Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dryer1997 Are Grammatical Relations Universal PDF

    Uploaded by

    KaoruTanakadeLira
    15 views15 pages

    Original Title

    Dryer1997_Are_Grammatical_Relations_Universal.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views15 pages

    Dryer1997 Are Grammatical Relations Universal PDF

    Uploaded by

    KaoruTanakadeLira

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    From Exsays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givén, edited by Joan Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra Thompson, pp. 115 = 143, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1997 Are Grammatical Relations Universal?* Matthew S. Dryer SUNY Buffalo 1 Introduction (Ove the past tweny-fve years, has been widely ssumed by many linguist that grammatical relations are universal inthe sens that the nsions of sabe and object apply 1 all languages. Among ngusts who make his assumpdon, thew are those who claim that they are discrete categories realized in all Tanguoges (cf. Pevinuver 1988) and tose who calm tat they ae protrype categories realized in al languages, although the raion in some languages willdeviae fom the protege more thas la oder languages (Keenan 1976, Comrie 1989; Givin 1985). A number of oter ngs Rave input hs Wem ‘hat grammatical relations ae universal (Schachter 1976) But even lnguiss ‘whe question the unvesalty of grammatical relaions geneally assume that ananassae univer in the ote tht they are fundamentally roslinguinie notions, absract notions that exist independently of parle Tanguges, but which manifest themselves or ae relied in parla language, “Ths in asking wheter grammatical lations ae universal these ings ae not asking wheter grammatical relaons are fundamentally crosingitc von: ate thy assume they readin asking wheter grammatical elation ‘Meniversal, they ae asking whether hese euslingisie noon are mies din all languages. The goal of ths paper isto argue that if one adopts Tumstionaist ves of language, ten te view tha grammatical relations are ‘crolagusc notion Becomes unnecessary Hf nt fle, The view tht prammatial elton ar rossingisi oto makes sense 1F coe adops the view of frmal ngusics that explanation of language is Tagly itera! 1 langage, wheter one takes the view that theo tons ‘ue theoretical primitives existing independent of cognition (a vew implicit in ‘much work ia Relional Grammar: Perlmuter 1983), or a6 compooeats of 6 Mathew S. Dryer Innate linguistic knowledge (asin vasous approaches associated with Chomsky 198 ier ala. This paper argues hat fon ado esa a funcional ie af language, a which explanations for language ae ot language-ineaal bt involve genera fanetiona and cognitive pices, then parma reais [rs costlinguste solos become unnecenry. at most «convenient tion “Tece ae four ins of things that might exit inthe domain of gamma «al elation, hse (1). (1) Grammatical relations in patil languages Similarities among. these. language-paricular_grammatis Funcom, cognitive, and semantic explanations for these sini 4 Grammatical elation in a eosinguisic sense “The goal ofthis paper so argue that under a functionalist view of fanguage the fit thee things in (1) exit but thatthe four one is unnecesty. Before proceeding owards the immediate oa ofthis poet. itis worth considering two ‘ter types of linguistic phenomena which might aso be viewed as rss guise bt where he dca hat they ae really language paricuar i somewhat more iniive and one tat already has is proponents. It i hoped tha the ‘scussion ofthese oer phenomena wil len plausibility to my chins sbout grammatical relations. 2. The Analogy of Word Classes as Crostlinguiste Categories “Te fit sch phenoienon is word clases Are word eases fundamentally cxosslingusie or ate they fundamentally laguage-pricuar? Under the view that they are conlinguisi, word cases ean be defined dependent of Particle langaiges ba hey will manfest heels in parla languages. Under this view, some word clases (soch as nouns or verbs) may e cles univer ne Sense that they ae realized (perhaps) i all languages. whe ers such as actives are likely to be claimed tbe ponies in te fone that they ar word cates ha ae realized in sme but ntl aaguages ‘Under te view tat word clases are fundamentally langhage-paricl, word ‘nse inch language re dfn the ass of language-parculardstibu- ional property and wile lnguage-paricular word clases in diferent languages may sffen resemble eachother, word cies ae fundamentally specif oeach langinge Are Grammatical Relations Universal? 