Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T12:59:01.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical Relations and Surface Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Masayoshi Shibatani
Masayoshi Shibatani*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While relational grammar regards grammatical relations as theoretical primitives that play a central role in the formulation of syntactic rules, there has been no critical assessment of the fact that grammatical relations and surface cases are often confused by both traditional and transformational grammarians. This paper shows that grammatical relations and cases must be clearly distinguished, as there are distinct rules that are sensitive to each. Investigation of the data from Japanese and Korean specifically shows that, in these languages, the rule of Quantifier Floating—which the proponents of relational grammar have alleged to be universally sensitive to grammatical relations—must, in fact, be stated in terms of cases, while the rules of Reflexivization and Subject Honorification must be formulated in terms of grammatical relations. In addition to these syntactic processes, this paper critically examines whether there are, in fact, two subjects in the so-called double-subject construction in Japanese.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 789 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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

Bloch, B. 1946. Studies in colloquial Japanese, II: Syntax. Lg. 22.200–48.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. & Harms, R., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1971. Ga-no Conversion and idiolectal variation in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60. 25–38.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1976a. Honorifics. In Shibatani 1976b:499–561.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1976b. Quantifier Float as a relational rule. Metropolitan linguistics, 44–9. Tokyo: Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. 1976. Reflexivization: an interpretive approach. In Shibatani 1976b: 117–200.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1974a. On the role of grammatical relations in linguistic theory. Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 269–83.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1974b. Toward a theory of relationally-based grammar. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 1976. Toward a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li 1976:305–33.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., and Staal, J. F. 1969. Syntactic and semantic relations in . Foundations of Language 5. 83–117.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, N. A. 1976. Reflexivization: a transformational approach. In Shibatani 1976b:51–116.Google Scholar
Martin, S. 1962. Essential Japanese. Rutland, VT, and Tokyo: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1973. Evidence for a post-cycle in syntax. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, San Diego. Abstract published in the Meeting Handbook, 130–31.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. and Postal, P. 1974. Lectures on relational grammar. Given at Linguistic Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1976. Avoiding reference to subject. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 151–82.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In Li 1976:493–518.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1975. Perceptual strategies and the phenomena of particle conversion in Japanese. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, 469–80. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1976a. Causativization. In Shibatani 1976b:239–94.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (ed.) 1976b. Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. MS. Relational grammar and Korean syntax: the so-called ‘double-subject’ and ‘double-object’ constructions revisited. To appear in Language Research (Seoul National University).Google Scholar