Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Division of Labour: the Role-semantic Function of Basic Order and Case

  • Chapter
Contrastive Analysis in Language

Abstract

A common assumption in cross-linguistic research of both functionalist and generative provenance is that basic word order and case relations are functionally equivalent means of coding semantic roles. Formulated in syntactic terms, the assumption is that case and basic order (deep structure) are functionally equivalent manifestations of grammatical functions such as subject or object.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 170.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abraham, W. ‘Ergativa sind Perfektiva’, Zeitschrift fcir Sprachwissenschaft, 12 (1994), pp. 157–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aissen, J. ‘Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17 (1999), pp. 673–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. R. ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages’, in Ch. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. C. ‘On the structural position of themes and goals’, in J. Rooryck and L. Zauring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996), pp. 7–34.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. C. ‘Thematic roles and syntactic structure’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997), pp. 73–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, B. J. Australian Aboriginal Grammar (London: Croom Helm, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blansitt, E. L. ‘Bitransitive clauses’, Working Papers on Language Universals, 13 (1973), pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. Italian Syntax: a Government and Binding Approach (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charachidzê, G. Grammaire de la langue avar (Paris: Jean-Favard, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht: Foris, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. ‘Ergativity’, in W. P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language (Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1978), pp. 329–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulson, S., King, J. and Kutas, M. ‘Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (1998), pp. 21–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: the Cognitive Organization of Information (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. ‘Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs’, in J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993), pp. 55–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dik, S. C. Functional Grammar (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. The Dyirbal Language ofNorth Queensland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. ‘Ergativity’, Language, 55 (1979), pp. 59–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. ‘Studies in ergativity. Introduction’, Lingua, 71 (1987), pp. 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. R. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1979).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. R. ‘Grammatical relations and Montague Grammar’, in P. T. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum (eds), The Nature of Syntacric Representation (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1982), pp. 79–130.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. R. ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument selection’, Language, 67 (1991), pp. 547–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fales, E. Causation and Universals (London: Routledge, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. “‘Ergative” Verben und die Struktur des Mittelfelds’, in L. Hoffmann (ed.), Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), pp. 276–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D. ‘The neurobiology of language processing’, in A. D. Friederici (ed.), Language Comprehension: a Biological Perspective (Berlin: Springer, 1999), pp. 265–304.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S. ‘Verb-Argument-Struktur, Kasus und thematische Interpretation beim Sprachverstehen’, MPI-Series in Cognitive Neuroscience, 12 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S. and Schlesewsky, M. ‘The processing of double case ungrammaticalities in German’ (MS, Universitat Potsdam, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregores, E. and Suarez, J. A. A Description of Colloquial Guarani (The Hague: Mouton, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, G. Ergativity in German (Dordrecht: Foris, 1989).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haider, H. Deutsche Syntax —generativ (Tiibingen: Narr, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K. ‘Waribiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1983), pp. 5–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. ‘There is no lexicon!’, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. ‘Is Dyirbal ergative?’, Linguistics, 17 (1979), pp. 401–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helbig, G. and Buscha, J. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch far den Ausldnderunterricht, 11th edn (Leipzig: Enzyklopadie Verlag, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’, Language, 56 (1980), pp. 251–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structures (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, I. ‘0- and D-predicates. A semantic approach to the unaccusative—unergative distinction’, Journal ofSemantics, 12 (1995), pp. 377–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, K. E. (ed.). Discourse Configurational Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. and Kutscher, S. ‘Psychic verbs and lexical economy’, Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs282 ‘Theorie des Lexikons’, 122 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimov, G. A. ‘On the character of active languages’, Linguistics, 131 (1974), pp. 