Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 95–116

Reconstructing non-canonical argument structure for Proto-Indo-European

Methodological questions and progress

| University of Bergen
This paper considers certain methodological issues that have arisen over the course of an investigation into the likelihood that oblique subject constructions in the Indo-European languages are inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In the process, we desire to elicit productive criticism of the methods employed in this research toward the end of creating a useful methodological process for comparing syntactic forms. The paper also discusses what appear to be legitimate problems in forming a method for diachronic comparative syntax versus criticisms of comparative work that should not be considered especially problematic for syntactic studies.
Keywords: comparative method, Indo-European, internal reconstruction, oblique subjects
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.04smi
References (31)
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121: 60-79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2009. The origin of the oblique subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Grammatical Change in Indo- European Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 305], Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds), 179–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Hans Boas & Ivan Sag (eds), 257-308. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Smitherman, Thomas. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics & Change 3(1):28-67.Google Scholar
Boeder, Winfried. 2005. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua 115: 5-89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Harris, Alice. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38(3): 599–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherchi, Mario.1997. Modern Georgian Morphosyntax: A Grammatico-Categorial Hierarchy-based Analysis with Special Reference to Indirect Verbs and Passives of State. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1893-1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, 3 Vols. Straßburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000. Dative vs. nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 27–44.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1997. Fornsvenska upplevarverb (Old Swedish Experiencer Verbs). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2009. Subjects and Universal Grammar: An Explanatory Theory. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origins of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261-96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 73-113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halldórsson, Halldór. 1982. Um méranir: Drög að samtímalegri og sögulegri athugun (About dativisings: Preliminaries of a synchronic and diachronic investigation). Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4: 159–189.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Bubenik, Vít. 2006. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 280]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry & Melchert, Craig. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Jebb, Sir Richard. 1889. The Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Klimov, Georgij Andreevic. 1977. Tipologija aktivnogo stroja (The Typology of the Active System). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Hugi- In Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic [Indo-European Etymological Dictionaries Online], Alexander Lubotsky (ed.). Leiden: Brill. <[URL]> (20 September 2013).Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 2002a. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. More myths. Journal of Linguistics 38(3): 619–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melchert, Craig. 2011. The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. In Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe: Acts of the International Colloquium variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques Paris 2–4 April 2007, Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds), 161-167. Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1989. Zum Alter der personifizierden –ant-Bildung des Hethistischen: Ein Beitragzur Geschichte der indogermanischen Genuskategorie. Historische Sprachforschung 102: 1-15.Google Scholar
Patri, Sylvain. 2007. L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Rix, Helmut, et al. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung: Die Entwicklung ‘subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1926. Aeschylus, with an English translation, Vol. 2: Libation Bearers. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1982. Þágufallssýki (Dative sickness). Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4: 19–62.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo problems. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds), 306-26. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Yakubovich, Ilya. 2011. Privative ergativity in Hittite. Handout for the presentation at the conference Historical-Comparative Linguistics in the 21st Century, Pavia, Italy, 22-25 September.