Words and Sentences Research Paper 2022

Running head: WORDS AND SENTENCES
Words and Sentences:
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1WORDS AND SENTENCES
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Discussion..................................................................................................................................2
The concept of Grammar relations.........................................................................................2
Approaches to Grammar relations.........................................................................................4
Language and Grammar relations..........................................................................................4
The case-marking approach...................................................................................................4
Word order.............................................................................................................................6
Participant reference marking on the verbs............................................................................7
The Configurational or design process..................................................................................9
The Morphological approach...............................................................................................10
The prototypical approach....................................................................................................10
Conclusion................................................................................................................................11
References:...............................................................................................................................12

2WORDS AND SENTENCES
Introduction
Grammatical relations are ill-defined, and much broad notion and these terms could
be used for referring to the different grammatical dependency relations. In practice, it is used
for denoting the different relationships in between a predicate or a clause as well as its
arguments. It is to note that the main relational categories subject, the indirect and the direct
object are among the basic concepts of several grammar models and at the same time, are
often considered as either implicitly or explicitly, as the universal (Monahan & Brunson,
2014). According to Peyraube (2015), they belong to the fundamental notions in the
descriptions of most of the languages. They claimed that “all languages have rules referring
to subject and direct object, which are central to the syntactic organization”. However, on the
contrary, linguists have founds that the different categories of the object and subject are not at
all useful or applicable for describing a language, and this description needs an explicit
justification. It is to note that there are three main ways in which styles indicate grammatical
relations within the clause from a cross-linguistic perspective. This paper shall elaborate on
describing these strategies while supporting the answer with appropriate examples.
Discussion
The concept of Grammar relations
Majority of the grammarians and learners of language understand in most of the cases
what the topic and the object in an exceedingly given clause are. However, once one tries to
provide in theory satisfying the definitions of those ideas, the outcomes are sometimes but
clear and so arguable. The contradictory impulses have led to an exceeding scenario wherever
most theories of synchronic linguistics acknowledge the grammatical relations and have
confidence them slowly for explaining the notion of grammar however at constant time, one
must avoid providing a concrete definitions of them (Wouk & Himmelmann, 2014). All the

3WORDS AND SENTENCES
same, numerous principles are acknowledged that tries to outline the grammatical relations
are supported. From a linguistic perspective, the term "grammar relations" refers to the
functional relationships between the different constituents in a particular clause. It is to note
that in language, a "clause" applies to the part of a sentence that contains a verb (Narula &
Sharma, 2014). A typical clause comprises of a predicate and a subject. According to the
modern researchers, “grammar relations” that are typified by the traditional categories of
object and subject, have assumed a significant role in the linguistic theorizing, in the full
range of approaches that range from the generative grammar to the cognitive and functional
theories. Majority of the modern grammar theories are possibly to acknowledge the massive
number of further types of grammatical relations like predictive, complement etc. (Cook &
Newson, 2014). The role that the grammatical relations play in the grammar theories is most
considerable in the dependency grammars, and that tends to posit about dozens of different
grammar relations. As per Gamallo (2015), every head-dependent dependency showcase
grammatical function. Some of the standard examples of these grammatical functions from
the traditional grammar include the subject, the direct as well as the indirect object.
It is to note that there are two types of grammatical relations, and they are
socialization and dependency. According to Langacker (2017), sociation refers to the
grammatical relationship on the basis of grammatical rationality. It is a very loose
relationship between the two elements that are belonging to the same category. For example,
if they form a syntagma, the combination will belong to a similar group. The relation might,
therefore, be very symmetric, though not all the social relationships are very strictly
symmetric in nature. The other is the dependency. It is to note that this is a grammatical
relation that is based on the grammatical rationality of one of the association. The term whose
relationality is exploited within the relationship could be a factor, and the opposite one is its
argument (Fontich & Camps, 2014). This relation is thus, by definition, uneven. Moreover

