Cover not available
Part of
Events, Arguments, and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs
Edited by Klaus Robering
[Studies in Language Companion Series 152] 2014
► pp. 65–88

Ergativity and the object-oriented representation of verb meaning

There is an interesting parallelism between the representation of one- place and two-place operations in object-oriented programming and case marking in ergative languages. The object-oriented approach has proven to be highly suc- cessful in computational system design and analysis. One of its peculiarities is to define operations within the class of the objects which are their main arguments. More specifically, operations that correspond to intransitive verbs are encoded in the class which corresponds to the subject NP, and operations that correspond to transitive verbs are encoded in the class that corresponds to the NP of the direct object. In ergative languages these NPs are marked by absolutive case. We discuss a number of semantic phenomena related to ergativity that show that conceptual representation of word meaning follows the object-oriented paradigm.

Published online: 28 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.152.01ben
References

Bibliography

Armstrong, Deborah J
(2006): “The quarks of object-oriented development.” Communications of the ACM 49(2): 123–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benz, Anton
(2006): “Partial blocking and associative learning.” Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 587–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booch, Grady, Maksimchuk, Robert A., Engle, Michael W., Young, Bobbi, Conallen, Jim & Houston, Kelli A
(2007): Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications . Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted, de Paiva, Valeria & Copestake, Ann
(eds.) (1993): Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon . Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
(2004): “Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction.” In: Lawrence Horn & Gregory Warden (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 632–656.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward
(1994): Ergativity, volume 69 of Cambridge Studies in Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard
(2004): “Learning constraint subhierarchies: The bidirectional gradual learning algorithm.” In: Reinhard Blutner & Henk Zeevat (eds.) Optimality Theory and Pragmatics , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 251–287.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007): “Evolutionary game theory and typology. A case study.” Language 83: 74–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward J
(1984): “Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction.” Linguistics 22: 197–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardirussian, Galust
(1975): “Noun incorporation in universal grammar.” Chicago Linguistic Society Bulletin 11: 383–389.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
(1995): The Generative Lexicon . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
(1976): “Hierarchy of features and ergativity.” In: Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon (ed.) Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages , Camberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, volume 22 of Linguistic Series . 112–171.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence
(1979): “On the origins of ergativity.” In: Frans Planck (ed.) Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations , London: Academic Press. 385–406.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Morrissey, Lochlan & Andrea C. Schalley
2017. A Lexical Semantics forRefugee,Asylum SeekerandBoat Peoplein Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37:4 ► pp. 389 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 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.