Volume 15, Issue 3

The terms S (intransitive), A, P (transitive), as well as T and R (ditransitive) have been used since the 1970s to allow linguists to characterize the differences between major alignment patterns such as accusative vs. ergative. They are often taken for granted, but a closer examination of the literature reveals that they can have three rather different meanings: in the Dixonian approach, they are used as universal syntactic functions based on transitivity; in the Comrian approach, they are seen as comparative concepts for the two arguments of a typical action clause, and in the Bickelian approach, they are taken as generalized semantic roles (Dowtyan proto-roles). In this article, I explain the three approaches in some detail, and I argue that the Comrian approach is superior to the other two approaches. It is better than the Dixonian approach because it does not take an undefined transitivity notion for granted but defines transitivity in terms of A and P. It is also better than the Bickelian approach because the Dowtyan proto-roles were designed for the description of a particular class of English verbs; for crosslinguistic comparison, we need to limit ourselves to restricted (and semantically coherent) classes of verbs if we want to arrive at general statements.

A typological overview is given of the syntax of prenominal relative clauses, based on a large number of languages of different families and areas and presented in a theory-neutral way. On the one hand, previous typological assumptions are tested against new data. On the other hand, the question is addressed to what extent prenominal relative clauses are ordinary or unusual, compared to other types of relative clauses, especially to postnominal ones.

English noun-verb idioms such as spill the beans combine a verb with a noun which appears to be an argument but does not refer to an actual discourse participant. Noun-verb idioms are likely to be universal but there are two related types of idioms which are not. In the first, referred to as idiomatic noun-incorporation, the argument-like element is a noun which is incorporated into a verb. An example is the Bininj Gun-wok expression - dalk-ngun die, which combines the verb - ngun eat with the noun - dalk - grass. In the second, the argument-like element is a bound pronominal in the verb with fixed gender features. An example is the Mawng verb - marrajpu walk, which always has Land gender object agreement, although no corresponding participant can be identified. The latter type is referred to as lexicalised agreement verbs and described in some detail. It is argued that the three types of constructions, referred to as verb-argument idioms, form a valid crosslinguistic category about which typological generalisations can be made. This leads to a discussion about how less productive aspects of language might be included in language descriptions and typological research.