Grammatical Relations Hierarchy in English

Ramzia Yuns Muhammad; Wuria Ahmed Ameen

doi:10.25212/lfu.qzj.8.1.46

Authors

Ramzia Yuns Muhammad Department of English, College of languages, Salahaddin University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Wuria Ahmed Ameen Department of English, College of languages, Salahaddin University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25212/lfu.qzj.8.1.46

Keywords:

Grammatical Relations, Hierarchy, Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object.

Abstract

The grammatical relations are one part of traditional grammar that deals with important concepts such as subject, direct object, and indirect object. The main aim of this paper is to give a descriptive account of the term "grammatical relations hierarchy" in the English language depending on the theory of “Relational Grammar” as it demonstrates the relationship between these syntactic categories. Relational grammar predicates the hierarchy of these syntactic phenomena as subject > direct object > indirect object > non-terms. This paper attempts to describe the importance of these concepts and the hierarchy in the occurrence of these arguments in different constructions in order to identify the most privileged syntactic phenomena. This paper is concerned with giving general information about the concept of grammatical relations and the grammatical relations hierarchy. Then it attempts to show whether the word order of the grammatical relations in the English language obeys this hierarchy. Various constructions have been investigated for the purpose of demonstrating the position of these grammatical relations and the syntactic environments they are privileged to occur. The research has concluded that in the majority of the analyzed linear orders, the subject lies at the top of the hierarchy, and is the most privileged syntactic argument in English sentence constructions. However, in certain syntactic transformations like reflexivization and extraction constructions, it loses this privilege and shares it with other syntactic arguments like direct and indirect objects

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aarts, B. (2001). English Syntax and Argumentation. (2nd ed.) New York: Palgrave.

Bickel, B. (2011). Grammatical Relations Typology, in J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321-359.

Brown, K. & Miller, J. (2013). The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. (2nd ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. (6th ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.

Faraj, A. H. (2009). Object Movement in Standard English and Central Kurdish. Unpublished MA thesis. Salahaddin University. Hawler.

Farrell, P. (2005). Grammatical Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fromkin, V., Roadman, R., & Hyam, N. (2003). An Introduction to Language. (7th ed.) Boston: Thomson, Wadsworth.

Gleason, H. A. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, C. K. (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kolln, M., & Funk, R. (2012). Understanding English grammar. (17th ed.) New York: Pearson Education.

Luo, CH. (1994). The Accessibility Hierarchy and Clefting. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Manitoba. Available at: https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xmlui/handle/1993/19752 (Accessed: 25th March 2022).

Miller, J. (2002). An Introduction to English Syntax. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Mirzaei, A. (2022). Thematic and Grammatical Hierarchies in Persian Language. Language Related Research, 12(6), pp. 567-597. doi: https://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-35359-en.pdf

Pavey, L. E. (2010). The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Payne, E. T. (2011). Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.

Radford, A. (2009). An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rill, J. (2011). A Unified Analysis of “Dative Shift” In English: And the Applicative Construction in Chichewa. Ph.D. thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/210598015.pdf (Accessed: 15 February 2022).

Saady, S. D., & Muhamad, W. H. (2021). Realisation of Constituents in English and Kurdish. Journal of Humanity Sciences, 25(4), pp. 202-208. doi: https://doi.org/10.21271/zjhs.25.4.12

Sharifi, S., & Fazaeli, M. (2011). A Study of Grammatical Relation Hierarchy in the Contemporary Written Persian Language. US-China Foreign Language, 9(10), pp. 611-625. Doi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279493898

Sówka-Pietraszewska, K. (2019). Chapter 21: The Locative Alternation with Spray/Load Verbs in Old English’, in M., Cennamo & C. Fabrizio (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2015. Naples: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 446–457.

Tallerman, A. (2015). Understanding Syntax. (4th ed.) London and New York: Routledge the Taylor & Francis Group.

Trask, R. L. (1993). A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. New York: Routledge.

Van Valin, Jr. R. D. (2004). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, Jr. R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.