7 “The view of word clases s language parclar i widely reflected within the mado of American Structralism, For example, Garvie (1948) lasied the words (or more sccurely word stems) of Kana lt hee morpologicl- |y dene classes that be called W, X, and ¥. The dering charactensies of thes the clases af he dssibton of «variety of grammatical fixes inthe Tanguge, which vide int te classes, hse which oecur with stems of cass Xv bose which occur with tems of clas, and thse which occur with tems ‘of ether class X or cles Y. These cases of affixes thus lead a clasifction tf semr asX,Y-or Ws bere W consis of ema which do ot ocr with ny Mtgen, Garvin's word elies ave dead by purely morpboogieal exter, bt the same approach canbe extended stnighvorwaly (ad offen hasbeen) on the ois of spect crite at well Inthe ease of Kateal, such an extension Teas to spliting ip the vst of uated words oto » number of tinct ‘ses onthe bass of their syntactic dsebation. ‘Now i one examines the meaning ofthe words belonging 1 clastes X,Y and W in Kuen oe cannot bt be srck bythe exten vo which the member tigi thse classes resembles traional word clases in English and other Tangoages, The word in clase X, for example, have meaning ke sing. “ie ont abd se” and the words in lass ave meanings ike “og ma "Taber and “ook In shor. one is tempted to say that words in class X ate “realy verb, tha thse in clase Y ae ‘ely nouns, a that those in lass W area separate clas of monverbl onomialuaineced words {wish o a8, however, that under 8 fontoalist view of language, soch a conclusion is, stil speaking corse, ha words in the Kuleal lass X are reall just th ‘ely “words inte Koteni claus X', and similarly fr elses ¥ and W. In (@) ae tinted four things that might vist in the domain of word clases, foaogous to the four things lite in (1) for grammatical elation. (2) Wood cases in paicua languages Similars among tes language particular word clases © Function, cognitive, and seman explanations for these sinilaties 4 Word lasses ina crostlinguitic sense [Agin want arg tat while the fit thre things is (2) exis, he fourth tne word cases na erslingunic sense, does ot, Hat i al mest & onenient tion, What defines the word elses in Kutei and in oer Tangsges af gamma properties specifi o each Language. The partelar ‘sto alison wich the word class in Kutenal are hse ae fines pee to Kotenal, Many of therm do semble lfines in ther languages in their us. Matthew 8. Dryer {uction, ut ulimaely the affixes themselves are fundamentally fie in that language: "Thoifoems are clesly lnguage-partcla and 0 fe any ofthe etl of thee dnribtion in the language ‘The notion of word clases as language-pariculr notions sa more fails fone than the notion of gramsmaia relations as language-paiculr, partly because they played @ mach more promipeat le ia the American Stctalit ‘tation than did grammatical reltos, And wile one might eecoghize word ‘clases in langage particular sense, some people might want os that there re also word clases a ctossinguii sense. Aer al when we examine the Tanguage- particular word clases each langusge, we fd stking smlaies sos languages, particulary in terms ofthe semantics asocaed with members ‘of parcular word classes, bt ao in tems of dstibutonal sires, And ‘when we do i such smilies, its a eas convenient to employ labels that fave been employed fr sini word clases in exer languages. I is thus at Teast convenient to eal words im Garvin's Koto class X vei and word in lass Y "nos. Such a coic af abel makes tease oremerber the labels and to follow discasions of the language, and i des daw ateton 10 the Similars between these word clases and word cases noe languages, Bu what is at issbe ere is wheter Ics anything more than just a mater of convenient labeling. Some linguists are tempted Yo hk tht more than conve en labeling sivolved ad to think of nouns and verbs ar somehow existing independent of particular languages and boing rained in each langsage. A ‘one moves aay from nous and vers, however, such temptation