26.03.2013 Views

MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences - Cryptome

MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences - Cryptome

MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences - Cryptome

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

718 Relational Grammar<br />

Figure 1. Active and Passive analyses.<br />

Grammatical relations are represented by “1” = Subject,<br />

“2” = Direct Object, “Cho” = Chomeur, “P” = Predicate.<br />

Differences in word order and agreement between active<br />

and passive are due <strong>the</strong>n to <strong>the</strong>ir different final strata. Universally,<br />

where grammatical relations determine word order,<br />

it is final stratum relations that are relevant. This generalization<br />

is deeply embedded in RG, which takes word order to<br />

be entirely irrelevant to nonfinal strata.<br />

The demotion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> initial subject to chomeur in passive<br />

clauses reflects a universal principle <strong>of</strong> RG, <strong>the</strong> Stratal<br />

Uniqueness Law, which stipulates that a stratum may contain<br />

at most one subject, one direct object, and one indirect object.<br />

This law prevents <strong>the</strong> initial stratum subject in passive from<br />

persisting as subject when <strong>the</strong> direct object advances to subject.<br />

The fact that <strong>the</strong> chomeur in English passive is marked<br />

with by is, in contrast, a language-particular fact. RG has proposed<br />

an inventory <strong>of</strong> grammatical relations, and a set <strong>of</strong><br />

principles (“laws”) governing <strong>the</strong> well-formedness <strong>of</strong> networks<br />

(Perlmutter and Postal 1983b). The laws are linguistic<br />

universals (goal (1) above), and it is through <strong>the</strong> laws that RG<br />

proposes to characterize <strong>the</strong> class <strong>of</strong> grammatical constructions<br />

(goal (2)). Under certain conditions, <strong>the</strong> laws permit<br />

one nominal to assume <strong>the</strong> grammatical relation borne by<br />

ano<strong>the</strong>r at a prior stratum, and <strong>the</strong>y <strong>the</strong>reby define a typology<br />

<strong>of</strong> relation-changing constructions. Advancement to subject<br />

is seen in passive; advancement to direct object is also possible.<br />

In RG terms, Every student gave <strong>the</strong> teacher a present<br />

involves advancement <strong>of</strong> an indirect object, <strong>the</strong> teacher, to<br />

direct object. As direct object, it may advance fur<strong>the</strong>r to subject<br />

in <strong>the</strong> passive version, The teacher was given a present by<br />

every student. The Stratal Uniqueness Law prevents <strong>the</strong> initial<br />

direct object from persisting as such when <strong>the</strong> indirect<br />

object advances to direct object. This explains why it cannot<br />

passivize: *A present was given <strong>the</strong> teacher by every student.<br />

Also possible are demotions, as well as various kinds <strong>of</strong><br />

clause merger (Davies and Rosen 1988). All <strong>the</strong>se constructions<br />

are subject to <strong>the</strong> Stratal Uniqueness Law. The Stratal<br />

Uniqueness Law represents an empirically testable claim<br />

about syntactic organization and has not been uncontroversial<br />

(Perlmutter and Postal 1983b). O<strong>the</strong>r important laws<br />

constrain <strong>the</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> chomeurs and impose <strong>the</strong><br />

requirement that <strong>the</strong> final stratum <strong>of</strong> every clause (but not<br />

necessarily any o<strong>the</strong>r stratum) have a subject (Perlmutter<br />

1980; Perlmutter and Postal 1983b).<br />

RG played an important part in <strong>the</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> syntactic<br />

<strong>the</strong>ory from <strong>the</strong> 1970s to <strong>the</strong> 1980s. During this period, languages<br />

o<strong>the</strong>r than English had significant impact on syntactic<br />

<strong>the</strong>orizing, leading to an increased appreciation <strong>of</strong><br />

linguistic universals, and <strong>the</strong> need to distinguish more<br />

clearly between <strong>the</strong> universal and <strong>the</strong> language-particular.<br />

RG represents one early response to <strong>the</strong>se issues, and it was<br />

extended in more formal work on Arc Pair Grammar<br />

(Johnson and Postal 1980). A number <strong>of</strong> ideas pioneered by<br />

RG were incorporated into o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1980s. The<br />

indispensability <strong>of</strong> grammatical relations has been a key<br />

assumption <strong>of</strong> LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR, <strong>the</strong> disassociation<br />

<strong>of</strong> word order from more abstract syntactic representation<br />

was adopted in diverse guises by Lexical<br />

Functional Grammar and Generalized Phrase Structure<br />

Grammar, and <strong>the</strong> influential Unaccusative Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis (Perlmutter<br />

1978) was incorporated by Government Binding<br />

Theory (MINIMALISM). RG is currently pursued in Mapping<br />

Theory (Gerdts 1992), a relationally based typological<br />

approach to language difference.<br />

See also ANAPHORA; COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS; GENERA-<br />

TIVE GRAMMAR; HEAD-DRIVEN PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAM-<br />

MAR; MORPHOLOGY<br />

—Judith Aissen<br />

References<br />

Cole, P., and J. Sadock, Eds. (1977). Syntax and Semantics 8:<br />

Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press.<br />

Davies, W., and C. Rosen. (1988). Unions as multi-predicate<br />

clauses. Language 64: 52–88.<br />

Dubinsky, S., and C. Rosen. (1987). A Bibliography on Relational<br />

Grammar through May 1987 with Selected Titles on Lexical-<br />

Functional Grammar. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University<br />

Linguistics Club.<br />

Gerdts, D. (1992). Morphologically mediated relational pr<strong>of</strong>iles.<br />

Proceedings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Eighteenth Annual Meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Berkeley<br />

Linguistics Society. Berkeley, pp. 322–337.<br />

Johnson, D., and P. Postal. (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton,<br />

NJ: Princeton University Press.<br />

Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and <strong>the</strong> unaccusative<br />

hypo<strong>the</strong>sis. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fourth Annual Meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, pp. 157–189.<br />

Perlmutter, D. (1980). Relational grammar. In E. Moravcsik and J.<br />

Wirth, Eds., Syntax and Semantics 13: Current Approaches to<br />

Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 195–229.<br />

Perlmutter, D., Ed. (1983). Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago:<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.<br />

Perlmutter, D., and P. Postal. (1983a). Towards a universal characterization<br />

<strong>of</strong> passivization. In D. Perlmutter (1983), pp. 3–29.<br />

Perlmutter, D., and P. Postal. (1983b). Some proposed laws <strong>of</strong><br />

basic clause structure. In D. Perlmutter (1983), pp. 81–128.<br />

Perlmutter, D., and C. Rosen, Eds. (1984). Studies in Relational<br />

Grammar 2. Chicago: University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.<br />

Postal, P. and B. Joseph, Eds. (1990). Studies in Relational Grammar<br />

3. Chicago: University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.<br />

Rosen, C. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial<br />

grammatical relations. In D. Perlmutter and C. Rosen (1984),<br />

pp. 38–77.<br />

Fur<strong>the</strong>r Readings<br />

Aissen, J., and D. Perlmutter. (1983). Clause reduction in Spanish.<br />

In D. Perlmutter (1983), pp. 360–403.<br />

Blake, B. (1990). Relational Grammar. New York: Routledge.<br />

Chung, S. (1976). An object creating rule in Bahasa Indonesian.<br />

Linguistic Inquiry 7: 41–87. Reprinted in D. Perlmutter (1983),<br />

pp. 219–271.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!