Cover not available
Article published In:
Advances in research on semantic roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 437–462

Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles

| University of Helsinki
| University of Bern
This introductory chapter briefly introduces a few milestones in the voluminous previous literature on semantic roles, and charts the territory in which the papers 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.
Keywords: semantic role, lexical semantics, role complex, subrole
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.01kit
References (42)
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 353–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Céline Mounole. 2011. Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies, and the case of Basque. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi and Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 157–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume I: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Seppo Kittilä & Leena Kolehmainen. 2010. Linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34(3). 565–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
. 2001. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Choctaw cases. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 31. 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
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Jussi Ylikoski. 2011. Remarks on the coding of direction, recipient and vicinal direction in European Uralic. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klokeid, T.J. 1976. Lardil. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 550–584. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
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
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Perlmutter, David & Paul Postal. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3). 229–290.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1998. GIVE in Amele. In John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of giving, 1–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1988. Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, 147–165. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Are thematic relations discrete? In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1964. Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga. 2006. Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 591. 284–303.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä
2019. Grammatical Voice, DOI logo
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
2018. Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological hierarchies. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.