weakens, If language as a closed class of five words with meanings conesponding 10 basi adjectives in English (t Dison 197, re we to say that hat word cas isa vealzton ofthe same coslnguise adjective class athe open clas of !Mjctvesn English? Or ia language expreses meanings similar those of aujetves in English by words with properties very simul To Yes In the Tanguage bt stl dentable asa sels of verb, ate we to tay th tha subclass of esis ealzation ofthe sare rossinguii adjective cat? And I we ate ot sure what to sayin such cate, ate We to view the mater 8 a substamive ise o a merely 3 terminslogial one? IT one views word clases as discrete croslinguitic notion, then these questions are svbstantive questions, and there i a eve answer's” of 0" in ach case. If one views word clases as languae-pricuir notions, these ‘questions are purely terminological: t doesn't really mater what we eal tem ‘An intermediate view shat word clases re crosinguistie notion that wave potty. Under tis view the question of wheter 4 word cls na lnguage ‘San iastance of the coshingiste word ls sa sbstanive uestion, ough Inthe kindof borderline cases mentioned tbe aster Will at be either "er" Ot ‘Are Grammatical Relations Universal? 119 ‘no sutather something more like ‘Soo wil eur the protoye view in setionT below. The Analogy of Phonemes as Croslnguisic Categorie Simise observations can be mage about the nation of specie phonemes. ‘Analogous tothe above, there ae four things tht might be said exis a the domi of phonemes ted in (3) (3) Phonomes i paricuar languages Similarities among these lnguagepartiular phonemes 5 untons, cognitive, and aiculatry explanation for these similares 4. Phones in rossinguisi sense In the case of phonemes there le of @ tendency 1 thnk of them a e055 Lingus ens. Rater, phonemes ar geerlly ought of as fundamentally lungeage-paricular, since the precise phonetic domain associated. with & ‘homme sod he rules detsmining the dsuibaton of allopbones are agin, espe some crossingusc pate, ultimately lnguage-pariclar. Thus ii fie sarge to ask whether the phoneme fn English and the phoneme ph in Frock ae istancs ofthe same erosslingusc phoneme. Andis pric ly srange to ask what in Tha is an instance of the (eosin) phoneme fl, ‘their isthe spied hone o the warped phoneme Even $3) that oh sf nopreeypia instance ofthe erslingutc phoneme 08. ‘A roslinguinic notion of grammatical relations is much more widely ssced than a erosshapusue non of phones lo fat, pramatial elation are ofen thought fin esting terms tat it might not be immediately ‘Obvious what mean by language pacar pranimatealeatons. However (ignoring grarumatca laos at ther than the clause level if we consier all ‘fe elas ins langage (nso fra sch makes see) and comer all of the pis coming of «clause anda nomial argument of that clase, we find ‘hat soc pais of elements fall ifo'a numberof clases according 10 the ‘morhosytatic roperics ofthe langage lust this nthe nex econ ‘witha eter simplistic description of language-parclar grammatical relations in gl! 0 Matthew 8. Dryer 4 Language Particular Grammatical Relations english “My ueatment of grammatical ations in English this section i simi a spirit to Garis approach to word lass in Kana disused shove. wil, however, be rahe sheen, and i intended to give an idea of what i met fine grammatical elatons in lngusge on the basis language intro opens. rather than anything appeoaching an adeqote description of gram ‘eal eltions in English Consider how indvdual rls in English divide clase suments into elses. te case of ver apreemen, for example, we ca Aisinguish those causal armen that can tigger vet apcement ad tose that anaot In (0), for example, the apne He tigpers ve agreement Whe the argument thom dos ot (He sos them, We can thus divide ll ofthe pais consisting of clases and causal arguments Ingo to cases, which we en call Apreement-A and Agrement-B where the frst ofthese is those arguments which conwolagrement and the second i those which do not Ths He inthe close He sees them isan ApicementA, hile them isan Areemet-B. Simla, Job in Joh ser the dog i 80 [AnrementA but ian Agreement B in The dogs ce Jon, ‘Similar the case marking stm of English ony const include ‘0 nly morphological case but prepostions a well) canbe viewed a ving the argument of clases into thre sets: those which oer without a reposition ‘and coeur in nominative form whe they are pononinal(Cse-A), tose which ‘occur without a preposition and oscer in accsaive form wen they ae pronominal (Cate-B), and finally those which ccur wth «preposition (ond happen to occur in accusative form when pronominal) (Cae-C). Ths Bl i CCase-A in (3). him i Cas-B, and be oe with bers Case, (6) Bl sav hi with. And linear onder poston similarly can at est sini sproximatin, be seen as dividing arguments oo Tou lasses For example, coir the expe ne (6) John baked Mary a cake before lnc, We can disinguih four postions in (6), based on the stture of Engh clauses in general. Jon ia Poston in (6), Mary isa PostionB, aeate i 1 Poston, and Before lnc i Postion D, where Positon-As immediately precede the ver, Posiion-B's immediatly follow the ver Position: Immediately fllow Position Bs and Poston-D's fellow Poutio- B's and C's ‘Are Grammatical Relations Universal? 121 A ere af any. Unlike Poiions A, B and, more thn one element ca Bl Poston Ds (Jon baked Marya cake at home Before lush in the woo sore ‘And we could extend this to varios other grammatical rule that have been ‘shcwn nthe lrrature to be associated with subject n English, dsigush Tuer clases of laa arguments Now there i «suoag pater of clustering among the tee grammais inension in English that {have mentioned ere (at wll as obere based on ‘tee syntactic constructions). The set of Agreement As, the Se of Cse-A'S faethe set of Postion- sae lagly iene. This what nora called ‘jee ia English Sinualy,the set of Cate-B's agely correspond he un ofthe Position B's and Position C's. These ae what are nora called “object in English And the vet of Poidon-D's largely cortesponde tothe set of Due-C's. These ae wha are often ale “obliques But tbece ae soe mismaches. For example, the elrent lu might in sa her as igi a Posion-D, but does nt exhibit the properties of Case- CC unlike ober PostionD's. There are various ways to show that Ht 8 Poston-D not a poston-C. These coespond to vada eguments that lst right is nota Second complement of the ver, but eather an adjunct hese Inclue the fc hat ee Psion Ds can ely be add before it something not possible with Posiion C's). While thee ae a vasety of descriptive ap- Preaces to such mismiches, we ean sy tat lastnight i 9 nonprtospest ‘bigue in that it exis all a he popes of obligues except or he absence fof peposion. Note tat wile Thave chosen to employ te lal “sve ‘ject and ‘obque’ th sony for maemonic purposes. intend these hee soll as labels of grammatical elatons in English, dened in es of specie Engh morposyiatie properties. ‘Similarities and Ditferences among Language particular Grammnati Relations We could apply a sinilar rocedue wo oder Languages, and ideatfy the nuaticl relations in these oter languages, though in each cave the defining ‘racteristis ofthe grammatical rations would be language particu And ‘we would ind that languages differ ia the Kinds of morphosymactc ei hat fae relevant Thus, allhogh apremen, case, and postion ae ll relevant in Ellis, foreach of thse tere re leary lngusges for which tat een is inslevant. And even when two languages employ siren, the languages fe Manhew S. Dryer Wil fer in dhe des. We wil ak in that many languages donot exitit the deree of clustering that we find for English, where the casficaion of ‘lnvsl arguments by differen rei tends to crosclasiy toa greater extent ‘ater than fling into clear set of cluster. Many sch lngoages hve Deen ‘the sbjet of extensive discussion inthe lest sae it snot immediately lear howto apply amadel of pramatical relations that works wel fr English ‘One approach to sich case isto appeal to mule Teel, to disiagush “updeyng” oc ital” grammatical ation fom “surface” or “al” ones (61 Permauer 1983). Another approsch fo rome cscs to deserve them in terms of competing systems of eatin, suchas descriptions of pli egaiy inter of bon a subet-abject contrast and an absolutive-rgatie cons, of ‘eseripons in terms of “semantc’ versus “jaacc™ verun “morphological simensions. Ye another approach applicable in sme cases be i ems of protorypes Despite soe ofthese deviations forte typical patens, there clery are ‘ype ites, tong smiles among the grammatical relations in ferent languages. Oe ca