Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:10:21.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hierarchies and the choice of left conjuncts (with particular attention to English)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Keith Allan
Keith Allan
Affiliation:
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the last decade or so, hierarchies such as the animacy hierarchy, the personal hierarchy, the case hierarchy, the definiticity and referentiality hierarchies and so forth have been identified as determinants of constituent order. It is my intention in this paper to review the set of hierarchies and rank them as determinants of NP sequencing in English. I shall from time to time compare and contrast the effect of a hierarchy in other languages with what we find in English; but it remains to be seen whether the ranking which obtains for English has a wider application: I make no a priori claim that it does. The hierarchies and families of hierarchies are ranked as follows, from the most powerful determinant to the least:

(1) the familiarity hierarchy;

(2) the topic < comment, given < new hierarchies;

(3) the universal sequencing conventions;

(4) the definiticity and referentiality hierarchies;

(5) the personal, social status, and role hierarchies;

(6) the dominant descriptor hierarchies;

(7) the formal hierarchies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 51 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Lg 50. 111–33.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic, New York: Academic Press. 25–55.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1978). Universals, relativity and language processing. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 1: Method and theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 225–277.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. & Ross, J. R. (1975). World order. In Grossman, R. E., San, L. J. & Vance, T. J. (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Factionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 63–111.Google Scholar
Costermans, J. & Hupet, M. (1977). The other side of Johnson-Laird's interpretation of the passive voice. British Journal of Psychology 68. 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, M. H. (1974). Ranking in Navajo nouns. Diné Bizaad Náníl'įįh (Navajo Language Review) 1. 29–38.Google Scholar
Creider, C. A. & Creider, J. T. (1983). Topic-comment relations in a verb-initial language. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 5. 1–15.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Lg 57. 626–657.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1978). Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Lg 55. 59–138.Google Scholar
Ertel, S. (1977). Where do the subjects of sentences come from? Sentence production: Developments in research and theory, Rosenberg, S. (ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 141–168.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979). Discourse constraints on dative movement. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1972). Navaho object markers and the great chain of being. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 1. New York: Academic Press. 259–266.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. W.(1981). Theme, rheme, and word order in Ojibwe. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language 7, Miranda, R. V. (ed.), 123–148.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1970). The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: when syntax and semantics clash. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 250–261.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979a). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.). (1979b). Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979c). From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Direct object and dative shifting: semantic and pragmatic case. In Plank, F. (ed.), Objects: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press. 151–182.Google Scholar
Glanzer, M. & Cunitz, A. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall. JVLVB 5. 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1977). Role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. (1973). A note on subject-object inversion in Navajo. In Kachru, B. B. et al. (eds), Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 301–309.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part II. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 140–165.Google Scholar
Hawkinson, A. K. & Hyman, L. M. (1974). Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona. Studies in African Linguistics 5. 147–170.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1968a). The choice of the passive voice in a communicative task. British Journal of Psychology 59. 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1968b). The interpretation of the passive voice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20. 69–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1977). The passive paradox: a reply to Costermans and Hupet. British Journal of Psychology 68. 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Lin 8. 63–99Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (1984). The grammar of doing and undergoing in Korean. Language Research (Seoul) 20. 331–343.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (forthcoming). Aflectedness and control. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Passive and voicing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. (1985). A holistic understanding of Arizona Tewa passives. Lg 61. 306–328.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1976a). Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy – a re-examination of relativization phenomena. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 417–444.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1979). On the interaction between syntactic rules and discourse principles. In Bedell, G., Kobayashi, E. & Muraki, M. (eds), Explorations in linguistics: papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. 279–304.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. LIn 8. 627–672.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.). (1976). Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1975). The semantic function of word order: a case study in Mandarin. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 163–195.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (ed.) (1970). New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vols. 1–2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1968). Studies in irreversible binomials. In Malkiel, Y., Essays on linguistic themes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 311–355.Google Scholar
Mallinson, G. & Blake, B. J. (1981). Language typology: cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Miyake, S. (1983). A study of non-verb-final sentences in colloquial Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Monash University.Google Scholar
Morolong, M. & Hyman, L. H. (1977). Animacy, objects and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Languages 8. 199–218.Google Scholar
Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64. 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. & Bock, J. K. (1977). Salience and sentencing: some production principles. In Rosenberg, S. (ed.), Sentence production: developments in research and theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 89–140.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–256.Google Scholar
Ransom, E. N. (1977). Definiteness, animacy and NP ordering. Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, E. N. (1979). Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object construction in English. Glossa 13. 215–240.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Shayne, J. (1982). Some semantic aspects of yi-and bi- in San Carlos Apache. In Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (eds), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity. New York: Academic Press. 379–407Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (1985). Word order and word order rules. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Monash University. [To be published by Croom Helm.]Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 113–171.Google Scholar
Smyth, R. H., Prideaux, G. D. & Hogan, J. T. (1979). The effect of context on dative position. Lingua 47. 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 625–649.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. & Rhodes, R. (1979). An introduction to information distribution in Ojibwa. Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 307–320.Google Scholar
Witherspoon, G. (1980). Language in culture and culture in language. IJAL 46. 1–13.Google Scholar
Zubin, D. A. (1979). Discourse function of morphology: the focus system in German. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. 469–504.Google Scholar