Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton May 1, 2015

Two possible universals: The Major Biactant Construction; the twofold notion of subject

  • Gilbert Lazard EMAIL logo
From the journal Linguistic Typology

Abstract

Are grammatical relations universals or only convenient comparative notions? In this article, it is claimed that, behind current grammatical notions, there might exist universal finer-grained relationships. Two likely universal invariants are presented as hypotheses: (i) The Major Biactant Construction, defined as the construction expressing prototypical action in any language, is also universally used as a model pattern for the expression of other kinds of events. (ii) The traditional notion of subject (in accusative languages) is a conflation of two different functions, predication subject and reference subject, which are separated both in ergative languages and in affective/experiential constructions. These hypotheses have to be systematically tested by extensive investigation. After verification, being located at the core of the syntax of any language, they will entail consequences of the utmost importance for typology.

Abbreviations

3 = 3rd person; ACC = accusative; ART = article; AUX = auxiliary; DAT = dative; DEF = definite; ERG = ergative; INDEF = indefinite; NEG = negative; NOM = nominative; PL = plural; PST = past; REFL = reflexive.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., R. M. W.Dixon & MasayukiOnishi.2001. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.46Search in Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery.1985. The major functions of the noun phrase. In TimothyShopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause structure: 62154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery.2007. The major functions of the noun phrase. In TimothyShopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edn.), Vol. 1: Clause structure: 132223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003Search in Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis.1995. Éléments de syntaxe générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Search in Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis.2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. 2 vols. Paris: Hermès Science.Search in Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia.2011. Language universals and linguistic knowledge. In Song (ed.)2011, 227249.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William.1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William.2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W.1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S.1997. Are grammatical relations universal?In JoanL.Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A.Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 115143. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.82.09drySearch in Google Scholar

Falk, Yehuda N.2006. Subjects and universal grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486265Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy.1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.74Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E.1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884210Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2010. Framework-free grammatical theory. In BerndHeine & HeikoNarrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 341365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0014Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin.2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology15. 535567.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A.Thompson.1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56. 251299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar

Kazenin, Konstantin I.1994. Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung47. 7898.10.1524/stuf.1994.47.2.78Search in Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L.1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Li (ed.)1976, 303333.Search in Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo.2011. Transitivity typology. In Song (ed.)2011, 346367.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.1993. La zone objectale. Actances7. 1534. http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/actances/Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.1994. L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.1995. La notion de distance actancielle. In JanineBouscaren, Jean-JacquesFranckel & StéphaneRobert (eds.), Langues et langages – Problèmes et raisonnements en linguistique: Mélanges offerts à Antoine Culioli, 135146. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Reprinted in Gilbert Lazard, Études de linguistique générale, Vol. 1: Typologie grammaticale, 387–398. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808100Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica36. 141190. Reprinted in Lazard (2012a), 139–188.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2006. La quête des invariants interlangues: La linguistique est-elle une science?Paris: Champion.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2011a. Horizons de la linguistique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris106(1). 3994. Reprinted in Lazard (2012a), 247–302.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2011b. Vers une science des langues. Un exemple: La transitivité. Faits de langues38. 1727.10.1163/19589514-038-01-900000003Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2012a. Études de linguistique générale, Vol. 2: La linguistique pure. Leuven: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2012b. The case for pure linguistics. Studies in Language36. 241259.10.1075/sl.36.2.02lazSearch in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert.2014. Considérations insolites sur les avatars de la linguistique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris109(1). 89120.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth & Malka RappaportHovav.2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

MonodBecquelin, Aurore & CédricBecquey.2012. Case patterns and verb classes in Trumai. In GillesAuthier & KatharinaHaude (eds.), Ergativity, valency and voice, 289322. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110227734.289Search in Google Scholar

Næss, Åshild.2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.72Search in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria, Carlos GómezGallo, PeterGraff & EkaterinaKravtchenko.2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua122. 267277.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de.1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. 5th edn., 1960.Search in Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul.1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor topic, or none of the above. In Li (ed.)1976, 491518.Search in Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul.1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subject. In PeterCole & Jerrold M.Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and semantics 8), 279306. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368866_012Search in Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi.1982. Japanese grammar and universal grammar. Lingua57. 103123.10.1016/0024-3841(82)90002-XSearch in Google Scholar

Song, Jae Jung (ed.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. JR. 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.82Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-8-30
Revised: 2015-2-13
Published Online: 2015-5-1
Published in Print: 2015-5-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 19.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2015-0004/html
Scroll to top button