Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits

Haspelmath, Martín

doi:10.1515/ling-2020-0252

Cited by 52 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some languages, A-arguments are coded differentially when they are 1st or 2nd person (locuphoric), and this generally means that they lack an overt ergative marker, in contrast to other kinds of arguments, especially full nominals (Dixon 1994: 86).

This generalization about differential A marking is somewhat less robust than the differential object marking universal, but both belong to a much larger class of role–reference association universals (Haspelmath 2021), which all have the same explanation in terms of form–frequency correspondences, or more specifically in terms of the usual association of high-ranking roles (agent and recipient) with referentially prominent arguments (1st/2nd person, animate, definite, topical).…”

Section: Differential-coding Pairs In the Nominal Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability

Haspelmath¹

2021

J. Ling.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper claims that a wide variety of grammatical coding asymmetries can be explained as adaptations to the language users’ needs, in terms of frequency of use, predictability and coding efficiency. I claim that all grammatical oppositions involving a minimal meaning difference and a significant frequency difference are reflected in a universal coding asymmetry, i.e. a cross-linguistic pattern in which the less frequent member of the opposition gets special coding, unless the coding is uniformly explicit or uniformly zero. I give 25 examples of pairs of construction types, from a substantial range of grammatical domains. For some of them, the existing evidence from the world’s languages and from corpus counts is already strong, while for others, I know of no counterevidence and I make readily testable claims. I also discuss how the functional-adaptive forces operate in language change, and I discuss a number of possible alternative explanations.

show abstract

Section: Differential-coding Pairs In the Nominal Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability

Haspelmath¹

2021

J. Ling.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…formally marked (see §4.2), we suggest that functional properties may in fact drive the alignment shift, in line with similar claims about the role of frequency and functional pressures in the typological literature (cf. DuBois 1985: 363;Johns 1999: 79;Croft 2003: 117;Hawkins 2004;Haspelmath 2020aHaspelmath , 2020b.…”

Section: Functional Markedness and Alignment Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal

Janic

Hemmings

2021

JHL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose treating alignment shift as a process of functional markedness reversal in the domain of semantically transitive constructions. We illustrate how this approach allows us to capture similarities between the alignment shifts in Eskimo-Aleut and Western Austronesian languages, despite morphosyntactic differences in their voice systems. Using three diagnostics of functional markedness (semantic transitivity, topic continuity of P, and discourse frequency), we compare antipassive and ergative constructions in Eskimo-Aleut varieties and actor voice (av) and undergoer voice (uv) constructions in Western Austronesian varieties. We argue that ergative alignment is equivalent to a functionally unmarked P-prominent construction (e.g., ergative, uv), whilst accusative alignment is equivalent to a functionally unmarked A-prominent construction (e.g., antipassive, av). On this basis, we claim that both language groups are undergoing a parallel shift from ergative to accusative, since A-prominent constructions are functionally marked in more conservative varieties, but lose their functionally marked character and begin to function as unmarked transitive constructions in more innovative varieties.

show abstract

“…A new approach Building on insights from differential marking in the typological and theoretical literature (e.g., Bossong 1985;Bossong 1991;Aissen 2003), I pursue a novel analysis at the heart of which is the relationship between semantic role and referential prominence (Haspelmath 2021). Arguments with a highly ranked semantic role (such as an agent) usually exhibit more referential prominence (e.g., they are definite).…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 5 then investigates the expanded model of George (2005). In Section 6, I proffer a new model of passive agent realization based on canonical associations between semantic role and referential prominence (Haspelmath 2021). Model comparison in Section 7 demonstrates that the proposed model is superior to the previous models.…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A multifactorial analysis of differential agent marking in Herodotus

Goldstein¹

2021

J. Greek Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Passive agents in ancient Greek exhibit a well-known alternation between dative case and prepositional phrase. It has long been recognized that grammatical aspect plays a crucial role in this alternation: dative agents preponderate among aspectually perfect predicates, prepositional phrase agents elsewhere. Although the importance of grammatical aspect is undeniable, it is not the only factor that determines the realization of passive agents. The identification of other factors has proven challenging, however, not least because previous researchers have lacked methods for assessing the relative importance of the determinants that influence the realization of agent phrases. In this paper, I use Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression to provide a multifactorial account of differential agent marking in Herodotus, according to which the realization of passive agent phrases is conditioned by the relationship between semantic role and referential prominence (Haspelmath 2021). Dative agents are favored in clauses where semantic role and referential prominence are aligned (i.e., the agent is referentially prominent or the patient is referentially non-prominent). By contrast, prepositional phrase agents are more likely when semantic role and referential prominence are at odds (i.e., the patient is referentially prominent or the agent is referentially non-prominent).

show abstract

Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits

Cited by 52 publications

References 73 publications

Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability

Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability

Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal

A multifactorial analysis of differential agent marking in Herodotus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About