The Obligatory Coding Principle accounts for the
inventories of possible coding frames in languages that, according
to the current terminology, can be characterized as consistently
accusative or consistently ergative in their system of argument
coding. In coding frame inventories fully consistent with the
Obligatory Coding principle, every coding frame includes a given
type of coding, either A (in obligatory A coding
languages) or P (in obligatory P coding
languages). However, languages with coding frame
inventories violating this principle are not exceptional. This
chapter examines the types of evolutions that may result either in
global shifts affecting the Obligatory Coding Principle, in
systematic violations of the Obligatory Coding Principle, or in the
gradual spreading of non-canonical coding frames. The idea
underlying this study is that, before discussing the theoretical
status of this kind of generalization, it is crucial to clarify its
involvement in diachronic processes.
Article outline
1.Introduction
2.Some terminological clarifications
2.1Transitivity
2.2
Variation in the construction of transitive verbs and basic
transitive coding
2.3Core arguments vs. obliques
2.4Alignment
2.5
Zero case
2.6
Ergative case, ergative alignment, ergative languages
3.The Obligatory Coding Principle
4.Markedness reversals between the transitive construction and its
variants
4.1Introductory remarks
4.2Shift from obligatory A coding to obligatory P coding
resulting from the reanalysis of a passive construction as the
basic transitive construction
4.3Shift from obligatory P coding to obligatory A coding
resulting from the reanalysis of an antipassive construction as
the basic transitive construction
5.
The grammaticalization of TAM and the Obligatory Coding
Principle
5.1Introductory remarks
5.2Reanalysis of a resultative construction as a perfect and
split-alignment
5.3Split-alignment resulting from the grammaticalization of a
new perfect form: Problems in reconstructing the
scenario
5.4Progressive periphrases and split alignment
5.5Uncommon split alignment patterns, and the TAM periphrases of
Basque
5.6Concluding remarks
6.Conventionalization of argument ellipsis and the Obligatory
Coding Principle
6.1Introductory remarks
6.2Conventionalization of P ellipsis in obligatory P coding
languages: An illustration from Akhvakh
6.3Conventionalization of A ellipsis in obligatory A coding
languages: Illustrations from Amharic and Russian
7.Univerbation of light verb compounds and the Obligatory Coding
Principle
Aldai, Gontzal. 2008. From ergative case marking to semantic case
marking: The case of historical Basque. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 197–218. Oxford: OUP.
Alekseev, Mikhail & Ataev, Boris. 1997. Avarskij jazyk (The Avar language).
Moscow: Academia.
Benveniste, Emile. 1952. La construction passive du parfait
transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48: 52–62.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.
Blau, Joyce & Barak, Veysi. 1999. Manuel de kurde. Kurmanci. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993. On ergativity and ergative
unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 45–88.
Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical
source of the ergative construction in
Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72.
Cardona, George. 1970. The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama)
krtam. Language 46: 1–12.
Carrier, Julien. 2012. L’expression de la transitivité en
Itivimiut. MA thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Coon, Jessica. 2008. When ergative = genitive: Nominals and split
ergativity. In WCCFL XXVII: Proceedings of the 27th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop (eds), 99–107. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Creissels, Denis. 1979. Les constructions dites possessives, étude de
linguistique générale et de typologie
linguistique. Habilitation thesis (thèse d’état), University of Paris IV.
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological
regularities: The case of alignment
variations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 1–38.
Creissels, Denis. 2009. Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case
terminology. Lingua 119: 445–459.
Creissels, Denis. 2015. Univerbation of light verb compounds and the
Obligatory Coding Principle. In Approaches to Complex Predicates, Léa Nash & Pollet Samvélian (eds), 46–69. Leiden: Brill.
Creissels, Denis. Forthcoming. Grammatical relations in Mandinka. In Handbook of Grammatical Relations, Balthasar Bickel & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Creissels, Denis & Bassène, Alain-Christian. 2013. Valency patterns for bivalent verbs in two West
African languages: Mandinka (Mande) and Jóola Banjal
(Atlantic). Afrikanistik Online.
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP.
DeLancey, Scott. 2004. The blue bird of ergativity. In Ergativity in Amazonia III, Francesc Queixalós (ed), 1–15. Paris: Celia.
