Categorization and semantics of subject-like obliques
A cross-linguistic perspective
This chapter’s underlying framework is one of functionalist cognitive linguistics.
It suggest a categorization of non-prototypical trajector (subject) constructions
into syntax-, gram- and lexeme-driven ones depending on the nature of
the domain that triggers the oblique case-marking on the trajector argument.
Additionally, a unified semantic account is proposed, which is based on the
comparison with causative events. The structure of these events consists of an
antecedent subevent (typically implicit) and a subsequent subevent. This study
argues that constructions with non-prototypical trajectors (subjects) refer to
consequent events. That is, all three types of constructions exhibit an invariant
semantic core; they conceptualize the event as being a (causally) consequent
event and imply the existence of a causally antecedent event. The differences
between the three types pertain mainly to the referential properties of the
antecedent event and its main participant: while with the syntax-driven type
the antecedent event is explicit, referential and conceptualized onstage, with the
gram-driven type it is implicit, non-referential and offstage, though confined to
a particular concept. The lexeme-driven type only implies the existence of an
antecedent event; it does not, however, commit any assessment on the conceptualization
of this event.
References
Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R.M.W., & Onishi, M
Ambrazas, V., Genušienė, E., Girdenis, A., Sližienė, N., & Tekorienė, D
(
1997)
Lithuanian Grammar. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, ed. by
V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Babby, L.H
(
2001)
The genitive of negation: a unified analysis. In
Steven Franks,
Tracy Holloway King &
Michael Yadroff (Eds.),
Annual workshop on formal approaches to slavic linguistics: The Bloomington meeting 2000 (FASL 9) (pp. 39–55). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, J
(
2009)
The development of case in Germanic. In
Jóhanna Barðdal &
Shobhana Chelliah (Eds.),
The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 123–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhaskararao, K., & Subbarao, V
Blaszczak, J
(
2008)
Differential subject Marking in Polish. In
Helen de Hoop &
Peter Swart (Eds.),
Differential subject marking.
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72 (pp. 113–150). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blevins, J
(
2003)
Passives and impersonals.
Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brownson, C.L
(
1922)
Xenophon.
Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: William Heinemann, Ltd. (Quoted from the PDL).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J.L., & Moder, C.L
(
1983)
Morphological classes as natural categories.
Language, 59, 251–270.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cristofaro, S
(
2003)
Subordination. Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
1993)
The semantics of mental verbs. In
J. Pustejovsky (Ed.),
Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
1994)
The semantics of subjecthood. In
M. Yaguello (Ed.),
Subjecthood and Subjectivity. The status of the subject in linguistic theory (pp. 29–76). Proceedings of the Colloquium “The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory” London, 19–20 March 1993. Paris: OPHRYS.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
1998a)
Event structure in argument linking. In
M. Butt &
W. Geuder (Eds.),
The projection of arguments. Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 21–64). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
1998b)
The structure of events and the structure of language. In
Michael Tomasello (Ed.),
The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 67–92). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
2001)
Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeLancey, S
(
1985)
Agentivity and syntax. In
W.H. Eilfort,
P.D. Kroeber &
K.L. Peterson (Eds.),
Papers from the parasession on causativity and agentivity at the twenty-first regional meeting. Chichago Linguistic Society (CLS 21), Part 2 (pp. 1–12) Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A
(
2008)
Ways of attenuating agency in Russian.
Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 138–179.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, D.R
(
1991)
Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.
Language, 67, 547–619.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dziwirek, K
(
1994)
Polish subjects. New York/London: Garland Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, N
(
2007)
Insubordination and its uses. Chapter 11. In
Irina Nikolaeva (Ed.),
Finiteness.
Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–432) Oxford: OUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ganenkov, D., Maisak, T., & Merdanova, Solmaz R
(
2008)
Involuntary agent as non-canonical subject in Agul. In
Helen de Hoop &
Peter de Swart (Eds.),
Differential subject marking (pp. 173–198). Dordrecht: Springer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.E
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holvoet, A
(
2007)
Mood and modality in Baltic.
Baltica Varsoviensia VI. Kraków.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holvoet, A
(
2009)
Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. In
A. Holvoet &
R. Mikulskas (Eds.),
Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (pp. 37–68). Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas & Asociacija ‘Academia Salensis’. [Diffused subjects and objects]
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Hoop, H., & Swart, P
(
2008)
Differential subject marking.
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hudson, R
(
1980)
Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jablonskis, J
(
1922)
Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Etimologija. Kaunas, Vilnius: Švyturio. [Grammar of Lithuanian. Etymology.]
