Three Case Alternation Mysteries in Modern Mongolian
Lina Bao, Hideki Maki, and Megumi Hasebe
Osaka University, Gifu University, and Yokohama National University
This paper points out three case alternation mysteries in Modern Mongolian(Mongolian, hereafter), and investigates the mechanisms behind them. First, Mongolian
allows the accusative subject in an adjunct clause, as shown in (1), but the predicate must not
be an adjective, as shown in (2).
(1)Öcügedür Ulagan-ø/-isurgaguli-du ire-gsenügüi ucir-ece
yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Acc school-to
come-past.ADN not because‘Because Ulagan did not come to school yesterday’(2)

Neliyed baising-ø/*-iaguzim uqir-ece
veryroom-Nom/-Acc large because‘Because the room is very large’

Note that the accusative subject is impossible in the matrix clause, as (3) shows.
(3)

Ulagan-ø/*-i uhila-zai.
Batu-Nom/-Acc cry-past‘Ulagan cried.’

Second, Mongolian shows case alternation among three candidates in some cases, but
only between two candidates in others. (4) shows the former, while (5-6) the latter.
(4)

Yagaru ber Ulagan-ø/-i/-nu
surgaguli-du ire-gsen
edür tuhastily
Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen school-to come-past.ADN day on‘on the day when Ulagan came to school hastily’(5)öcügedür Ulagan-ø/*-i/-nu
ungsi-gsannom
yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen read-past.ADN book‘the book which Ulagan read yesterday’(6)Öcügedür Ulagan-ø/-i/*-nu
surgaguli-du ire-gsen
ucir-eceyesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen school-tocome-past.ADN because‘Because Ulagan came to school yesterday’

Third, the “deep genitive” in Mongolian shows an argument/adjunct asymmetry, asshown by the contrast between (7) and (8).
(7)

bi-ø öcügedür Ulagan-ø/-nu
ei bici-gsen
gezü bodu-gsan nomi
I-Nom yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen write-past.ADN that think-past book‘the book which I thought that Ulagan wrote yesterday’(8)bi-ø yagaru ber Ulagan-ø/*-nu
ei ire-gsen
gezü bodu-gsan
I-Nom hastily
Ulagan-Nom/-Gen come-past.ADN that think-past.ADNedüriday‘the day when I thought that Ulagan came hastily’
1Below, we will consider the mechanisms behind these mysteries. Let us start with thefirst mystery. According to Maki et al. (2010a), the generalization about the distribution of theaccusative subject in Mongolian is (9).
(9)

Generalization about the Distribution of the Accusative Subject in Mongolian
The accusative subject may appear in adjunct clauses whose heads are notgenuinely nominal in nature.

Maki et al. (2010a) report that in Old Japanese, the accusative subject appears in reason
clauses headed by mi ‘because,’ and the predicates are all adjectives. Consider the example in
(10).
(10)

Aki-nota-nokariho-no
io-no
toma-oautumn-Gen rice field-Gen temporary-Gen cabin-Gen roof-Acc
ara-mi, ...
large mesh-because‘In the harvest of autumn rice field, because the roof of the temporary cabin haslarge mesh, ...’
(Tenji Tennoo (626-671) in Hyakuninisshu (early 13th century to early 14thcentury) translated into modern Japanese by Ariyoshi (1983))

Therefore, the examples from Mongolian and Old Japanese seem to suggest that Universal
Grammar in principle allows the accusative subject in limited environments, and that there arefurther language-particular conditions on the predicates compatible with the accusativesubject.
Next, let us consider the second mystery. (5) indicates that the accusative subject is not
permitted in a relative clause, and (6) shows that the genitive subject is disallowed in anadjunct clause whose head is not nominal. However, (4), which seems to be a relative clause,
allows the subject with any of the three case markers. The prediction is that the accusative
subject should not be allowed. However, a closer examination of relative clauses headed by atime expression reveals that the accusative subject is impossible, as shown in (11).
(11)

Bi-ø [yagaru ber Ulagan-ø/*-i/-nu
surgaguli-du ire-gsen]
I-Nom hastily
Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen school-tocome-past.ADNcag-i
cegezilezu-baina.
day-Acc remember-be‘I remember the day when Ulagan came to school hastily.’

In (11), the head noun of the relative clause is cag ‘day,’ and the NP is an argument of theverb cegezilezu-baina ‘remember-be.’ Therefore, in this case, the head noun is truly a nominal
element, so that the accusative subject inside the relative clause is disallowed. If this is thecase, then, the expression edür tu ‘day on’ has two functions: (i) edür ‘day’ is a noun and a
relative head, and (ii) the complex edür tu ‘day on’ functions as the head of the adjunct clause.
Therefore, in Mongolian, case alternation does not actually take place among three candidates,but only between two candidates.
Finally, let us address the third mystery. Maki et al. (2010b) claim, based on thegrammaticality of (7) with the genitive subject, that feature percolation from ei to the headnoun nom ‘book’ saves the ‘deep’ genitive subject. They did not discuss example (8). Now,
what distinguishes (8) from (7) is that in (8), while the category of the head of the relative
clause edür ‘day’ is clearly a noun, the corresponding resumptive pronoun is not nominal, but
a PP corresponding to “on the day.” We claim that this categorical mismatch prevents feature
percolation from the PP resumptive pronoun to the nominal relative head noun in (8), which2leads to the ungrammaticality of (8) with the genitive subject, hence, results in theargument/adjunct asymmetry between (7) and (8).

3