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. 257–299

Grammatical relations in Balinese

| Australian National University/Udayana University
Grammatical relations in Balinese show good empirical evidence for the classification of syntactic dependents into core arguments, obliques and adjuncts. One of the core arguments is selected as Pivot, a well-defined syntactic notion with certain exclusive selectors, such as control and relativisation. The selectors distinguishing core arguments from obliques and adjuncts include phrasal flagging, fixed structural positioning, and possibility of quantifier float, depictive predicates, and argument elision in imperatives. Pivot selection and valence-changing operations, such as applicativisation, provide ample evidence for a symmetrical voice system, and clausal arguments which do not constitute a distinct grammatical relation. These properties, particularly that of passive-like voice alternation without demoting the actor argument to an oblique, pose a challenge in linguistic typology and linguistic theory.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical relations and classes of arguments
  • 3.Pivot and its selectors in Balinese
    • 3.1Structural position
    • 3.2Voice marking
    • 3.3Behavioural properties
  • 4.Core arguments
    • 4.1Argument flagging
    • 4.2Structural rigidity
    • 4.3Quantifier float
    • 4.4Left dislocation
    • 4.5Depictive predicates
    • 4.6Reflexives
    • 4.7Argument elision in imperatives
  • 5.Obliques
  • 6.Three-place predicates
  • 7.Adjuncts
  • 8.Clausal arguments
  • 9.Adverbial clauses
    • 9.1Adverbial clause marking
    • 9.2Anaphoric control of the adverbial argument
  • 10.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.08ark
References (28)
References
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 2007. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 132–223. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2003a. Balinese Morphosyntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2003b. Voice systems in the Austronesian languages of Nusantara: Typology, symmetricality and Undergoer orientation. Linguistik Indonesia 21(1): 113–139.Google Scholar
. 2008. Voice and the syntax of =a/−a verbs in Balinese. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter K. Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 70–89. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2014. Locatives and the argument-adjunct distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 56–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical Functional Syntax. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 1989. Speech Styles in Javanese and Balinese: A Comparative Study. MA thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Panguage, Winifred P. Lehman (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Austin Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Towards a typology of ditransitive constructions. Presented at The Sixth Congress of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Padang, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1): 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Presented at Workshop on voice and grammatical functions in Austronesian languages, LFG98, Sydney.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, Andrej L. Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pastika, I Wayan. 1999. Voice Selection in Balinese Narrative Discourse. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja. 2014. Symmetrical Voice and Linking in Western Austronesian Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Udayana, I Nyoman. 2013. Voice and Reflexivity in Balinese, PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological Variations in Grammatical Relations, PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bril, Isabelle
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice constructions (Northern Amis). STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Bril, Isabelle
2024. Adversative and experiential applicative constructions in Northern Amis (Austronesian). Linguistics 62:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.