Article published In:
Advances in research on semantic rolesEdited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 463–484
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 463–484
Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies
In this paper, 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: semantic map, coexpression, microrole, valency, alignment type
References (25)
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 111. 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 551. 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. 21, 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+ (to appear). 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 (20)
Cited by 20 other publications
Badir, Sémir & Stéphane Polis
2024. Les cartes sémantiques en typologie des langues. La médiation iconique entre qualification et quantification dans des représentations visuelles du discours linguistique. Travaux de linguistique n° 87:2 ► pp. 51 ff. 
Denk, Lukas
2023. Visualizing the conceptual space of pluractionality. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:1 ► pp. 31 ff.
Haug, Dag & Nilo Pedrazzini
2023. The semantic map of when and its typological parallels. Frontiers in Communication 8
V S, Akshaya, Beatriz Lucia Salvador Bizotto & Mithileysh Sathiyanarayanan
2023. Human Intelligence and Value of Machine Advancements in Cognitive Science A Design thinking Approach. Journal of Machine and Computing ► pp. 159 ff.
Croft, William
2022. On two mathematical representations for “semantic maps”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 41:1 ► pp. 67 ff.
García-Miguel, José M. & María del Carmen Cabeza-Pereiro
2022. Argument and Verb Meaning Clustering From Expression Forms in LSE. Frontiers in Psychology 13
Rissman, Lilia, Saskia van Putten & Asifa Majid
2022. Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science 46:5
van der Klis, Martijn & Jos Tellings
2022. Generating semantic maps through multidimensional scaling: linguistic applications and theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:3 ► pp. 627 ff.
肖, 珊
2021. A Review and Perspective of Studies on Semantic Map in Chinese Language: 2003~2021. Modern Linguistics 09:05 ► pp. 1334 ff.
Croft, William & Meagan Vigus
2020. Event Causation and Force Dynamics in Argument Structure Constructions. In Perspectives on Causation [Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science, ], ► pp. 151 ff.
Spike, Matthew
2020. Fifty shades of grue: Indeterminate categories and induction in and out of the language sciences. Linguistic Typology 24:3 ► pp. 465 ff.
Haspelmath, Martin
2019. Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema :4, 2019 ► pp. 108 ff.
Haspelmath, Martin
2023. Coexpression and synexpression patterns across languages: comparative concepts and possible explanations. Frontiers in Psychology 14
Rissman, Lilia & Asifa Majid
2019. Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26:6 ► pp. 1850 ff.
Shirtz, Shahar
2019. Isomorphic co-expression of nominal predication subdomains: An Indo-Iranian case study. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 59 ff.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2018. The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:2
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2022. New avenues and challenges in semantic map research (with a case study in the semantic field of emotions). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 41:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Hellan, Lars, Andrej Malchukov & Michela Cennamo
2017. Introduction. Issues in contrastive valency studies. In Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 237], ► pp. 2 ff.
Levshina, Natalia
2016. Why we need a token-based typology: A case study of analytic and lexical causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica 50:2
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 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.