Markedness pp 169-217 | Cite as

The Semiotic Theory of Ergativity and Markedness

  • Sebastian Shaumyan
Chapter

Abstract

The theories of ergativity now prevailing claim that the syntactic organization of ergative constructions in ergative languages follows the pattern of accusative constructions in accusative languages.

Keywords

Direct Object Grammatical Category Semiotic Theory Primary Term Syntactic Function 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, S. R. (1976). ‘On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages’. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, Howard I. (1977). ‘English as an Active Language’. Lingua 41, 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, Howard I. (1970). ’Toward a Semantic Analysis of Case and Subject in Georgian’. Lingua 25.Google Scholar
  4. Blake, Berry J. (1977). Case Markings in Australian Languages Linguistic Series 23 ). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Boas, Franz (1938). ‘Language’. General Anthropology. Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Bühler, Karl (1931). ‘Phonetik und Phonologie’. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4.Google Scholar
  7. Catford, Ian C. (1975). ‘Ergativity in Caucasian Languages’. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
  8. Churchward, C. M. (1953). Tongan Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Comrie, Bernard (1979). ‘Degrees of Ergativity: Some Chukchee Evidence’. In Plank, F. (ed.).Google Scholar
  10. Cowrie, Bernard, (1978). ‘Ergativity’. In Lehman, W. P. (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Austin: University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Comrie, Bernard (1976). ‘The Syntax and Semantics in Causative Constructions: Crosslanguage Similarities and Divergences’. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6, New York and London: Academic Press. 261–312.Google Scholar
  12. Curry, Haskell B. and Feys, Robert (1958). Combinatory Logic, vol. 1 Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  13. Desclés, Jean-Pierre; Guentchéva, Zlatka; Shaumyan, Sebastian (1985). Theoretical aspects of Passivization in the Framework of Applicative Grammar. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. Dik, Simon C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). ‘Ergativity’. Language 55, 59–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixon, R.M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.) (1976). Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (Linguistic Series 22 ). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  18. Einstein, Albert (1973). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Dell Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, Alice C. (1976). Grammatical Relations in Modern Georgian. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jakobson, Roman. (1971). Boas’ view on grammatical meaning. In Roman Jakobson, Selected Writing, Vol. 2, The Hague: Mouton, 488–496.Google Scholar
  21. Jakobson, Roman (1971a). ‘Krugovorot lingvisticeskix terminov’. In Avanesov, P. (red.), Fonetika. Fonologija. Grammatika. Moskva: Nauka, 348–387.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. E. (1976). ‘Ergativity in Universal Grammar’. To appear in Perlmutter, D. M. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar.Google Scholar
  23. Kalmâr, I. (1979). ‘The Antipassive and Grammatical Relations in Eskimo’. In Plank, F. (ed.).Google Scholar
  24. Keenan, Edward L. (1975). “Towards a Universal Definition of Subject”. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, Edward L. (1975). ‘Some Universals of Passive in Relational Grammar’. Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard (1977). ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility in Universal Grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–69.Google Scholar
  27. Kibrik, A. E. (1979). ‘Canonical Ergativity and Daghestan Languages’. In Plank, F. (ed. )Google Scholar
  28. Klimov, G. A. (1977). Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  29. Klimov, G.A. (1974). ‘K proisxozdeniju ergativnoj konstrukcii predlozenija’. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4, 3–12.Google Scholar
  30. Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1975). “Extrapolation d’une loi. linguistique”. Esquisses linguistiques II. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 55–66.Google Scholar
  31. Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1960). “La construction ergative et le developpement ‘stadial’ du language”. Esquisses linguistiques I, deuxieme edition. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 95–103.Google Scholar
  32. Larsen, T. W. and Norman, W. M. (1979). ‘Correlates of Ergativity in Mayan Grammar’. In Plank, F. (ed.).Google Scholar
  33. Martinet, A. (1975). Studies in Functional Syntax. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Mel’cuk, Igor (1983). ‘Grammatical Subject and the Problem of the Ergative Construction in Lezgian’. Papers in Linguistics 2. Studies in the Languages of the USSR. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
  35. Moravcsik, Edith A. (1978). ‘On the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative Patterns’. Lingua 45, 233–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plank, Frans (ed.) (1979). Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Postal, P. M. (1977). ‘Antipassive in French’. NELS 7, 273–313.Google Scholar
  38. Quang, Phuc Dong (1971). ‘English Sentence without Overt Grammatical Subject’. In Zwicky, A. M. et a]. (eds.), Studies Out in Left Field: Defamatory Essays Presented to James McCawley, Edmonton: Linguistic Research, 3–10.Google Scholar
  39. Regamay, C. (1954). “A propos de la ‘constuction ergative’ en Indo-Arien Moderne”. Sprachegeschichte und Wortbedeutung. Festschrift Albert Debrunner. Bern: Francke Verlag, 363–384.Google Scholar
  40. Sapir, E. (1917). “Review of ‘Het passieve Karakter van het Verbum actionis in Talen van Noord-Amerika’ by C. C. Uhlenbeck”. IJAL 1, 82–86.Google Scholar
  41. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  42. Schmerling, Susan (1979). ‘A Categoria] Analysis of Dyirbal’. Texas Linguisitic Forum, vol 13, 96–112.Google Scholar
  43. Schönfinkel, M. (1924). ’über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik’. Mathematische Annalen 92, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schuchardt, H. (1906). ‘Uher den aktivischen und passivischen Charakter des Transitivs’. Indogermanische Forschungen 18, 528–531Google Scholar
  45. Shaumyan, Sebastian (1985). Semiotic Theory of Language. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  46. Shaumyan, Sebastian (1981). ‘Constituency, Dependency, and Applicative Structure’. To appear in Makkai, Adam and Melby, Alan K. (ed. ), The Rulon Wells Festschrift.Google Scholar
  47. Shaumyan, Sebastian (1977). Applicative Grammar as a Semantic Theory of Natural Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tchekhoff, Claude (1978). Aux Fondements de la Syntaxe: L’Ergatif. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  49. Van Valin J., Robert D. (1977). ‘Ergativity and Universality of Subjects’. In Beach, W. A., Fox, S. E., Philosoph, S. (eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  50. Vinogradov, V. (red.) (1967). Jazyki narodov SSSR, vol, 4. Iherijskokavkazskie jazyki. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Shaumyan
    • 1
  1. 1.Yale UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations