Johanna,
Halliday uses the term "ergative" in a wider sense than it's used in
descriptions of, say, Basque; "ergativesque" might be a better rendering
(open admission: I like Halliday's theory, but don't like some of his
label choices). He deploys it to discuss differences between two
different types of transitive/intransitive verb pairs (examples from 3rd
edition of his _Introduction_, 2004.288):
1.a The tourist hunted.
1.b The tourist hunted the lion.
2.a The tourist woke.
2.b The lion woke the tourist.
H. describes the relation between 2.a and 2.b as being an ergative one.
The tourist is an Actor in 2.a, and a Goal (to use H.'s term) in 2.b,
"yet it is the tourist who stopped sleeping in both cases."
I think anyone interested in the behavior of English verbs would want to
acknowledge a systematic difference between verbs like "hunt" and verbs
like "wake", and between the intransitive and transitive versions of one
and those of the other; in some ways, this is similar to material in
discussions I've seen on verbal semantics, e.g. Vendler. If you have a
background in anthropological linguistics or native American languages,
"ergative" may seem to be a potentially problematic label, but it
doesn't cause any difficulties internal to the theory.
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Syntax question
Bill and Craig,
Thanks for the elucidation of Halliday's view of subjects/actors.
I don't understand the term 'ergative' as you are using it, Craig.
Ergative is a case that appears in languages in which an agent-subject
(in a transitive clause) is marked rather than default. This is how the
term is used in linguistics. As you rightly point out, the shirt and
car are not agents in your examples of tearing and exploding. Those are
not transitive clauses.
Halliday's "definition" of subject is just what I use in my classes. It
would be nice if we could get a discourse-based definition of the term.
Is anyone else on this list familiar with Givon (or others') work on
American functional syntax? I'd be interested in your thoughts on what
it might contribute to grammar instruction in the context of writing.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
