home edit page issue tracker
This page pertains to UD version 2.

Simple Verbal Clauses

This chapter focuses on nominal dependents of verbs in declarative clauses, especially on the distinction between core and oblique dependents. TO DO: Provide links to extended topics related to simple clauses. Later chapters will extend the discussion in various directions:

Most examples in this chapter show finite clauses, although the guidelines can be extended to non-finite clauses where appropriate. Non-finite verb forms are often associated with subordinate clauses, hence more examples will be given in chapters on subordination. In principle, any phrase whose head is tagged VERB is a clause in UD (while the opposite implication does not hold, a clause may be headed by a non-verb). This becomes important when a class of words such as participles or gerunds has a mixture of verbal and non-verbal features, and language-specific guidelines decide whether a word is still considered a verb, or rather a derived non-verb (NOUN, ADJ or ADV).

Core Arguments vs. Oblique Modifiers

The UD taxonomy is centered around the fairly clear distinction between core arguments (primarily subjects and objects) and other dependents. It does not make a distinction between adjuncts (general modifiers) and oblique arguments (arguments said to be selected by a head but not expressed as a core argument).

The Definition of Core Arguments

The core/oblique distinction is ultimately an information packaging distinction. All or nearly all languages have a basic way of expressing the one or two arguments of most verbs (intransitive and transitive verbs), and this unmarked form of argument expression is as a core argument. If additional arguments can appear that are treated similarly to these arguments, they may also be regarded as core arguments. (Some languages have no additional core arguments, while other languages allow multiple object arguments, for instance.) Status as a core argument is decoupled from the semantic roles of participants. Normally, depending on the meaning of a verb, many different semantic roles can be expressed by the same means of encoding core arguments. Nevertheless, there is a correlation: agent and patient or theme roles of predicates in their unmarked valence are normally realized as core arguments.

Syntactically, there is not a single criterion which can be used crosslinguistically to distinguish core arguments from obliques, though there are often good and useful criteria for particular languages. These include:

At the end of the day, the distinction must be drawn and documented on language particular grounds. For example, many languages have certain verbs which take arguments in oblique cases such as dative or an experiencer case, but these arguments should be regarded as core arguments based on their syntactic behavior being parallel to the arguments of other transitive verbs.

Avoiding an Argument/Adjunct Distinction

Many grammatical frameworks suggest that some obliques are selected by or are arguments of a head (for instance, a source argument of from the Queen is an argument of the head receive), while other obliques are general adjuncts, which can appear with any predicate without the head selecting for them (for instance, a temporal argument such as after the holidays).

However, the argument/adjunct distinction is subtle, unclear, and frequently argued over. For instance, syntacticians at certain times have argued for various obliques to be arguments, while at other times arguing that they are adjuncts, particularly for certain semantic roles such as oblique instruments or sources. We take the distinction to be sufficiently subtle (and its existence as a categorical distinction sufficiently questionable) that the best practical solution is to eliminate it. Nevertheless, if the distinction is available in a treebank that is being converted to UD, it can be preserved using subtypes of dependency relations: obl:arg is used for oblique arguments, and bare obl then denotes adjuncts.

The core-oblique distinction is generally accepted in language typology as being both more relevant and easier to apply cross-linguistically than the argument-adjunct distinction. See, for example:

Determining the Language-Specific Criteria for Core Arguments

A useful approach is to start with primary transitive clauses, i.e. clauses with predicates that license the semantic roles of agent (actor) and patient (undergoer) in the prototypical sense. Verbs describing violent actions are often good examples:

Such verbs have two core arguments. The more active argument (the agent) is said to have the grammatical function A. The other argument (the patient) is said to have the grammatical function P. Then we note the coding strategies and grammatical rules that, within the language, are typical for arguments with the functions A and P, and we generalize to clauses with other predicates that receive the same treatment, regardless of their semantic roles. Such predicates will be called transitive and their arguments will also have the functions A and P, respectively. For instance,

is a transitive clause, John has the function A because it behaves the same way as George in the dragon killing example, and Mary has the function P because the grammar treats her the same way as the dragon in the first example. Semantic roles are no longer important: John is an experiencer rather than actor, and Mary may not be affected by his love; she may not even be aware of it.

Now we can recognize that a predicate has two core arguments, and, consequently, we can also recognize predicates that have at most one (regardless whether they have an additional oblique argument). Clauses headed by such predicates are intransitive and their single core argument is said to have the grammatical function S.

Finally, we define that nominal arguments with functions S and A should be called subjects and labeled nsubj, and arguments with function P should be called objects and labeled obj. We also say that the subject is usually the “more core-like” argument of the two; nevertheless, it depends on language-particular criteria whether there is a scale of “coreness”, and how it can be measured.

Coding Strategies

English

In English, nominal core arguments are bare noun phrases (that is, without preposition). Oblique arguments and nominal adjuncts are prepositional phrases. There is one exception: a bare nominal may be used as a temporal adjunct:

In an unmarked declarative sentence, the core argument preceding the verb is the subject, and if there is another core argument following the verb, it is the object. A finite verb agrees in person and number with its subject:

# text = The boy eats one apple.
1	The	the	DET	_	Definite=Def|PronType=Art	2	det	_	_
2	boy	boy	NOUN	_	Number=Sing	3	nsubj	_	_
3	eats	eat	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	_
4	one	one	NUM	_	_	5	nummod	_	_
5	apple	apple	NOUN	_	Number=Sing	3	obj	_	SpaceAfter=No
6	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	_

If the arguments are realized as personal pronouns, the subject is in the nominative form (I, he, she, we, they) and the object is in the accusative (me, him, her, us, them). Nouns do not inflect for case in English.

# text = We help them.
1	We	we	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Number=Plur|Person=1|PronType=Prs	2	nsubj	_	_
2	help	help	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Plur|Person=1|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	_
3	them	they	PRON	_	Case=Acc|Number=Plur|Person=3|PronType=Prs	2	obj	_	SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	_

The reasons why the whole week is not a core argument in He works the whole week are complex. One possibility would be to exceptionally appeal to the argument-adjunct distinction, which is otherwise avoided. Temporal adjuncts are an uncontroversial subset of adjuncts, they can occur with virtually any predicate, they are optional and their semantics is independent of the predicate. However, there seem to be also word order-based tests that allow to reject them as core arguments at least in English (see later in this chapter for similar adjuncts in languages with more flexible word order). In the following examples, work is an intransitive verb and if it is accompanied by the whole week, then the whole week is a temporal adjunct; as such, it can swap positions with a locational adjunct and the sentence stays grammatical. On the other hand, spend is a transitive verb which requires a direct object, the whole week functions as the object and cannot swap positions with an adjunct; the object stays close to the verb.

Another observation is that the first example cannot passivize (*The whole week was worked by John), but passivization is in general not very reliable diagnostic test in English, as there are transitive verbs that cannot passivize, and prepositional verbs that can.

# text = He works the whole week.
1	He	he	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs	2	nsubj	_	_
2	works	work	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	_
3	the	the	DET	_	Definite=Def|PronType=Art	5	det	_	_
4	whole	whole	ADJ	_	_	5	amod	_	_
5	week	week	NOUN	_	Number=Sing	2	obl:tmod	_	SpaceAfter=No
6	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	_


# text = He spent the whole week in Oslo.
1	He	he	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs	2	nsubj	_	_
2	spent	spend	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Tense=Past|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	_
3	the	the	DET	_	Definite=Def|PronType=Art	5	det	_	_
4	whole	whole	ADJ	_	_	5	amod	_	_
5	week	week	NOUN	_	Number=Sing	2	obj	_	_
6	in	in	ADP	_	_	7	case	_	_
7	Oslo	Oslo	PROPN	_	Number=Sing	2	obl	_	SpaceAfter=No
8	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	_

Spanish

The behavior of Spanish core arguments is somewhat similar to English but there are differences. Like in English, it is typical for a core argument to be a bare nominal without preposition. However, prepositions are not completely excluded. If the object is animate, it is marked by the preposition a:

The subject’s person and number is cross-referenced by verbal inflection. Spanish is a pro-drop language, meaning that the subject can be omitted if it is a personal pronoun.

# text = Vimos a alguien.
# text_en = We saw somebody.
1	Vimos	ver	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Plur|Person=1|Tense=Imp|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	Gloss=we-saw
2	a	a	ADP	_	_	3	case	_	Gloss=OBJ
3	alguien	alguien	PRON	_	Number=Sing|PronType=Ind	1	obj	_	Gloss=somebody|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = El hombre bebe vino.
# text_en = The man drinks wine.
1	El	el	DET	_	Definite=Def|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|PronType=Art	2	det	_	Gloss=the
2	hombre	hombre	NOUN	_	Gender=Masc|Number=Sing	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=man
3	bebe	beber	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	Gloss=drinks
4	vino	vino	NOUN	_	Gender=Masc|Number=Sing	3	obj	_	Gloss=wine|SpaceAfter=No
5	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.

If the arguments are realized as personal pronouns, the subject is in the nominative form (yo, tú, él, nosotros, vosotros, ellos) and the object is in the accusative (me, te, lo, nos, os, los). Nouns do not inflect for case in Spanish.

If both core arguments are present and if they are realized as full noun phrases, the prototypical word order is the same as in English: the subject precedes the verb and the object follows it. However, if the object is realized as a pronominal clitic (and if the verb is finite indicative), the object precedes the verb.

# text = El hombre lo bebe.
# text_en = The man drinks it.
1	El	el	DET	_	Definite=Def|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|PronType=Art	2	det	_	Gloss=the
2	hombre	hombre	NOUN	_	Gender=Masc|Number=Sing	4	nsubj	_	Gloss=man
3	lo	él	PRON	_	Case=Acc|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs	4	obj	_	Gloss=it
4	bebe	beber	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	Gloss=drinks|SpaceAfter=No
5	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	4	punct	_	Gloss=.

Both coding strategies that are used for core arguments can also appear with adjuncts. Bare nominal adjuncts are rare, the exception being temporal adjuncts. In contrast, the preposition a can be used with various directional and temporal adjuncts.

# text = Él trabaja toda la semana.
# text_en = He works the whole week.
1	Él	él	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=he
2	trabaja	trabajar	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	Gloss=works
3	toda	todo	DET	_	Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|PronType=Tot	5	det	_	Gloss=all
4	la	el	DET	_	Definite=Def|Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|PronType=Art	5	det	_	Gloss=the
5	semana	semana	NOUN	_	Gender=Fem|Number=Sing	2	obl:tmod	_	Gloss=week|SpaceAfter=No
6	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Subiremos al tren a las cinco.
# text_en = We will be boarding the train at five.
1	Subiremos	subir	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Plur|Person=1|Tense=Fut|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	Gloss=we-will-board
2-3	al	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_
2	a	a	ADP	_	_	4	case	_	Gloss=on
3	el	el	DET	_	Definite=Def|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|PronType=Art	4	det	_	Gloss=the
4	tren	tren	NOUN	_	Gender=Masc|Number=Sing	1	obl	_	Gloss=train
5	a	a	ADP	_	_	7	case	_	Gloss=at
6	las	el	DET	_	Definite=Def|Gender=Fem|Number=Plur|PronType=Art	7	det	_	Gloss=the
7	cinco	cinco	NUM	_	NumType=Card	1	obl:tmod	_	Gloss=five|SpaceAfter=No
8	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

Neither toda la semana nor al tren or a las cinco can be promoted via passivization. Furthermore, they are inanimate, and only animate direct objects take the preposition. None of the adjuncts can be replaced by an accusative pre-verbal clitic: *Él la trabaja.

