“Depraved subjects and the maliciousness of objects,” i.e. quirky objects
-
Oswald Panagl
and
Ioannis Fykias
Abstract
The authors deal with a range of phenomena characterized by anomalies with respect to the mismatch between the surface realization of nominal phrases on the morphosyntactic level, i.e. the selection of cases, and their grammatical function. In connection with the subject function, traditional scholars generally regarded this kind of non-canonical relation between sentence structure and semantic interpretation as a categorial deviation and treated it under the cover terms grammatical versus logical subject. The eye-catching title of this paper makes allusions to rather dangerous, odd and sinister characters and topics in real life. On the one hand, therefore it should express the “irrational” use of well-established terms and categories. On the other hand, it may point at our attempt to group together and “telescope” different and mostly separate constructions such as nominativus pendens, genetivus partitivus, nominativus absolutus, dativus sympatheticus, furthermore subjectless sentences and emphatic exclamations, and to put them under a common denominator, which might be called – in terms of an oxymoron – “irregular regularity.” Our analysis focuses on Latin and Ancient Greek material. Nevertheless, data from exotic languages, such as Kannada, are also considered, and they – once more – demonstrate the diversity of typologically different patterns as well as the predominant “eurocentric” attitude in the categorization of linguistic phenomena. Additionally, we discuss some features indirectly related to our main topic, such as converse verbs, the substitution of passive forms by active lexical items belonging to the same semantic field (as a type of morphological suppletion), and the change of valency or respectively semantic roles within the framework of Case grammar. However, this article only tries to fulfill the criteria of observational and descriptive adequacy within a model of ascending degrees, whereas the level of explanation will be addressed in future work.
References
Brugmann, Karl. 1917. Der Ursprung des Scheinsubjekts “es” in den germanischen und romanischen Sprachen. In Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse vol. 69/5, 1–57. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics translated and edited by Gregory Trauth & Kerstin Kazzazi. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1967. Lexikalische Solidaritäten. Poetica 1. 293–303.10.30965/25890530-00103002Search in Google Scholar
Daneš, František (ed.). 1974. Papers in functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia.10.1515/9783111676524Search in Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. 1988. A typology of subjects. In M. T. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik & J. W. Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 193–208. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.15faaSearch in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon W. Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Some problems for case grammar. In R. J. O’Brien (ed.), 22nd Annual Round Table. Linguistics: Developments of the sixties – Viewpoints of the seventies, volume 24 of Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, 35–56. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597817Search in Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, Basil L. 1885. Pindar. The Olympian and Pythian Odes. New York: Harper and Brothers.Search in Google Scholar
Grebe, Paul (ed.). 1966. Duden –Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 2 verm. u. verb. Aufl. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Search in Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Trübner.10.1515/9783111384566Search in Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1926. Der sog. “Nominativus pendens”. Indogermanische Forschungen 43(1). 207–257.10.1515/if-1926-0115Search in Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1927. Zur Syntax des Nominativs. Glotta 16(1/2). 94–127.Search in Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1931. Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax: Ein Versuch zur Erforschung der Bedingungen und Triebkräfte in Syntax und Stilistik. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1973. Deutsche Syntax (Sammlung Göschen), 2nd. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1996. Deutsche Syntax. Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: C. B. Beck.Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject.”. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–334. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Gerth Bernhard. 1898. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, dritte Auflage in zwei Bänden. Hannover & Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lindsay, Martin (ed.). 1913. Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Marouzeau, Jules. 1969 [1951]. Lexique de la terminologie linguistique: Français, allemand, anglais, italien, 3. édn. augm. et mise à jour. Paris: Geuthner.Search in Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. 1930. On linguistic characterology with illustrations from Modern English. In Actes du premier Congrès international de linguistes: à La Haye, du 10–15 avril 1928, 56–63. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.Search in Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 1975. Kasustheorie und Nomina agentis. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973, 232–246. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Search in Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 1978. Die Konversion im Spracherwerb, Sprachverlust und historischen Sprachvergleich. In Günter Peuser (ed.), Brennpunkte der Patholinguistik, 139–153. München: Wilhelm Fink.Search in Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 2002. Von Individuen, Subjekten und anderen Kreaturen. Ein philologisch-linguistisches Capriccio. In Christian Brünner, Wolfgang Mantl, et al. (eds.), Kultur und Demokratie. Festschrift für Manfred Welan zum 65. Geburtstag, 289–295. Wien & Köln: Böhlau.Search in Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 2016. Onomasiologisches und Semasiologisches zur Mulomedicina Chironis (handout). In Latin vulgaire et tardif XII, August 22–26, 2016. Uppsala (to appear in proceedings edited by Gerd V. M. Haverling).Search in Google Scholar
Pei, Mario A. & Frank Gaynor. 1965. A dictionary of linguistics. London: Peter Owen.Search in Google Scholar
Porzig, Walter. 1934. Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 58. 70–97.10.1515/bgsl.1934.1934.58.70Search in Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1927. Die „lex regia“ über den vom Blitze Erschlagenen. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge 76(4). 433–439.Search in Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1920. A Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.Search in Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1998. Partitions and atoms of clause structure: Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1979. Dative subjects and the notion of subjects. Lingua 49. 99–125.10.1016/0024-3841(79)90018-4Search in Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1953. Esquisse d’une syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1965. Éléments de syntaxe structurale, 2. éd revue et corr. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Quintilian and the progymnasmata to develop writing ability and gather communication rules
- Genitivus of denomination with nomen, cognomen and praenomen
- “Depraved subjects and the maliciousness of objects,” i.e. quirky objects
- The dico form: An autonymous marker
- Septimus casus: the history of a misunderstanding from Varro to the late Latin grammarians
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Quintilian and the progymnasmata to develop writing ability and gather communication rules
- Genitivus of denomination with nomen, cognomen and praenomen
- “Depraved subjects and the maliciousness of objects,” i.e. quirky objects
- The dico form: An autonymous marker
- Septimus casus: the history of a misunderstanding from Varro to the late Latin grammarians
