1 / 32

Linguistic Theory

Linguistic Theory. Lecture 9 Grammatical Functions. Introduction. The notion of grammatical function (subject, object, etc.) seems to be a basic element of grammatical analysis. But: There are questions of how they are to be defined

mateja
Download Presentation

Linguistic Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Linguistic Theory Lecture 9 Grammatical Functions

  2. Introduction • The notion of grammatical function (subject, object, etc.) seems to be a basic element of grammatical analysis. But: • There are questions of how they are to be defined • There are questions of whether they are present in all languages (universality) • There are questions of how they are to be identified

  3. The classical approach • The study of classical languages, which were rich in morphology and allowed fairly free word orders, and which did not distinguish rigorously between form and meaning, lead to a particular view of grammatical functions: • They were associated with words • They were semantically defined • They were morphologically identified

  4. Grammatical functions = words • Because the notion of a phrase did not become prevalent until the 1900s, syntactic phenomena was mostly seen as facts about words: • Their forms • Their meanings • Their functions • The subject of the sentence was therefore defined as that word with a particular form and meaning

  5. Semantic definition • Two common approaches: • The subject is what the sentence is about (complements ‘predicate’) • The subject is the one who carries out the action described by the verb • Subject = topic • Subject = agent

  6. Topics • Topics are the ideas that link a set of sentences (discourse) as being ‘about’ something. • Sentences form a consistent body if there is a continued string of topics in them • The topic is often associated with phonological reduction • Reduced to a pronoun • Reduced to nothing (where allowed)

  7. Topics • E.g. Two dogs are drinking in a bar. A horse walks in (to the bar). He says: “is this chair free?”. One dog turns to the other (dog) and (he) says: “wow – a talking horse!”

  8. Topics • Now consider the following sentences: • Mary entered the room • John kissed her • In the second sentence • The topic of the sentence is not the subject • The subject is not a topic • Moreover: • It seems John is rich • ‘it’ cannot be the topic as it is meaningless (the sentence would be ‘about’ nothing)

  9. Agent • Not all subjects are agents • Not all verbs involve actions • Even activity verbs may have non-agent subjects (in passive) • There may be a connection between ‘subject’ and theta role • Fillmore’s Case hierarchy • But this is not straightforward • John fears sincerity (experiencer – theme) • Sincerity frightens John (theme – experiencer)

  10. Semantic approaches - conclusion • As is usual, semantic definitions of syntactic phenomena are rarely straightforward and do not yield unproblematic results

  11. Morphological approach • There are two main morphological facts associated with the subject: • Case (morphological – not Fillmore’s) • Subject is nominative • Agreement • Verb agrees with subject features

  12. Grammatical functions and Case • Standard assumptions: • Subject = nominative • Object = accusative • But even for languages where this seems to hold, there are problems: • John believes she is smart • John believes her to be smart • Is the accusative object here?

  13. Reasons to believe in accusative subjects • The similarity of • John believes she is smart • John believes her to be smart • The dissimilarity of • John believes her to be smart • John persuaded her to be smart • John persuaded her that she should be smart • * John believed her that she should be smart

  14. Reasons to believe in accusative subjects • Subject properties of accusative element • John believes there to be a problem • There is a problem • * John persuaded there to be a problem • John believes the cat to be out of the bag • The cat is out of the bag • John put the cat out of the bag

  15. Reasons to believe in accusative subjects • So, not all subjects are nominative and not all accusative elements are objects.

  16. Further problems for Case identification of grammatical functions • Not all languages have Case distinctions (are grammatical functions universal?) • Different Case systems: • Most European languages have the nominative-accusative case system • He left 1 V • He loves her 2 V 3 • 1 and 2 = nominative • 3 = accusative

  17. Further problems for Case identification of grammatical functions • Some languages do not do things this way (Tsez – North Caucasian): • ziyabik’i-s 1 V • cow go-past • “The cow left” • eniy-ā ziyabišer-si 2 3 V • mother-casecowfeed-past • “Mother fed the cow • 1 and 3 zero marked case • 2 differently marked case

  18. Further problems for Case identification of grammatical functions • Dilemma: • Do we say that 1+2 are subjects in English (common case = nominative) and 1+3 are subjects in Tsez (for the same reason)? • Do we say that 1+2 are subjects in both languages but that the object of a transitive verb is assigned the same case as the subject of the intransitive verb in some languages?

  19. Grammatical functions and agreement • Standard assumptions: • Verb agrees with subject • Verb does not agree with object • But even for languages where this seems to hold there are problems • There is a cloud in the sky • There are clouds in the sky • What is the source of verb agreement?

  20. Further problems for agreement based identification of grammatical functions • Not all languages have agreement morphology (Chinese) • Some languages (Chukchi) have too much – the verb agrees with everything (subject and object) • Some languages (Tigre) have agreement only with what would be object in other languages (universal subject?)

  21. The structural approach • American structuralists • For Indo-European • Subject is a phrase • The phrase which sits in a certain structural position • But – Relativity • You can only analyse a languages and a culture from the point of view of that system • Trying to impose notions from other systems onto a language is inevitably wrong • So, subject is not a universal notion

  22. The structural approach • Generative grammar • Adopted the structuralist structural definition of grammatical functions • Disagreed with Relativity • But disagreed amongst themselves as to whether grammatical functions are basic to the system

  23. Subject a derived notion • We define the subject as anything that sits in a certain position (NP immediately inside S): SNP VP V NP Subject

  24. Subject a derived notion • But not everything that ends up in this position starts there: things move: • ------ was seen Mary • Mary was seen • So, in this case, the notion ‘subject’ is only established at S-structure • It would seem reasonable to assume that the notion is always only established at S-structure • Therefore at D-structure there is no ‘subject’

  25. Subject a derived notion • In mid-1980s it was argued that all arguments start off inside VP • So no argument is in ‘subject position’ at D-structure • The subject in all sentences is derived

  26. Subject a derived notion • E.g. Word order in Arabic: • Arabic shows two main word orders: • SVO verb agrees with subject • VSO verb is in 3.sing. Form • a Qara?-a al-tulaab-u al-kutub-a read-past the students-nom the books-acc “the students read the books” • b al-tulaab-u qara?-uu al-kutub-athe-students-nom read-past-3pl. the books-acc “the students read the books”

  27. Subject a derived notion • We can account for this if we assume: • The verb always moves out of VP to inflection position • Movement to subject position is optional • When NP moves to subject position it becomes subject and verb agrees with it • If it does not move, there is no subject and the verb has ‘default’ 3.sing. form

  28. Disagreements • Some generative theories disagree and claim that grammatical functions are not derived notions, but basic building blocks of grammar

  29. Lexical Functional Grammar • LFG assumes that sentences are analysed at two levels: • F-structure • C-structure • Unlike S- and D-structure, these are not derived one from the other, but operate in parallel

  30. Lexical Functional Grammar • F-structure is not a constituent structure • More abstract assignment of elements to functions: • Predicate: love • Subject: John • Object: Mary

  31. Lexical Functional Grammar • C-structure is a constituent structure associated with an F-structure by rules which map F-structure elements onto C-structure elements: • S NP2 VP 1 = predicate 2 = subjectJohn V1 NP3 3 = object loves Mary

  32. Lexical Functional Grammar • This helps in dealing with non-configurationallanguages, where word order is unimportant (e.g. Warlbiri) • witta-jarra-rlu ka-palayalumpuwajili-pi-nyikurdu-jarra-rlumaliki • small-dual-erg pres-3du that chase-nonpast child-dual-erg dog • “two small children are chasing that dog” • In such languages the c-structures are very different to English-type languages, but f-structures are similar and map onto the relevant bits.

More Related