Punjabi, English, ergative, nominative


Download data is not yet available.


Akhtar, R. N. 1999. Aspectual complex predicates in Punjabi. PhD Thesis, University of Essex, Essex, England.

Anand, P., and Nevins, A. 2006. The locus of ergative assignment: Evidence from scope. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory65(1): 3-25.

Baker, M.C. 2013. Agreement and Case.In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed.M. Dikken, 607-654. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, M. C. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1):341–380.

Baker, M.C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker,M.C., and Bobaljik,J.D. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity,116-137. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001

Bhatia,T.K. 1993.Punjabi: A congnitive-descriptive grammar. New York: Routledge.

Bittner, M., and Hale, K. 1996.Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class.Linguistic Inquiry27(4): 531-604. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from

Bobaijik, J. D. 1993. Ergativity and ergative unergatives. Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Lingusitics19(1): 45-88.

Bobaljik, J. D., and Branigan, P. 2006. Eccentric agreement andmultiple case checking.In Ergativity: Emerging Issues, eds. A.

Johns, D. Massam and J. Ndayiragije, 47-78. Dordrecht: Springer.Butt, M. 2001. Case, agreement, pronoun incorporation and pro-drop in South Asian languages. Talk held at the Workshop on the Role of Agreement in Argument Structure, Utrecht (in August).

Butt, M. 2017. Hindi/Urdu and related languages. The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 734-755. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Butt, M., and King, T. 2004. The status of case. In Clause structure in south Asian languages, eds. V.Dayal, A. Mahajan, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. InThe view from Building20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds.K. Hale and J. K. Samuel,1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Chomsky, N.1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework, In Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy.MIT occasional papers in linguistics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy, In The cartography of syntactic structures, ed. A. Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chomsky, N. 2008. On Phases, In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,eds. R. Freidin, P. Carlos, and M. L.Zubizaretta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Collins, P., and Hollo, C. 2000. English grammar: An introduction.Hampshire, London: Macmillan press

Dixon, R. 1994. Ergativity.Cambridge: Cambridge University PressLegate, J. A. 2008. Morphological and abstract case.Linguistic Inquiry39(1): 55–102.

Legate,J.A. 2017. The locus of ergative case. The Oxford Handbook of ergativity. 138-158. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001

Khan, A.R., and Kausar, G. 2019. A minimalist comparison of Punjabi and English. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan56(2): 1-8.

Mahajan, A. 2012. Ergatives, antipassives and the overt light v in Hindi. Lingua 122(1): 204-214.Mahajan,A. 2017. Accusative and ergative in Hindi. The Oxford handbook of ergativity95-114. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001

Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the eighth eastern states conference on linguistics, eds. F. Germán, Westphal, A. Benjamin and C. Hee-Rahk, 234–253. Baltimore: University of Maryland

Massam, D. 2002. Fully internal case: surface ergativity can be profound. In Proceedings of AFLA8: The Eighth Meeting of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association,eds. A. Rackowski and N. Richards, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44(1): 185-196

Massam, D. 2006. Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In Ergativity:Emerging issues, studies in natural language and linguistic theory,eds. A. Johns, D. Massam and J. Ndayiragije, 27-46. Dordrecht: Springer.

Nayudu,A. 2008. Issues in the syntax of Marhati-a minimalist approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Durham, Durham, UK.

Potter, S., and Crystal, D. 2020. English language. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from

Shackle, C. 2017. Punjabi language. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from

Swan,M., and Walter,C.2003. The good grammar book with answers. Retrieved from,H. 2006. A parametric syntax of aspectually conditioned split-ergativity. Ergativity, 111-141. Dordrecht: Springer.

Woolford, E. 1997. Four-way case system ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory18(1): 181-227.

Woolford, E. 1999. Ergative agreement systems. Working Papers in Linguistics10(1):157-191.

Woolford, E.2006. Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry37(1): 111–130.

Woolford, E. 2017. Split ergativity in syntax and at morphological spell-out. In The Oxford handbookof ergativity, 198-215. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001

How to Cite
Abdul Rafay Khan, & Ghazala Kausar. (2021). Case Valuation in Transitive Clauses: A Comparative Study of Punjabi and English Syntax. Linguistics and Literature Review, 7(1), 1-14.