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. 301–348

Grammatical relations in Mandinka

| Université Lumière ()

In this paper, after establishing on a strictly language-internal basis the distinction between four possible syntactic positions for arguments in Mandinka predicative constructions, and analyzing alignment relationships in the coding properties of arguments, I discuss alignment in the syntactic operations and constructions likely to be relevant to the definition of grammatical relations. Most of them confirm the S = A ≠ P alignment apparent in the coding properties of arguments. However, Mandinka also has several constructions or operations with no differentiation between S, A and P, a few others in which A and P behave differently and S is aligned with P, and one with a tripartite treatment of S, A and P.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Verbal predication in mandinka
    • 2.1Core terms and obliques
    • 2.2Verbal predication with two core terms
    • 2.3Verbal predication with a single core term
    • 2.4Transitivity alternations, or null core terms?
    • 2.5The middle variant of the verbal predicative construction with two core terms
  • 3.Valency classes and alignment in the coding properties or arguments
    • 3.1Monovalent verbs
    • 3.2Bivalent verbs
    • 3.3Trivalent verbs
    • 3.4Alignment in argument coding
  • 4.Valency alternations
    • 4.1Uncoded valency alternations
      • 4.1.1C2 ~  C alternation
      • 4.1.2C2 ~  X alternation
      • 4.1.3The active/introversive alternation
      • 4.1.4The C2 ~  X permutation
      • 4.1.5Alternations involving the middle construction
      • 4.1.6The C ~  X alternation (or presentational alternation)
    • 4.2Valency operations involving a change in the verb stem
      • 4.2.1Antipassive derivation and the antipassive periphrasis
      • 4.2.2Causative derivation
      • 4.2.3Postposition incorporation
    • 4.3Conclusion of Section 4
  • 5.Constructions and operations for which the distinction between C, C1, C2, and X is not relevant
    • 5.1Topicalization
    • 5.2Focalization
    • 5.3Wh-questions
    • 5.4Relativization (1)
  • 6.Secondary predication as a construction in which core terms contrast with obliques, but core terms are all treated in the same way
  • 7.Constructions and operations in which C/C1 contrasts with C2
    • 7.1Imperative clauses
    • 7.2Reflexivization and reciprocalization
    • 7.3Infinitival constructions and coreference in clause coordination
    • 7.4Relativization (2)
    • 7.5Nominalization
    • 7.6Gerundive incorporation
    • 7.7Discourse particles
  • 8.Constructions and operations in which C/C2 contrasts with C1
    • 8.1The resultative participle
    • 8.2Similative incorporation
  • 9.Constructions and operations with a tripartite treatment of C, C1 and C2
  • 10.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.09cre
References
Bassène, Alain-Christian & Creissels, Denis
2011 Impersonal constructions in Jóola-Banjal. In Impersonal Constructions. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 283–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2011 Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cobbinah, Alexander & Lüpke, Friederike
2009 Not cut to fit – zero coded passives in African languages. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Maria Fehn (eds), 153–165. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
1983 Eléments de grammaire de la langue mandinka. Grenoble : ELLUG.Google Scholar
2014 P-lability and radical P-alignment. Linguistics 52(4): 911–944. 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
2018 The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language 121], Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds), 61–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Sambou, Pierre
2013 Le mandinka (mandiŋkakáŋo): Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Diagne, Anna Marie
2013 Transitivity in Bakel Soninke. Mandenkan 50: 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Biaye, Séckou
2016 Le balant ganja: Phonologie, morphosyntaxe, liste lexicale, textes. Dakar: IFAN.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1998 Définition des actants dans les langues européennes. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 11–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüpke, Friederike
2007 Vanishing voice – the morphologically zero-coded passive of Jalonke. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 14: 173–191.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Evan Celyn
1959 A Grammar of Gambian Mandinka. London: SOAS.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
Vydrin, Valentin
2009 On the problem of the Proto-Mande homeland. Вопросы языкового родства – Journal of Language Relationship 1: 107–142.Google Scholar
Wade, Terence
2010 A Comprehensive Russian Grammar, 3rd edn, revised by David Gillespie. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2011 Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Creissels, Denis
2018. Chapter 2. The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.