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. 485–511

Semantic role clustering

An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment

| University of Zurich
| University of Jena
| University of Kiel
This paper seeks to determine to what extent there is cross-linguistic evidence for postulating clusters of predicate-specific semantic roles such as experiencer, cognizer, possessor, etc. For this, we survey non-default case assignments in a sample of 141 languages and annotate the associated predicates for cross-linguistically recurrent semantic roles, such as ‘the one who feels cold’, ‘the one who eats sth.’, ‘the thing that is being eaten’. We then determine to what extent these roles are treated alike across languages, i.e. repeatedly grouped together under the same non-default case marker or under the same specific alternation with a non-default marker. Applying fuzzy cluster and NeighborNet algorithms to these data reveals cross-linguistic evidence for role clusters around experiencers, undergoers of body processes, and cognizers/perceivers in one- and two-place predicates; and around sources and transmitted speech in three-place predicates. No support emerges from non-default case assignment for any other role clusters that are traditionally assumed (e.g. for any distinctions among objects of two-argument predicates, or for distinctions between themes and instruments).
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.03bic
References (47)
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2008. Differential argument marking in two-term case systems and its implications for the general theory of case marking. In Peter de Swart & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Differential subject marking, 151–171. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Barddal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2009. Case marking and alignment. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Manoj Rai, Netra Paudyal, Goma Banjade, Toya Nath Bhatta, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Iccha Purna Rai, Novel K. Rai & Sabine Stoll. 2010. The syntax of three-argument verbs in Chintang and Belhare (Southeastern Kiranti). In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 382–408. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study in factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 201. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bryant, David & Vincent Moulton. 2004. Neighbor-Net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 211. 255–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2008. Case in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook ofcase, 59–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology oflanguage. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Alignment of case marking. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 398–405. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Andrej Malchukov (eds.). In press. Valency classes: A comparative handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 671. 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 131. 257–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givon, 117–143. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aleksandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking ofsubjects and objects, 53–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 151. 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holisky, Dee A. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 711. 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huson, Daniel H. & David Bryant. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 231. 254–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Leonard & Peter J. Rousseeuw. 1990. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maechler, Martin, Peter J. Rousseeuw, Anja Struyf & Mia Hubert. 2005. cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package, [URL].
Malchukov, A. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Mengistu Ambember & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: the case for case, 73–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Studies in ditransitive constructions: a comparative handbook, 1–35. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1985. Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in inflections. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field, 324–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Molochieva, Zarina. 2010. Tense, aspect, and mood in Chechen. Leipzig: University of Leipzig PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
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 ofsemantic alignment, 121–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel. 2013. The autotyp genealogy and geography database: 2013 release. Electronic database, [URL].
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Aleksandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 1–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Tubingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Mismatches in semantic role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives, 53–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2002. Split intransitivity revisited: Comparing Lakota and Osage. International Jounral of American Linguistics 68(4). 381–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, [URL].Google Scholar
Rokach, Lior. 2010. A survey of clustering algorithms. In Oded Maimon & Lior Rokach (eds.), Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook, 269–298.New York: Springer [second edition].Google Scholar
Sava, Graziano. 2005. A grammar of Ts’amakko. Cologne: Koppe.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2011. Nekanoničeskoe markirovanie aktantov mnogomestnyx predikatov: opyt kvantitativno-tipologičeskogo issledovanija. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 71. 424–430 [[URL]].Google Scholar
Schikowski, Robert. 2013. Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zurich: University of Zurich PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on Transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 211. 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Issues in case-marking. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 21, 197–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & David P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agentivity revisited. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: University of Leipzig PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

McDonnell, Bradley
2023. Universal quantifiers, focus, and grammatical relations in Besemah. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 422 ff. DOI logo
Walker, Katherine & Pegah Faghiri
2023. Introduction to Lexical constraints in grammar: Minority verb classes and restricted alternations. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Nyst, Victoria, Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa van der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba, Dieydi Sylla, Kidane Admasu & Anique Schüller
2022. Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Rissman, Lilia, Saskia van Putten & Asifa Majid
2022. Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science 46:5 DOI logo
van Lier, Eva & Maria Messerschmidt
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice and valency constructions. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kyriaki, Louise, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
2021. Thematic role assignment in non-default verb classes: A cross-linguistic comparison of English and German. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
Rissman, Lilia & Asifa Majid
2019. Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26:6 ► pp. 1850 ff. DOI logo
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2019. Argument selectors. In Argument Selectors [Typological Studies in Language, 123], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Roberts, Seán G.
2018. Robust, Causal, and Incremental Approaches to Investigating Linguistic Adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Nichols, Johanna
2016. Morphology in Typology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 710 ff. DOI logo
van Lier, Eva
2016. Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages. Linguistic Typology 20:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Verbeke, Saartje, Leonid Kulikov & Klaas Willems
2015. Oblique case-marking in Indo-Aryan experiencer constructions: Historical roots and synchronic variation. Lingua 163 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.