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, L
(
1993)
A geography of case semantics. The czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E.L
(
1976)
Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In
Ch. Li (Ed.),
Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keydana, G
(
1997)
Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kittilä, S
(
2002)
Transitivity: Toward a comprehensive typology. Publications in General Linguistics 5. Turku: University of Turku.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M
(
1993)
Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, & Wälchli, Bernhard
Lakoff, G
(
1987)
Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar.
Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1990)
Subjectification.
Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W
(
1991)
Foundations of cognitive grammar.
Vol. 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
2006)
Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In
A. Athanasiadou,
C. Canakis, &
B. Cornille (Eds.),
Subjectification. Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
2008)
Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lazard, G
(
1998)
Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research.
Folia Linguistica, XXXVI(3–4), 141–190.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis & Short
.
A Latin dictionary: Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary / revised, enlarged and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. First published in
1879 [Quoted from PDL]
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, S
(
2009)
Case in cognitive grammar. Chapter 9. In
A. Malchukov &
A. Spencer (Eds.),
The oxford handbook of case (pp. 135–150). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Magometov, A.A
(
1982)
Megebskij dialect darginskogo jazyka (issledovanie i teksty). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Malchukov, A
(
2005)
Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In
M. Amberber &
H. de Hoop (Eds.),
Competition and variation in natural languages. The case for case (pp. 73–118). Amsterdam/Boston: Elsevier.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nedjalkov, V.P., & Sil’nickij, G.G
(
1969)
Tipologija kauzativnych konstrukcij. In
A. Xolodovič (Ed.),
Tipologija kauzativnych konstrukcij. Morfonologičeskij kauzativ (pp. 5–20). Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Jazykoznanija. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Nauka.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nesset, T., Endresen, A., & Janda, L
(
2011)
Two ways to get out: Radial category profiling and the Russian prefixes vy- and iz-.
Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 56(4), 377–402.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padučeva, Je. V
(
1997)
Roditel’nyj subjekta v otricatel’nom predloženii: Sintaksis ili semantika? Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2, 101–116. [
The genitive case of subject in a negated sentence: syntax or semantics?]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padučeva, Je. V
(
2005)
Eščo raz o genitive subjekta pri otricanii.
Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2005(5), 84–99. [
Once again about the genitive under negation]
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
PDL = Perseus Digital Library
Gregory R. Crane, Editor-in-Chief, Tufts University.
[URL]
Pörn, M
(
2008)
Psychophysical and physical causative emotion verbs in Finnish: The temporal Structure of causative emotion verb + infinitive 1 – Constructions within conceptual semantics.
SKY Journal of Linguistics, 21, 201–218.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Primus, B
(
1999)
Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylkkänen, L
(
1999)
Causation and external arguments. In
L. Pylkkänen,
A. van Hout, &
H. Harley (Eds.),
Papers from the second Penn/MIT roundtable on the lexicon.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35 (pp. 161–183). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
RNC = Russian National Corpus
Roduner, M., & Privitelli, T
(
2006)
Der Genitiv des Agens / Experiencers in Litauischen und Russischen Dialekten.
Acta Balto-Slavica, 30, 403–425.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Seržant, I.A
forthcoming).
Dative experiencer constructions as a circum-baltic isogloss. In
P. Arkadiev,
A. Holvoet, &
B. Wiemer (Eds.)
Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics Berlin De Gruyter
Seržant, I.A
(
2012)
The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal approach.
Lingua, 122, 356–385.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Seržant, I.A., & Kulikov, L
Stassen, L
(
1985)
Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L
(
1976)
Semantic causative types. In
Masayoshi Shibatani (Ed.),
The grammar of causative constructions.
Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 43–116). New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L
(
1988)
Force dynamics in language and cognition.
Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J
(
1995)
Grammatical categories, ch. 10.
Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 293–308.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Timberlake, A
(
1975)
Subject properties in the North Russian passive. In
Li &
Thompson (Eds.),
Subject and topic (pp. 545–594). New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B
(
2002)
Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsunoda, T
(
1981)
Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood.
Linguistics, 19, 389–438.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wunderlich, D., & Lakämper, R
(
2001)
On the interation of structural and semantic case.
Lingua 111 (4–7): 377-417. (Special Issue on Effects of morphological case, ed. by H. de Hoop, O. Koeneman, J. Mulders & F. Weerman.)
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zaitseva, Maria
(
2001)
Vepsän kielen lauseoppia.
Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 241. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Vinogradov, Igor
2019.
The Prospective Construction in Q’eqchi’.
International Journal of American Linguistics 85:2
► pp. 247 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.