esl imagine grammatical elaions in languages ifenng, from eich oer to a uch preaer extent than they do. lathe domain of morheme postion, fr example, thr fr lee croslingisti sir, When ‘one identifies the third poston for prefixes preceding the vero stem in 8 ‘morphologically comple language, one does’ think ofthe nation of "id Postion foc prefixes" a a useful erossingusic notion. Rater i is clearly 2 Tanguage parila notion, And the reason For hie shoul e lee there is ny lil sniarity i the morphere class tht ean ccc i the thd positon for prefs acoss languages. Whe it may tke some creativity to imagine the possbity of langues fering in thei grammatical relations to the same xen, such is larly logialposbty that we dot happee to fd Having ebsrse th song crowing similarities among language: porcular grammatical relations, thre afe aow a nua of different moves Tings can make 1 they choose to apply the same les to sir grammati- cal lations in een languages, ether they do so Because they ae cone ‘eat abel, or they do 0 with he intent of cami tht the smegma fal elation ae to be explained ia tr of thee being istnces of the sae ‘tosliagusic grammatical relations. The li of he spent in the later case isa faa oe in generative theory. We observe that gzataatcal relation G, in language Ly has properties PP By We similarly observe grammatical ‘elation Gy i language Ly wit prperics Py, Pa. Py Aad sina for languages Ly Ly and so on. If we say tht G, Gye ate all insances of ‘rosslinguiste grammes relation G, and we say that G is asocned ith Properies Py, Py, Py hen this wil “explain the fact that each of he ‘Ar Grammatical Relations Universal? 123 puticalar grammatical elaions in the individual languages as thes ropes, "hss the standard pprosch to explanation informal igus, Some Inuit weld go a sep frter and claim that G, with the specif propertes in (usin isp ofthe ante linguistic knowledge of harman. ‘Am allerative view itt he smiaries ong grammatical relations in erat anguages ae themselves eecons of deeper fnetonl and cognitive rips ha inert atte level of language change to cause language o be Similar to each ber in the ways thy are My poli his paper oto ague forsuch view: theres an extensive fnctionlt erate proposing enconal nd cognitive principles ofthis sr." My goal insead i to arpue that if one takes such a functionalist view, the need to posit crsslinguste grammatical rebtons disappears. Sine the only thing tha might ave led ws 0 post such xcsinguistierammatical relations was to esplan the silries among Iarguage-pariculr grammatical relations, and sae the explanation for tore similares, by assumption, deeeefnctionait and cognitive pencils, such {resinguistc aoonstecome suecioan The lsel remain vet for sil nmi elation in different languages, But the eboie of labels seatiely ‘pr of convenience, and uimatelyguestons of what label fo use are vrmiao- loge 6. Four Problem Cases of Grammatial Relations 1s worth discussing very brie four problem case’ nsances of languages ich deviate fiom the pote Yo Sn extent that Bas led to competeg ‘asses the erature of grammatical elation inthe language. These fou ‘es are Dyisbal (a satay egatve language), Acehnese (asp atans- tive linguage, Cre (illsrating the general protien peseted by the inverse ‘mstcton in Algonguan langues), and Cebuano lasting the general poolem of Pippine language) sal four eases, cher are competing ales inthe lieraue, competing answers to the qostion "Wht anything, ae subjects inthis language?” Some ofthis erature i formlly- ond; under the ‘sumptions of formal ngisies, sch questions make sete, a there ae luresolved dificulies setting tese disputes, would claim tat they ae arias ofa formal approach. But sands om sch questions are often take By Tzguss whose work otherwise reste 4 functionalist venation, and he deusion by thse linguist often seems o refx an assption ta the mater ismore than one of terminology. Much ofthe Meratue oa these languages na Manhew S. Dryer ‘confuses wat I claim wo be (wo distinct quesions, These two questions are even in (8) What are the grammatical clations in language X? What should we cll the grammatical elans ia language X7 ‘Unie he view tat grammatical relations re cosinguistic ations, these 80 ‘uerions sree to csinguish, Beense identifying the grammatical