Cover not available
Part of
Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony
Edited by Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga
[Typological Studies in Language 121] 2018
► pp. 59–110

Chapter 2
The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective

| University of Lyon
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
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Appendix
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.02cre
References (69)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alekseev, Mikhail & Ataev, Boris. 1997. Avarskij jazyk (The Avar language). Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48: 52–62.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blau, Joyce & Barak, Veysi. 1999. Manuel de kurde. Kurmanci. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993. On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 45–88.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George. 1970. The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam . Language 46: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Julien. 2012. L’expression de la transitivité en Itivimiut. MA thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 1979. Les constructions dites possessives, étude de linguistique générale et de typologie linguistique. Habilitation thesis (thèse d’état), University of Paris IV.Google Scholar
. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Uncommon patterns of core term marking and case terminology. Lingua 119: 445–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2004. The blue bird of ergativity. In Ergativity in Amazonia III, Francesc Queixalós (ed), 1–15. Paris: Celia.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren. 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
. 1997. Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], T. Givón (ed.), 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary. 1941. Tunica. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. 4. New York NY: Augustin Publishers.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice. 1985. Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case [Syntax and Semantics 18]. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Review of Ergativity by R.M.W. Dixon. Language 73(2): 359–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse systems and symmetrical voice: A unified view on languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holton, Gary. 2008. The emergence of stative-active systems in North Halmahera, Indonesia. In Donohue adf & Wichmann (eds), 252–276.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (eds). 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. PhD dissertation, Università degli studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna. 2013. L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. PhD dissertation, University of Lyon.Google Scholar
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.
. 2000. Thetablind case: Burzio’s generalisation and its image in the mirror. In Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalisation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 34], Eric Reuland (ed.), 103–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. PhD dissertation, Heinrich-Heine Universität, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel. 1994. Une grammaire omniprédicative, essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1997. Review of Ergativity by R. M. W. Dixon. Linguistic Typology 1: 243–268.Google Scholar
Leslau, W. 2005. Concise Amharic Dictionary, 2nd Ethiopian edn. Addis Ababa: Shama books.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection. In Donohue & Wichmann (eds), 76–100.Google Scholar
Magomedova, Patimat. 2003. Tindinsko-russkij slovar’ (Tindi-Russian dictionary). Maxačkala: Dagestanskij Naučnyj Centr Rossiskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The emergence of agentive patient systems in Core Argument Marking. In Donohue & Wichmann (eds), 297–333.Google Scholar
Mounole, Céline. 2011. Le verbe basque ancien: Étude philologique et diachronique. PhD dissertation, University of Bordeaux and University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical Relations in Pali and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc. 2013. L’ergativité est-elle un oiseau bleu? Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Saidova, Patimat. 2006. Godoberinsko-russkij slovar’ (Godoberi-Russian dictionary). Maxačkala: Dagestanskij Naučnyj Centr Rossiskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2012. Grammaire des prédicats complexes: Les constructions nom-verbe. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2014. Bivalent verb classes in the languages of Europe. A quantitative typological study. Language Dynamics and Change 4(1): 116–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2006. The Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases: Evidence from Guaraní. PhD dissertation, Stanford University CA.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Dahl, Eystein
2021. Pathways to split ergativity. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2021. Introduction. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Charlotte Hemmings
2021. Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Creissels, Denis
2019. Grammatical relations in Mandinka. In Argument Selectors [Typological Studies in Language, 123], ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
2018. Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological hierarchies. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.