Journal of Universal Language

Sejong University Language Research Institue

J. Univers. Lang. 2002; 3(2):75-111

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2002.3.2.75

Article

Universals for the New Structural Level of Clause Representation

Valery Solovyev¹

¹Kazan State University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

A new predicate-argument relation is introduced in this paper. Some arguments of the verb are distinguished as central to the base of surface marking. Information transfers from arguments to the verb are critical items of distinguishment; central arguments can be found in every language. While offering information transfers and centers classifications， this paper shows that the main property of centers is the scope of semantic roles accessible for central argument. Furthermore， this paper analyzes the relationship between the offered conception and well-known conceptions (subject， focus， etc.). This conception reveals a new view of the passive. In this paper， active- passive relations are interpreted as a choice of center position， but not as a transformation. The offered conception can be used to create a new language typology on the base of center properties.

Keywords: language typology; clause structure; information; universals; agreement; passive

References

Bokarev， E. & K. Lomtatudse. 1967. Jazyki Narodov SSSR 4. Mos- cow: Nauka.

Comrie， B. 1977. In Defense of Spontaneous Demotion: The Imper- sonal Passive. Grammatical Relations. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (eds.)， Syntax and Semantics 8， 47-58. New York: Academic Press.

Foley， W. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford， CA: Stanford University Press.

Ford， A. 1981. L'obviation en Montagnais. Linguistique Am강rindi- enne 2: Etudes Aalgonquiennes 65-82. Montréal: Recherches linguistiques à Montréal.

Gil， D. 1994. The Srtucture of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17， 179-200.

Gil， D. 1999. Riau Indonesian as a Pivotless Language. In E. Rakhilina & Y. Testelets (eds.)， Typology and Linguistic Theory 187-212. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.

Haspelmath， M. 1990. The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology. Studies in Language 14， 25-72.

Heath， J. 1977. Choktaw Cases. Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 204-213. Berkeley， CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Johnson， D. 1977. On Relational Constraints on Grammars. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (eds.)， Syntax and Semantic 8， 151-178. New York: Academic Press.

10.

Keenan， E. 1976. Towards a Universal Defanition of "Subject". In C. Li (ed.)， Subject and Topic 303-333. New York: Academic Press.

11.

Keenan， E. 1985. Passive in the World's Languages. In T. Shopen (ed.)， Language Typology and Syntactic Description 1， 243-281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Kibrik， A. 1997. Beyond Subject and Object: Toward a Comprehensive Relational Typology. Linguistic Typology 1， 279-346.

13.

Kibrik， A. 2001. Bagvalal. Moscow: Nasledie.

14.

Klaiman， M. 1988. Affectedness and Control: A Typology of Voice Systems. In M. Shibatani (ed.)， Typological Studies in Languages 16: Passive and Voice 25-83. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

15.

Lee， D. 2002. A Comparison of Unish Grammar with Esperanto. To appear in Journal of Universal Language 4.

16.

Li， C. & S. Thompson. 1976. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Languages. In C. Li (ed.)， Subject and Topic 457-489. New York: Academic Press.

17.

Mel'cuk， I. 1998. Cours de Morphologie G강n강rale 2. Moscow & Vienna: Jaziki Russkoj Kul'tury.

18.

Mithun， M. 1991. Active-agentive Case Marking and its Motivation. Language 76， 510-546.

19.

Nichols， J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Payne， T. 1997. Describing Mrphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Payne， T. 1999. A Functional Typology of Inverse Constructions. In Y. Testelets & E. Rakhilina (eds.)， Typology and Linguistic Theroy: From Description to Explanation 245-254. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.

22.

Perlmutter， D. & P. Postal. 1983. Toward a Universal Characterization of Passivization. In D. Perlmutter (ed.)， Studies in Relational Grammar 1， 3-29. Chicago， IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Perlmutter， D. & P. Postal. 1984. The 1 Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In D. Permutter & C. Rosen (eds.)， Studies in Relational Grammar 2， 81-125. Chicago， IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Schachter， P. 1976. The Subject in Philippine Languages: Topic， Actor， Actor-Topic or None of the Above. In C. Li (ed.)， Subject and Topic 491-518. New York: Academic Press.

25.

Schachter， P. 1977. Reference-related and Role-related Properties of Subjects. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (eds.)， Syntax and Semantics 8，279-306. New York: Academic Press.

26.

Shutova， E. 1991. Sintaksis Sovremennogo Kitaiskogo Jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

27.

Tomlin， R. 1994. Focal Attention， Voice， and Word Order: An Experimental， Cross-linguistic Study. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (eds.)， Word Order in Discourse 517-554. Amsterdam: Benjamin.

28.

Tsunoda， T. 1981. Interaction of Phonological， Grammatical， and Semantic Factors: An Australian Example. Oceanic Linguistic 20， 45-92.

29.

Van Valin， R. & W. Foley. 1980. Role and Reference Grammar. In E. Moravcsik (ed.)， Syntax and Semantics 13， 329-352. New York: Academic Press.

30.

Witherspoon， G. 1977. Language and Art in the Navajo Universe.Ann Arbor， MI: University of Michigan Press.