Czech

Classification of verbal arguments in Czech depends on case morphology. There are certain anomalies of the case system when the argument is a quantified phrase (with a cardinal number or a pronominal quantifier, the head noun may have different case than the entire phrase). We exclude quantified phrases from the following overview.

The coding strategy most typical for Czech core arguments is bare noun phrase in nominative or accusative. Some authors claim that core arguments are not marked for case. This is not true and Czech is one of the counter-examples. The nominative can be considered unmarked in the vague sense that it is the default case that is used if there are no external factors requiring another case. However, it is not unmarked in the morphological sense: many nouns must use suffixes to form the nominative (and the same holds for the accusative).

The nominative argument is the subject, the accusative is object. The subject’s person, number, and sometimes also gender and animacy are cross-referenced by verbal inflection. Czech is a pro-drop language, meaning that the subject can be omitted if it is a personal pronoun.

# text = Chlapec snědl jablko.
# text_en = The boy ate an apple.
1	Chlapec	chlapec	NOUN	_	Animacy=Anim|Case=Nom|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=boy
2	snědl	sníst	VERB	_	Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos|Tense=Past|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=eaten
3	jablko	jablko	NOUN	_	Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos	2	obj	_	Gloss=apple|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	_

Czech word order is free and while the SVO order is preferred by default, other permutations are possible and may be required to distinguish topic and focus.

It is not guaranteed that a bare accusative nominal is a core argument. It can also be a temporal adjunct, as in:

# text = Pracuje celý týden.
# text_en = He works the whole week.
1	Pracuje	pracovat	VERB	_	Mood=Ind|Number=Sing|Person=3|Polarity=Pos|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin	0	root	_	Gloss=works
2	celý	celý	ADJ	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Acc|Degree=Pos|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos	3	amod	_	Gloss=whole
3	týden	týden	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Acc|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos	1	obl:tmod	_	Gloss=week|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

The nominal celý týden cannot be promoted to subject via passivization, which supports the claim that it is not an object; however, this test is not sufficient because of some transitive verbs that cannot passivize (dostat “to get”, mít “to have”). Therefore, accusative temporal adjuncts have to be stated as an exception and the argument/adjunct distinction cannot be avoided in this case.

Many two-argument verbs in Czech specify the second argument as a bare noun phrase in a case other than accusative (namely in the dative, genitive or instrumental). Whether these arguments are core arguments is a point of disagreement among different authors. The current (UD 2.1) approach in UD for Czech and several similar Indo-European languages is to analyze them as core; however, it is less easy to find examples that could qualify as primary transitive verbs, and there are more confusions with dependents that would be better described as oblique arguments or adjuncts. Also, the treatment of these arguments by the grammatical rules such as passivization is different from the treatment that accusatives receive. Thus it might be better to say that only bare nominative and accusative arguments are core, while all the rest is oblique. Consequently, such two-argument clauses are intransitive.

# text = Zuzka pomohla Martinovi.
# text_en = Zuzka helped Martin.
1	Zuzka	Zuzka	PROPN	_	Case=Nom|Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=Zuzka
2	pomohla	pomoci	VERB	_	Gender=Fem|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos|Tense=Past|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=helped
3	Martinovi	Martin	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Case=Dat|Gender=Masc|Number=Sing|Polarity=Pos	2	obl:arg	_	Gloss=Martin|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.

Note that this is a shift away from the recommendation published in Daniel Zeman (2017): Core Arguments in Universal Dependencies, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017), pp. 287–296, Pisa, Italy.

Basque

See also: Fernando Zúñiga, Beatriz Fernández (draft 26.6.2014): Grammatical relations in Basque

In Basque, like in Czech, nominal case morphology is essential for recognition of core argument relations. However, instead of nominative-accusative, the core pair of cases in Basque is ergative-absolutive. Most two-argument verbs have one argument in the ergative and the other in the absolutive case (but see below for other possibilities). The ergative argument is labeled as subject, the absolutive argument is object. With primary transitive verbs, the ergative argument corresponds to the agent and the absolutive argument to the patient.

# text = Ekaitzak itsasontzia hondoratu du.
# text_en = The storm has sunk the ship.
1	Ekaitzak	ekaitz	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Erg|Definite=Def|Number=Sing	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=storm
2	itsasontzia	itsasontzi	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Abs|Definite=Def|Number=Sing	3	obj	_	Gloss=ship
3	hondoratu	hondoratu	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=sunk
4	du	*edun	AUX	_	Mood=Ind|Number[abs]=Sing|Number[erg]=Sing|Person[abs]=3|Person[erg]=3|VerbForm=Fin	3	aux	_	Gloss=has|SpaceAfter=No
5	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.

The single argument of intransitive verbs takes mostly the absolutive but sometimes the ergative form. It is labeled as subject in both cases.

