Cover not available
Part of
Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 241–256

Chapter 10
Forty years in the search of a/the subject

| University of Mainz
The present short discussion piece presents my personal view of the studies of the topics related to the notion of subject, oblique subject and non-canonical subject marking over the last years. The presentation is of course subjective insofar as it reflects my range of interests in this field. Equally subjective is the selected timeframe mentioned in the title (“forty years”) which is meant to refer to the time when the notion of subject has been in the spotlight of typological interest.
Article outline
  • The quest for the subject
  • Diachronic issues and their theoretical consequences
  • Subject properties, biases and competing motivations
  • A note on the oblique subject controversy
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.10mal
References (58)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, Robert M. W. & Onishi, Masayuki (eds). 2001. Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 1–24. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1): 39–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Valency classes in Icelandic: Oblique subjects, oblique ambitransitives and the actional passive. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 367–416. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3): 439–472.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 & Sarag Rose (eds), 179–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Tórhallur. 2012. ‘Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies’: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds). 2004. Non-nominative Subjects, Vols. 1–2 [Typological Studies in Language 60–61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2015. The rise and fall of anticausative constructions in Indo-European: The context of Latin and Germanic. Linguistics 53 (4): 677–729.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella & Sridhar, S. N. 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56: 719–43.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981[1989]. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1977. A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2008. Semantic alignment systems: What’s what, and what’s not. In Typology of Languages with Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 24–75. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1985. Competing motivations. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed.), 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique Subjects: A Common Germanic Inheritance. Language 81–4: 824–881.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical Relations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(1): 106–143.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1997. Grammatical relations: An introduction. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typologial Studies in Language 35], Talmy Givón (ed.) 1–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax. Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 53–85.Google Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1994. Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47: 78–98.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 303–333. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1984. Semantic correlates of the ergative/absolutive distinction. Linguistics 22: 197–223.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Two possible universals: The Major Biactant Construction; the twofold notion of subject. Linguistic Typology 19(1): 111–130.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)Establishing the connection. In Typology of Languages with Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 76–101. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Ogawa, Akio. 2011. Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semantic map approach. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 19–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2014. Resolving alignment conflicts: A competing motivations approach. In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Cognition, Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds), 17–42. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45: 233–279.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. P. (ed.). 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ottósson, Kjartan G. 2013. The anticausative and related categories in the Old Germanic languages. In Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 134], Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds), 329–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christian. 2001. Multiple interfaces. In Conceptual Structure and its Interfaces with other Modules of Grammar, Urpo Nikanne & Emile van der Zee (eds), 21–53. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Semantic Roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sands, Kristina & Campbell, Lyle. 2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Aikhenvald et al., 251–305.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2001. Non-canonical constructions in Japanese. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), 307–355Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Icelandic non-nominative subjects: Facts and implications. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), Vol. 2, 137–159.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja. 2013. Rise of canonical subjecthood. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 283–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Introduction. In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 1–25. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward, Nefedov, Andrey & Malchukov, Andrej. 2011. Impersonal constructions in Ket. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej L. Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 439–458. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3): 361–394.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & Lapolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2004. Semantic macroroles in Role and Reference Grammar. In Semantische Rollen, Rolf Kailuweit & Martin Hummel (eds), 62–82. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður. 2014. On the non-canonical marking of the highest-ranking argument in Lithuanian and Icelandic: Steps toward a database. In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatial Relations in Baltic 1], Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 301–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990. ‘Prototypes save’: On the uses and abuses of the notionof ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields. In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization, Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), 347–367. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
2018. Chapter 5. Dative case and oblique subjects. In Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 200], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.