Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Working Paper (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Ergativ (6) (remove)
On transitivity
(2011)
This paper critically discusses and contrasts some of the different conceptualisations of transitivity that have been presented in the literature, and argues that transitivity as a morphosyntactic phenomenon and effectiveness of an event as a semantic concept should be separated in discussions of transitivity, and also, like many other aspects of grammar, transitivity should be seen as a constructional phenomenon, and so each construction in a language needs to be examined separately, in natural contexts. An Appendix presents some general questions one can consider when analysing language data.
Using arguments based on the data on verb agreement (pronominalization) in Tibeto-Burman, LaPolla 1989 (see also LaPolla 1992) argues that Proto-Tibeto-Burman should be reconstructed as a language with no inflectional morphology. In that paper it is argued that the Proto-Tibeto- Burman system of grammatical relations1 was closer to the typical 'role-dominated' (Van Valin & Foley 1980) Burmese-Yipho system (epitomized by Lahu—see Matisoff 1973). That is, a system where there is no definable 'subject' or 'direct object'; a system where semantic and pragmatic principles govern the organization of discourse, not syntactic functions. In this paper we look at the nature of 'objects' in Tibeto-Burman languages, and here also find support for this view of Proto-Tibeto-Burman grammatical relations. From a survey of ninety-five reliable grammars or descriptions of languages in the Tibeto-Burman family, I found eleven languages with no nominal object marking, twenty languages with nominal morphology consistently marking the patient as object, regardless of clause type, and sixty-four languages with a type of marking where the patient in monotransitve clauses is often or always marked with the same postposition as the goal or beneficiary (dative) in ditransitve clauses. This type of marking is discussed in Dryer 1986 as Primary Object marking. I argue that this type of marking in the Tibeto-Burman languages reflects the semantically based nature of grammatical relations in Proto-Tibeto-Burman.
It is common knowledge in the field of Philippine linguistics that an ang-marked direct object in a non-actor focus clause must be definite or generic, while a ng-marked object in an actor focus clause typically receives a nonspecific interpretation. However, in contexts like wh-questions, the oblique object in an antipassive may be interpreted as specific, as noted by Schachter & Otanes (1972), Maclachlan & Nakamura (1997), Rackowski (2002), and others. […] In this paper, I propose to account for the specificity effects […] within the analysis of Tagalog syntax put forth by Aldridge (2004). I analyze Tagalog as an ergative language […]. Cross linguistically, antipassive oblique objects receive a nonspecific interpretation, while absolutives are definite or generic. I show in this paper how the Tagalog facts can be subsumed under a general account of ergativity.
In what follows, we will first put forward the claim that syntactic ergativity results from morphological ergativity by examining relativization and pea-coordination in Tongan (Section 2). In Sections 3 and 4, we compare 'O-constructions with pea-constructions to conclude a) that unlike pea, 'O should be regarded as a complementizer rather than a conjunction; and b) that the gap in 'O-clauses is not an outcome of deletion, but a null anaphor. We will then discuss a Minimalist approach to binding proposed by Reuland (2001) and see how it accounts for the distribution and behavior of proSE in Tongan. Some implications of the current proposal are discussed in Section 6, with section 7 in conclusion.
Ergativity in Samoan
(1985)
Most typological and language specific studies on so- called ergative languages are concerned with case marking patterns, particularly split ergativity, with the organization of syntactic relations as defined by syntactic operations such as coreferential deletion across coordinate conjunctions, Equi-NP-deletion and relativization , and with the notion of subject, but usually neglect the notion of valency, though the inherent relational properties of the verb , i. e. valency, play a fundamental role in the syntactic organization of sentences in ergative as well as in other languages . The following investigation of ergativity in Samoan aims to integrate the notion of valency into the description of semantic and syntactic relations and to outline the characteristic features of Samoan verbal clauses as far as they seem to be relevant to recent and still ongoing discussions on linguistic typology and syntactic theory. The main points of the definition of valency […] are: Valency is the property of the verb which determines the obligatory and optional number of its participants, their morphosyntactic form, their semantic class membership (e.g. ± animate, ± human) , and their semantic role (e.g. agent , patient , recipient). All semantic properties and morphosyntactic properties of participants not inherently given by the verb and therefore not predictable from the verb, are not a matter of valency. Valency is not a homogenous property of the verb, but consists of several exponents which show varying degress of relevance in different languages or different verb classes within a single language.
Das Ziel der folgenden Betrachtungen besteht weniger in der Lieferung eines prinzipiell neuen Beitrags sei es zur Unterscheidung akkusativischer, ergativischer und aktivischer Konstruktionstypen oder sei es zu derjenigen verschiedener Aktantenfunktionen (cf. Heger 1976 § 4 1.2 ) als vielmehr im Nachweis der Brauchbarkeit der letzteren als eines noematischen – d.h. von je einzelsprachlichen Gegebenheiten unabhängigen – tertium comparationis für den Vergleich der ersteren und ihrer verschiedenen Subtypen Im Rahmen dieser Zielsetzung ist es legitim, die folgenden Betrachtungen auf die Frage nach den Bezeichnungen der Prädikativ-Funktion (die einem Aktanten eine Eigenschaft, einen Zustand oder eine Zustandsveränderung zuschreibt), der Kausal-Funktion (die einen Aktanten als denjenigen theoretischen Ort charakterisiert, von dem die Ursache eines Zustands oder Vorgangs ausgeht) und der Final-Funktion (die einen Aktanten als denjenigen theoretischen Ort charakterisiert, an dem sich die Wirkung eines Zustands oder Vorgangs vollzieht) einzuschränken. Dennoch ist der einleitende Hinweis auf die zumindest theoretisch unbegrenzte Unterscheidbarkeit weiterer Aktantenfunktionen wichtig, da er die naheliegende Frage beantwortet, warum in keiner Sprache eineindeutige Bezeichnungen von Aktantenfunktionen anzutreffen sind: im Fall der Bezeichnung von Aktantenfunktionen durch Kasusgrammeme am Nomen würde eine derartige Lösung kaum mehr handhabbare Flexionsparadigmen entstehen lassen und in Fall ihrer Bezeichnung durch Kongruenzmarkierung am Verb darüber hinaus zu monströsen Konjugationsformen führen.