Subject (grammar) - Subject in Contrastive Linguistics

Subject in Contrastive Linguistics

The subject was first defined to be the main argument of a proposition. Since then, linguistic theories have been developed to describe languages all over the world. Some theories, such as Systemic Functional Theory, claim all clauses must have a subject no matter what language is being described. Other theories claim there is no such category that is consistent for all languages. In English, though, every clause has at least an implied subject.

A subject in English typically matches two types of pattern: agreement and word order. It both agrees with the verb group of its clause and is positioned in certain particular ways. The agreement is one of two different forms of the verb (three in the case of the verb be) depending on the number and person of its subject. For instance, if a subject is singular and is a third person, i. e. it is neither the speaker nor the listeners, one chooses the form has of the verb have; otherwise one chooses have. See examples below:

She has left.

They have left.

I have left.

We have left.

You have left.

This pattern of agreement is not an absolute rule, because not all verbs have two different forms. Some have only one and never vary in form. E.g.: must, can, will, might, may.

She must leave.

They must leave.

I must leave.

We must leave.

You must leave.

The second pattern of a subject in English is its position in relation to the verb group. When affirming or denying something, one usually places the subject right before the verb group. But when asking a question, one changes the word order by placing the subject after part of the verb group. This means one makes an interrogative clause by changing the declarative word order. Thus an assertion is turned into a question by making a word order change. See the following examples:

You won't call me.

Won't you call me?

Subjects also follow a third pattern. For instance, in English, the pronoun I is usually a subject while me is usually a complement. This system of language that allows us to determine the arguments of a proposition by inflection is called declension and each form is a case of the declining system. In other languages like German, Russian, Latin and Greek, every noun group assumes a case to represent a specific argument of its proposition. The case assumed by subjects is usually (but not always) the one named nominative. Sometimes the subject carries other cases, like the accusative or the dative, depending on the clause structure and the language. Yet other languages, such as Japanese, use a postposition system to determine the arguments of a clause. The classic theorists were very concerned about this language system for both Latin and Greek had declensions, but this is not a concern in modern English grammars any more as English has no distinct inflexion for the subject. Not all languages have a subject–verb agreement in verb forms (person and number), noun forms (case, postpositions) or distinctive word orders. And none of these patterns safely determines the subject.

The case system, for instance, is not a universal system that works the same way in all languages. In some languages, when the ergative model is foregrounded, the transitive/intransitive distinction does not affect the cases of the complements. The middle to which some process is done or happens carries the same case no matter if it is the subject or a complement of the verb. In other languages, of which German, Latin and Greek are examples, the subject keeps its case for transitive and intransitive uses of a verb and it is quite safe to consider it case-determined.

In languages that lack verb and noun forms for determining the subject, the subject might be determined in terms of word order. For example, in Mainland Scandinavian (Norwegian, Swedish and Danish) the subject occurs either right in front of the tensed verb of a sentence, or follows the verb but precedes the complements.

Finally, in the Topic theory, which is similar but not equivalent to the Theme theory of the School of Prague, the subject is also the topic of a proposition in the default word order. According to this theory, some languages have no means to determine a topic but by making a complement into a subject. So ascribing a passive voice to the verb group is a way to topicalize the said complement: (See also topic-prominent languages.)

I did it.

It was done.

The duke gave my aunt this teapot.

My aunt was given this teapot by the duke.

Another pattern of the subject is the frequency in which it is ellided (removed/dropped) from the clause. Some languages, like Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Latin, Greek, Japanese and Mandarin, use this pattern both in assertions and questions. Though most of these languages are rich in verb forms for determining the person and number of the subject, Japanese and Mandarin have no such forms at all. This dropping pattern does not automatically make a language a pro-drop language. In other languages, like English and French, declarative and interrogative clauses must always have a subject, which should be either a noun group or a clause. This is also true when the clause has no element to be represented by it. This is why verbs like rain must carry a subject such as it, even if nothing is actually being represented by it. In this case it is an expletive and a dummy pronoun. In imperative clauses, though, most languages elide the subject:

Give it to me.

Dā mihi istud. (Latin)

Me dá isso. (Portuguese in Brazil)

Dá-me isso. (Portuguese in Portugal)

Dámelo. (Spanish)

Dammelo. (Italian)