Dixon, Robert M. W.1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.
Dixon, Robert M. W.1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren. 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP.
Etxepare, Ricardo. 2003. Valency and argument structure in the Basque
verb. In José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), A grammar of Basque, 363–426. Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, Nicholas. 2004. Experiencer object in Iwaidjan
languages. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 169–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, Stefanie & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2014. A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems
with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology 18(1): 3–49.
Forker, Diana. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in
Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 75–108.
Forker, Diana. Forthcoming. Ergativity in Nakh-Daghestanian
languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds). Oxford: OUP.
Gildea, Spike. 1992. Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the Genesis of
Ergativity in Independent Clauses. Oxford: OUP.
Haas, Mary. 1941. Tunica. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. 4. New York NY: Augustin Publishers.
Harris, Alice. 1985. Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case [Syntax and Semantics 18]. New York NY: Academic Press.
Harris, Alice. 1997. Review of Ergativity by R.M.W.
Dixon. Language 73(2): 359–374.
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic
Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej. 2013. How widespread is transitive
encoding? Paper presented at the ALT 10 Conference, Leipzig, 15–18.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories
in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for
alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse systems and symmetrical voice: A unified
view on languages with two transitive
constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481.
Holton, Gary. 2008. The emergence of stative-active systems in North
Halmahera, Indonesia. In Donohue adf & Wichmann (eds), 252–276.
Hualde, José Ignacio & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (eds). 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a Typological Study of Differential
Object Marking and Differential Object
Indexation. PhD dissertation, Università degli studi di Pavia.
Janic, Katarzyna. 2013. L’antipassif dans les langues
accusatives. PhD dissertation, University of Lyon.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, Unaccusatives
that assign accusative. In Papers on Case and Agreement I [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18], Jonathan Bobaljik & Colin Phillips (eds), 149–172. Cambridge MA: MIT.
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The emergence of agentive patient systems in Core
Argument Marking. In Donohue & Wichmann (eds), 297–333.
Mounole, Céline. 2011. Le verbe basque ancien: Étude philologique et
diachronique. PhD dissertation, University of Bordeaux and University of the Basque Country.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Oyharçabal, Bernard. 2007. Basque light verb constructions. In Studies in Basque and Historical Linguistics. In Memory
of R. L. Trask, Joseba A. Lakarra & José Ignacio Hualde (eds), 787–806. Bilbao: Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa – Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia and Universidad de Pais Vasco – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Bilbao.
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical Relations in Pali and the Emergence of
Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.
Queixalós, Francesc. 2013. L’ergativité est-elle un oiseau bleu? Munich: Lincom.
Rezac, Milan. 2008a. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The person
case constraint and Absolutive displacement in
Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.
Rezac, Milan. 2008b. The forms of dative displacement. From Basauri to
Itelmen. In Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenagaren omenez, Xabier Artiagoitia & Joseba A. Lakarra (eds), 709–724. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Rivero, María Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in
Spanish. In Agreement Restrictions, Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds), 215–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Samvelian, Pollet. 2012. Grammaire des prédicats complexes: Les constructions
nom-verbe. Paris: Lavoisier.
Say, Sergey. 2014. Bivalent verb classes in the languages of Europe.
A quantitative typological study. Language Dynamics and Change 4(1): 116–166.
Seržant, Ilja A.2012. The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian
and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal
account. Lingua 122: 356–385.
Seržant, Ilja A. & Taperte, Jana. 2016. Differential argument marking with the Latvian
debitive. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations
in Baltic 3], Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 199–258. John Benjamins.
Spreng, Bettina. 2005. Third person arguments in
Inuktitut. In Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the
Languages of the Americas [UBCWPL 017], Solveiga Armoskaite & James J. Thompson (eds), 215–225. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia.
Tonhauser, Judith. 2006. The Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases:
Evidence from Guaraní. PhD dissertation, Stanford University CA.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396.
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological Variation in Grammatical
Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.
Creissels, Denis, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2018. La typologie générale des constructions impersonnelles et les constructions impersonnelles du français. SHS Web of Conferences 46 ► pp. 15001 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.