SSRScientific and Social Research2661-43322981-9946Bio-Byword Scientific Publishing Pty. Ltd.10.26689/ssr.v6i12.8948ArticleA Double Perspective of Mathesius’s Study of the Subject-Verb Relationhttps://artdesignp.com/journal/SSR/6/12/10.26689/ssr.v6i12.8948WeiJiayi,LiXiao,ChenJianhua20246122024-12-31By making a thorough study and comparison of the parts concerning verb and subject in Mathesius’s linguistic characterology, this paper argues that his approach to subject-verb relation takes two different perspectives. Based on detailed analysis, the present study argues that Mathesuis’s interpretation of the subject-verb relation not only takes the perspective of the verb while focusing on the sentence’s argument structure but also takes the one of the subject and emphasizes the utterance’s information structure. This reflects not only the difference between the sentence potential and the utterance actualized but also reflects one of Mathesius’s basic thoughts of functional linguistics, that is, taking the speaker’s standpoint in language analysis.

Mathesius V, 1911, On the Potentiality of the Phenomena of Language, in Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School. Academia, Prague, 3–43.

Mathesius V, 1975, A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.

Harder P, 1996, Functional Semantics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Jespersen O, 1924, The Philosophy of Grammar. Allen and Unwin, London.

Sunden KF, 1916, The Predicational Categories in English (Essay 1). The University Press, Uppsala.

Danilenko V, 1981, On the Relation between Subject-centered and Predicate-centered Theories of Sentence-forming. Philologica Pragensia, 1981(1): 30–35.

Fillmore C, 1968, The Case for Case, in Linguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1–88.

Jackendoff S, 1990, Semantic Structures. MIT Press, Cambridge,

Kuno S, Takami K, 2004, Functional Constraints in Grammar: On the Unergative-Unaccusative Distinction. John Benjamins, Philadelphia.

Langacker R, 1991, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Talmy L, 2000, Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Fillmore C, 1985, Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 1985(6): 222–254.

Van Valin RD, LaPolla RJ, 1997, Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Levin B, Rappaport HM, 2005, Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goldberg A, 1995, Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Osbonrne T, Gross T, 2012, Constructions Are Catenae: Construction Grammar Meets Dependency Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1): 165–216.

Tesniere L, 2015, Elements of Structural Syntax. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Danes F, 1964, A Three-level Approach to Syntax. Travaux Linguistiques de. Prague, 1964(1): 225–240.

Fukui N, 2000, Phrase Structure, in The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Boston, 374–405.

Mathesius V, 1929, Functional Linguistics, Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School. Academia, Prague, 121–210.

Jespersen O, 1927, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principle, Part III Syntax, Second Volume. Allen and Unwin, London.

Mathesius V, 1975, A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. World Publishing Corporation, Beijing.

Firbas J, 1992, Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.