Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume I: Clause Structure, Second edition
Download 1.59 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
Lgg Typology, Synt Description v. I - Clause structure
participial clauses: (136) ↓ ↓ (a) jon-nii bil-la aaplyaa gharaat maarle pn -erg pn-acc self’s house hit ‘John i hit Bill j in self’s i/*j house’ 420 William A. Foley ↓ ↓ (b) [ gharii jaa-uun] jon-nii bil-laa shaalet paathawle home go-nfn pn-erg pn-acc school sent ‘On i/*j going home, John i sent Bill j to school’ The same grammatical properties still accrue to the [ +a] argument in passive clauses, demonstrating that the [ +a] argument does not lose its most prominent position in argument structure in these clauses: (137) ↓ ↓ (a) bil-laa jon-kaduun aaplyaa gharaat maarle gele pn -acc pn-by self’s house hit pass ‘Bill i was hit by John j in self’s *i/j house’ ↓ ↓ (b) [ gharii jaa-uun] jon-kaduun bil-laa maarle gele home go-nfn pn-by pn -acc hit pass ‘On *i/j going home, Bill i was hit by John j ’ In English, however, the [ +a] argument does cede these properties to the [−a] pivot np: ↓ ↓ (138) (a) Bill i was given by John j a picture of himself i/*j ↓ ↓ (b) While i/*j watching the film, Egbert i was tickled by Sam j The differences between Marathi and English seem explicable in terms of sec- ondary language-specific effects of the passive lexical derivation. The universal effect is as we have defined it: blocking the linking of the [ +a] argument to [ −oblique]. For some languages like Marathi, this is as far as it goes; note, for example, that the Marathi [ −a] argument even remains in accusative case in the passive! But, for other languages other effects occur. In English, pivots are required, so the only other [ −oblique] np, [−a] argument, must assume pivot status. Constructions sensitive to pivot status, like control, are then targeted by it. Further, the [ +oblique] status of the [+a] argument in passive constructions requires that it cede its ability to bind reflexives, which is typically a property of [ −oblique] nps in English, not [+a] argument: John i gave Mary j a picture of himself/herself; John i gave a book to Mary j about himself/*herself. John and Mary are both [ −oblique] nps in the first example, so either may bind the reflexive. But in the second example, only John is [ −oblique], so it is the only acceptable binder. Passives are found in languages of all types: pivotless, asymmetrical nominative–accusative (i.e. English), asymmetrical ergative–absolutive, and, A typology of information packaging 421 perhaps surprisingly, symmetrical. But in symmetrical languages there is, in fact, nothing preventing the removal of the [ +a] argument to [+oblique] status, provided, of course, that it is not pivot, i.e. pivot choice is [ −a]. Such patterns are found in some Philippine languages, such as Sama (Foley and Van Valin (1984)). The normal construction for a [ −a] pivot choice is (139a); its passive equivalent is (139b): (139) (a) -b’lla d’nda kiyakan kami pivot =[−a]-buy girl [+a] food [−a] 1pl.poss ‘The girl bought our food’ (b) -b-i-’lla uk d’nda kiyakan kami pivot =[−a]-[pass]-buy [+oblique] girl [+a] food [−a] 1pl.poss ‘Our food was bought by the girl’ The passive formed is marked by the infix -i- and the [ +oblique] status of the [ +a] argument. The [−a] argument, of course, undergoes no change because it is already the pivot: (140) (a) normal ([ −a] pivot) [ +a] [ −a] | | Download 1.59 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling