Cover not available
Part of
Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony
Edited by Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga
[Typological Studies in Language 121] 2018
► pp. 59–110

Chapter 2
The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective

| University of Lyon

The Obligatory Coding Principle accounts for the inventories of possible coding frames in languages that, according to the current terminology, can be characterized as consistently accusative or consistently ergative in their system of argument coding. In coding frame inventories fully consistent with the Obligatory Coding principle, every coding frame includes a given type of coding, either A (in obligatory A coding languages) or P (in obligatory P coding languages). However, languages with coding frame inventories violating this principle are not exceptional. This chapter examines the types of evolutions that may result either in global shifts affecting the Obligatory Coding Principle, in systematic violations of the Obligatory Coding Principle, or in the gradual spreading of non-canonical coding frames. The idea underlying this study is that, before discussing the theoretical status of this kind of generalization, it is crucial to clarify its involvement in diachronic processes.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some terminological clarifications
    • 2.1Transitivity
    • 2.2 Variation in the construction of transitive verbs and basic transitive coding
    • 2.3Core arguments vs. obliques
    • 2.4Alignment
    • 2.5 Zero case
    • 2.6 Ergative case, ergative alignment, ergative languages
  • 3.The Obligatory Coding Principle
  • 4.Markedness reversals between the transitive construction and its variants
    • 4.1Introductory remarks
    • 4.2Shift from obligatory A coding to obligatory P coding resulting from the reanalysis of a passive construction as the basic transitive construction
    • 4.3Shift from obligatory P coding to obligatory A coding resulting from the reanalysis of an antipassive construction as the basic transitive construction
  • 5. The grammaticalization of TAM and the Obligatory Coding Principle
    • 5.1Introductory remarks
    • 5.2Reanalysis of a resultative construction as a perfect and split-alignment
    • 5.3Split-alignment resulting from the grammaticalization of a new perfect form: Problems in reconstructing the scenario
    • 5.4Progressive periphrases and split alignment
    • 5.5Uncommon split alignment patterns, and the TAM periphrases of Basque
    • 5.6Concluding remarks
  • 6.Conventionalization of argument ellipsis and the Obligatory Coding Principle
    • 6.1Introductory remarks
    • 6.2Conventionalization of P ellipsis in obligatory P coding languages: An illustration from Akhvakh
    • 6.3Conventionalization of A ellipsis in obligatory A coding languages: Illustrations from Amharic and Russian
  • 7.Univerbation of light verb compounds and the Obligatory Coding Principle
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Appendix
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.02cre
References
Aldai, Gontzal
2008 From ergative case marking to semantic case marking: The case of historical Basque. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 197–218. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alekseev, Mikhail & Ataev, Boris
1997 Avarskij jazyk (The Avar language). Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile
1952 La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48: 52–62.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
Blau, Joyce & Barak, Veysi
1999 Manuel de kurde. Kurmanci. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
1993 On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 45–88.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
2005 Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George
1970 The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam . Language 46: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Julien
2012 L’expression de la transitivité en Itivimiut. MA thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica
2008 When ergative = genitive: Nominals and split ergativity. In WCCFL XXVII: Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop (eds), 99–107. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
1979 Les constructions dites possessives, étude de linguistique générale et de typologie linguistique. Habilitation thesis (thèse d’état), University of Paris IV.Google Scholar
2008 Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case terminology. Lingua 119: 445–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Univerbation of light verb compounds and the Obligatory Coding Principle. In Approaches to Complex Predicates, Léa Nash & Pollet Samvélian (eds), 46–69. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Grammatical relations in Mandinka. In Handbook of Grammatical Relations, Balthasar Bickel & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich eds). Amsterdam John Benjamins
Creissels, Denis & Bassène, Alain-Christian
2013 Valency patterns for bivalent verbs in two West African languages: Mandinka (Mande) and Jóola Banjal (Atlantic). Afrikanistik Online.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2004 The blue bird of ergativity. In Ergativity in Amazonia III, Francesc Queixalós (ed), 1–15. Paris: Celia.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren
2008 The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo
2003 Valency and argument structure in the Basque verb. In José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), A grammar of Basque, 363–426. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2004 Experiencer object in Iwaidjan languages. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 169–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2014 A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology 18(1): 3–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana
2012 The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Ergativity in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis eds). Oxford OUP
Gildea, Spike
1992 Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the Genesis of Ergativity in Independent Clauses. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997 Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], T. Givón (ed.), 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary
