Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:40:14.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ergative and nominative in English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John Anderson
John Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of English Language, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Consider the following two sentences: (i) a. This man cut the bread b. This man fell In both cases, many traditional accounts (e.g. Zandvoort, 1961: 236–240; Scheurweghs, 1959: 1–19; Chomsky, 1962: 138–140, 1965: 63–64; etc.) would say that we have a single clause (or sentence) which consists of two parts, a subject and a predicate. And the two examples differ in the constitution of the predicate. This distinction between the two is usually described as having to do with transitivity. In (i.a) the verb is said to take an object, and is therefore transitive; in (i.b) this is not the case, and the verb is intransitive.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 1968 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Bell, C. A. (1919). Grammar of Colloquial Tibetan. Calcutta: The Bengal Secretariat Book Depot.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. (1966). Problèmes de Linguistique Générale, ch. 12. (Reprint of: Pour l'analyse des fonctions casuelles: le génitif latin. Lingua 11.) Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1958). *Studies in colloquial Japanese, II: Syntax. Lg 22 (1946). 200–248. Reprinted as 154–185 in Joos, M. Readings in Linguistics. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1939). An Old English Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). A transformational approach to syntax. Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchward, C. M. (1953). Tongan Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diver, W. (1964). The system of agency of the Latin noun. Word 20. 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumézil, G. (1932). Études Comparatives sur les Langues Caucasiennes du Nord-ouest (Morphologie). Paris: Adrien-Maisoneuve.Google Scholar
Erichsen, M. (1942–1944). Désinences casuelles et personelles en eskimo. Acta Linguistica 4. 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, W. W. (1894). A Greek Grammar. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1964). *Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72. Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1963). Class in relation to the axes of chain and choice. Linguistics 2. 5–15.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1964). Syntax and the consumer. Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round-table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. (Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, No. 17.) Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). The concept of rank. Areply. JL 2. 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1943). ‘Mr. Howard amuses easy.’ MLN 58. 8–17.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1935). La catégorie des cas, I. Acta Jutlandica 7. i–xii, 1–184.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1966). Language, mathematics and linguistics. Current Trends in Linguistics, 3; Theoretical Foundations 155–304. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A Modern English Grammar, vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirchner, R. (1959). Zur transitiven and intransitiven Verwendung des englischen Verbums. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 7. 342–399.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1966). Towards a phonological theory. Lingua 16. 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuryowicz, J. (1964). The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lafitte, P. (1962). Grammaire Basque. Bayonne: Éditions des ‘Amis du Musée Basque’ et ‘Ikas’.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1964). On alternation, transformation, realization and stratification. Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round-table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 17.) Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Laroche, R. (1964). ‘Agent’ et ‘objet’ chez Pāṇini JAOS 84. 44–54.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. (Publication of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics, No. 12.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. (1923). A Greek-English Lexicon. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1966). Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. JL 2. 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. (1958). L'ergatif et les structures de base de l'énoncé. J. de Psychol. Normale et Pathologique 55. 377–392.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1962). A Functional View of Language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. (1964). *On linguistic characterology. Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes (1928), 56–63. Reprinted in Vachek, J. (ed.), A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1965). Problems of selection in transformational grammar. JL 1. 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1966). The concept of rank in ‘Neo-Firthian’ grammar. JL 2. 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W. K. (1953). The ergative construction in modern Indo-Aryan. Lingua 3. 391–406.Google Scholar
Meer, M. J. Van Der (1927). Historische Grammatik der niederlandischen Sprache, I. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Peck, E. J. (1919). Eskimo Grammar. Ottawa: Geographic Board of Canada.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1964). Constituent Structure. (Publication of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics, No. 30). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Scheurweghs, G. (1959). Present-day English Syntax. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, H. (1896). Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen. Sitzberichte der Akad. der Wissenschaften, Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl. 133. 1–90.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, H. (1905–1906). Über den aktivischen und passivischen Charakter des Transitivs. Indog. Forsch. 18. 528–531.Google Scholar
Speiser, E. A. (1941). Introduction to Hurrian. (The Annual Conference of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 20.) New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. (1966). English imperative sentences. JL 2. 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C. C. (1901). Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indog. Forsch. 12. 170–171.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C. C. (1907). Karakteristiek der Baskischen Grammatica. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 4, 8. 4–42.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C. C. (1916). Het Passieve Karakter van het Verbum Transitivum of van het Verbum Actionis in Taalen van Noord-Amerīka. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 5, 2. 187–216.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A. (1936). L'ergatif indo-européen. BSLP 37. 93–108.Google Scholar
Velten, H. V. (1932). The accusative case and its substitute in various types of language. Lg 8. 255–270.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. P. & Darbelnet, J. (1963). Stylistique Comparée du François et de l'Anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1966). Explorations in semantic theory. Current Trends in Linguistics, 3; Theoretical Foundations 395–477. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1893). On recent studies in Hindu grammar. AJPh 14. 171–197.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. (1961). A Handbook of English Grammar, 8th ed.Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar