Article published in:
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical
Edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 175–203

Categorization and semantics of subject-like obliques

A cross-linguistic perspective

This chapter’s underlying framework is one of functionalist cognitive linguistics. It suggest a categorization of non-prototypical trajector (subject) constructions into syntax-, gram- and lexeme-driven ones depending on the nature of the domain that triggers the oblique case-marking on the trajector argument. Additionally, a unified semantic account is proposed, which is based on the comparison with causative events. The structure of these events consists of an antecedent subevent (typically implicit) and a subsequent subevent. This study argues that constructions with non-prototypical trajectors (subjects) refer to consequent events. That is, all three types of constructions exhibit an invariant semantic core; they conceptualize the event as being a (causally) consequent event and imply the existence of a causally antecedent event. The differences between the three types pertain mainly to the referential properties of the antecedent event and its main participant: while with the syntax-driven type the antecedent event is explicit, referential and conceptualized onstage, with the gram-driven type it is implicit, non-referential and offstage, though confined to a particular concept. The lexeme-driven type only implies the existence of an antecedent event; it does not, however, commit any assessment on the conceptualization of this event.
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.07ser
References

References

Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R.M.W., & Onishi, M.
(2001) Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Typological Studies in Language 46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ambrazas, V., Genušienė, E., Girdenis, A., Sližienė, N., & Tekorienė, D.
(1997) Lithuanian Grammar. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, ed. by V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Babby, L.H.
(2001) The genitive of negation: a unified analysis. In Steven Franks, Tracy Holloway King & Michael Yadroff (Eds.), Annual workshop on formal approaches to slavic linguistics: The Bloomington meeting 2000 (FASL 9) (pp. 39–55). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 123–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, K., & Subbarao, V.
(2004) Non-nominative subjects (Vol. 1–2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blaszczak, J.
(2008) Differential subject Marking in Polish. In Helen de Hoop & Peter Swart (Eds.), Differential subject marking. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72 (pp. 113–150). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Blevins, J.
(2003) Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brownson, C.L.
(1922) Xenophon. Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: William Heinemann, Ltd. (Quoted from the PDL).Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Moder, C.L.
(1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, S.J.
(2010) The chain of being and having in slavic. SLCS 122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S.
(2003) Subordination. Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1993) The semantics of mental verbs. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) The semantics of subjecthood. In M. Yaguello (Ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity. The status of the subject in linguistic theory (pp. 29–76). Proceedings of the Colloquium “The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory” London, 19–20 March 1993. Paris: OPHRYS.Google Scholar
(1998a) Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments. Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 21–64). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(1998b) The structure of events and the structure of language. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 67–92). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S.
(1985) Agentivity and syntax. In W.H. Eilfort, P.D. Kroeber & K.L. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on causativity and agentivity at the twenty-first regional meeting. Chichago Linguistic Society (CLS 21), Part 2 (pp. 1–12) Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A.
(2008) Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 138–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.R.
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dziwirek, K.
(1994) Polish subjects. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Evans, N.
(2007) Insubordination and its uses. Chapter 11. In Irina Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–432) Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, D., Maisak, T., & Merdanova, Solmaz R.
(2008) Involuntary agent as non-canonical subject in Agul. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (Eds.), Differential subject marking (pp. 173–198). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, D.
(2013) Diachrony of experiencer subject marking: Evidence from east caucasian. In I.A. Seržant & L. Kulikov (Eds.), The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects (pp. 231–256). SLCS Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2001) Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In A. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 53–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, A.
(2007) Mood and modality in Baltic. Baltica Varsoviensia VI. Kraków.Google Scholar
(2009) Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. In A. Holvoet & R. Mikulskas (Eds.), Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (pp. 37–68). Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas & Asociacija ‘Academia Salensis’. [Diffused subjects and objects]Google Scholar
de Hoop, H., & Swart, P.
(2008) Differential subject marking. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.
