Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T17:07:21.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Susan Steele
Susan Steele*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
Department of Linguistics Douglass 200 East University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On one view of syntactic structure, the expression of the grammatical relation subject is associated with an NP position. On another, this grammatical relation is expressed by a bound pronominal form. Discussion of the choice of one or the other of these has focused exclusively on the reflex of what is traditionally termed ‘subject/verb agreement’ and an ‘agreeing’ NP. This paper offers a theory, exemplified through an analysis of Luiseño, which accommodates a range of ‘subject agreement’ forms. The analysis is based on the idea that subject information can flow from a number of distinct sources. Languages might differ in regard to how many of these sources are used. One consequence of this idea is to deny a simple bifurcation into subject-pro-drop / non-subject-pro-drop or pronominal-subject / nominal-subject languages. The Luiseño analysis, therefore, forces a reconsideration of the roles of subject/verb agreement and the agreeing NP in grammatical composition.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 537 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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

Bach, Emmon. 1983. On the relationship between word grammar and phrase grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63. 741–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. (Janua linguarum, 4.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Villiana. 1971. An introduction to the Luiseño language. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 39–76.10.1007/BF00233713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward, and Faltz, Leonard. 1985. Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, and Timberlake, Alan. 1988. Natural language motivations for extending categorial grammar. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 265–96. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 1, Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Manandise, Esmeralda. 1989. Evidence from Basque for a new theory of grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Lg. 62.56–119.Google Scholar
Nishida, Chiyo. 1987. Interplay between morphology and syntax: A lexical analysis of inflection and cliticization. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1988. Multi-dimensional compositional functions as a basis for grammatical analysis. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 349–90. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1988. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1983. A new theory of English auxiliaries. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, vol. 2, ed. by Heny, Frank and Richards, Barry, 1–54. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart. 1986. An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. (CSLI lecture notes, 4.) Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1977a. On being possessed. Proceedings of the 3rd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Whistler, Kenneth et al., 114–131. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1977b. On the count of one. Studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, ed. by Juilland, A., 591–614. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1987. Constituency and Luiseño argument structure. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 20: Discontinuous Constituency, ed. by Huck, Geoffrey and Ojeda, Almerindo, 341–75. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1989. Agreement and antiagreement: A syntax of Luiseño. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1990. Clisis. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan, Akmajian, Adrian, Demers, Richard, Jelinek, Eloise, Kitagawa, Chisato, Oehrle, Richard T., and Wasow, Thomas. 1981. An encyclopedia of AUX: A study in cross-linguistic equivalence. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph series, 5.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1975. The nominative object in Finnish. Lingua 35. 201–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1987. A comprehensive theory of switch reference. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., 1985. Case marking and the structure of the Lakhota clause. Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some views of theory from the field, ed. by Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony C., 363–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar