Cover not available

Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 47:4 (2023) ► pp.830–869

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Grammar (morphosyntax) and discourse

 | National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics
Published online: 13 January 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21064.tsu
Abstract
The present work attempts to examine the relationship between grammar and discourse. (i) First, it compares Warrongo (an ergative language that has antipassives and an S/O pivot) and English (an accusative language that has passives and an S/A pivot). Despite these polar opposite morphosyntactic characteristics, Warrongo and English behave almost in the same way in discourse – in terms of new mentions, lexical mentions and topic continuity. There are, however, two differences in discourse. First, Warrongo antipassives and S/O pivot have much higher functional loads than English passives and S/A pivot. Second, Warrongo antipassives have a use that English passives do not have. (ii) Then, the present work shows that grammar and discourse are not independent of each other and that they share one principle. The hierarchy of “O > S > A” is attested in grammar and discourse crosslinguistically and irrespective of the morphosyntactic types of the languages concerned.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preliminaries and previous studies
  • 3.Comparison of Warrongo and English
    • 3.1Notes on Warrongo and English
      • 3.1.1Notes on Warrongo
      • 3.1.2Notes on English
      • 3.1.3Data employed for the present work
    • 3.2Methodological and theoretical preliminaries
      • [1] New mentions
      • [2] Lexical mentions
      • [3] Topic continuity
      • [4] A, S and O
    • 3.3New mentions
    • 3.4Lexical mentions
    • 3.5Topic continuity of new mentions
    • 3.6Warrongo antipassives and English passives
    • 3.7S/O pivot and S/A pivot
    • 3.8Warrongo data and English data: Summary and discussion
      • 3.8.1Summary
        • [1] Hierarchy of “O > S > A”
        • [2] The A is the highest on the hierarchies.
        • [3] Warrongo antipassives and S/O pivot have high functional loads, while English passives and S/A pivot have low, or almost no, functional loads.
        • [4] Voice switch
      • 3.8.2Discussion
        • [1] Topicality of the agent and morphosyntactic types
        • [2] Cooreman (1988) on Dyirbal discourse
        • [3] Antipassives, passives and syntactic pivots
        • [4] Is there a discourse basis of ergativity?
  • 4.Hierarchy of “O > S > A” in grammar and discourse
    • 4.1Introductory notes
    • 4.2“O > S > A” in discourse
      • 4.2.1O > S > A: New mentions and/or lexical mentions
      • 4.2.2O >S > A: Relative clauses of English
    • 4.3“O > S >A” in grammar (morphosyntax)
      • 4.3.1Compounding of a verb and a noun, and noun incorporation
        • [1] Compounding of a verb and a noun
        • [2] Noun incorporation
      • 4.3.2Resultative constructions
        • [1] Djaru of Western Australia
        • [2] Works in Nedjalkov (ed.) (1988)
      • 4.3.3Possessor ascension
      • 4.3.4Adverbial clause with -nagara ‘while’ of Japanese
      • 4.3.5Possessor respect of Japanese
      • 4.3.6“O > S > A” in grammar (morphosyntax): Summary
    • 4.4“O > S > A” in grammar (morphosyntax) and discourse: Discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (79)
References
Allen, Shanley E. M. & Heike Schröder. 2003. Preferred Argument Structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 301–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1985. Case markers, case and grammatical relations: An addendum to Goddard. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5(1). 79–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2015. Historical discourse analysis. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 11, 222–243. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Clay Beckner. 2010. Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 827–855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & James L. McClelland. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22(2–4). 381–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4). 575–596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 231. 378–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (ed.). 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Ergativity in Dyirbal discourse. Linguistics 26(5). 717–746. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooreman, A., B. Fox & T. Givón. 1984. Discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8(1). 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corston-Oliver, Simon H. 2003. Core arguments and the inversion of the nominal hierarchy in Roviana. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 273–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1977. A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 21, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.). 2003. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1987. Grammatical relations in Acehnese. Studies in Language 11(2). 365–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
England, Nora C. & Laura Martin. 2003. Issues in the comparative argument structure analysis in Mayan narratives. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 131–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolute hypothesis. Language 63(4). 856–870. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66(2). 297–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol & Laura D. Crain. 2003. Beyond Preferred Argument Structure: Sentences, pronouns, and given referents. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 197–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gertds, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 84–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2(2). 167–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92(3). 591–618. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1976. Honorifics. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Japanese generative grammar, 499–561. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Whither ergativity? A review article [on Frans Plank 1979 (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press]. Linguistics 18(9–10). 877–910.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 1989. Verbless presentation and the discourse basis of ergativity. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 25(2). 123–137.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 131. 139–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry H. 1977. The syntax of body parts. Haya grammatical structure (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6), 99–117. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 1996. Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25(5). 675–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kumagai, Yoshiharu. 2006. Information management in intransitive subjects: Some implications for the Preferred Argument Structure theory. Journal of Pragmatics 38(6). 670–694. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurebito, Megumi. 2001. Noun incorporation in Koryak. In Osahito Miyaoka & Fubito Endo (eds.), Languages of the North Pacific Rim, vol. 61, 29–57. Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Litvinov, Viktor P. & Kofi H. Agbodjo. 1988. Resultative in Ewe. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 231–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1976. Noun incorporation and discourse reference in Modern Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 42(3). 177–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minami, Fujio. 1993. Gendai Nihongo bunpoo no rinkaku [Outline of Modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847–894. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Discourse and grammar. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 11, 11–41. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nasilov, Dmitrij M. 1988. Stative, resultative and perfective in Uzbek. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 221–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. Where is functional explanation? Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 37(2). 99–122.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okutsu, Keiichirō. 1996. Hukabunri shoyū to shoyūsha idō [Inalienable possession and possessor float]. In his Shūi Nihonbunpōron [Studies in Japanese grammar: Selected writings], 267–281. Tokyo: Hituzi. (Originally published in 1983 in Todai Ronkyū [Bulletin of Tokyo Metropolitan University], vol. 20.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1979. Ergativity, syntactic typology and universal grammar: Some past and present viewpoints. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 3–36. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1984. Whither radical pragmatics? In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984), 139–149. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist n.s. 13(2). 250–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senge, Chikako. 2015. A grammar of Wanyjirra, a language of Northern Australia. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.
Thompson, Sandra A. 1997. Discourse motivations for the core-oblique distinction as a language universal. In Akio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru language of Kimberley, Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Topicality in ergative and accusative languages. Nagoya Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 174–258. Nagoya: University of Nagoya.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988a. Ergativity, accusativity and topicality. The Journal of the Faculty of Letters Nagoya University 1001. 1–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988b. Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 595–649. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Sekai no gengo to Nihongo [The world’s languages and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. The possession cline in Japanese and other languages. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 565–630. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Sekai no gengo to Nihongo [The world’s languages and Japanese]. Rev. edn. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Inalienable possession in Japanese, English and Warrongo. In Prashant Pardeshi & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Handbook of Japanese contrastive linguistics, 557–585. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Danwa no nookakusee wa bunpoo no nookakusee o keeseesuru ka? [Does ergativity in discourse shape ergativity in grammar?] Paper presented at the 158th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, Hitotsubashi University, 22 June.
Van Valin, Robert D. 1980. On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50(4). 303–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & William A. Foley. 1980. Role and reference grammar. In Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax, 329–352. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaxtin, Nikolaj B. 1988. Resultative in Asiatic Eskimo. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 199–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhaar, John W. M. 1985. On iconicity and hierarchy. Studies in Language 9(1). 21–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Volodin, Aleksandr P. 1988. Resultative and perfect passive in Finnish. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 469–477. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1(1). 43–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue