| Taxonomy |
| Definition | the agent or agent-like central participant role in the prototypical bivalent event (that is, a breaking event) or the prototypical trivalent event (that is, a giving event). Examples: in Jack broke the window, Jack plays the A role in the breaking event; and in Jill gave Joe the keys, Jill plays the A role in the giving event. (Section 6.3.1) |
|---|
| Id | str:a-not-a |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | A–not-A |
| Expresses | polarity question construction (cxn) |
|---|
| Taxonomy |
| Definition | a strategy for polarity question constructions in which both the positive and negative form of the proposition are expressed. Example: Mandarin tā zài jiā bu zài jiā [lit. S/he at home not at home ] Is s/he at home? is an instance of the A–not-A strategy for polarity questions. The A–not-A strategy is essentially the recruitment of the alternative question construction for the polarity question function. |
|---|
| Id | inf:aboutness |
|---|
| Type | information packaging |
|---|
Alias(es) | about, aboutness | about | aboutness |
| Partonomy |
| Definition | the relation between what is expressed in a topic–comment sentence and the referent or topic that the comment or predication is predicated of. Example: in The coyote ran across the lawn, the sentence is about the coyote. Aboutness is intended to capture the notion that an utterance is relevant to a matter of standing interest or concern (Strawson 1964:97). (Section 11.2.1) |
|---|
| Id | str:absolute-deranking-system |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | absolute deranking system |
| Taxonomy |
| Definition | a system where both the same-subject reference tracking construction and the different-subject reference tracking construction use a deranked strategy. The deranked reference tracking construction may be the same for both same-subject and different-subject constructions. Example: Tamil avaru kadite eɽudiiʈʈu naaval moɽipeyarttaaru He wrote poetry and then translated a novel (same-subject) and naan paɳam kuɖuttu avan sinimaavukku poonaan I gave (him) money and he went to the movie (different-subject) both use the deranked Adverbial Participle predicate forms – eɽudiiʈʈu write [adv.part] and kuɖuttu give [adv.part] respectively. If the same-subject and different-subject constructions systematically use different deranked reference tracking constructions, then it is a switch-reference system. (Section 16.3) |
|---|
| Id | str:absolutive-category |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | absolutive category |
| Partonomy |
| Id | inf:accessibility |
|---|
| Type | information packaging |
|---|
Alias(es) | accessibility | activation | topic continuity |
| Function of | definite article (cxn) |
|---|
| Taxonomy |
| Definition | the information status of a referent with respect to the hearer's knowledge – that is, for which the hearer already has a discourse file. Accessibility refers to how easily the referent can be accessed by the hearer, in the speaker's estimation. The accessibility categories described in this book are active, semi-active, inactive, and inferrable. The adjective accessible is also used for the semi-active accessibility status. (Sections 3.1.3, 3.3.1) |
|---|
| Id | def:accessibility-hierarchy |
|---|
| Type | definition |
|---|
Alias(es) | Accessibility Hierarchy |
| Definition | an implicational hierarchy that governs universals of the distribution of relative clause constructions and particular strategies of relative clause constructions, depending on the semantic role that the relative clause head plays in the event denoted by the relative clause. The Accessibility Hierarchy is usually formulated as: subject (A/S) < object (P/T) < indirect object (G), oblique < (attributive) possessor. All languages have a relative clause construction that can relativize the subject; a specific construction is used for a continuous segment of the hierarchy; deranked relative clauses are used for the top part of the hierarchy downwards; less explicit relative clause strategies are used for the top part of the hierarchy downwards; and more explicit relative clause strategies are used for the bottom part of the hierarchy upwards. (Section 19.3) |
|---|
| Id | def:accessibility-scale |
|---|
| Type | definition |
|---|
Alias(es) | Accessibility Scale |
| Definition | an ordering of types of referring phrases by their degree of accessibility. The Accessibility Scale accommodates the fact that referring phrases may provide a more fine-grained set of information status distinctions than the common three-way classification of active, semi-active, and inactive. (Section 3.3.1) |
|---|
| Id | str:accusative-alignment |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | accusative alignment | accusative alignment (system) | accusative alignment system |
| Taxonomy |
| Partonomy |
| Definition | a system in which the A and S roles are expressed with the same form, but the P role is expressed with a different form. Example: English argument phrases expressing the A and S roles are indexed on Present Tense verbs (Emily sing-s, Emily play-s the piano), while an argument phrase expressing the P role is not indexed (in Emily play-s the piano, the verb does not index the piano). (Section 6.3.1) |
|---|
| Id | str:accusative-category |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | accusative category |
| Partonomy |
| Definition | the morphosyntactic category in the accusative alignment system that exclusively expresses the P role. Example: the English accusative pronoun forms me, him, her, us, and them are used only for the P role (the S and A roles use the nominative forms I, he, she, we, and they), and represent the accusative flag (morphologically manifested in English as base modification). (Section 6.3.1) |
|---|
| Id | sem:action-concept |
|---|
| Type | meaning |
|---|
Alias(es) | action concept | action | action (concept) |
| Function of | verb (cxn) | verbal clause (cxn) |
|---|
| Attribute(s) | dynamic (sem) | relational (sem) | transitory (sem) |
|---|
| Taxonomy |
| Definition | a concept belonging to a semantic class that is relational, dynamic, and transitory. Example: motion events such as running, or transfer events such as giving, are action concepts – they involve change but come to an end. (Section 2.1; Chapters 6–7 cover a wide range of action concepts.) |
|---|
| Id | cxn:action-modification-construction |
|---|
| Type | construction |
|---|
Alias(es) | action modification construction |
| Taxonomy |
| Partonomy |
|
Not from the original glossary of Morphosyntax.
|
|---|
| Id | str:action-nominal |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | action nominal | nominalization |
| Expresses | adverbial dependent clause (cxn) | complement (cxn) |
|---|
| Partonomy |
| Definition | a deranked predicate form that is capable of inflecting for case or of taking adpositions in the same way as nouns do, and with reasonable productivity. Example: in He remains under investigation, investigation is an action nominal. Action nominals overwhelmingly lack predicate-like tense–aspect–mood and argument indexation inflections. (Section 15.3.2) |
|---|
| Id | str:active-alignment |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | active alignment | active alignment (system) | active alignment system |
| Expresses | intransitive construction (cxn) |
|---|
| Modeled on | transitive construction (cxn) |
|---|
| Taxonomy |
| Partonomy |
| Definition | a system in which some S roles are co-expressed with the A role, and other S roles are co-expressed with the P role. Example: in Lakhota, the index for the S role of come is the same form as the index for the A role of help , but the index for the S role of be sick is the same form as the index for the P role of help . (Section 6.3.3) |
|---|
| Id | str:active-category |
|---|
| Type | strategy |
|---|
Alias(es) | active category | actor category | agentive | agentive (category) | agentive category |
| Partonomy |
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|