4WORDS AND SENTENCES
and severally from this distinction, one in every of the relationship is that the head of the
development, the opposite is that the dependent. The top of construction is that member
whose class determines the category of the event
Approaches to Grammar relations
It is to note that among the several methods of grammatical ties that are currently
available, there are a total of three strategies that exhibits a high level of convergences and
they are- 1) the approach that is developed within the Functional Grammar (FG) of Simon
Dik, 2) the view that is outlined by Kibrik in relation to his Relational Typology Framework
(RT) and 3) the perspective that is elaborated by La Polla and Van Valin in the year 1997
within the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) (Cornish, 2014). These three approaches can
be broadly termed as “functional-typological”. All of them converge in taking into
consideration the grammatical relations to be derived instead of being primitive notions, is
definable depending on the behavioural instead of the coding properties of the arguments and
can be easily recognizable when the patterns of behaviour of discussions are not at all
reducible to their pragmatic or semantic distinctions.
Language and Grammar relations
It is to note that languages make use of many mechanisms for encoding the
grammatical relations and the most common are the word order with sentence, the case
marking on the nouns and participant reference marking on the verbs.
The case-marking approach
It is the systems for indicating the grammatical relations, either by word order to by case-
marking. Often, it follows one of the two different patterns, and they are- the accusative
pattern or the nominative pattern and the ergative absolutive pattern (Givon, 2014). For
example, in the English language, where the arguments related to A and S related arguments

5WORDS AND SENTENCES
are treated in the same manner, and the discussion related to O is treated in a different way. It
is the accusative nominative pattern. On the other hand, in the ergative absolutive mode, the
argument related to A is treated in a single way, but the O and S related arguments are treated
differently. Below is mentioned an example of the ergative-absolutive patterning:
a) The monster runs
Here, monster IMPF-3SG and run- NPST
b) The monster gets the dog.
Here, monster-ERG IMPF-3SG-3SG and dog-NPST
Neither the intransitive subject in (a), “monster” nor the transitive verb “dog” in (b)
has received a case marking suffix. It is only the subject of the transitive verb present in (b),
the “monster” that has received a case-marking suffix and it is the ergative marker.
Furthermore, let us consider a few more examples:
c) My father gave this book to Ali (Language English)
d) Anne-m bu kitab-ı Ali-ye ver-di.
mother-POSS.1SG this book-ACC Ali-DAT give-PAST.3SG
'My father gave this book to Ali.' (Language Turkish)
Here again, in (c), which is in English, the order of the terms “my father” and that of
“Ali” is related to the verb "gave" in the sentence as well as the preposition "to" for indicating
who has given the book to someone and to whom it was precisely given. Again, in the
example (d) that is present in the Turkish language, the “accusative case” demonstrated that
the very book is the definite object of the verb "give", again, the suffix –ye, which is "dative
case" indicates that the book has been given to Ali. Also, the verb in this sentence has been
positioned towards the very end.

6WORDS AND SENTENCES
It is to mention that in the ergative languages, the ergative patterns are not uniform.
All the morphologically-ergative words for which there are high empirical acquisition data
are nominative-accusative in syntactic form. Styles that are morphologically ergative,
however syntactically nominative-accusative, present a particular challenge for kid learners.
In an exceeding language that is nominative-accusative in each syntax and morphology, A
and S related arguments are systematically treated within the same means syntactically and
additionally gain the same morphological marking. O relevant discussions are consistently
treated differently from that of the A and S arguments, both in terms of syntactically and
morphologically. But in an exceedingly morphologically ergative language that is
syntactically nominative-accusative, though the A and S related arguments are treated within
the same way syntactically, the morphological marking for all is different: the A relevant
argument is marked in a particular technique; however the S related argument is marked
otherwise. The O argument is treated otherwise from each A and S related arguments
syntactically, however, gains an equivalent morphological marking due to the S related
argument
It is also to mention that Languages with differential evidence marking, like elective
ergative marking, gift another degree of complexity for the students (Bickel et al., 2015). The
cue for the indication of the arguments is not the lasting gift within the input, and this is why
it is harder for children to be told its operate and as well as its domain of the application as
compared to the cue that took place within the input regularly and often. Difference in
marking is very usually conditioned in a partial manner by the linguistics properties, for
example, the animacy of the A related argument referent, and partially by dramatic features,
for example, the contrasts in between the discourse referents