# text = Gizona hil da.
# text_en = The man has died.
1	Gizona	gizon	NOUN	_	Animacy=Anim|Case=Abs|Definite=Def|Number=Sing	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=the-man
2	hil	hil	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=died
3	da	izan	AUX	_	Aspect=Prog|Mood=Ind|Number[abs]=Sing|Person[abs]=3|VerbForm=Fin	2	aux	_	Gloss=has|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Urak irakin du.
# text_en = The water has boiled.
1	Urak	ura	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Erg|Definite=Ind|Number=Sing	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=water
2	irakin	irakin	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=boiled
3	du	*edun	AUX	_	Mood=Ind|Number[abs]=Sing|Number[erg]=Sing|Person[abs]=3|Person[erg]=3|VerbForm=Fin	2	aux	_	Gloss=has|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.

The third core case is the dative. Arguments in all three core cases are cross-referenced on finite verbs. Thanks to cross-referencing, the arguments can be omitted if they are just personal pronouns.

Some two-argument verbs take dative+absolutive, instead of ergative+absolutive:

# text = Niri ardoa gustatzen zait.
# text_en = I like wine.
1	Niri	ni	PRON	_	Case=Dat|Number=Sing|Person=1|PronType=Prs	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=to-me
2	ardoa	ardo	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Abs|Definite=Def|Number=Sing	3	obj	_	Gloss=wine
3	gustatzen	gustatzen	VERB	_	Aspect=Imp|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=pleasing
4	zait	izan	AUX	_	Mood=Ind|Number[abs]=Sing|Number[dat]=Sing|Person[abs]=3|Person[dat]=1|VerbForm=Fin	3	aux	_	Gloss=is|SpaceAfter=No
5	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.

In the current data (UD 2.1), the dative argument seems to be labeled iobj even in dative-absolutive constructions. However, Zúñiga and Fernández (2014) write that the dative encodes the A function in such constructions; that would mean that it should be nsubj. Some supporting evidence is also provided by causativization, a valency-changing operation that takes a transitive clause, adds a third, ergative argument, and switches the original subject to the dative (unless it already was in dative). The fact that causativization is available for dative-absolutive clauses supports our treatment of the dative argument as the subject.

Some two-argument verbs take ergative+dative, instead of ergative+absolutive:

# text = Irakasleak haserre begiratu die ikasleei
# text_en = The teacher has looked angrily at the students.
1	Irakasleak	irakasle	NOUN	_	Animacy=Anim|Case=Erg|Definite=Def|Number=Sing	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=the-teacher
2	haserre	haserre	ADV	_	_	3	advmod	_	Gloss=angrily
3	begiratu	begiratu	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|VerbForm=Part	0	root	_	Gloss=looked
4	die	*edun	AUX	_	Mood=Ind|Number[abs]=Sing|Number[dat]=Plur|Number[erg]=Sing|Person[abs]=3|Person[dat]=3|Person[erg]=3|VerbForm=Fin	3	aux	_	Gloss=has
5	ikasleei	ikasle	NOUN	_	Animacy=Anim|Case=Dat|Definite=Def|Number=Plur	3	obj	_	Gloss=to-students|SpaceAfter=No
6	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.

In the current data (UD 2.1), the dative argument seems to be labeled iobj even in ergative-dative constructions. However, Zúñiga and Fernández (2014) write that the dative encodes the P function in such constructions; that would mean that it should be obj.

Yidiɲ

See also:

Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia) has a combination of the ergative-absolutive system (similar to Basque) and the nominative-accusative system (similar to Czech). The former pair is typical for nouns, the latter for pronouns.

# sent_id = 3.98a/yii
# Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
# source = Dixon, 1977
# text = Ŋayu maŋga:ɲ.
# gloss = I(NOM) laugh-PAST
# text_en = I laughed.
1	Ŋayu	ŋayu	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Number=Sing|Person=1|PronType=Prs	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=I|MGloss=I(NOM)
2	maŋga:ɲ	maŋgan	VERB	_	Tense=Past	0	root	_	Gloss=laughed|MSeg=maŋga:-ɲ|MGloss=laugh-PAST|SpaceAfter=No
3	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# sent_id = 3.98b/yii
# Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
# source = Dixon, 1977
# text = Buɲa maŋga:ɲ.
# gloss = woman(ABS) laugh-PAST
# text_en = The woman laughed.
1	Buɲa	buɲa	NOUN	_	Case=Abs|Number=Sing	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=woman|MGloss=woman(ABS)
2	maŋga:ɲ	maŋgan	VERB	_	Tense=Past	0	root	_	Gloss=laughed|MSeg=maŋga:-ɲ|MGloss=laugh-PAST|SpaceAfter=No
3	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# sent_id = 3.98c/yii
# Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
# source = Dixon, 1977
# text = Ŋaɲaɲ buɲa:ŋ wuɹa:ɲ.
# gloss = I(ACC) woman-ERG slap-PAST
# text_en = The woman slapped me.
1	Ŋaɲaɲ	ŋayu	PRON	_	Case=Acc|Number=Sing|Person=1|PronType=Prs	3	obj	_	Gloss=me|MGloss=I(ACC)
2	buɲa:ŋ	buɲa	NOUN	_	Case=Erg|Number=Sing	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=woman|MSeg=buɲa:-ŋ|MGloss=woman-ERG
3	wuɹa:ɲ	wuɹan	VERB	_	Tense=Past	0	root	_	Gloss=slapped|MSeg=wuɹa:-ɲ|MGloss=slap-PAST|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.


