Linguistic Theory

Linguistic TheoryLinguistic TheoryLecture 9Lecture 9

Grammatical FunctionsGrammatical Functions

IntroductionIntroduction• The notion of grammatical function The notion of grammatical function

(subject, object, etc.) seems to be a (subject, object, etc.) seems to be a basic element of grammatical analysis. basic element of grammatical analysis. But:But:– There are questions of how they are to be There are questions of how they are to be

defineddefined– There are questions of whether they are There are questions of whether they are

present in all languages (universality)present in all languages (universality)– There are questions of how they are to be There are questions of how they are to be

identifiedidentified

The classical approachThe classical approach• The study of classical languages, which The study of classical languages, which

were rich in morphology and allowed were rich in morphology and allowed fairly free word orders, and which did not fairly free word orders, and which did not distinguish rigorously between form and distinguish rigorously between form and meaning, lead to a particular view of meaning, lead to a particular view of grammatical functions:grammatical functions:– They were associated with wordsThey were associated with words– They were semantically definedThey were semantically defined– They were morphologically identifiedThey were morphologically identified

Grammatical functions = Grammatical functions = wordswords• Because the notion of a phrase did not Because the notion of a phrase did not

become prevalent until the 1900s, become prevalent until the 1900s, syntactic phenomena was mostly seen syntactic phenomena was mostly seen as facts about words:as facts about words:– Their formsTheir forms– Their meaningsTheir meanings– Their functionsTheir functions

• The subject of the sentence was The subject of the sentence was therefore defined as that word with a therefore defined as that word with a particular form and meaningparticular form and meaning

Semantic definitionSemantic definition• Two common approaches:Two common approaches:

– The subject is what the sentence is The subject is what the sentence is about (complements ‘predicate’)about (complements ‘predicate’)

– The subject is the one who carries out The subject is the one who carries out the action described by the verbthe action described by the verb

• Subject = topicSubject = topic• Subject = agentSubject = agent

TopicsTopics• Topics are the ideas that link a set of Topics are the ideas that link a set of

sentences (discourse) as being ‘about’ sentences (discourse) as being ‘about’ something. something. – Sentences form a consistent body if there Sentences form a consistent body if there

is a continued string of topics in themis a continued string of topics in them• The topic is often associated with The topic is often associated with

phonological reductionphonological reduction– Reduced to a pronounReduced to a pronoun– Reduced to nothing (where allowed)Reduced to nothing (where allowed)

TopicsTopics• E.g.E.g.

Two dogs are drinking in a bar. A Two dogs are drinking in a bar. A horse walks in (horse walks in (to the barto the bar). ). He He says: “is this chair free?”. One dog says: “is this chair free?”. One dog turns to the other (turns to the other (dogdog) and () and (hehe) ) says: “wow – a talking horse!”says: “wow – a talking horse!”

TopicsTopics• Now consider the following sentences:Now consider the following sentences:

– Mary entered the roomMary entered the room– John kissed herJohn kissed her

• In the second sentenceIn the second sentence– The topic of the sentence is not the subjectThe topic of the sentence is not the subject– The subject is not a topicThe subject is not a topic

• Moreover:Moreover:– It seems John is richIt seems John is rich

• ‘‘it’ cannot be the topic as it is meaningless (the it’ cannot be the topic as it is meaningless (the sentence would be ‘about’ nothing)sentence would be ‘about’ nothing)

AgentAgent• Not all subjects are agentsNot all subjects are agents

– Not all verbs involve actionsNot all verbs involve actions– Even activity verbs may have non-agent Even activity verbs may have non-agent

subjects (in passive)subjects (in passive)– There may be a connection between There may be a connection between

‘subject’ and theta role‘subject’ and theta role•Fillmore’s Case hierarchyFillmore’s Case hierarchy

– But this is not straightforwardBut this is not straightforward• John fears sincerityJohn fears sincerity (experiencer – theme)(experiencer – theme)•Sincerity frightens JohnSincerity frightens John (theme – experiencer)(theme – experiencer)

Semantic approaches - Semantic approaches - conclusionconclusion• As is usual, semantic definitions of As is usual, semantic definitions of

syntactic phenomena are rarely syntactic phenomena are rarely straightforward and do not yield straightforward and do not yield unproblematic resultsunproblematic results

Morphological approachMorphological approach• There are two main morphological There are two main morphological

facts associated with the subject:facts associated with the subject:– Case (morphological – not Fillmore’s)Case (morphological – not Fillmore’s)

•Subject is nominativeSubject is nominative– AgreementAgreement

•Verb agrees with subject featuresVerb agrees with subject features

Grammatical functions and Grammatical functions and CaseCase• Standard assumptions:Standard assumptions:

– Subject = nominativeSubject = nominative– Object = accusativeObject = accusative

• But even for languages where this But even for languages where this seems to hold, there are problems:seems to hold, there are problems:– John believes she is smartJohn believes she is smart– John believes her to be smartJohn believes her to be smart

• Is the accusative object here?Is the accusative object here?

