Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:00:18.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where does predication come from?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

David Gil
David Gil*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Predication is widely considered to be a fundamental feature of human language and conceptual structure. This article offers a reassessment of the central role that predication plays within current theories of grammar, by calling into question the universality of predication and its nature as a primitive, irreducible notion. It proposes a new definition of predicate, as a complex emergent entity derived from the alignment of two independent elements of conceptual structure: thematic role assignment and headedness.

Résumé

Résumé

Selon une longue tradition, la prédication est un trait fondamental des langues naturelles et de la structure conceptuelle. Cet article réexamine le rôle central que la prédication occupe dans les théories linguistiques actuelles, et remet en question le caractère universel de la prédication et son statut de primitif irréductible. Il propose une nouvelle définition de «prédicat», soit une entité complexe émergente qui découle de l’alignement de deux éléments de la structure conceptuelle indépendants l’un de l’autre : l’attribution des rôles thématiques et le statut de tête.

Keywords

predicationthematic role assignmentheadednessTAMRiau Indonesianprédicationrôles thématiquestêteTAM„ riau indonésien
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 2: Properties of predication/Proprietes de la predication , July 2012 , pp. 303 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, John M. and Ewen, Colin J.. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Awóbùlúyì, O. 1982. The Yoruba verb phrase. In Yoruba language and literature, ed. Afolayan, Adebisi, 225–246. Ibadan: University of Ife Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Distributional biases in language families. Ms., University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Language typology and linguistic universais: An international handbook, vol. 2, ed. Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard, Kônig, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolf, 1400–1413. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois. 1973. One word at a time: The use of single word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bode, Oduntan Gbolahan. 2000. Yoruba clause structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Casielles, Eugenia and Progovac, Ljiljana. 2010. On protolinguistic ‘fossils’: Subject-verb vs. verb-subject structures. In The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (EVOLANG8), ed. Smith, Andrew D.M., Schouwstra, Marieke, Boer, Bart de, and Smith, Kenny, 66–73. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2000. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Position of case affixes. In The world atlas of language structures, ed. Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, 210–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. World atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at: www.wals.info.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6:222–254.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1985. What does grammar include? Theoretical Linguistics 12:165–172.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1991. Aristotle goes to Arizona, and finds a language without and. In Semantic universals and universal semantics, ed. Zaefferer, Dietmar, 96–130. Berlin: Foris Press.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1994. The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17:179–200.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2001a. Creoles, complexity and Riau Indonesian. Linguistic Typology 5:325–371.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2001b. Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning. In Linguistic fieldwork, ed. Newman, Paul and Ratliff, Martha, 102–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2005a. Isolating-monocategorial-associational language. In Categorization in cognitive science, ed. Cohen, Henri and Lefebvre, Claire, 347–379. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2005b. Word order without syntactic categories: How Riau Indonesian does it. In Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Dooley, Sheila Ann, 243–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2006. Early human language was isolating-monocategorial-associational. In The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (EVOLANG6), ed. Cangelosi, Angelo, Smith, Andrew D.M., and Smith, Kenny, 91–98. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2007. Creoles, complexity and associational semantics. In Deconstructing Creole: New horizons in language creation, ed. Ansaldo, Umberto and Matthews, Stephen J., 67–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2008. How complex are isolating languages? In Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, ed. Karlsson, F., Miestamo, M., and Sinnemäki, K., 109–131. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2009. How much grammar does it take to sail a boat? In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil and Peter Trudgill, ed., Language complexity as an evolving variable, 19–33.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2012. Riau Indonesian: A language without nouns and verbs. In Flexible word classes, ed. Rijkhoff, Jan and van Lier, Eva. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, David. To appear a. Riau Indonesian: How and why it became so simple. In Austronesian undressed: How and why languages become isolating, ed. Gil, David, McWhorter, John, and Paauw, Scott.Google Scholar
Gil, David. To appear b. Tense, aspect and mood marking. In World atlas of language structures online, ed. Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at: www.wals.info/.Google Scholar
Gil, David. To appear c. What Is Riau Indonesian? In Studies in Malay and Indonesian linguistics, ed. Paauw, Scott and Slomanson, Peter. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Patricia Marks and Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue. 1990. Grammatical combination in Pan Paniscus: Processes of learning and invention in the evolution and development of language. In “Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes: Comparative developmental perspectives, ed. Parker, Sue Taylor and Gibson, Kathleen Rita, 540–578. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard. 2005. World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25:127–157.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, ed. Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, James R. 2012. The origins of grammar: Language in the light of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X-Bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369–411.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin. 2011. The electronic world atlas of varieties of English [eWAVEJ. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Accessed 27 November 2011 at: www.ewave-atlas.org/.Google Scholar
Lerdahl, Fred and Jackendoff, Ray S.. 1983. A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna and Bickel, Balthasar. 2005. Locus of marking in the clause. In The world atlas of language structures, ed. Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, 98–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Okell, John. 1969. A reference grammar of colloquial Burmese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2006. The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesani, Kate, Cassieles, Eugenia, and Barton, Ellen, 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2009. Layering of grammar: Vestiges of protosyntax in present-day languages. In Language complexity as an evolving variable, ed. Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter, 203–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter. 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shen, Yeshayahu. 1985. Action structure in the narrative text. Doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
Weiler, Gershon. 1970. Mauthner’s critique of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Welmers, William Everett. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar