Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Founded by Plank, Frans

Editor-in-Chief: Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.500
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.675

CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.336
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.517

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 21, Issue 1

Issues

Do grammatical relations reflect information status? Reassessing Preferred Argument Structure theory against discourse data from Tondano

Timothy C. Brickell / Stefan Schnell
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-07-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0005

Abstract

We test Preferred Argument Structure theory against corpus data from Tondano, an Austronesian language with symmetrical voice. Investigating the use of full noun phrases in individual argument positions, we find no significant clustering of both S and P as opposed to A, hence no discourse ergativity. Moreover, neither pivotal nor non-pivotal grammatical relations appear to specialise in the accommodation of full noun phrases. Thus, grammatical relations do not serve as architecture for regulating information flow in discourse. Only constituent order reflects information flow, so that full noun phrases tend to occur in clause-final position. More generally, correlations of humanness and topicality predict most straightforwardly attested patterns of argument realisation.

Keywords: alignment; animacy; Austronesian; discourse; grammatical relations; information structure; pragmatics; syntax; Tondano; transitivity; voice; word order

References

  • Adams, Karen L. & Alexis Manaster-Ramer. 1988. Some questions of topic/focus choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27. 79–101.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Andrews, Avery. 2007. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, 132–223.Google Scholar

  • Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

  • Bell, Sarah J. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16387

  • Bell, Sarah J. 1978. Two differences in definiteness in Cebuano and Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 17. 1–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kamal K. Choudhary, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10(8). e0132819. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132819Crossref

  • Blake, Frank R. 1906. Expression of case by the verb in Tagalog. Journal of the American Oriental Society 27. 183–189.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brickell, Timothy C. 2015. A grammatical description of the Tondano (Toundano) language. Melbourne: La Trobe University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subjects and topics, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • De Guzman, Videa P. 1988. Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In McGinn (ed.) 1988, 323–345.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–855.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. 2003a. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In Du Bois et al. (eds.) 2003, 1–60.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. 2003b. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 1, 47–88. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.). 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Durie, Mark. 2003. New light on information pressure: Information conduits, “escape valves”, and role alignment stretching. In Du Bois et al. (eds.) 2003, 159–196.Google Scholar

  • Everett, Caleb. 2009. A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language 33. 1–24.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax & Semantics 8), 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Foley, William. 2007. A typology of information packaging in the clause. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, 362–446.Google Scholar

  • Foley, William. 2008. The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, 22–44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In McGinn (ed.) 1988, 295–321.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2004. Discourse and argument structure. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 427–441. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2014. Annotations using GRAID (Grammatical Relations and Animacy in Discourse): Manual. Version 7.0. https://lac.uni-koeln.de/corpora/Multi-CAST/_multicast_background/Annotations/HaigSchnell2014_GRAID-Manual7.pdf

  • Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016a. Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts. https://lac.uni-koeln.de/de/multicast/ (accessed 20 September 2016)

  • Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016b. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92. 591–618.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haig, Geoffrey, Stefan Schnell & Claudia Wegener. 2011. Comparing corpora from endangered languages: Explorations in language typology based on original texts. In Geoffrey Haig, Nicole Nau, Stefan Schnell & Claudia Wegener (eds.), Documenting endangered languages: Achievements and perspectives, 55–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Review of Du Bois et al. (eds.) 2003. Language 82. 908–912.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in two northern Sulawesi languages. In Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The history and typology of Western Austronesian voice systems (Pacific Linguistics 518), 123–142. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–173. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35. 1–49.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notion of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Kumpf, Eleonore. 2003. Genre and Preferred Argument Structure: Sources of argument structure in classroom discourse. In Du Bois et al. (eds.) 2003, 110–130.Google Scholar

  • Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • McFarland, Curtis D. 1978. Definite objects and subject selection in Philippine languages. In Casilda Edrial-Luzares & Austin Hale (eds.), Studies in Philippine linguistics 2(1). 139–182. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar

  • McGinn, Richard (ed.). 1988. Studies in Austronesian linguistics. Athens, OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Center for International Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar

  • Naylor, Paz Buenaventura. 1975. Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics 14. 12–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a new taxonomy of given and new. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Riesberg, Sonja. 2014. Symmetrical voice and linking in Western Austronesian languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Riesberg, Sonja & Beatrice Primus. 2015. Agent prominence in symmetrical voice languages. Language Typology and Universals 68. 551–564.Google Scholar

  • Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause structure. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Starosta, Stanley. 1988. A grammatical typology of Formosan languages. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (Academia Sinica) 59(2). 541–576.Google Scholar

  • Starosta, Stanley. 1999. Transitive, ergative, and the best analysis of Atayal case marking. In Elizabeth Zeitoun & Paul Jen-kuei Li (eds.), Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (8ICAL), 371–392. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-04-03

Revised: 2016-11-08

Published Online: 2017-07-06

Published in Print: 2017-07-26


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 177–208, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0005.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Sophie Villerius
Linguistics in the Netherlands, 2018, Volume 35, Page 139

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in