I just received a great news from FDSL, Formal Description of Slavic Languages, that my paper Datives in Dependent Case Theory: Lexical, Dependent, or Unmarked? has been selected for presentation at FDSL 13 in Göttingen.
This is the abstract I submitted: FDSL-2018-abstract (PDF)
I received two anonymized reviews.
This is an interesting contribution dealing with dative as a dependent case. The structura and the argumentation of the handout are clear and transparent, specifically the three arguments in favour of treating the dative in Main Clause Infinitives (MCIs) as unmarked structural case.
Two unexplored avenues have caught my attention here:
(1) I am slightly surprised that the author did not strenghten his/her point by providing examples of MCIs with two datives: one on the subject and the other on another argument. This would certainly go a long way to support his/her views on the unmarked case nature of the dative subject.
(2)when discussing secondary predicationand agreement with ‘odin’ the author refers to a number of sources, including Fleisher 2006. This raises the question of the nature of the MCI: does it involve one clause or two clauses? What is the author’s committment in this respect? The answer has massive consequences for work in the DCT, as each clause counts for a separate case domain. In this sense it is linked to point (1) above.
A clearly written abstract with sound arguments.
If the discussed dative is unmarked case, how do you analyze control cases like (5) with a nominative secondary predicate (odin)? What type of case is then nominative? And are there two types of PRO (nominative PRO and dative PRO)?
It is unclear if I am actually going to be presenting there, but I really hope so!