7WORDS AND SENTENCES
Word order
If a language showcases grammatical relations with the help of order patterns, it is
sometimes a comparatively fastened pattern, like SVO order in English. It typically permits
for the re-ordering of constituents for pragmatic reasons, for instance, the emphasis of a
referent. In distinction, a language that is pragmatically-based mostly order has no single,
necessary order that is additional grammatically acceptable than the other (Kurumada &
Jaeger, 2015). A cluster of pragmatic properties determines the order in versatile order
languages, bearing on the relative newsworthiness of the constituents within the sentence or
their certainty and accessibility. The additional exciting, less inevitable and fewer accessible
parts generally occur earlier within the sentence. Many languages have word orders that are
versatile to some extent but are not entirely pragmatically ordered. It is also to note that
during a speech of this Type, if one order happens additional generally than others, and is that
the least marked order in terms of linguistics, it will be thought of because of the necessary
order (Polinsky & Preminger, 2014). In some less versatile languages, there are correlations
between order and case-marking, for instance, in Samoan and Kaluli ergative case-marking is
applied to A related arguments in specific word orders.
Participant reference marking on the verbs.
It is to mention that English will have a system of verb agreement, although it's
somewhat impoverished compared to agreement systems of the many different languages,
even at intervals the Indo-European family. Within the presence of English primary category
verbs, there's a suffix spelt –s (without the apostrophe) that seems once the topic is third-
person singular:
For example,
e) He hates pills

8WORDS AND SENTENCES
Here, the subject is a different person, and this is why –s has went way (in the cases of
Standard English)
f) They hate pills.
g) We hate Pills
In these cases, the –s has not changed when the other nouns and pronouns in the
clause have changed.
h) She hates me.
This is why the –s refers to the expression of the verb agreement with a particular subject
and is also another grammatical property of the relational concept of the "subject" in the
English language.
Finally, what concerning constituent order? In English, constituent order will facilitate
the US to distinguish the topic from different nouns in an exceeding clause. However, we'd
like to watch out; yet, we have a tendency to state the generalization. One has a tendency to
could also be tempted to mention one thing like "the subject is that the 1st NP within the
clause." This sometimes is true, however not invariably. Take into consideration those
following examples:
i) On the horizon appeared a considerable whale?
j) What school do you study in?
The very first noun phrase in these sentences is- the horizon and what school. None of
those has the different grammatical properties of subjects, and none of them would be
thought of the topic in keeping with any respectable linguistic theory. This is why one likes to
qualify his or her statement about the position of subjects in the English language somehow.
Notwithstanding this fact, concerning "the subject is that the nominal component that seems
right before the most verb or auxiliary".

9WORDS AND SENTENCES
The grammatical relations always is related to the degree of the surface syntax. However,
on the other hand, the thematic similarities depend on a way the deeper level of semantic.
Notwithstanding this fact, the correspondences over the different levels are always
acknowledged and then again, the thematic relations could be considered as something that is
giving a prototypical thematic traits for describing the grammatical relations
The Configurational or design process
There is another way that is used for outlining the syntactical relations on the basis of
syntactic configuration (Bresnan et al., 2015). The topic is described because the verb
argument that seems outside of the canonical finite predicate, whereas the article is taken to
be the verb argument that appears within the word. This approach makes the configuration as
primitive, whereby the grammatical relations are then derived from the arrangement
(Chomsky, 2014). This "configurational" understanding of the grammatical relations is
related to Chomskyan sentence structure descriptive linguistics (Transformational grammar,
Government and Binding and Minimalism).
The design approach is restricted in what it will accomplish. It works best for the
topic and object arguments. For alternative clause participants (e.g. attributes and modifiers
of assorted kinds, function word arguments, etc.), it's less conscious, since it's usually not
clear however one may outline these extra syntactical functions in terms of the configuration.
Moreover, even regarding the topic and object, it will run into difficulties, e.g.
k) There were two lizards in the drawer.
The design approach has an issue with such cases. The plural verb agreed with the
post-verb phrase two lizards that suggests that two lizards are that the subject. However, since
two lizards follow the verb, one may read it as being situated within the predicate, which

10WORDS AND SENTENCES
suggests it ought to count because of the object. This second observation suggests that the
oath there ought to be granted subject standing.
The Morphological approach
Several efforts to outline the grammatical relations focus on the role morphology
(Blevins et al., 2015). In English, the topic will or should accept as accurate with the finite
verb face to face and range, and in languages that have morphological case, the subject and
object (and alternative verb arguments) are known in terms of the case markers that they bear.
Morphology is also a lot of reliable suggests that for outlining the grammatical relations than
the configuration; however, its utility are often terribly restricted in several cases. As an
example, morphology isn't aiming to facilitate in languages that lack inflectional morphology
nearly entirely like Mandarin, and even with English, morphology doesn't facilitate a lot of,
since English, for the most part, requires morphological case.
The prototypical approach
A method that posits prototypical traits might overcome the problems that are faced
with outlining the grammatical relations on the basis of thematic or plan or morphological
criteria. The first subject includes a cluster of the thematic, arrangement, and morphological
characteristics, and therefore the same is true of the first object and alternative verb
arguments (Chung, 2014). Across the languages and constructions among a word, there may
be several cases wherever a given subject argument might not be the first subject. However,
it's enough subject-like traits to be granted subject standing. With the same, a given object
argument might not be first in a technique or another. However, if it is enough object-like
traits, then it will withal receive the standing of the object. This third strategy is very tacitly
most well-liked by the majority of the works in the theoretical syntax (Barodal & Gildea,
2015). All those theories of the language that avoid providing concrete definitions of the

11WORDS AND SENTENCES
grammatical relations; however nonetheless reference them typically are (perhaps not
knowingly) following an associate degree approach in terms of first traits.
Conclusion
Hence, from the above analysis, it is to conclude that the English language has had a
significant impact on the theoretical and typological stage over the last fifty years,
significantly within the areas of nonconfigurationality and syntax body, ergativity, and case-
marking. The last 40–50 years have seen a vast quantity of development in our understanding
of the grammatical structure of Australian languages, and significantly the distinctive
contributions they create to communication categorization within the areas of body relations,
case relations and configurational. There stay, however, several problems to be explored and
enriched by future analysis. Significant areas in want of considerable study embrace the role
that discourse and knowledge structure play within the organization of syntactical structure,
and therefore, the interactions between syntactical structure, discourse and prosody. This
study has conjointly compared. The contradictory impulses have resulted in an exceeding
scenario wherever most theories of synchronic linguistics acknowledge the grammatical
relations and have confidence them slowly for describing phenomena of grammar however at
constant time, avoid providing concrete definitions of them. All the same, numerous
principles are acknowledged that tries to outline the grammatical relations are supported.
However, neural network models learn all the attainable mixtures of 3 linguistic methods for
cryptography grammatical relations: ordination, nominal case marking, and verbal affixes.
Alternative variable linguistic dimensions enclosed accusative and ergative marking systems,
the consistency of genitive marking, and therefore the quality of the grammars wont to
generate the fictitious languages.

12WORDS AND SENTENCES
References:
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological
context, basic assumptions and historical implications. Diachronic construction
grammar, 1-49.
Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Choudhary, K. K., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-
Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the
evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS One, 10(8), e0132819.
Blevins, J. P., Ackerman, F., Malouf, R., & Ramscar, M. (2016). Morphology as an adaptive
discriminative system. Morphological metatheory, 271-302.
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S. (2015). Lexical-functional syntax. John
Wiley & Sons.
Chomsky, N. (2014). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Vol. 11). MIT press.
Chung, S. (2014). Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. University of
Texas Press.
Cornish, F. (2014). On the dual nature of the Functional Discourse Grammar model.
Fontich, X., & Camps, A. (2014). Towards a rationale for research into grammar teaching in
schools. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 598-625.
Gamallo, P. (2015, July). Dependency parsing with compression rules. In Proceedings of the
14th International Conference on Parsing Technologies (pp. 107-117).

13WORDS AND SENTENCES
Givón, T. (2014). The functional approach to grammar. In The new psychology of
language (pp. 68-92). Psychology Press.
Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production:
Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152-178.
Langacker, R. W. (2017). Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In The new
psychology of language (pp. 1-39). Routledge.
Monahan, S., & Brunson, M. (2014, June). Qualities of eventiveness. In Proceedings of the
Second Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference, and
Representation (pp. 59-67).
Narula, R., & Sharma, S. K. (2014). Identification and separation of simple, compound and
complex sentences in Punjabi language. International Journal of Computer
Applications & Information Technology, 6.
PEYRAUBE, A. (2015). Syntactic and Semantic Change in Chinese (pp. 21-1). Newcastle
and Northumbria Working Papers in Linguistics.
Polinsky, M., & Preminger, O. (2014). Case and grammatical relations. In The Routledge
handbook of syntax (pp. 168-184). Routledge.
Wouk, F., & Himmelmann, N. P. (2014). Voice in western Austronesian: an update. The
history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, 7.