Reasons to believe in Reasons to believe in accusative subjectsaccusative subjects• The similarity ofThe similarity of

– John believes she is smartJohn believes she is smart– John believes her to be smartJohn believes her to be smart

• The dissimilarity ofThe dissimilarity of– John believes her to be smartJohn believes her to be smart– John persuaded her to be smartJohn persuaded her to be smart

• John persuaded her that she should be smartJohn persuaded her that she should be smart•* John believed her that she should be smart* John believed her that she should be smart

Reasons to believe in Reasons to believe in accusative subjectsaccusative subjects• Subject properties of accusative Subject properties of accusative

elementelement– John believes there to be a problemJohn believes there to be a problem

•There is a problemThere is a problem•* John persuaded there to be a problem* John persuaded there to be a problem

– John believes the cat to be out of the bagJohn believes the cat to be out of the bag•The cat is out of the bagThe cat is out of the bag• John put the cat out of the bagJohn put the cat out of the bag

Reasons to believe in Reasons to believe in accusative subjectsaccusative subjects• So, not all subjects are nominative So, not all subjects are nominative

and not all accusative elements are and not all accusative elements are objects.objects.

Further problems for Case Further problems for Case identification of grammatical identification of grammatical functionsfunctions• Not all languages have Case distinctions Not all languages have Case distinctions

(are grammatical functions universal?)(are grammatical functions universal?)• Different Case systems:Different Case systems:

– Most European languages have the Most European languages have the nominative-accusative case systemnominative-accusative case system•He leftHe left 1 V1 V•He loves herHe loves her 2 V 32 V 3

– 1 and 2 = nominative1 and 2 = nominative– 3 = accusative3 = accusative

Further problems for Case Further problems for Case identification of grammatical identification of grammatical functionsfunctions

– Some languages do not do things this Some languages do not do things this way (Tsez – North Caucasian):way (Tsez – North Caucasian):•ziya bik’i-sziya bik’i-s 1 V1 V•cow cow go-pastgo-past

– ““The cow left”The cow left”•eniy-ā ziya bišer-sieniy-ā ziya bišer-si 2 3 V2 3 V•mother-casemother-case cowcow feed-pastfeed-past

– ““Mother fed the cowMother fed the cow•1 and 3 zero marked case1 and 3 zero marked case•2 differently marked case2 differently marked case

Further problems for Case Further problems for Case identification of grammatical identification of grammatical functionsfunctions• Dilemma:Dilemma:

– Do we say that 1+2 are subjects in English Do we say that 1+2 are subjects in English (common case = nominative) and 1+3 are (common case = nominative) and 1+3 are subjects in Tsez (for the same reason)?subjects in Tsez (for the same reason)?

– Do we say that 1+2 are subjects in both Do we say that 1+2 are subjects in both languages but that the object of a languages but that the object of a transitive verb is assigned the same case transitive verb is assigned the same case as the subject of the intransitive verb in as the subject of the intransitive verb in some languages?some languages?

Grammatical functions and Grammatical functions and agreementagreement• Standard assumptions:Standard assumptions:

– Verb agrees with subjectVerb agrees with subject– Verb does not agree with objectVerb does not agree with object

• But even for languages where this But even for languages where this seems to hold there are problemsseems to hold there are problems– There is a cloud in the skyThere is a cloud in the sky– There are clouds in the skyThere are clouds in the sky

•What is the source of verb agreement?What is the source of verb agreement?

Further problems for agreement Further problems for agreement based identification of based identification of grammatical functionsgrammatical functions• Not all languages have agreement Not all languages have agreement

morphology (Chinese)morphology (Chinese)• Some languages (Chukchi) have too Some languages (Chukchi) have too

much – the verb agrees with everything much – the verb agrees with everything (subject and object)(subject and object)

• Some languages (Tigre) have agreement Some languages (Tigre) have agreement only with what would be object in other only with what would be object in other languages (universal subject?)languages (universal subject?)

The structural approachThe structural approach• American structuralistsAmerican structuralists

– For Indo-EuropeanFor Indo-European•Subject is a phraseSubject is a phrase•The phrase which sits in a certain structural The phrase which sits in a certain structural

positionposition– But – RelativityBut – Relativity

•You can only analyse a languages and a culture You can only analyse a languages and a culture from the point of view of that systemfrom the point of view of that system

•Trying to impose notions from other systems onto Trying to impose notions from other systems onto a language is inevitably wronga language is inevitably wrong

– So, subject is not a universal notionSo, subject is not a universal notion

The structural approachThe structural approach• Generative grammarGenerative grammar

– Adopted the structuralist structural Adopted the structuralist structural definition of grammatical functionsdefinition of grammatical functions

– Disagreed with RelativityDisagreed with Relativity– But disagreed amongst themselves as to But disagreed amongst themselves as to

whether grammatical functions are whether grammatical functions are basic to the systembasic to the system

Subject a derived notionSubject a derived notion• We define the subject as anything We define the subject as anything

that sits in a certain position (NP that sits in a certain position (NP immediately inside S):immediately inside S):

SS

NP VPNP VP

V NP V NP

Subject

Subject a derived notionSubject a derived notion• But not everything that ends up in this But not everything that ends up in this

position starts there: things move:position starts there: things move:– ------ was seen Mary------ was seen Mary– Mary was seenMary was seen

• So, in this case, the notion ‘subject’ is only So, in this case, the notion ‘subject’ is only established at S-structureestablished at S-structure

• It would seem reasonable to assume that It would seem reasonable to assume that the notion is always only established at S-the notion is always only established at S-structurestructure

• Therefore at D-structure there is no Therefore at D-structure there is no ‘subject’‘subject’

Subject a derived notionSubject a derived notion• In mid-1980s it was argued that all In mid-1980s it was argued that all

arguments start off inside VParguments start off inside VP– So no argument is in ‘subject position’ So no argument is in ‘subject position’

at D-structureat D-structure– The subject in all sentences is derivedThe subject in all sentences is derived

Subject a derived notionSubject a derived notion• E.g. Word order in Arabic:E.g. Word order in Arabic:• Arabic shows two main word orders:Arabic shows two main word orders:

– SVOSVO verb agrees with subjectverb agrees with subject– VSOVSO verb is in 3.sing. Formverb is in 3.sing. Form– aa Qara?-a al-tulaab-u al-kutub-a Qara?-a al-tulaab-u al-kutub-a

read-past the students-nom the books-acc read-past the students-nom the books-acc ““the students read the books”the students read the books”

– bb al-tulaab-u qara?-uu al-al-tulaab-u qara?-uu al-kutub-akutub-a the-students-nom read-past-3pl. the the-students-nom read-past-3pl. the books-accbooks-acc““the students read the books”the students read the books”

Subject a derived notionSubject a derived notion• We can account for this if we assume: We can account for this if we assume:

– The verb always moves out of VP to The verb always moves out of VP to inflection positioninflection position

– Movement to subject position is optionalMovement to subject position is optional– When NP moves to subject position it When NP moves to subject position it

becomes subject and verb agrees with itbecomes subject and verb agrees with it– If it does not move, there is no subject and If it does not move, there is no subject and

the verb has ‘default’ 3.sing. formthe verb has ‘default’ 3.sing. form

DisagreementsDisagreements• Some generative theories disagree Some generative theories disagree

and claim that grammatical functions and claim that grammatical functions are not derived notions, but basic are not derived notions, but basic building blocks of grammarbuilding blocks of grammar

Lexical Functional GrammarLexical Functional Grammar• LFG assumes that sentences are LFG assumes that sentences are

analysed at two levels:analysed at two levels:– F-structureF-structure– C-structureC-structure

• Unlike S- and D-structure, these are Unlike S- and D-structure, these are not derived one from the other, but not derived one from the other, but operate in paralleloperate in parallel

Lexical Functional GrammarLexical Functional Grammar• F-structure is not a constituent F-structure is not a constituent

structurestructure– More abstract assignment of elements More abstract assignment of elements

to functions:to functions:•Predicate: lovePredicate: love•Subject: JohnSubject: John•Object: MaryObject: Mary

Lexical Functional GrammarLexical Functional Grammar• C-structure is a constituent structure C-structure is a constituent structure

associated with an F-structure by rules which associated with an F-structure by rules which map F-structure elements onto C-structure map F-structure elements onto C-structure elements:elements:

• SS

NP NP22 VP VP 1 = predicate1 = predicate2 = subject2 = subject

John VJohn V11 NP NP33 3 = object3 = object

loves Mary loves Mary

Lexical Functional GrammarLexical Functional Grammar• This helps in dealing with This helps in dealing with non-non-

configurational configurational languages, where word languages, where word order is unimportant (e.g. Warlbiri)order is unimportant (e.g. Warlbiri)

• witta-jarra-rlu ka-pala yalumpu wajili-pi-nyi kurdu-jarra-rlu malikiwitta-jarra-rlu ka-pala yalumpu wajili-pi-nyi kurdu-jarra-rlu maliki• small-dual-erg pres-3du that chase-nonpast child-dual-erg dogsmall-dual-erg pres-3du that chase-nonpast child-dual-erg dog• ““two small children are chasing that dog”two small children are chasing that dog”• In such languages the c-structures are very In such languages the c-structures are very

different to English-type languages, but f-different to English-type languages, but f-structures are similar and map onto the structures are similar and map onto the relevant bits.relevant bits.