Non-canonical Agent Marking in Agul

  • Dmitry Ganenkov
  • Timur Maisak
  • Solmaz Merdanova
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 72)

This paper investigates the means of Agent encoding in Agul, a language from the Lezgic branch of the East Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) family. Agul is spoken by approximately 30 thousand speakers in the Agul and Kurah districts of Southern Daghestan, Russia. Our study is based on the data from the Hupuq’ dialect (spoken by some 600 speakers).


Word Order Semantic Role Transitive Verb Core Argument Grammatical Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (2001). Proto-Properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Auwera, J. van der and V. Plungian (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2.1, 79-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardinaletti, A. and M. Starke (1999). Responses and demonstratives. Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology. Ed. by H. van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Daniel, M., T. Maisak and S. Merdanova (2004). Causatives, decausatives and lability in Agul. International Symposium on the Typology of Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia (LENCA-2). Kazan State University, Tatarstan, Russia, May 11-14. ( Scholar
  5. Dixon, R.M.W. and A.Y. Aikhenvald (2000). Introduction. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Ed. by Dixon, R.M.W. and A.Y. Aikhenvald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547-619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foley, W. and R. van Valin, Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Haspelmath, M. (1993). A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Kibrik, A.E. (1997). Beyond subject and object: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1.3, 279-346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kittilä, S. (2005). A typology of involuntary agent constructions. Word 56.3.Google Scholar
  11. Onishi, M. (2001). Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects. Parameters and Properties. Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Ed. by A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon and M. Onishi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Schulze, W. (to appear). A new model of metaphorization: Case semantics in East Caucasian. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Ed. by Barcelona, A., K. Panther, G. Radden and L.L. Thorburg. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dmitry Ganenkov
    • 1
  • Timur Maisak
    • 2
  • Solmaz Merdanova
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of LinguisticsRussian Academy of SciencesRussia
  2. 2.Institute of LinguisticsRussian Academy of SciencesRussia
  3. 3.Institute of LinguisticsRussian Academy of SciencesRussia

Personalised recommendations