Rise of canonical subjecthood

In this paper I have examined several instances in which an oblique constituent acquires canonical subject marking, i.e. nominative case and verbal agreement (in an accusative language). These instances show that an oblique constituent may acquire subject coding properties without being beforehand endowed with subject behavioural properties, if two requirements are met: (i) this oblique constituent must exhibit a considerable functional overlap with the prototypical subject in the given language and, (ii) there must be either no canonically case-marked subject in the construction at all, or the coding subject properties must be assigned to a constituent that has less functional-semantic overlap with the prototypical subject than the oblique constituent. Furthermore, I claim that there is often some minor semantic change concomitant with the acquisition of subject coding properties. I have also introduced the control over the pre-stage property (CoP) which is a weaker entailment than Dowty’s (1991) volitional involvement in event or state. It only denotes whether or not the experiencer had the choice to resist the experience to come about. Differently from Dowty’s (1991) approach, which presupposes that the proto-role entailments are lexical and provided primarily by the predicate, it is assumed that some of the proto-role entailments may also stem from the case frame. This becomes especially obvious with the labile predicates that allow for more than one case frame, each resulting in different sets of the proto-role entailments.

[1]  Beatrice Primus,et al.  Cases and thematic roles , 1999 .

[2]  ASPECT AND ACTIONALITY IN LITHUANIAN ON A TYPOLOGICAL BACKGROUND , 2011 .

[3]  Tsunoda Tasaku Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood , 1981 .

[4]  W. Bruce Croft Typology and Universals , 1990 .

[5]  A. Andrews The major functions of the noun phrase , 2007 .

[6]  Masayuki Onishi,et al.  Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and Properties , 2001 .

[7]  Thórhallur Eythórsson,et al.  Changes in Subject Case-Marking in Icelandic , 2002 .

[8]  Susann Fischer 9. The diachronic relationship between quirky subjects and stylistic fronting , 2004 .

[9]  B. Comrie 'Oblique-case subjects in Tsez' , 2004 .

[10]  Dieter Wunderlich,et al.  The force of lexical case: German and Icelandic compared , 2000 .

[11]  Knud Lambrecht,et al.  Information structure and sentence form , 1994 .

[12]  B. Heine,et al.  Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework , 1991 .

[13]  Wayne Harbert,et al.  The Acquisition of Subjecthood , 1980 .

[14]  Ilja A. Seržant The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal account , 2012 .

[15]  Jack Feuillet,et al.  Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d'Europe , 1998 .

[16]  Östen Dahl,et al.  Animacy and the notion of semantic gender , 2000 .

[17]  Scott Delancey,et al.  Notes on Agentivity and Causation , 1984 .

[18]  A. Malchukov Case Pattern Splits, Verb Types and Construction Competition , 2005 .

[19]  E. Traugott Constructions in Grammaticalization , 2008 .

[20]  Colin P. Masica The Indo-Aryan Languages , 1991 .

[21]  David R. Dowty Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[22]  ALEKSANDR E. KIBRIK,et al.  Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology , 1997 .

[23]  R. Dixon,et al.  Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects , 2001 .

[24]  T. Mohanan Argument structure in Hindi , 1994 .

[25]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization , 2004 .

[26]  T. Givón Grammatical Relations: An Introduction , 1997 .

[27]  Sturla Berg-Olsen,et al.  The Latvian dative and genitive: A Cognitive Grammar account , 2005 .

[28]  Mengistu Amberber,et al.  Competition and Variation in Natural Languages , 2005 .

[29]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[30]  H. de Hoop,et al.  Differential subject marking , 2009 .

[31]  T. Eythórsson,et al.  Oblique Subjects: A Common Germanic Inheritance , 2005 .

[32]  Kārumūri V. Subbārāo South Asian Languages: Non-nominative subjects , 2012 .

[33]  T. Givón,et al.  On Understanding Grammar , 1979 .

[34]  Graeme Trousdale,et al.  Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction , 2008 .

[35]  Cynthia L. Allen,et al.  Case-Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English , 1995 .

[36]  Ilja A. Seržant Morphosyntactic properties of the partitive genitive in the subject position in Ancient Greek , 2012 .

[37]  Dieter Wunderlich,et al.  On the interaction of structural and semantic case , 2001 .

[38]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[39]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction , 2008 .

[40]  Martin Haspelmath The Behaviour-before-Coding Principle in syntactic change , 2010 .

[41]  William H. Eilfort,et al.  Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the Twenty-first Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 1985 , 1985 .

[42]  Balthasar Bickel,et al.  Grammatical Relations Typology , 2010 .