Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Appeal
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Syntactically based and semantically based marking
- 3 Intra-clausal or morphological ergativity
- 4 Types of split system
- 5 The category of ‘subject’
- 6 Inter-clausal or syntactic ergativity
- 7 Language change
- 8 The rationale for ergativity
- Appendix: A note on theoretical models
- References
- Index of authors
- Index of languages and language families
- Subject index
5 - The category of ‘subject’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Appeal
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Syntactically based and semantically based marking
- 3 Intra-clausal or morphological ergativity
- 4 Types of split system
- 5 The category of ‘subject’
- 6 Inter-clausal or syntactic ergativity
- 7 Language change
- 8 The rationale for ergativity
- Appendix: A note on theoretical models
- References
- Index of authors
- Index of languages and language families
- Subject index
Summary
Turning our attention now to syntax, we can first of all note the confusion concerning the identity of the ‘subject’ in ergative languages. This confusion results simply from the fact that linguistic theory evolved in the context of the better-known languages of Europe, which have a predominantly accusative character at every level. For languages of this type, certain semantic and grammatical properties coincide to give a two-sided definition of subject. The ‘subject’ of a sentence is that NP whose referent could be the ‘agent’ that initiates and controls an activity; the subject NP is normally obligatory in a sentence, receives the unmarked case, may be cross-referenced in the verb, and is the pivot for operations of coordination and subordination.
For ergative languages, these semantic and grammatical criteria for ‘subject’ do not coincide; to employ the notion of subject in such languages, one must decide, in effect, which of the two kinds of criteria should take precedence. Some linguists emphasise semantic criteria, but encounter severe difficulties in explaining all types of grammatical processes in terms of semantically defined ‘subject’ for ergative languages. (In the Appendix, I describe difficulties which Relational Grammar has had in accounting for antipassive derivations.) Other linguists take syntactic/morphological criteria as basic; this facilitates statements of grammatical derivation, but is bound to complicate any attempt to provide semantic interpretation for the grammar.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ergativity , pp. 111 - 142Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1994
- 1
- Cited by