Part of
Advances in Research on Semantic RolesEdited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 27–49
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 27–49
Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies
In this chapter, we illustrate a method for identifying clusters of semantic roles by cross-linguistic comparison. On the basis of data from 25 languages drawn from the ValPaL (Valency Patterns Leipzig) database, we show how one can visualize coexpression tendencies using quantitative methods (in particular, multidimensional scaling). Traditionally, the coexpression of semantic microroles (such as the breaker and the broken thing of the ‘break’ verb, the helper and the helpee of the ‘help’ verb, etc.) has been studied for particular languages, with generalized macroroles such as “agent”, “actor”, and “undergoer” being compared across languages in a next step. We set up a conceptual space of 87 microroles based on their coexpression tendencies, i.e. the extent to which they are expressed identically (via flagging and indexing) across our languages. The individual coding means (cases, adpositions, index-sets) can then be mapped onto this conceptual space, revealing broader alignment patterns.
Keywords: alignment type, coexpression, microrole, semantic map, valency
References (25)
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239–251. 
Campbell, Eric. 2013. Zenzontepec Chatino valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL])
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Semantic maps as metrics on meaning. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 70–95.
. 2014. Inducing semantic roles. In: Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 23–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55. 59–138.
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
François, Alexandre. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change, 163–216. (Studies in Language Companion Series 106). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Furrer, Reinhard, Douglas Nychka & Stephen Sain. 2012. Fields: Tools for spatial data. R package.
Haiman, John. 1974. Concessives, conditionals, and verbs of volition. Foundations of Language 11(3). 341–359.
Hartmann, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.). 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL])
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687.
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingustic Typology 15(3). 535–567.
Haspelmath, Martin & Iren Hartmann. 2014. Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Bernard Comrie & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1997. Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1(3). 279–346.
Lehmann, Christian. 2006. Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani, 153–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2013. Alignment preferences in basic and derived ditransitives. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 263–289. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 2008. Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split-subject marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 121–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL].
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2009. Motion events in parallel texts: A study in primary-data typology. Bern: University of Bern Habilitationsschrift.
Wälchli, Bernhard & Michael Cysouw. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3). 671–710.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Messerschmidt, Maria
2022. Increasing the valency of motion verbs: the case of the portative construction. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 161 ff. 
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.