Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles
This introductory chapter briefly introduces a few milestones in the voluminous previous literature on semantic roles, and charts the territory in which the chapters of this volume aim to make a contribution. This territory is characterized by fairly disparate conceptualizations of semantic roles and their status in theories of grammar and the lexicon, as well as by diverse and probably complementary ways of deriving or identifying them based on linguistic data. Particular attention is given to the question of how selected roles appear to relate to each other, and we preliminarily address the issue of how roles, subroles, and role complexes are best thought of in general.
References (42)
References
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 353–389. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae-Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixonx, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume I: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexicon expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Keyser. 2001. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Choctaw cases.
Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society
3. 204–213.
Hopper, Paul J. 1985. Causes and affects. In William H. Elifort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the Twenty-first Regional Meeting of CLS, 67–88. Chicago.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klokeid, T.J. 1976. Lardil. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 550–584. New Jersey: Humanities Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Metslang, Helena. 2014. Partitive noun phrases in the Estonian core argument system. In Tuomas Huumo & Silvia Luraghi (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories, 177–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Patz, Elizabeth. 1991. Djabugay. In R.M.W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages. Volume 4. The Aboriginal language of Melbourne and other grammatical sketches, 244–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perlmutter, David & Paul Postal. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3). 229–290.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, John R. 1998. GIVE in Amele. In John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of giving, 1–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1988. Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, 147–165. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1989. Are thematic relations discrete? In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siro, Paavo. 1964. Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga. 2006. Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59. 284–303.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.