# sent_id = 3.98d/yii
# Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
# source = Dixon, 1977
# text = Ŋayu buɲa wuɹa:ɲ.
# gloss = I(NOM) woman(ABS) slap-PAST
# text_en = I slapped the woman.
1	Ŋayu	ŋayu	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Number=Sing|Person=1|PronType=Prs	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=I|MGloss=I(NOM)
2	buɲa	buɲa	NOUN	_	Case=Abs|Number=Sing	3	obj	_	Gloss=woman|MGloss=woman(ABS)
3	wuɹa:ɲ	wuɹan	VERB	_	Tense=Past	0	root	_	Gloss=slapped|MSeg=wuɹa:-ɲ|MGloss=slap-PAST|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.


# sent_id = 3.98e/yii
# Yidiɲ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
# source = Dixon, 1977
# text = Waguɖaŋgu guda:ga wawa:l.
# gloss = man-ERG dog(ABS) see-PAST
# text_en = The man saw the dog.
1	Waguɖaŋgu	wagu:ɖa	NOUN	_	Case=Erg|Number=Sing	3	nsubj	_	Gloss=man|MSeg=Waguɖa-ŋgu|MGloss=man-ERG
2	guda:ga	guda:ga	NOUN	_	Case=Abs|Number=Sing	3	obj	_	Gloss=dog|MGloss=dog(ABS)
3	wawa:l	wawal	VERB	_	Tense=Past	0	root	_	Gloss=saw|MSeg=wawa:-l|MGloss=see-PAST|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	3	punct	_	Gloss=.

None of the core arguments is cross-referenced by verbal morphology.

Yidiɲ is interesting because some of its grammatical rules target the S and P arguments (i.e., subjects of intransitive clauses and objects of transitive clauses) but exclude A arguments (subjects of transitive clauses) (Andrews, 2007). See the discussion of the antipassive in Valency-Changing Operations for futher details.

Tagalog

The arguments in Tagalog are marked by function words that could be analyzed as either prepositions, or case-bearing determiners. Although adpositions are often associated with oblique arguments and adjuncts, we have seen that it is not a universal rule. Spanish marks an animate direct object with the preposition a; Slavic and other languages have prepositional objects that, despite not being considered core in UD, seem to work the same way as other non-accusative (but prepositionless) arguments; and in Japanese, all arguments are marked by postpositions, including the subject and the direct object. On the other hand, if the nominal markers in Tagalog are determiners, then Tagalog somewhat resembles modern German, where nominal inflection has been greatly reduced and the varying forms of determiners are often the only clue about the case of a noun phrase. Categorizing the Tagalog markers as determiners seems to be more favored in the literature.

The most core-like argument (also called pivot) is marked by the determiner ang. The other core argument (if any) is marked by the determiner ng (pronounced nang). A different set of determiners is used with proper nouns. No determiners are used with personal pronouns, but the pronouns themselves inflect for case.

There have been disputes about whether the pivot is subject and whether Tagalog has a subject at all. Andrews (pp. 210–211) distinguishes two grammatical relations, the a-subject and the p-subject, each having some properties that are often associated with subjects in the more familiar languages. He also says that the actor “has subject-like properties regardless of whether or not it is the pivot.” Nevertheless, for the purpose of easier and consistent annotation of Universal Dependencies it seems advantageous to simplify the matter and always reserve the nsubj relation for the ang-phrase (the pivot).

It seems appropriate to mark the determiners and the personal pronouns with the Case feature: the pivot with nominative, and the other core argument with accusative.

# sent_id = 1.98d/tl
# text = Nagsalita ka.
# gloss = (PERF.ACTIVE)speak you
# text_en = You spoke.
1	Nagsalita	salita	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Agf	0	root	_	Gloss=spoke|MSeg=nag-salita|MGloss=PERF+ACTIVE-speak
2	ka	ikaw	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Number=Sing|Person=2|PronType=Prs	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=you|SpaceAfter=No
3	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=punct


# sent_id = 1.98f/tl
# text = Natalisod ka.
# gloss = (PERF.INVOL)trip you
# text_en = You tripped.
1	Natalisod	tisod	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Paf	0	root	_	Gloss=tripped|MSeg=na-talisod|MGloss=PERF+INVOL-trip
2	ka	ikaw	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Number=Sing|Person=2|PronType=Prs	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=you|SpaceAfter=No
3	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=punct


# text = Natalisod ang babae.
# text_en = The woman tripped.
1	Natalisod	tisod	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Paf	0	root	_	Gloss=tripped|MSeg=na-talisod|MGloss=PERF+INVOL-trip
2	ang	ang	DET	_	Case=Nom|Definite=Def|PronType=Art	3	det	_	Gloss=the|MGloss=PIV
3	babae	babae	NOUN	_	_	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=woman|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=punct


# text = Natalisod si Pedro.
# text_en = Pedro tripped.
1	Natalisod	tisod	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Paf	0	root	_	Gloss=tripped|MSeg=na-talisod|MGloss=PERF+INVOL-trip
2	si	si	DET	_	Case=Nom|Definite=Def|PronType=Art	3	det	_	Gloss=the
3	Pedro	Pedro	PROPN	_	_	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=Pedro|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=punct

Transitive (two-argument) sentences have two core arguments, one in the nominative (pronoun or determiner) and the other in the accusative.

# text = Naglilinis siya ng bahay.
# text_en = She cleans the house.
1	Naglilinis	linis	VERB	_	Aspect=Imp|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Agf	0	root	_	Gloss=cleans
2	siya	siya	PRON	_	Case=Nom|Number=Sing|Person=1|PronType=Prs	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=he/she
3	ng	ng	DET	_	Case=Acc|PronType=Art	4	det	_	Gloss=DET
4	bahay	bahay	NOUN	_	_	1	obj	_	Gloss=house|SpaceAfter=No
5	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=punct

Locative, directional and benefactive arguments are normally coded as oblique. However, there are additional voices where these arguments become subjects. One of the reasons why an argument is fronted as the subject is that the subject is understood as the topic of the sentence. The ang determiner implies definiteness (while ng-marked arguments can be definite or indefinite).

