1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper considers from a (CG) perspective taking Classical Arabic Case Marking (CACM) as a case in point and a departure point. It is argued that the accusative case is diachronically the baseline case mark, designating the Objective Scene (OS) and demarcating an object of perception in the initial stage of maximal subjectivity in which the (G) is totally implicit. Such maximum is then attenuated through a process of such that entities are gradually put onstage to fulfill the functions of and . The nominative case, then, figures to mark such emerging entities in their baseline, immediate status. This conception of G with its functions is later extended to mark entities external to G, which gives rise to the full, nominative-marked, baseline (C) comprising (P) and (S). The (T) of a verb’s nominative case is argued to fulfill the semantic function of situating a process out of existential reality yielding (P-), which represents a basic elaboration on baseline C. Processes being extensions from perception, the accusative case attenuates to mark entities (D) that demarcate processes, implementing the semantic function of . Finally, a genitive-marked entity (RP) is proposed to implement the semantic function of anchoring and referencing the conceptions of all those facets of reality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00090.ald
2021-10-11
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bybee, J. L.
    (1988) The diachronic dimension in explanation. InJ. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp.350–379). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2001) Phonology and language use. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, W.
    (2005) The relation of grammar to thought. InC. S. Butler, M. d. l. Á. Gómez-González & S. M. Doval-Suárez (Eds.), The dynamics of language use: Functional and contrastive perspectives (pp.57–78). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.140.08cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.140.08cha [Google Scholar]
  5. (2008) Syntax as a repository of historical relics. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp.261–268). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013) Toward a thought-based linguistics. InS. T. Bischoff & C. Jany (Eds.), Functional approaches to language (pp.107–130). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110285321.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285321.107 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton. The Hague. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1975) Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, A.
    (1997) Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clements, G. N.
    (1990) The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. InJ. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and physics of speech (pp.283–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2007) The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 339–382. 10.1515/COG.2007.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crothers, J.
    (1978) Typology and universals of vowel systems. InJ. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, volume 2: Phonology (pp.93–152). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Bois, J. W.
    (1985) Competing motivations. InJ. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.343–365). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  18. Evans, V.
    (2003) The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/hcp.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.12 [Google Scholar]
  19. Givón, T.
    (1979) On understanding grammar. Orlando: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gussenhoven, C., & Jacobs, H.
    (2017) Understanding phonology. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315267982
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315267982 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Langacker, R. W.
    (1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. InJ. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.109–150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  24. (1987a) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol.1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1987b) Nouns and verbs. Language, 63(1), 53–94. 10.2307/415384
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1995) Viewing in cognition and grammar. InP. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp.153–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.102.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.06lan [Google Scholar]
  29. (1999) Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. InA. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.147–175). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804195.147
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.147 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2015) How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1–45. 10.14706/JFLTAL15121
    https://doi.org/10.14706/JFLTAL15121 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2016) Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 405–439. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0126
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0126 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019) Levels of reality. Languages, 4(2). doi:  10.3390/languages4020022
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4020022 [Google Scholar]
  35. Liljencrants, J., & Lindblom, B.
    (1972) Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language, 48(4), 839–862. 10.2307/411991
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411991 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindblom, B.
    (1990) Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. InW. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp.403–439). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2037‑8_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindblom, B., & Engstrand, O.
    (1989) In what sense is speech quantal?Journal of Phonetics, 17(1–2), 107–121. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)31516‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31516-5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mandler, J. M.
    (2004) The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ohala, J. J.
    (1992) Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. InM. Ziolkowski, K. Deaton & M. Noske (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology (pp.319–338). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Piaget, J.
    (1995) Egocentric thought and sociocentric thought. InL. Smith (Ed.), Sociological studies (pp.276–286). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rochat, P.
    (2003) Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(4), 717–731. 10.1016/S1053‑8100(03)00081‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00081-3 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2010) Emerging self-concept. InJ. G. Bremner & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of infant development (Vol.1, pp.320–344). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444327564.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327564.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sandler, J., Person, E. S., & Fonagy, P.
    (Eds.) (2012) Freud’s “on narcissism: An introduction”. London: Karnac Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Stern, D. N.
    (1998) The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. London: Karnac Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Suleiman, C.
    (2010) Contending visions of Arabic linguistics and their historical roots. Middle East Critique, 19(2), 115–134. 10.1080/19436149.2010.484529
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2010.484529 [Google Scholar]
  46. Traugott, E. C.
    (2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InK. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.29–71). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  47. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
    (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00090.ald
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00090.ald
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Arabic; case marking; cognitive grammar; existential core; language evolution
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error