Re: THEORY: Why more than two grammatical relations?

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:51:48 -0000, j_mach_wust
<j_mach_wust@...> wrote:

>Eldin Raigmore wrote:
>> AIUI languages with tritransitive verbs -- three kinds of Object -- are
>> usually thought of as having a Primary Object and two kinds of Secondary
>> Object.  How does it serve a language's purposes to have four grammatical
>> relations rather than only three?
>
>In the case I know best, that is, in German, the different kinds of "secondary"
>objects have different original connotations. However, these are hardly
>productive any more, so their distribution depends on the verbs. Three
>samples:
>
>1. Sie sieht ihren Bruder. 'She sees her brother.' Accusative object, direct
>object, no special connotation, goal of the activity or patiens.
>
>2. Sie hilft ihrem Bruder. 'She helps her brother.' Dative object. The original
>meaning may be described as beneficiary. The connotation would be that
>"her brother" is not simply the goal of her activity, but receives a benefit of it.
>
>3. Sie gedenkt ihres Bruders. 'She commemorates her brother.' Genitive
>object. The original meaning may be described as partitive. The connotation
>would be that that "her brother" is not simply the goal of her activity, but
>that it is only a part that belongs to "her brother" as commemoration will not
>bring him back entirely. Compare the English construction "she thinks of her
>brother".
>
>I hope I haven't misunderstood what you've asked for...
>
>---
>grüess
>mach
I think you did misunderstand, but the information you gave me is very
interesting nevertheless.

I believe your examples 2 and 3 are examples of "quirky case", "quirky
Objects", "non-canonically marked Objects".  They still occupy the "Direct
Object" Grammatical Relation in all three examples; but the 2nd and 3rd
examples aren't marked with Accusative case, as Direct Objects usually are in
German.  And that is interesting.

(I was especially interested in the semantic differences between the three
cases for these objects.)

Some languages (isn't German one of them?) have, in their ditransitive clauses,
three Core participants; the Subject, the Direct Object, and the Indirect
Object.  In other languages the equivalent clause has only two Core
participants; the other participant is indeed an Argument, but it is an
_Oblique_ Argument.

(Isn't German also one of those languages with some "bivalent intransitive"
clauses, intransitive clauses with two Core participants?  In which case aren't
some of those clauses analyzed as having a Subject and an Indirect Object,
but no Direct Object?)

The Indirect Object is what I meant by a third Grammatical Relation.  It may
not have been the best example, since some people believe its definition is
partly semantic.

The "Subject" Grammatical Relation is the syntactically most-privileged
Argument (or the most syntactically-privileged Argument).  Many languages
often make great use of it.  It is a syntactic or grammatical function or
relation, rather than a semantic role; so various processes can operate to put
various participants into the Subject slot.  And in many languages there are
many such processes; in many languages practically _any_ participant can be
put into the Subject slot, regardless of which semantic role it plays.

Other Grammatical Relations will share some of that with the Subject G.R.  For
instance, in languages with Applicative voice-like processes, the 2nd-most-
privileged GR (Direct Object or Primary Object, depending on the language) can
be occupied by nearly any participant, regardless of its semantic role.

The third GR, in languages that have three, is usually thought of as "something
between" the second GR and the Oblique Arguments.  It usually has some
features in common with Oblique Arguments that it doesn't have in common
with the other two GRs; and vice-versa has some features in common with the
other two GRs that it does not have in common with Oblique Arguments.  But
also, it is likely to have some features in common with the 2nd GR (Direct
Object, or Primary Object, or Ergative Object, and maybe other terms,
depending) that it doesn't have with the Subject, and some in common with
the Subject that it doesn't have with the 2nd GR.

My question was, what syntactic or grammatical processes are made easier
because the language uses this third GR?  What are the typical uses of the
third GR that couldn't as easily be done by making it an Oblique Argument or
by giving it the 2nd GR "slot"?

And, in languages with four GRs (if there are any), does this question also
apply to the fourth GR?  If it does, what's the answer?