Anat Ninio
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- May 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199565962
- eISBN:
- 9780191725616
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565962.003.0002
- Subject:
- Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Developmental Psychology
This chapter reviews the linguistic literature concerning syntactic atoms in two different types of linguistic theories: mainstream generative grammar and Construction Grammars. In the first ...
More
This chapter reviews the linguistic literature concerning syntactic atoms in two different types of linguistic theories: mainstream generative grammar and Construction Grammars. In the first approach, grammatical relations are defined as subtypes of the universal Merge operation of Chomsky's Minimalist Program or, alternately, of the Head-Dependent relation developed in Dependency Grammars (which is shown to be identical with the Merger operation). The grammatical relations subject-verb, verb-object, and verb-indirect objects constitute the clausal core. The motivation for positing such formal syntactic relations in linguistics derives from the fact that they are defined solely by their coding properties and grammatical behaviour but dissociated from particular semantic roles. This defines core grammatical relations as purely formal components of the structure of clause, whose semantics is a lexical property of individual verbs. Alternative conceptions of syntactic units under Construction Grammars are then discussed, in particular the claim that grammatical relations are in fact meaningful linguistic signs, constituting abstract ‘argument structure constructions’ that possess uniform or at the least prototypical meaning.Less
This chapter reviews the linguistic literature concerning syntactic atoms in two different types of linguistic theories: mainstream generative grammar and Construction Grammars. In the first approach, grammatical relations are defined as subtypes of the universal Merge operation of Chomsky's Minimalist Program or, alternately, of the Head-Dependent relation developed in Dependency Grammars (which is shown to be identical with the Merger operation). The grammatical relations subject-verb, verb-object, and verb-indirect objects constitute the clausal core. The motivation for positing such formal syntactic relations in linguistics derives from the fact that they are defined solely by their coding properties and grammatical behaviour but dissociated from particular semantic roles. This defines core grammatical relations as purely formal components of the structure of clause, whose semantics is a lexical property of individual verbs. Alternative conceptions of syntactic units under Construction Grammars are then discussed, in particular the claim that grammatical relations are in fact meaningful linguistic signs, constituting abstract ‘argument structure constructions’ that possess uniform or at the least prototypical meaning.
Ronald W. Langacker
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780195331967
- eISBN:
- 9780199868209
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.003.0007
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
Constructions are characterized in terms of four basic factors: correspondences, profiling, elaboration, and constituency. Correspondences are the basis for semantic and grammatical integration; they ...
More
Constructions are characterized in terms of four basic factors: correspondences, profiling, elaboration, and constituency. Correspondences are the basis for semantic and grammatical integration; they specify the conceptual and phonological overlap between component structures, as well as between the component and composite structures. Semantic integration often involves multiple correspondences. Semantic anomaly arises when corresponding elements have inconsistent properties. Usually the composite structure inherits its profile (and thus its grammatical category) from one of the component structures, which is thus the constructional head (or profile determinant). It is also usual for one component structure to elaborate a schematic substructure (an elaboration site) within the other component. A component which makes salient schematic reference to another in this manner is said to be dependent on it. Organization in relationships of autonomy/dependence (A/D-alignment) is a basic feature of language structure. The difference between complements and modifiers is a matter of whether these component structures are autonomous or dependent with respect to the constructional head. Constituency is the hierarchical aspect of symbolic assemblies. Contrary to standard views, constituency is neither fundamental nor essential to grammar, and while it does emerge, it is neither invariant nor exhaustive of grammatical structure. Grammatical relations (like subject and object) are defined on the basis of semantic factors and correspondences, and are thus independent of particular constituency configurations.Less
Constructions are characterized in terms of four basic factors: correspondences, profiling, elaboration, and constituency. Correspondences are the basis for semantic and grammatical integration; they specify the conceptual and phonological overlap between component structures, as well as between the component and composite structures. Semantic integration often involves multiple correspondences. Semantic anomaly arises when corresponding elements have inconsistent properties. Usually the composite structure inherits its profile (and thus its grammatical category) from one of the component structures, which is thus the constructional head (or profile determinant). It is also usual for one component structure to elaborate a schematic substructure (an elaboration site) within the other component. A component which makes salient schematic reference to another in this manner is said to be dependent on it. Organization in relationships of autonomy/dependence (A/D-alignment) is a basic feature of language structure. The difference between complements and modifiers is a matter of whether these component structures are autonomous or dependent with respect to the constructional head. Constituency is the hierarchical aspect of symbolic assemblies. Contrary to standard views, constituency is neither fundamental nor essential to grammar, and while it does emerge, it is neither invariant nor exhaustive of grammatical structure. Grammatical relations (like subject and object) are defined on the basis of semantic factors and correspondences, and are thus independent of particular constituency configurations.
