Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-28hfj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-15T03:59:34.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints on Linearization Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Andreas Koutsoudas
Andreas Koutsoudas*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relational Grammar and Invariant Ordering Grammar both take the linear order of constituents to be a superficial property of sentences which can be predicted by a set of so-called word-order or linearization rules. The constraints which these two theories have imposed on their respective linearization rules are examined, and are shown to make wrong predictions about the possible word orders that active and passive sentences exhibit across languages. Furthermore, it is shown that these constraints cannot be amended in any obvious way to give the desired results. To account for the facts in question, a new mechanism is introduced and briefly argued for.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 818 - 840
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arms, David. 1974. Transitivity in standard Fijian. University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Bell, Sarah J. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Borras, F. M., and Christian, R. F. 1971. Russian syntax. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Bunye, Maria V. R., and Yap, Elsa P. 1971. Cebuano grammar notes. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1976. An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesia. LI 7.41–87.Google Scholar
Cowan, Marion. 1969. Tzotzil grammar. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Johnson, David E. 1974. On the role of grammatical relations in linguistic theory. CLS 10.269–83.Google Scholar
Johnson, David E., and Postal, Paul M. 1981. Arc-Pair Grammar. Princeton: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Some universals of passive in Relational Grammar. CLS 11.340–52.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W., and Munro, Pamela. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Lg. 51.789–830.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Roderick. 1971. Gaelic. (Teach yourself books.) London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1980. Relational Grammar. Current approaches to syntax, ed. by Moravcsik, Edith & Wirth, Jessica, 195–229. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, Jessica, and Postal, Paul M. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. BLS 3.394–417.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1977. Word order universals and grammatical relations. Syntax and semantics, vol. 8, ed. by Cole, Peter & Sadock, Jerrold M., 249–77. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Melville. 1970. Cystrawen y frawddeg Gymraeg. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald. 1970. Constraints on constituent ordering. Papers in Linguistics 2.460–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Gerald. 1975. Invariant ordering. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unbegaun, Boris O. 1957. Russian grammar. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1973. Explanation in syntax. Syntax and semantics, vol. 2, ed. by Kimball, John P., 1–50. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar