Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-w75dz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-13T00:14:44.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Johanna Nichols
Johanna Nichols*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological marking of grammatical relations may appear on either the head or the dependent member of the constituent (or on both, or on neither). Grammatical relations—and whole languages—may be classified according to their propensity for using one of these types of marking. Implicational relations among various marking patterns can be stated: languages display a tendency to use one type consistently throughout their grammar. The difference in patterns provides a typological metric and a functional explanation for certain word-order preferences. For historical linguistics, it provides a diagnostically conservative feature and a clue to genetic relatedness. Although the head-marked pattern is cross-linguistically favored, grammatical theory is strongly biased toward the dependent-marked patterns that happen to dominate in Indo-European.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 56 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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

Footnotes

*

Much of the research for this project was done in Moscow (1975–76) and Tbilisi (1979–80, 1981, 1984) with the support of International Research and Exchanges Board and Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad fellowships from the Office of Education and the then Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I am grateful to the Russian Language Department of Moscow State University and to the Foreign Division and the Caucasian Languages Department of Tbilisi State University. Deepest thanks go to the friends and colleagues who shared with me their native intuitions on languages of the Caucasus. For comments and examples, I am indebted to Joan Bresnan, Neusa Carson, Jim Collins, Jon Dayley, Scott DeLancey, Matthew Dryer, Thomas V. Gamkrelidze, Orin Gensler, Victor Golla, Dee Ann Holisky, Gary Holland, John Kingston, Tom Larsen, Maya Machavariani, Igor Mel'čuk, Larry Morgan, Catherine O'Connor, David Shaul, Alan Timberlake, Robert Van Valin, Kenneth Whistler, Anthony Woodbury, and Karl Zimmer. I am also grateful to Ann Kalinowski for statistical consultation and Kenneth Whistler for programming. My thanks should not be taken to imply that these people unanimously endorse all my views. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1982 LSA Annual Meeting (San Diego).

