Cover not available
Part of
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 107–129

Grammatical relations in Mon

Syntactic tests in an isolating language

| University of Zurich
This study investigates the relevance of the generalized semantic roles S, A, P, T, and G and whether there are constructions that treat subsets of these identically, defining Grammatical relations in Mon, (Austroasiatic). After establishing the notion of transitivity in Mon, the study looks at syntactic constructions that are cross-linguistically found to be relevant the selection of Grammatical Relations, including word order, case marking, control, reflexivization, among others. The results show that Mon exhibits identical treatment of S and A (‘Subject’) in most constructions, less prominently of P and T (‘Direct Object’), as well as a subset {P, G} in at least one construction. Grammatical Relations are found to be relevant for the description and analysis of Mon.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Transitivity in Mon: Syntactic and semantic
    • 2.1Intransitive expressions
    • 2.2Transitive expressions
    • 2.3Ditransitive expressions
    • 2.4Semantic transitivity
  • 3.Argument selectors in Mon
    • 3.1Word order
    • 3.2Case marking
    • 3.3Voice
      • 3.3.1Passive
      • 3.3.2Causative
    • 3.4Secondary verbs
    • 3.5Control
    • 3.6Reflexives
    • 3.7Purposive clauses
    • 3.8Not relevant in Mon
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Sources
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.04jen
References (15)
References
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2009. ‘Case relations’ in Lao, a radically isolating language. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 808–819. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora. A Cross-linguistic Study. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias. 2005. The Verb System of Mon. Zurich: ASAS.Google Scholar
. 2009. Deixis and information structure in Mon. The multifunctional particle kòh. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2: 53–71.Google Scholar
. 2011. Burmese syntax in Mon – External influence and internal development. In Austroasiatic Studies: Papers from ICAAL4, Sophana Srichampa, Paul Sidwell & Kenneth Gregerson (eds). Special issue of Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 3: 48–64.Google Scholar
. 2014. Transitivity and affectedness in Mon. Journal of Mon-Khmer Studies 43(1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias & Hnin Tun, San San. 2013. Differential subject marking without ergativity – the case of colloquial Burmese. Studies in Language 37(4): 693–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2002. Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi.1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar