Grammatical orientation correlated with register: An analysis from a historical perspective

Vol.2,No.2(2009)

Abstract
Languages can be classifi ed into three types, e.g. situation-oriented (e.g. Russian, Chinese, etc.), speaker-oriented (e.g. Bulgarian, Turkish, etc.) and hearer-oriented (e.g. English, Danish, etc.) (Durst-Anderssen 2005, 2006, 2008). In this paper, it is argued that the difference in spoken and written discourse can be compared to different patterns in these classifi catory types, and historical changes in register can be explained through changes in these types. Due to gradualness of changes, one can fi nd overlap in features, but orientation types presented here can be a useful indicator of register, especially from historical perspectives.

Keywords:
Situation-orientation; speaker-orientation; hearer-orientation; word order; inversion
References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004) Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Andersen, T. (1988) ‘Ergativity in Pari, a Nilotic OVS language.’ Lingua 75, 289-324.


Anderson, G. D. S. (1997) ‘On “animacy maximization” in Fox (Mesquakie).’ Journal of
American Linguistics 63, 227-247. DOI: 10.1086/466320


Benveniste, C. (1966) Problèmes de Linguistique Générale [Problems of general
linguistics]. Paris: Ballimard.


Bloomfi eld, L. (1946) ‘Algonquian.’ In: Hoijer, H. (ed.) Linguistic Structures of Native
America. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6. 85-129.


Davies, D. J. (2005) A Brief History of Death. Oxford: Blackwell.


Durst-Andersen, P. (1992) Mental Grammar. Russian Aspect and Related Issues.
Colombus (OH): Slavica.


Durst-Andersen, P. (2005) Obščie I specifi českie svojstva grammatičeskix sistem. K
postroeniju novoj teorii jazyka [The general and the specifi c features of grammatical
systems. Towards a new theory of language]. Moskva: RGGU.

Durst-Andersen, P. (2008) Linguistics as Semiotics. Saussure and Bühler Revisited.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Copenhagen.


Gamkrelidze, T. V. and Ivanov, V. V. (1995) Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: A
Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture (Part
1): Text. (English version by Johanna Nichols). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


Gildea, S. (1992) Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax: On the Genesis of Ergativitiy in
Independent Clause. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.


Givón, T. (1979) On Understanding Grammar. New York.


Greenberg, J. H. (1954) ‘Concerning inferences from linguistic to non-linguistic data.’ In:
Hoijer, H. (ed.) Language in Culture: Conference on the Interrelation of Language
and Other Aspects of Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 3-19.


Hallowell, A. I. (1960) ‘Ojibwa ontology, behavior, and world view.’ In: Diamond, S. (ed.)
Culture in History: Essays in Honour of Paul Radin. New York: Columbia University
Press. 19-52.


Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. (1995) Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Heine, B. (1997) Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2002) Dictionary of Grammatical Changes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.


Hopper P. J. and Thompson, S. A. (1980) ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse.’
Language 56, 251–339. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017


Kinsui, T. (1997) ‘The infl uence of translation on the historical development of the
Japanese passive construction.’ Journal of Pragmatics 28, 759-779. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00079-9


Klimov, G. A. (1974) ‘On the character of language of active typology.’ Linguistics 131,
11-25.


Lehmann, W. P. (1993) Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London:
Routledge.


Lehmann, W. P. (2002) Pre-Indo-European. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of
Man.


Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. (1976) ‘Subject and topic: A new typology of language.’ In:
Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. 457-489.


Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Mithun, M. (1991) ‘Active/agentive case marking and its motivations.’ Language 67,
510-546. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1991.0015


OED = Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C. (eds) (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary.
2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Schmalstieg, W. R. (1980) Indo-European Linguistics: A New Synthesis. University Park
(Penn.): Pennsylvania State University Press.


Segal, R. A. (2004) Myth: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Straus, A. T. and Brightman, R. (1982) ‘The implacable raspberry.’ Papers in Linguistics
15, 97-137. DOI: 10.1080/08351818209370564


Taylor, J. (2003) Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Toyota, J. (2008) Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave.


Toyota, J. (2009a) ‘The history of Indo-European languages: Alignment change as a
clue.’ In: Loudová, K. and Žáková M. (eds) Early European Languages in the Eyes of
Modern Linguistics. Brno: Masaryk University. 331-340.


Toyota, J. (2009b) A History of English: Origins of Peculiarities. Unpublished manuscript,
Centre for Cognitive Semiotics, Lund University.

Metrics

199

Views

119

PDF views