William Croft
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199248582
- eISBN:
- 9780191740657
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.003.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, English Language
Chapter 1, “Introduction”, provides the theoretical framework for the analyses in the subsequent chapters. Different means for representing semantic structure - logical formulas, diagrams, and ...
More
Chapter 1, “Introduction”, provides the theoretical framework for the analyses in the subsequent chapters. Different means for representing semantic structure - logical formulas, diagrams, and geometric representations - are compared. The approach taken in this book is to employ a largely geometric representation because aspectual structure in particular requires representation with continuous dimensions. Two major constructs in conceptual semantics are introduced: semantic frames, in which conceptually presupposed semantic structure is included with the denoted concept; and construal, in which alternative conceptualizations of a single event are expressed in different grammatical constructions and lexical choices. Finally, the focus on tense-aspect constructions and argument structure constructions is motivated in terms of the principles of construction grammar.Less
Chapter 1, “Introduction”, provides the theoretical framework for the analyses in the subsequent chapters. Different means for representing semantic structure - logical formulas, diagrams, and geometric representations - are compared. The approach taken in this book is to employ a largely geometric representation because aspectual structure in particular requires representation with continuous dimensions. Two major constructs in conceptual semantics are introduced: semantic frames, in which conceptually presupposed semantic structure is included with the denoted concept; and construal, in which alternative conceptualizations of a single event are expressed in different grammatical constructions and lexical choices. Finally, the focus on tense-aspect constructions and argument structure constructions is motivated in terms of the principles of construction grammar.
William Croft
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780198299554
- eISBN:
- 9780191708091
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.003.0004
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
The syntactic roles (grammatical relations) of subject and object are semantically irregular but their syntactic behavior is claimed to be syntactically unified, thereby justifying the existence of ...
More
The syntactic roles (grammatical relations) of subject and object are semantically irregular but their syntactic behavior is claimed to be syntactically unified, thereby justifying the existence of formal syntactic roles independent of meaning. Subject and object are certainly polysemous categories semantically, but syntactically they are no simpler. Ergativity shows that syntactic roles can vary across languages. Ergativity has been discounted in most syntactic theories by selectively ignoring certain constructions such as case marking and agreement (methodological opportunism). But the variation across and even within languages conforms to a universal implicational hierarchy, the Subject Construction Hierarchy: coordination < purpose clauses < relative clauses < agreement < case marking. If a construction patterns ergatively at some point on the hierarchy, then all constructions to the right also pattern ergatively. Language-specific syntactic roles can be mapped onto a conceptual space whose structure represents the semantic participant roles and the Subject Construction Hierarchy.Less
The syntactic roles (grammatical relations) of subject and object are semantically irregular but their syntactic behavior is claimed to be syntactically unified, thereby justifying the existence of formal syntactic roles independent of meaning. Subject and object are certainly polysemous categories semantically, but syntactically they are no simpler. Ergativity shows that syntactic roles can vary across languages. Ergativity has been discounted in most syntactic theories by selectively ignoring certain constructions such as case marking and agreement (methodological opportunism). But the variation across and even within languages conforms to a universal implicational hierarchy, the Subject Construction Hierarchy: coordination < purpose clauses < relative clauses < agreement < case marking. If a construction patterns ergatively at some point on the hierarchy, then all constructions to the right also pattern ergatively. Language-specific syntactic roles can be mapped onto a conceptual space whose structure represents the semantic participant roles and the Subject Construction Hierarchy.
William B. McGregor
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199668441
- eISBN:
- 9780191748707
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668441.003.0008
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology, Language Families
McGregor proposes that the parts-of-speech of Gooniyandi (non-Pama-Nyungan, Kimberley, Western Australia) can be defined by reference to the grammatical relations they prototypically fulfil and/or ...