# sent_id = 3.111a/tl
# text = Magaalis ang babae ng bigas sa sako para sa bata.
# gloss = AP-FUT-take.out PIV woman OBJ rice DIR sack for BEN child
# text_en = The woman will take some rice out of a/the sack for a/the child.
# AP = actor pivot; PIV = pivot marker
# http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Tagalog/tagalog_verbs.htm
1	Magaalis	alis	VERB	_	Aspect=Prog|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Agf	0	root	_	Gloss=will-take-out|MSeg=mag-a-alis|MGloss=AP-FUT-take.out
2	ang	ang	DET	_	Case=Nom|Definite=Def|PronType=Art	3	det	_	Gloss=the
3	babae	babae	NOUN	_	_	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=woman
4	ng	ng	DET	_	Case=Acc|PronType=Art	5	det	_	Gloss=DET
5	bigas	bigas	NOUN	_	_	1	obj	_	Gloss=rice
6	sa	sa	DET	_	Case=Loc|PronType=Art	7	det	_	Gloss=DIR
7	sako	sako	NOUN	_	_	1	obl	_	Gloss=sack
8	para	para	ADP	_	_	10	case	_	Gloss=for
9	sa	sa	DET	_	Case=Loc|PronType=Art	10	det	_	Gloss=BEN
10	bata	bata	NOUN	_	_	1	obl	_	Gloss=child|SpaceAfter=No
11	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.


# sent_id = 3.111c/tl
# text = Aalisan ng babae ng bigas ang sako para sa bata.
# gloss = FUT-take.out-DP ACT woman OBJ rice PIV sack BEN child
# text_en = A/the woman will take some rice out of the sack for a/the child.
# DP = directional pivot; PIV = pivot marker
1	Aalisan	alis	VERB	_	Aspect=Prog|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Locf	0	root	_	Gloss=will-take-out|MSeg=a-alis-an|MGloss=FUT-take.out-DP
2	ng	ng	DET	_	Case=Acc|PronType=Art	3	det	_	Gloss=DET
3	babae	babae	NOUN	_	_	1	obj:agent	_	Gloss=woman
4	ng	ng	DET	_	Case=Acc|PronType=Art	5	det	_	Gloss=DET
5	bigas	bigas	NOUN	_	_	1	obj:patient	_	Gloss=rice
6	ang	ang	DET	_	Case=Nom|Definite=Def|PronType=Art	7	det	_	Gloss=the
7	sako	sako	NOUN	_	_	1	nsubj:loc	_	Gloss=sack
8	para	para	ADP	_	_	10	case	_	Gloss=for
9	sa	sa	DET	_	Case=Loc|PronType=Art	10	det	_	Gloss=BEN
10	bata	bata	NOUN	_	_	1	obl	_	Gloss=child|SpaceAfter=No
11	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

Since the agent and patient stay core arguments even in the locative voice, we actually have a ditransitive clause with three core arguments. In contrast, the verbs of giving, which are typical representatives of ditransitive predicates in other languages, form a standard transitive clause in the agent and patient voices, as the recipient is coded as a directional (locative) oblique dependent.

# text = Nagbigay ang lalaki ng libro sa babae.
# text_en = The man gave a book to the woman.
1	Nagbigay	bigay	VERB	_	Aspect=Perf|Mood=Ind|VerbForm=Fin|Voice=Agf	0	root	_	Gloss=gave
2	ang	ang	DET	_	Case=Nom|Definite=Def|PronType=Art	3	det	_	Gloss=the
3	lalaki	lalaki	NOUN	_	_	1	nsubj	_	Gloss=man
4	ng	ng	DET	_	Case=Acc|PronType=Art	5	det	_	Gloss=DET
5	libro	libro	NOUN	_	_	1	obj	_	Gloss=libro
6	sa	sa	DET	_	Case=Loc|PronType=Art	7	det	_	Gloss=DIR
7	babae	babae	NOUN	_	_	1	obl	_	Gloss=woman|SpaceAfter=No
8	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

Plains Cree

See also:

The Algonquian (North American) language Plains Cree is similar to Basque in its cross-referencing of both the subject and the object by verbal inflection. It is also very dissimilar to Basque due to its almost complete lack of case marking on the nouns. Yet the marking of the argument on the verbal head is sufficient to allow for a relatively free word order (unlike English).

Like in many other languages where person and number of an argument is cross-referenced by the verb, the argument does not need to appear as a separate word if it would be just a pronoun.

# text = Niwīcihānānak.
# text_en = We help them.
1	Niwīcihānānak	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Clusivity[high]=Ex|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Plur|Number[low]=Plur|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Pres|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=we-help-them|MSeg=ni-wīcih-ā-nān-ak|MGloss=1-help-DIR-1PL-3PL|SpaceAfter=No
2	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Niwīcihikonānak.
# text_en = They help us.
1	Niwīcihikonānak	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Clusivity[high]=Ex|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Plur|Number[low]=Plur|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Pres|Voice=Inv	0	root	_	Gloss=they-help-us|MSeg=ni-wīcih-iko-nān-ak|MGloss=1-help-INV-1PL-3PL|SpaceAfter=No
2	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

The two verb forms in the two previous examples differ in Voice. The first example is in the direct voice, where the argument higher in a language-specific obliqueness hierarchy is more agent-like and the other argument is more patient-like. First person arguments are higher than third person arguments, therefore the agent is “we” and the patient is “they”.