References

Abaev, V. A., et al. 1982 (eds.) Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija: Novoiranskie jazyki, I. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Barber, E. J. W. 1975. Voice—beyond the passive. BLS 1.16–24.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A. R. 1962. Klamath texts. (UCPL 30.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911 (ed.) Handbook of American Indian languages, I. (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40;1.) Washington, DC: GPO. [Introduction reprinted, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1964.]Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1947. Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 37:3.201–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz, and Deloria, Ella. 1941. Dakota grammar. (Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 23:2.) Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982 (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, E. K., and Miller, J. E. 1980. Syntax: A linguistic introduction to sentence structure. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, and Mithun, Marianne. 1979 (eds.) The languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Capell, A. 1965. A typology of concept domination. Lingua 15.451–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Hazel. 1963. Notes on the tonal system of Northern Rhodesian Plateau Tonga. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. 2nd edn. (Studies in generative grammar, 9.) Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. The order of case and possessive suffixes in the Uralic languages: An approach to the comparative-historical problem. Lingua Posnaniensis 23.81–6.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Grammatical relations in Huichol. In Hopper & Thompson, 95–116.Google Scholar
Day, Christopher. 1973. The Jacaltec language. (Language Science Monographs, 12.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Dayley, Jon P. 1981. A Tzutujil grammar. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Décsy, Gyula. 1966. Yurak chrestomathy. (Uralic and Altaic series, 50.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Dyk, Walter. 1933. A grammar of Wishram. Yale dissertation.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, MS. Modal case marking in Kayartilt.Google Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D. jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Gadžiev, M. M. 1954. Sintaksis lezginskogo jazyka, I: Prostoe predloženie. Maxačkala: Dagučpedgiz.Google Scholar
Gadžiev, M. M. 1963. Sintaksis lezginskogo jazyka, II: Složnoe predloženie. Maxačkala: Dagučpedgiz.Google Scholar
Garde, Paul. 1977. Ordre linéaire et dépendance syntaxique: Contribution à une typologie. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, Paris, 72:1.1–26.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1977. Headless relatives in the Southwest: Are they related? BLS 3.270–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1975. Some functional relationships in grammar. Lg. 51.89–104.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1985. Discourse in the field: Clause structure in Ngandi (Australia). In Nichols & Woodbury, 89–110.Google Scholar
Hewitt, B. G. 1979. Abkhaz. (Lingua descriptive series, 2.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1982 (eds.) Studies in Transitivity. (Syntax and semantics, 15.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M., and Duranti, Alessandro. 1982. On the object relation in Bantu. In Hopper & Thompson, 217–39.Google Scholar
Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. 1965. Obščeindoevropejskaja, praslavjanskaja i anatolijskaja jazykovye sistemy. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, ed. by Efrat, Barbara S. (Heritage records, 4), 83–155. Victoria, BC: Provincial Museum.Google Scholar
Jakovlev, N. F. 1940. Sintaksis čečenskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moscow & Leningrad: Akademija Nauk.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1961. Modern English grammar, VII. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Juldašev, A. A. 1977. Sootnošenie deepričastnyx i ličnyx form glagola v tjurkskix jazykax. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1972a. On semantically based grammar. LI 34.413–62.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1972b. Relative clause formation in Malagasy. The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, ed. by Peranteau, Paul et al., 169–89. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Kuipers, Aert H. 1967. The Squamish language: Grammar, texts, dictionary. (Janua linguarum, Series practica, 73.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, Aert H. 1974. The Shuswap language: Grammar, texts, dictionary. (Janua linguarum, Series practica, 225.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1977. Syntactic change and SOV structure: The Yuman case. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 255–90. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1979. Some thoughts on Hokan, with particular reference to Pomoan and Yuman. In Campbell & Mithun, 592–649.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1982. Pomoan, Seri, and Yuman. Paper read at Conference on Far Western Languages and Prehistory, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Larsen, Thomas, and Norman, Will. 1979. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. Ergativity: Toward a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 347–70. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert. 1977. The Skidegate dialect of Haida. Columbia University dissertation.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Where do noun phrases come from? Semantics, ed. by Steinberg, Danny & Jacobovits, Leon, 217–31. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Magometov, A. A. 1963. Kubačinskij jazyk. Tbilisi: AN GSSR.Google Scholar
Magometov, A. A. 1965. Tabasaranskij jazyk. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. (LI monograph 10.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1979. Studies in dependency syntax. (Linguistica extranea, Studia, 2.) Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1981. Types de dépendance syntagmatique entre les mot-formes d'une phrase. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, Paris, 76.1–59.Google Scholar
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1967. La structure de la phrase dans les langues indigènes de l'Amérique du nord. In his Études typologiques sur les langues indigènes de l'Amérique (Prace Komisji Orientalistycznej, 7). In his Études typologiques sur les langues indigènes de l'Amérique (Prace Komisji Orientalistycznej, 7), 70–101. Krakow: PAN.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1973. Suffix ordering in Proto-Uralic. Lingua 32.227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1980. Pidginization and foreigner talk: Chinese pidgin Russian. Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth C. (Current issues in linguistic theory, 14), 397–407. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1984. Another typology of relatives. BLS 10.524–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1985. Poetic equation in Chechen-Ingush. Studia Caucasica 6.12–24.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Woodbury, Anthony C. 1985 (eds.) Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some views of theory from the field. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Oinas, Felix. 1961. The development of some postpositional cases in Balto-Finnic. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen toimituksia, 123.) Helsinki: SUS.Google Scholar
Ozdoev, I. A. 1981. K voprosu o složnopodčinennom predloženii v ingušskom literaturnom jazyke. Voprosy vajnaxskogo sintaksisa 1981.21–34.Google Scholar
Platero, Paul. 1974. The Navajo relative clause. IJAL 40.202–46.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1916. A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Nordhoff.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Brown, Penelope. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse. Lg. 52.631–66.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1915. The Na-Dene languages: A preliminary report. AA 17.534–58.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1929. Central and North American languages. Encyclopedia Britannica 5.138–41. [Reprinted in his Selected writings, ed. by David G. Mandelbaum, 169–78. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.]Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe T. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, Robert M. W., 112–71. Canberra: AIAS.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Penutian: An assessment. In Campbell & Mithun, 650–91.Google Scholar
Smeall, Christopher. 1975. A quantitative analysis of variation: i in Tok Pisin. BLS 1.403–7.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1979. Uto-Aztecan: An assessment for historical and comparative linguistics. In Campbell & Mithun, 444–544.Google Scholar
Tereščenko, N. M. 1973. Sintaksis samodijskix jazykov. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1966. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. jr. 1985. Case marking and the structure of the Lakhota clause. In Nichols & Woodbury, 363–413.Google Scholar
Whistler, Kenneth W. 1977. Wintun prehistory: An interpretation based on linguistic reconstruction of plant and animal names. BLS 3.157–74.10.3765/bls.v3i0.3287CrossRefGoogle Scholar