More
McGregor proposes that the parts-of-speech of Gooniyandi (non-Pama-Nyungan, Kimberley, Western Australia) can be defined by reference to the grammatical relations they prototypically fulfil and/or the grammatical units they typically occur in; this extends the analysis suggested in McGregor (1990). The Gooniyandi parts-of-speech system shows a considerable amount of flexibility in the sense that the mapping between the categories and grammatical relations is many-to-many. It is possible to place the parts of speech in a partially ordered hierarchy according to their degree of flexibility. Verbs, interjections, and sound effects emerge as the most restricted and most marked parts of speech, and show least flexibility. The remainder can be ordered as follows: nominals, adverbs, adverbials, and particles. It is suggested that the approach taken in this paper is applicable to other languages, though doubts remain concerning the cross-linguistic comparability of the part-of-speech categories.Less
McGregor proposes that the parts-of-speech of Gooniyandi (non-Pama-Nyungan, Kimberley, Western Australia) can be defined by reference to the grammatical relations they prototypically fulfil and/or the grammatical units they typically occur in; this extends the analysis suggested in McGregor (1990). The Gooniyandi parts-of-speech system shows a considerable amount of flexibility in the sense that the mapping between the categories and grammatical relations is many-to-many. It is possible to place the parts of speech in a partially ordered hierarchy according to their degree of flexibility. Verbs, interjections, and sound effects emerge as the most restricted and most marked parts of speech, and show least flexibility. The remainder can be ordered as follows: nominals, adverbs, adverbials, and particles. It is suggested that the approach taken in this paper is applicable to other languages, though doubts remain concerning the cross-linguistic comparability of the part-of-speech categories.
Wolfram Hinzen and Michelle Sheehan
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199654833
- eISBN:
- 9780191747977
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654833.003.0003
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics, Psycholinguistics / Neurolinguistics / Cognitive Linguistics
Beyond a purely formal description of grammar, there arises the question of its distinctive content. What is the content of grammar, as distinct from that of the lexicon? In this chapter we argue ...
More
Beyond a purely formal description of grammar, there arises the question of its distinctive content. What is the content of grammar, as distinct from that of the lexicon? In this chapter we argue that parts of speech distinctions reflect this content already, by encoding referential perspectives on the world or ways of constructing our experience. We develop an account of grammar as purely relational, and as defining a novel semantics in which reference and truth are possible. Moreover, we argue that the recursivity of language can be reconstructed, predicted, and understood on this basis. The chapter also develops an account of the smallest unit of grammaticality, which we identify with the phase of contemporary grammatical theoryLess
Beyond a purely formal description of grammar, there arises the question of its distinctive content. What is the content of grammar, as distinct from that of the lexicon? In this chapter we argue that parts of speech distinctions reflect this content already, by encoding referential perspectives on the world or ways of constructing our experience. We develop an account of grammar as purely relational, and as defining a novel semantics in which reference and truth are possible. Moreover, we argue that the recursivity of language can be reconstructed, predicted, and understood on this basis. The chapter also develops an account of the smallest unit of grammaticality, which we identify with the phase of contemporary grammatical theory
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Eva F. Schultze-Berndt (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199272266
- eISBN:
- 9780191709975
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
Depictive secondary predicates such as ‘raw’ in ‘George ate the fish raw’ are important for current issues in syntactic and semantic theory, in particular predication theory, phrase structure ...
More
Depictive secondary predicates such as ‘raw’ in ‘George ate the fish raw’ are important for current issues in syntactic and semantic theory, in particular predication theory, phrase structure theories, issues of control and grammatical relations, and verbal aspect. This book approaches depictive secondary predication from a cross-linguistic point of view. It traces all the relevant phenomena and brings together critical surveys and new contributions on their morphosyntactic and semantic properties. It particularly considers similarities and differences between secondary predicates and other types of adjuncts, including adverbials of manner, comparison, quantity, and location. The book's approach is theory-neutral and pragmatic: it draws on insights and research traditions ranging from the minimalist program to semantic maps methodology.Less
Depictive secondary predicates such as ‘raw’ in ‘George ate the fish raw’ are important for current issues in syntactic and semantic theory, in particular predication theory, phrase structure theories, issues of control and grammatical relations, and verbal aspect. This book approaches depictive secondary predication from a cross-linguistic point of view. It traces all the relevant phenomena and brings together critical surveys and new contributions on their morphosyntactic and semantic properties. It particularly considers similarities and differences between secondary predicates and other types of adjuncts, including adverbials of manner, comparison, quantity, and location. The book's approach is theory-neutral and pragmatic: it draws on insights and research traditions ranging from the minimalist program to semantic maps methodology.