In the second example, the argument-marking morphemes have not changed but the verb is in the inverse voice where the argument lower in the hierarchy (“they”) is the agent and the higher argument (“we”) is the patient.

It is undoubted that the two arguments that are cross-referenced by the verb are core arguments. It is less clear how to label the two arguments, as Plains Cree does not seem to have a subject in the Indo-European sense. Nevertheless, it seems quite natural to postulate that the argument higher in the hierarchy is more core-like and thus it gets the label nsubj in UD; the other core argument then gets obj. Such a distinction can be annotated easily and consistently. The subject will be more agent-like in the direct voice, and more patient-like in the inverse voice, which will be somewhat parallel to the active and passive voices in other languages.

In the following two examples, the verb forms differ because the first verb cross-references a singular object, the second a plural.

# text = Nikī-wīcihāw Cān.
# text_en = I helped John.
1	Nikī-wīcihāw	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=I-helped-him|MSeg=ni-kī-wīcih-ā-w|MGloss=1-PAST-help-DIR-3SG
2	Cān	Cān	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	1	obj	_	Gloss=John|SpaceAfter=No
3	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Nikī-wīcihāwak Cān ēkwa Mēriy.
# text_en = I helped John and Mary.
1	Nikī-wīcihāwak	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Plur|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=I-helped-them|MSeg=ni-kī-wīcih-ā-w-ak|MGloss=1-PAST-help-DIR-3-3PL
2	Cān	Cān	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	1	obj	_	Gloss=John
3	ēkwa	ēkwa	CCONJ	_	_	4	cc	_	Gloss=and
4	Mēriy	Mēriy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	2	conj	_	Gloss=Mary|SpaceAfter=No
5	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

If two third-person arguments are involved, one of them is considered proximate (more topical, higher in the obliqueness hierarchy) and the other is considered obviative (less topical, lower in the obliqueness hierarchy). The obviative noun is marked morphologically by the suffix -a. Note that Plains Cree distinguishes singular and plural Number for proximate but not for obviative third person arguments.

Current UD data (as of UD 2.1) does not include languages with direct-inverse voice systems and proximate-obviative division of third-person arguments. (Though there has been a paper that discusses possible application of the old UD v1 guidelines to the related language of Arapaho.) The guidelines define a special value for the “fourth person”, which could be used for obviative arguments (see Person). This value is inspired by the Unimorph project. However, the Unimorph specification seems to favor using Person=3 with an additional subfeature for proximate and obviative status: “In some languages, a fourth person category is used to describe an otherwise third-person referent that is differentiated from other third-person referents by a switch-reference-like distinction … or, more commonly, by a distinction in obviation status… For the purposes of morphological distinctions, these fourth person categories may call for dedicated verbal morphology. While in some cases their meaning can be captured by third person (3) plus switch-reference features or features marking pragmatic voice distinctions (such as the proximate (PRX) and obviative (OBV)), we include a fourth person category with the feature 4 to allow for identification of a fourth person category when the semantic distinctions are complicated or not strictly inflectional in nature.”

A possible alternative would be to revoke the “fourth person” and define a separate feature Obviation with the values Prx and Obv. There are two places where the feature could be used: as a verbal feature (cross-referencing the argument) and as a nominal feature (marking the argument). Especially in nominal inflection it seems preferable to use a new feature rather than assert that the noun inflects for person (with values 3 and 4 only).

Yet another option would be to include the nominal inflection under Case marking, i.e., a noun with the obviative morpheme would be Case=Acc and the unmarked nouns would be Case=Nom. However, such an extension could be perceived as stretching the usual definition of case too far. The main oddity would be that it only applies to third-person referents and only if two such referents compete as arguments of the same verb. If one argument of the verb is first-person and the other third-person, both will stay in the “nominative” regardless of their semantic roles. Therefore, defining a new feature, separate from Case, is probably a better and less confusing solution.

# text = Cāniy kī-wīcihēw Mērīwa.
# text_en = Johnny helped Mary.
1	Cāniy	Cāniy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=Johnny
2	kī-wīcihēw	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=3|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=helped|MSeg=kī-wīcih-ē-w|MGloss=PAST-help-DIR-3SG
3	Mērīwa	Mēriy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Obv	2	obj	_	Gloss=Mary|MSeg=Mēriy-wa|MGloss=Mary-OBV|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Cānīwa kī-wīcihēw Mēriy.
# text_en = Mary helped Johnny.
1	Cānīwa	Cāniy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Obv	2	obj	_	Gloss=Johnny|MSeg=Cāniy-wa|MGloss=Johnny-OBV
2	kī-wīcihēw	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=3|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=helped|MSeg=kī-wīcih-ē-w|MGloss=PAST-help-DIR-3SG
3	Mēriy	Mēriy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	2	nsubj	_	Gloss=Mary|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Cāniy kī-wīcihik Mērīwa.
# text_en = Mary helped Johnny. / Johnny was helped by Mary.
1	Cāniy	Cāniy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	2	nsubj:pass	_	Gloss=Johnny
2	kī-wīcihik	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=3|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Inv	0	root	_	Gloss=helped|MSeg=kī-wīcih-ikw-w|MGloss=PAST-help-INV-3SG
3	Mērīwa	Mēriy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Obv	2	obj:agent	_	Gloss=Mary|MSeg=Mēriy-wa|MGloss=Mary-OBV|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.


