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
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.07ser
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.07ser
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.
References (73)
Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R.M.W., & Onishi, M. (2001). Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Typological Studies in Language 46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ambrazas, V., Genušienė, E., Girdenis, A., Sližienė, N., & Tekorienė, D. (1997). Lithuanian Grammar. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, ed. by V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
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.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (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.
Bhaskararao, K., & Subbarao, V. (2004). Non-nominative subjects (Vol. 1–2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Brownson, C.L. (1922). Xenophon. Xenophon in Seven Volumes, 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: William Heinemann, Ltd. (Quoted from the PDL).
Bybee, J.L., & Moder, C.L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270.
Clancy, S.J. (2010). The chain of being and having in slavic. SLCS 122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press
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.
. (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.
. (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.
. (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.
. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Divjak, Dagmar, & Janda, Laura A. (2008). Ways of attenuating agency in Russian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 138–179.
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. Chapter 11. In Irina Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–432) Oxford: OUP.
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.
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.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
. (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]
de Hoop, H., & Swart, P. (2008). Differential subject marking. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Jablonskis, J. (1922). Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Etimologija. Kaunas, Vilnius: Švyturio. [Grammar of Lithuanian. Etymology.]
Janda, L. (1993). A geography of case semantics. The czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Keenan, E.L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Ch. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.
Keydana, G. (1997). Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kittilä, S. (2002). Transitivity: Toward a comprehensive typology. Publications in General Linguistics 5. Turku: University of Turku.
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.
Langacker, R.W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
. (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.
Lazard, G. (1998). Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica, XXXVI(3–4), 141–190.
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]
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.
Magometov, A.A. (1982). Megebskij dialect darginskogo jazyka (issledovanie i teksty). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
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.
. (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.
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.
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.
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?]
. (2005). Eščo raz o genitive subjekta pri otricanii. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2005(5), 84–99. [Once again about the genitive under negation]
PDL = Perseus Digital Library. Gregory R. Crane, Editor-in-Chief, Tufts University. [URL]
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.
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.
RNC = Russian National Corpus at [URL]
Roduner, M., & Privitelli, T. (2006). Der Genitiv des Agens / Experiencers in Litauischen und Russischen Dialekten. Acta Balto-Slavica, 30, 403–425.
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.
Seržant, I.A., & Kulikov, L. (2013). Diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects, ed. by I.A. Seržant & L. Kulikov. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Taylor, J. (1995). Grammatical categories, ch. 10. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 293–308.
Timberlake, A. (1975). Subject properties in the North Russian passive. In Li & Thompson (Eds.), Subject and topic (pp. 545–594). New York: Academic Press.
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsunoda, T. (1981). Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 19, 389–438.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2025. 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.