(1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jablonskis, J.
(1922) Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Etimologija. Kaunas, Vilnius: Švyturio. [Grammar of Lithuanian. Etymology.]Google Scholar
Janda, L.
(1993) A geography of case semantics. The czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L.
(1976) Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Ch. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keydana, G.
(1997) Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S.
(2002) Transitivity: Toward a comprehensive typology. Publications in General Linguistics 5. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.
(1993) Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, & Wälchli, Bernhard
(2001) The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), Circum-Baltic languages (Vol. 2, pp. 615–750). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1997) Consciousness, construal and subjectivity. In M.I. Stamenov (Ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness (pp. 49–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornille (Eds.), Subjectification. Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G.
(1998) Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica, XXXVI(3–4), 141–190.Google Scholar
Lewis & Short
. A Latin dictionary: Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary / revised, enlarged and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. First published in 1879 [Quoted from PDL]Google Scholar
Luraghi, S.
(2009) Case in cognitive grammar. Chapter 9. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The oxford handbook of case (pp. 135–150). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Magometov, A.A.
(1982) Megebskij dialect darginskogo jazyka (issledovanie i teksty). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A.
(2005) Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages. The case for case (pp. 73–118). Amsterdam/Boston: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 329–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, V.P., & Sil’nickij, G.G.
(1969) Tipologija kauzativnych konstrukcij. In A. Xolodovič (Ed.), Tipologija kauzativnych konstrukcij. Morfonologičeskij kauzativ (pp. 5–20). Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Jazykoznanija. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Nauka.Google Scholar
Nesset, T., Endresen, A., & Janda, L.
(2011) Two ways to get out: Radial category profiling and the Russian prefixes vy- and iz-. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 56(4), 377–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, Je. V.
(1997) Roditel’nyj subjekta v otricatel’nom predloženii: Sintaksis ili semantika? Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2, 101–116. [The genitive case of subject in a negated sentence: syntax or semantics?]Google Scholar
(2005) Eščo raz o genitive subjekta pri otricanii. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2005(5), 84–99. [Once again about the genitive under negation]Google Scholar
PDL = Perseus Digital Library
Gregory R. Crane, Editor-in-Chief, Tufts University. http://​www​.perseus​.tufts​.edu/
Pörn, M.
(2008) Psychophysical and physical causative emotion verbs in Finnish: The temporal Structure of causative emotion verb + infinitive 1 – Constructions within conceptual semantics. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 21, 201–218.Google Scholar
Primus, B.
(1999) Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L.
(1999) Causation and external arguments. In L. Pylkkänen, A. van Hout, & H. Harley (Eds.), Papers from the second Penn/MIT roundtable on the lexicon. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35 (pp. 161–183). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Roduner, M., & Privitelli, T.
(2006) Der Genitiv des Agens / Experiencers in Litauischen und Russischen Dialekten. Acta Balto-Slavica, 30, 403–425.Google Scholar
Seržant, I.A.
forthcoming). Dative experiencer constructions as a circum-baltic isogloss. In P. Arkadiev, A. Holvoet, & B. Wiemer (Eds.) Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics Berlin De Gruyter
(2012) The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal approach. Lingua, 122, 356–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, I.A., & Kulikov, L.
(2013) Diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects, ed. by I.A. Seržant & L. Kulikov. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L.
(1985) Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1976) Semantic causative types. In Masayoshi Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causative constructions. Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 43–116). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.
(1995) Grammatical categories, ch. 10. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 293–308.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(1975) Subject properties in the North Russian passive. In Li & Thompson (Eds.), Subject and topic (pp. 545–594). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B.
(2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T.
(1981) Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 19, 389–438.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D., & Lakämper, R.
(2001) On the interation of structural and semantic case. Lingua 111 (4–7): 377-417. (Special Issue on Effects of morphological case, ed. by H. de Hoop, O. Koeneman, J. Mulders & F. Weerman.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaitseva, Maria
(2001) Vepsän kielen lauseoppia. Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 241. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Vinogradov, Igor
2019. The Prospective Construction in Q’eqchi’. International Journal of American Linguistics 85:2 ► pp. 247 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 february 2021. 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.