Cover not available
Part of
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 1–24

Introduction
Issues in contrastive valency studies

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Valency and valency alternation in linguistic theory and description
    • 2.1Derivational designs
    • 2.2Subsumption designs
    • 2.3Larger structures
  • 3.Typological/contrastive studies of valency
  • 4.Contributions to the volume
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.01hel
References (66)
References
Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1978. Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations [Studies in Language Companion Series 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Bare and prepositional differential case marking: The exotic case of German (and Icelandic) among all of Germanic. In Case, Valency, and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 115–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2012. The case differential: Syntagmatic versus paradig-matic case – Its status in synchrony and diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig M., Eroms, Hans Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans Jurgen & Lobin, Henning. 2003–2006. Dependenz Und Valenz / Dependency and Valency [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 25/1&2]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allerton, David J. 1982. Valency and the English Verb. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Jury D. 1969. Eksperementaljnoe issledovanie russkogo glagola. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Barthakuria, Apurba Chandra. 1997. The Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar (A Critical Study of Karaka). Calcutta: Punthi PustakGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2014. Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38(3): 485–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasi, Damian E. 2015. Assessing transitivity prominence from a statistical perspective: A commentary on Martin Haspelmath’s “Transitivity prominence”. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 149–154.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela & Lenci, Alessandro. Forthcoming. Gradience in subcategorization? Locative phrases with Italian verbs of motion. Studia Linguistica.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2002. The Contragram Verb Valency Dictionary of Dutch, French and English. In Symposium on Lexicograhy X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Lexicography, May 4–6, 2000, University of Copenhagen [Lexicographica: Series Maior 109]. Henrik Gottlieb, Jens Eric Mogensen & Arne Zettersten (eds), 63–76. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copestake, Ann. 2002. Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, Haspelmath, Martin & Malchukov, Andrej (eds). 2010. Semantic maps: Theory and applications. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). <[URL]>Google Scholar
Dakubu, Mary Esther Kropp. 2008. Ga verb features. In Aspect and Modality in Kwa Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 100], Felix Ameka & Mary Esther Kropp Dakubu (eds), 91–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen. 2011. Verb Valency Patterns. A Challenge for Semantics-based Accounts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64: 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Taylor, Bradley (eds) 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig (Online Database). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Leipzig: MPI. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Cysouw, Michael. 2014. Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies. Studies in Language 38(3): 463–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–243. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 131–148.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Hartmann, Iren. 2015. Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 41–71.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 2016. Representing bare ominalizations in Norwegian. Ms submitted, based on presentation at SLE 2015.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Dakubu, Mary Esther Kropp. 2010. Identifying Verb Constructions Cross-linguistically [SLAVOB Series]. University of Ghana. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars, Beermann, Dorothee, Bruland, Tore, Dakubu, Mary Esther & Marimon, Montserrat. 2014 MultiVal: Towards a multilingual valence lexicon. LREC 2014.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Heath, David, Roe, Ian & Götz, Dieter. 2004. A Valency Dictionary of English. A Corpus-based Analysis of the Complementation Patterns of English Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Götz-Votteler, Katrin (eds). 2007. Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 369–411.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240–88. (Also in: Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings, vol. 2, 22–71. The Hague: Mouton).Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4], Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds), 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The limits of construction grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27 (1): 77–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The Monotonicity Hypothesis. In Telicity, Change and State. A Cross-Categorical View of Event Structure, Violeta Delmonte & Louise McNally (eds), 139–161. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Anna & Briscoe, Ted. 2004. Extended lexical-semantic classification of English verbs. In Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics, Boston MA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1991. Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION. In Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, Hansjakob Seiler & Waldfried Premper (ed.), 183–239. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types, and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Valency classes and alternations: Parameters of variation. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), Vol. 1, 73–130.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard (eds). 2015. Valency Classes in the World’s Languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Merlo, Paola & Esteve Ferrer, Eva. 2006. The notion of argument in prepositional phrase attachment. Computational Linguistics 32(3): 341–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2015. Sign based construction grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in English. In Formal Philosophy, Richmond Thomason (ed.). New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Wechsler, Stephen. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meaning. In The Projection of Arguments, Miriam Butt & Wilhem Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Say, Sergej. 2014. Bivalent verb classes in the languages of Europe: A quantitative typological study. Language Dynamics and Change 4: 116–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The causative alternation. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 95–151.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19: 389–438.Google Scholar
. 2015. The hierarchy of two-place predicates: Its limitations and uses. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 1597–1626.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2015. Statistical observations on implicational (verb) hierarchies. In Malchukov & Comrie (eds), 155–183.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Grasso, Francesca, Vladimiro Lovera Rulfi & Luigi Di Caro
2024. VerbAligNet: Unlocking Multilingual Exploration of Verbal Arguments. In Metadata and Semantic Research [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2048], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Przepiórkowski, Adam
2018. The origin of the valency metaphor in linguistics. Lingvisticae Investigationes 41:1 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 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.