Felton na lnguage unr such view iavaves chosing how to descrite de Tanguags in eosinguit ems Under the ew hat parma elaons ae fandarertlly language pric, te fst of thse questions isa substantive question Memiying to what extent clasal agumens in he Language fall st lierent elses, ad in so far as they Jo wha these classes ae and what ‘teria delve these elses, Under tis view, the question of wha Io eal the [rammatcal elation, whee to choose ew fers orf use terms hat ave teen wed inthe desergion of eer anguages, simply mater of eminolo sand basa sus lite dffeen from deiding what o wean academic paper in English o French Consider ft the example of yi. wil not discuss the details of his and the eer eas hee, nce they have been widely discussed elsewhere. The ‘examples in () lsat the egative cise sper of Dyibal, Bua di ‘sein detail by Diton (1972) (See Come 1988 for «summary, the same sition permeates the apna ofthe langage as wll. bay dere mibanda ma at Asc a88 mans lg NONFUT “Thathe man i augieg” bay! ura beingun —dupumba balan Hats anans hacERG-70 NoIaNEKC Hi-NOSFUT "The woman i iting the mat” TF one confuses the question of what the grammatical relation in Dyial ae vith he question of what 0 cll them, thes one may conto ade that represented by competing analyses in the Itecate. Bo if one ignores the {tetion of what cll he ganna lan, he the question of what the frammatcal relations ia Dyital ae is easy. Since the morphological and Syntactic rule of the lngvage divide clus! arguments note fly wel efi clases, oughly coresponding to absolute case, egaive case, and Ave Grammatical Relations Universal? nas ce, ten these tre clases are the grammatical reatins of Dita, regard Jasof what we choose 10 cal the. Crate labels “absolve erate’, ‘ndoter are very marl choirs bo other posites exist a wel [A problem arses only if one inks tut eating the grammatical ‘elon in Dyin ovolves eating the grammatical ations of he langage {0 eosslingusuc notns of subject and abject Among the possible answers © ‘he question “What are subjects in Dyirtal™ are (I) Dyibal dows’ have Ssubjets; 2) absoluives ae subjects (Keenan 1976), and (3) the notion of subj has only a minor role 1 playin Dyitbl being relevant only tothe Imomology of fis and secod person pronouns). If one takes the view that twaruatcl relations are costngistc notions, then and only then does the thoi between tee thee answers become u substantive one. On the View of Uhspaper as long asthe fats have Been accratelydesribed the question is ‘ey eminologial oe. i worth coatasting the poston T hve taken ove with respect o Dyitbat ita sopra similar postion aken by Comrie (1988). Comte provide 4 fice dicussion of same of the problems in applying crosingulsie tems 10 Dpital and argues tat he dfeencehetweencompeing aaiaes 8 termiao- lopial; however, the competing anises he discue ll hae the sumption ‘hatte Pina Basie wanstve clause In Dyas the subject othe dist ‘ot about how to emplay the fer "sibjec. Rather, the thee competing Snabscr he discuss der in wheter the ters ‘ergive and "passive ae Sppopratelyausigno to baie clases in Dytal one view being Tat they ae tive a second view being ha they are passive and a hd view being tha the are nether. Although the disptesurounds tems other than labels for fammatcal relations be nar of he disput is cleat similar. Comrie argues ‘hatte dispute is utesolvble and tha the station canbe est understood in terms of protaypes. He dscusesprotypes Tor pasive clases and protaypes for ergatve clases ad argues thatthe oresolabiliy of the dispute anes ‘case the base constuction la Dylibl resembles dhe passive prototype in some respects ut ssl diferent that one might or might nx choose alli passive, std silly that esembls the egative potorype in some respects buts again sufficiently diferent tat one might ght nt choos calli exgatve Wille the sues are ascussed by Conve la terms ofthe potion ‘pasive® rate tha the oto “abject te sae sort of sues arise: Ist a questions aie a5 10 etaly whats meaas to employ a tem like “subject as across linguistic note, the same apples to terms ike ‘passive’. Conte's positon Airs rom te oe defended herein tht altoogh it wets problemate cases Iie Dyira as terminlogical st sil assumes ta passive an ergative exis 8 126 Marthew 8. Dryer

    You might also like