Wolfram Hinzen and Michelle Sheehan
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199654833
- eISBN:
- 9780191747977
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654833.003.0006
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics, Psycholinguistics / Neurolinguistics / Cognitive Linguistics
Some aspects of linguistic organization traditionally identified as grammatical, such as Case, are said not to feed into the organization of thought or meaning—at least not directly. So why are they ...
More
Some aspects of linguistic organization traditionally identified as grammatical, such as Case, are said not to feed into the organization of thought or meaning—at least not directly. So why are they there? If they exist in the organization of grammar, they therefore either disconfirm the view that grammar necessarily subserves the organization of a special kind of meaning, or they are wrongly taken not to feed into the organization of meaning. We argue that once morphological Case features are carefully distinguished from the grammatical relations they express, they turn out to be indirectly relevant in the formal ontology of meaning. Yet, in narrow syntax itself, they don’t figure. Standard observations about a connection between Case and referentiality, Case and Tense, and Case and event mereology, follow from the account given.Less
Some aspects of linguistic organization traditionally identified as grammatical, such as Case, are said not to feed into the organization of thought or meaning—at least not directly. So why are they there? If they exist in the organization of grammar, they therefore either disconfirm the view that grammar necessarily subserves the organization of a special kind of meaning, or they are wrongly taken not to feed into the organization of meaning. We argue that once morphological Case features are carefully distinguished from the grammatical relations they express, they turn out to be indirectly relevant in the formal ontology of meaning. Yet, in narrow syntax itself, they don’t figure. Standard observations about a connection between Case and referentiality, Case and Tense, and Case and event mereology, follow from the account given.
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- January 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780199683215
- eISBN:
- 9780191764912
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683215.003.0010
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Language Families, Syntax and Morphology
Grammatical relations between participants are crucial for understanding how each language works. The chapter starts with a snap-shot of core grammatical relations, transitivity, and the marking of ...
More
Grammatical relations between participants are crucial for understanding how each language works. The chapter starts with a snap-shot of core grammatical relations, transitivity, and the marking of participants. The chapter then briefly addresses the types of systems, and touch upon the syntactic categories of ‘subject’ and ‘object’. The chapter discusses nominative-accusative systems, absolutive-ergative systems, and a variety of split ergative systems. Arguments of copula clauses, non-canonically marked arguments and possible relations between case marking, definiteness, and topicality are discussed in a separate section.Less
Grammatical relations between participants are crucial for understanding how each language works. The chapter starts with a snap-shot of core grammatical relations, transitivity, and the marking of participants. The chapter then briefly addresses the types of systems, and touch upon the syntactic categories of ‘subject’ and ‘object’. The chapter discusses nominative-accusative systems, absolutive-ergative systems, and a variety of split ergative systems. Arguments of copula clauses, non-canonically marked arguments and possible relations between case marking, definiteness, and topicality are discussed in a separate section.
Rebecca Hasselbach
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- May 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199671809
- eISBN:
- 9780191751165
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671809.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book investigates the case system and the marking of grammatical roles and relations in Semitic languages. It further attempts to provide an explanation for “unusual” usages of cases, especially ...