1941 Tunica. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. 4. New York NY: Augustin Publishers.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice
1985 Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case [Syntax and Semantics 18]. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1997 Review of Ergativity by R.M.W. Dixon. Language 73(2): 359–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej
2013 How widespread is transitive encoding? Paper presented at the ALT 10 Conference, Leipzig, 15–18.
Haspelmath, Martin
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Transitivity prominence. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando
2016 Inverse systems and symmetrical voice: A unified view on languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, Gary
2008 The emergence of stative-active systems in North Halmahera, Indonesia. In Donohue adf & Wichmann (eds), 252–276.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon
(eds). 2003 A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2011 Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. PhD dissertation, Università degli studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna
2013 L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. PhD dissertation, University of Lyon.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar
1993 Unergatives that assign ergative, Unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Papers on Case and Agreement I [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18], Jonathan Bobaljik & Colin Phillips (eds), 149–172. Cambridge MA: MIT.
2000 Thetablind case: Burzio’s generalisation and its image in the mirror. In Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalisation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 34], Eric Reuland (ed.), 103–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latrouite, Anja
2011 Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. PhD dissertation, Heinrich-Heine Universität, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel
1994 Une grammaire omniprédicative, essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1997 Review of Ergativity by R. M. W. Dixon. Linguistic Typology 1: 243–268.Google Scholar
Leslau, W.
2005 Concise Amharic Dictionary, 2nd Ethiopian edn. Addis Ababa: Shama books.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection. In Donohue & Wichmann (eds), 76–100.Google Scholar
Magomedova, Patimat
2003 Tindinsko-russkij slovar’ (Tindi-Russian dictionary). Maxačkala: Dagestanskij Naučnyj Centr Rossiskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 The emergence of agentive patient systems in Core Argument Marking. In Donohue & Wichmann (eds), 297–333.Google Scholar
Mounole, Céline
2011 Le verbe basque ancien: Étude philologique et diachronique. PhD dissertation, University of Bordeaux and University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
(ed.). 1988 Typology of Resultative Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1992 Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oyharçabal, Bernard
2007 Basque light verb constructions. In Studies in Basque and Historical Linguistics. In Memory of R. L. Trask, Joseba A. Lakarra & José Ignacio Hualde (eds), 787–806. Bilbao: Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa – Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia and Universidad de Pais Vasco – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Bilbao.Google Scholar
Peterson, John
1998 Grammatical Relations in Pali and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc
2013 L’ergativité est-elle un oiseau bleu? Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan
2008a The syntax of eccentric agreement: The person case constraint and Absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b The forms of dative displacement. From Basauri to Itelmen. In Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenagaren omenez, Xabier Artiagoitia & Joseba A. Lakarra (eds), 709–724. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa
2008 Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish. In Agreement Restrictions, Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds), 215–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Saidova, Patimat
2006 Godoberinsko-russkij slovar’ (Godoberi-Russian dictionary). Maxačkala: Dagestanskij Naučnyj Centr Rossiskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet
2012 Grammaire des prédicats complexes: Les constructions nom-verbe. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey
2014 Bivalent verb classes in the languages of Europe. A quantitative typological study. Language Dynamics and Change 4(1): 116–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2012 The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal account. Lingua 122: 356–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Taperte, Jana
2016 Differential argument marking with the Latvian debitive. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 3], Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 199–258. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spreng, Bettina
2005 Third person arguments in Inuktitut. In Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas [UBCWPL 017], Solveiga Armoskaite & James J. Thompson (eds), 215–225. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith
2006 The Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases: Evidence from Guaraní. PhD dissertation, Stanford University CA.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985 Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2011 Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Creissels, Denis
2019. Grammatical relations in Mandinka. In Argument Selectors [Typological Studies in Language, 123], ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
Creissels, Denis, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2018. La typologie générale des constructions impersonnelles et les constructions impersonnelles du français. SHS Web of Conferences 46 ► pp. 15001 ff. DOI logo
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
2018. Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological hierarchies. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2021. Pathways to split ergativity. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2021. Introduction. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Charlotte Hemmings
2021. Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.