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz-Garboden, A. ‘A stochastic OT approach to word order variation in Korlai Portuguese’, Proceedings of the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. ‘Lexical representations and the nature of the dative alternation’, paper presented at the conference ‘The Lexicon in Linguistic Theory’, Diisseldorf, 22–24 August (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A. M. ‘A theory of agency’, in D. Sperber, D. Premack and A. J. Premack (eds), Causal Cognition: a Multidisciplinary Debate (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 121–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax—Lexical Semantics Interface (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. ‘Causation’, Journal of Philosophy, 70 (1973), pp. 556–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libet, B. ‘Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8 (1985), pp. 529–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G. and Macfarland, T. ‘Externally and internally caused change of state verbs’, Language, 76 (2000), pp. 833–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Merlan, F. ‘Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection’, in J. Nichols and A. C. Woodburry (eds), Grammar inside and outside the Clause (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 324–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. ‘Active/agentive case marking and its motivations’, Language, 67 (1991), pp. 510–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monod-Becquelin, A. ‘Classes verbales et construction ergative en trumai’, Amerindia, 1 (1976), pp. 117–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OttOsson, K. G. ‘Icelandic double objects as small clauses’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 48 (1991), pp. 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pafel, J. ‘Scope and word order’, in J. Jacobs et al. (eds), Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), pp. 867–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D. M. ‘Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis’, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistic Society (1978), pp. 157–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition: the Acquisition of Argument Structure (Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D. ‘The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects’, Cognition, 36 (1990), pp. 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D. and Premack, A. J. ‘Intention as psychological cause’, in D. Sperber, D. Premack and A. J. Premack (eds), Causal Cognition: a Multidisciplinary Debate (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 185–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primus, B. ‘Relational typology’, in J. Jacobs et al. (eds), Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), pp. 1076–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primus, B. ‘The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe’, in A. Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 421–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primus, B. Cases and Thematic Roles — Ergative, Accusative and Active (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Primus, B. (In press) ‘Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariation bei psychischen Verben’, in Martin Hummel and Rolf Kailuweit (eds), Semantische Rollen (Tubingen: Narr, 2002a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Primus, B. Troto-roles and case selection in Optimality Theory’, Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs282 ‘Theori.e des Lexikons’, 122 (2002b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. ‘Optimality Theory’ (MS, Rutgers University, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, I. Partizipien und semantische Struktur. Zur passivischen Konstruktion mit dem 3. Status (Tiibingen: Stauffenburg, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation (London: Croom Helm, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. ‘The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations’, in D. M. Perlmutter and C. G. Rosen (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 38–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasse, H.-J. ‘Subjekt und Ergativ: Zur pragmatischen Grundlage primarer grammatischer Relationen’, Folia Linguistica, 12 (1978), pp. 219–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibatani, M. ‘Applicatives and benefactives: a cognitive account’, in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thomson (eds), Grammatical Constructions: their Form and Meaning (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 167–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in R. M. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (Canberra: Humanities Press, 1976), pp. 112–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmuller, W. Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie. Vol. I: Erklarung, Begriindung, Kausalität, 2nd edn (Berlin: Springer, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R. D. ‘Semantic parameters of split intransitivity’, Language, 66 (1990), pp. 221–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G. H. von Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, H. ‘Ergativkonstruktionen im Deutschen’, in W. Kurschner, Rudiger Vogt and Sabine Siebert-Neumann (eds), Grammatik, Semantik, Textlinguistik (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1985), pp. 187–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich, D. ‘Cause and the structure of verbs’, Linguistic Inquiry, 28 (1997), pp. 27–68.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Beatrice Primus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, Belgium

    Dominique Willems (Professor of French Linguistics) (Professor of French Linguistics)

  2. University of Ghent’s, UK

    Bart Defrancq (Senior researcher Attached), Timothy Colleman (Researcher Attached) & Dirk Noël (Senior researcher Attached) (Senior researcher Attached),  (Researcher Attached) &  (Senior researcher Attached)

Copyright information

© 2003 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Primus, B. (2003). Division of Labour: the Role-semantic Function of Basic Order and Case. In: Willems, D., Defrancq, B., Colleman, T., Noël, D. (eds) Contrastive Analysis in Language. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524637_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation