Mayan [re: universality of grammatical functions]

[Stuart Robinson]

I've noticed a number of comments about "Mayan" (quoted below). Could
someone clarify which Mayan languages are claimed not to possess
grammatical functions? It is worth pointing out that many Mayan languages
do possess grammatical functions. In Tzotzil, for example, the existence of
objects can be established on the grounds that various grammatical
phenomena require rules that appeal to a grammatical function rather than
just a thematic role. Passivisation in Tzotzil is best accounted for by
positing a grammatical function of object which is distinct from the
thematic role of patient (as shown by possessor raising).

Regards,
Stuart Robinson

===========

Rachel Nordlinger:

>I was wondering if you know of any work that has been done on
>'active/stative' languages in LFG --- i.e. languages like the Mayan
>languages that arguably have no evidence for grammatical functions such as
>subject and object distinct from thematic roles like agent and patient.

Tara W Mohanan:

>We don't see what light the unavailability of relevant evidence in Mayan
>languages or Australian languages by itself can shed on the choice between
>LFG and Construction Grammar.


______________________

Stuart P. Robinson (Stuart.Robinson at anu.edu.au)
Linguistics Department, Australian National University
Canberra ACT 2612
PHONE: (02) 6249-0703 || FAX: (02) 6279-8214