Dependent Case for Mongolian: Unifying accusative subjects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Modern Mongolian, the subjects of many subordinate clauses, both complements and adjuncts, may be marked with the accusative case (von Heusinger, Klein & Guntsetseg 2011; Guntsetseg 2016). This study argues that the full empirical picture of these marked subjects necessitates an analysis based on Dependent Case Theory (Marantz 1991; Baker & Vinokurova 2010; Baker 2015), which additionally provides an account of case assignment more broadly in the language, including in differential object marking. Prior syntactic analyses (Bao et al. 2015; Fong 2019) rely on Agree-based case-licensing from v, resulting in ECM-like accounts. However, the appearance of accusative on subjects of adjoined clauses, as well as in clauses with no canonical accusative-assigning verbs (intransitives, passives) rules out v as the case assigner. Instead, following Baker & Vinokurova (2010), this account argues that accusative case is assigned configurationally. Once established that a configurational approach to case-assignment handles subjects, as well as direct objects, the approach is applied to Mongolian-specific issues including voice alternations and converbial adjuncts, showing that the theory predicts case-assignment patterns there. Finally, the study examines data from dative marking and scrambling in ditransitives to refine Baker & Vinokurova’s (2010) original theory, obviating the need for case-stacking by restricting the timing of application of the Dependent Case algorithm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it