More
This book investigates the case system and the marking of grammatical roles and relations in Semitic languages. It further attempts to provide an explanation for “unusual” usages of cases, especially the accusative, that seem to violate the traditional interpretation of Semitic as exhibiting nominative/accusative alignment from a diachronic perspective. The basic methodologies applied for the diachronic reconstruction are those of historical and comparative linguistics. These methodologies, however, face severe limitations based on the lack of sufficient data for the earliest historically attested periods of Semitic (~ 2500–1800 BC). It is argued that these limitations can be mitigated by employing linguistic typology, which is a linguistic discipline that has not found wide reception among scholars working on Semitic languages so far. Based on both the comparative method and typological principles, the book investigates the alignment and marking of grammatical roles, basic word order patterns connected to the marking of roles, head- and dependent-marking patterns, and the function of the individual cases across Semitic. It concludes that although the alignment of historically attested Semitic languages is nominative/accusative, both morphologically and syntactically, they exhibit vestiges of a more archaic system that reflects a marked-nominative system. In this archaic system, the accusative functioned as the unmarked and default form of the noun that was used as citation form, for nominal predicates, the vocative, and for direct objects of transitive verbs. The nominative on the other hand, was the morphologically and syntactically marked form that solely functioned to mark nominal subjects.Less
This book investigates the case system and the marking of grammatical roles and relations in Semitic languages. It further attempts to provide an explanation for “unusual” usages of cases, especially the accusative, that seem to violate the traditional interpretation of Semitic as exhibiting nominative/accusative alignment from a diachronic perspective. The basic methodologies applied for the diachronic reconstruction are those of historical and comparative linguistics. These methodologies, however, face severe limitations based on the lack of sufficient data for the earliest historically attested periods of Semitic (~ 2500–1800 BC). It is argued that these limitations can be mitigated by employing linguistic typology, which is a linguistic discipline that has not found wide reception among scholars working on Semitic languages so far. Based on both the comparative method and typological principles, the book investigates the alignment and marking of grammatical roles, basic word order patterns connected to the marking of roles, head- and dependent-marking patterns, and the function of the individual cases across Semitic. It concludes that although the alignment of historically attested Semitic languages is nominative/accusative, both morphologically and syntactically, they exhibit vestiges of a more archaic system that reflects a marked-nominative system. In this archaic system, the accusative functioned as the unmarked and default form of the noun that was used as citation form, for nominal predicates, the vocative, and for direct objects of transitive verbs. The nominative on the other hand, was the morphologically and syntactically marked form that solely functioned to mark nominal subjects.
Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- August 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780262014816
- eISBN:
- 9780262295482
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014816.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Lexicography
This book rejects the notion that an English phrase of the form verb + determiner phrase [V + DP] invariably involves a grammatical relation properly characterized as a direct object. It argues ...
More
This book rejects the notion that an English phrase of the form verb + determiner phrase [V + DP] invariably involves a grammatical relation properly characterized as a direct object. It argues instead that at least three distinct relations occur in such a structure. The different syntactic properties of these three kinds of objects are shown by how they behave in passives, middles, -able forms, tough movement, wh-movement, Heavy NP Shift, Ride Node Raising, re-prefixation, and many other tests. This proposal renders the book’s position sharply different from that of Noam Chomsky, who defined a direct object structurally as noun phrase, verb phrase [NP, VP], and with the traditional linguistics text’s definition of the direct object as the DP sister of V. According to the book’s framework, sentence structures are complex graph structures built on nodes (vertices) and edges (arcs). The node that heads a particular edge represents a constituent which bears the grammatical relation named by the edge label to its tail node. This approach allows two DPs that have very different grammatical properties to occupy what looks like identical structural positions. The contrasting behaviors of direct objects, which at first seem anomalous—even grammatically chaotic—emerge in Postal’s account as nonanomalous, as symptoms of hitherto ungrasped structural regularity.Less
This book rejects the notion that an English phrase of the form verb + determiner phrase [V + DP] invariably involves a grammatical relation properly characterized as a direct object. It argues instead that at least three distinct relations occur in such a structure. The different syntactic properties of these three kinds of objects are shown by how they behave in passives, middles, -able forms, tough movement, wh-movement, Heavy NP Shift, Ride Node Raising, re-prefixation, and many other tests. This proposal renders the book’s position sharply different from that of Noam Chomsky, who defined a direct object structurally as noun phrase, verb phrase [NP, VP], and with the traditional linguistics text’s definition of the direct object as the DP sister of V. According to the book’s framework, sentence structures are complex graph structures built on nodes (vertices) and edges (arcs). The node that heads a particular edge represents a constituent which bears the grammatical relation named by the edge label to its tail node. This approach allows two DPs that have very different grammatical properties to occupy what looks like identical structural positions. The contrasting behaviors of direct objects, which at first seem anomalous—even grammatically chaotic—emerge in Postal’s account as nonanomalous, as symptoms of hitherto ungrasped structural regularity.