# text = Cānīwa kī-wīcihik Mēriy.
# text_en = Johnny helped Mary. / Mary was helped by Johnny.
1	Cānīwa	Cāniy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Obv	2	obj:agent	_	Gloss=Johnny|MSeg=Cāniy-wa|MGloss=Johnny-OBV
2	kī-wīcihik	wīcih	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=3|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Inv	0	root	_	Gloss=helped|MSeg=kī-wīcih-ikw-w|MGloss=PAST-help-INV-3SG
3	Mēriy	Mēriy	PROPN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Sing|Obviation=Prx	2	nsubj:pass	_	Gloss=Mary|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.

Even though Plains Cree does not use morphological cases to distinguish agents from patients, there is a form of nouns that can be classified as the locative case (Case=Loc). It clearly marks the noun as oblique and unable to be cross-referenced by verbal inflection. The other, bare nominal forms, could then be tagged as nominative (Case=Nom), or, optionally, left with the Case feature empty.

# text = Akocikanihk nikī-ahāwak nitastisak.
# text_en = I put my mitts on the shelf.
1	Akocikanihk	akocikan	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Loc	2	obl	_	Gloss=shelf|MSeg=akocikan-ihk|MGloss=shelf-LOC
2	nikī-ahāwak	ah	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Plur|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=I-put|MSeg=ni-kī-ah-ā-wak|MGloss=1-PAST-put-DIR-3PL
3	nitastisak	astis	NOUN	_	Animacy=Anim|Number=Plur|Person[psor]=1	2	obj	_	Gloss=my-mitts|MSeg=nit-astis-ak|MGloss=1-mitt-PL|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	2	punct	_	Gloss=.

Adpositions may accompany the locative, too:

# text = Nikī-nīhtināw akocikanihk ohci.
# text_en = I took him/her/it down from the shelf.
1	Nikī-nīhtināw	nīhtin	VERB	_	Animacy=Anim|Mood=Ind|Number[high]=Sing|Number[low]=Sing|Person[high]=1|Person[low]=3|Tense=Past|Voice=Dir	0	root	_	Gloss=I-took-it-down|MSeg=ni-kī-nīhtin-ā-w|MGloss=1-PAST-take.down-DIR-3SG
2	akocikanihk	akocikan	NOUN	_	Animacy=Inan|Case=Loc	1	obl	_	Gloss=shelf|MSeg=akocikan-ihk|MGloss=shelf-LOC
3	ohci	ohci	ADP	_	_	2	case	_	Gloss=from|SpaceAfter=No
4	.	.	PUNCT	_	_	1	punct	_	Gloss=.

Morphological Features

This chapter is primarily about relations between a VERB (possibly accompanied by an AUX), and its nominal dependents (typically headed by a NOUN, PROPN or PRON).

If the language uses morphological case to mark the relation between the predicate and its arguments, the Case feature should be used to annotate the form of the nominal. If nouns are unmarked and only personal pronouns inflect for case, then nouns omit the feature. However, if one form of a lemma has a non-empty Case feature, then preferably all other forms should also receive that feature (that is, morphologically “unmarked” forms should get nominative or absolutive rather than an empty value). If the noun itself does not inflect but its case is determined by a function word that modifies it (such as a DET), then the function word will bear the Case feature. The UD guidelines currently do not specify whether the same approach should be taken when the case is determined by an adposition (ADP), i.e., whether the adposition should bear the Case feature. (Some languages can combine morphological case of nouns with prepositions. The noun paradigm defines the repertory of case values in the language, while the preposition would typically add meaning corresponding to cases that are not known in the language, although they are known in other languages. Hence it would look unnatural to add the new case values to the description of the language, and to use them only with adpositions.)

In languages like Plains Cree, nominals will also have the feature Obviation with values Prx and Obv. Depending on language, some other nominal features may be relevant because they are cross-referenced by the verb (Number, Gender, Animacy etc.) but marking the verb-noun relation is usually not their only purpose. Personal pronouns also bear the Person feature, often cross-referenced by verbs, but nouns do not. A noun almost always denotes a third-person participant. For more details on nominal features see Simple Noun Phrases.

If the verb cross-references one core argument in its own morphology, the verb should be annotated with the same features (Person, Number, Gender, Animacy, Polite, Obviation). In some languages these features are not marked directly on the main verb but rather on an auxiliary verb that accompanies it; the annotation should appear on the word that really bears the morphology.

If the verb cross-references two or more arguments, layered features must be used. Language-specific guidelines must specify whether all layers will have identifiers in square brackets, or whether one of the layers (typically the one cross-referencing the subject) can be treated as default. Identifiers of non-default layers consist of lowercase English letters and typically refer to either grammatical relations ([subj] and [obj]) or case of the argument ([erg], [abs], [dat], [nom], [acc]), whichever suits the situation in the concrete language better. For example, auxiliary verbs in Basque cross-reference one, two or three arguments, and their cases are ergative, absolutive or dative. So the auxiliary die will have features Number[erg]=Sing, Person[erg]=3, Number[dat]=Plur, Person[dat]=3, Number[abs]=Sing, and Person[abs]=3. None of the three layers is treated as default in Basque UD, all features have explicit layer identifiers.

Of course, there are many other verbal features but they are not relevant to the topic of this chapter and they are described elsewhere.

Summary of Relations

The features discussed in this chapter are nsubj, obj (core arguments), obl and obl:arg (oblique dependents).

There are other optional subtypes of these relations defined elsewhere in this documentation or in language-specific guidelines. If such subtypes exist, then quite naturally the label without subtype denotes only the remaining cases, not covered by subtypes.