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. 512–542

Semantic roles and verbless constructions

A Finnish challenge for verb-centered approaches

 | University of Oulu & University of Helsinki
 | University of Helsinki
Semantic roles constitute one of the most notorious notions in linguistics because they have been defined in numerous ways depending on the author’s theoretical framework and goals. Typically these definitions are somehow, more or less explicitly, based on verbs and their properties. In this paper, semantic roles are discussed from a completely different perspective; we examine genuinely verbless constructions attested in Finnish newspaper headlines. The paper addresses three main questions: First, what kinds of constructions do not need a finite verb to express dynamic events? Second, what kind of information remains unconceptualized in verbless constructions? And finally, what are semantic roles based on if there is no verb? The goal of the paper is to show that verbs are not needed to define semantic roles, as an array of semantic roles can be recognized even in constructions lacking a verb.
Keywords: Cognitive Construction Grammar, verbless constructions, semantic roles, headlines, Finnish
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.04vas
References (54)
Åkermalm, Åke. 1965. Rubriksvenska och andra studier (Skrifter utgivna av Modersmålslärarnas Förening 100). Falköping: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Conon, Lars. 1973. Rubrikspråket på Dagens Nyheters förstasidor I–II (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Philologiae Scandinavicae Upsaliensia 8). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8(2). 181–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Event construal and case role assignment. Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS). 338–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory: Volume 1 methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, types and meaning II: Semantic issues (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy), 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Seppo Kittilä & Leena Kolehmainen. 2010. The linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34(3). 565–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking . In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Waltham: Ginn.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 (Constructional Approaches to Language 2), 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture). Chicago & London: The 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 dissertation.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 1991. Syntaktiset rakenteet kertomuksen jäsennyksen osoittimina. Virittäjä 95(1). 33–47.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Incremental existence: The world according to the Finnish existential sentence. Linguistics 41(3). 461–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Krista Ojutkangas. 2006. An introduction to Finnish spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277), 11–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar (Current Studies in Linguistics 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 71. 89–150.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word 56(3). 381–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy effects on Differential Goal Marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2). 245–268. DOI logoGoogle 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 (Typological Studies in Language 99), 29–64. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopotev, Mikhail. 2007a. What a difference a verb makes! Russian and Finnish verbless sentences. In Marja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi (eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, May 19-20, 2006 (Studies in Languages, University of Joensuu, vol. 41), 177–192. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Where Russian syntactic zeros start: Approaching Finnish? In Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), Topics on the ethnic, linguistic and cultural making of the Russian North (Slavica Helsingiensia 32), 116–137. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1993. Polysemia – kielen moniselitteisyys: Suomen kielen kognitiivista kielioppia 1 (Kieli 7). Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
. 2001. Verbit, konstruktiot ja lausetyypit. In Pentti Leino, Ilona Herlin, Suvi Honkanen, Lari Kotilainen, Jaakko Leino & Maija Vilkkumaa, Roolit ja rakenteet: Henkilöviitteinen allatiivi Biblian verbikonstruktioissa (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 813), 11–66. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Moor, Marianne. 1985. Studien zum lesgischen Verb. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Mårdh, Ingrid. 1980. Headlinese: On the grammar of English frontpage headlines (Lund Studies in English 58). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2003. Transitivity: From semantics to structure. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2007. Prototypical transitivity (Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 441. 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1996. Syntactic effects of lexical operations: Reflexives and unaccusatives. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2000. The theta system: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2001. Experiencing derivations. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Semantic and Linguistic Theory (SALT 11), 365–387. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar
. 2002. The theta system – an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3). 229–290.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514. 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 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 61), 115–130. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Kristina. 2000. The emergence and development of headlines in British newspapers. In Friedrich Ungerer (ed.), English media texts – past and present: Language and textual structure (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 80), 45–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 1981. The grammar of headlines in The Times 1870–1970 (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 95). Brussels: Paleis der Academiën.Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1964. Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2011. There’s more than “more animate”: The Organization/Document Construction in Korean. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (Typological Studies in Language 99), 183–206. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straumann, Heinrich. 1935. Newspaper headlines: A study in linguistic method. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Vahtera, Ralf. 2009. Otsikkorakenteita: Kontrastiivinen tutkimus suomen- ja ruotsinkielisten sanomalehtien syntaktis-semanttisista otsikkotyypeistä (Acta Wasaensia No 209, Kielitiede 41). Vaasa: University of Vaasa.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Västi, Katja. 2011a. A case in search of an independent life: Semantics of the initial allative in a Finnish verbless construction. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (Typological Studies in Language 99), 65–109. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Mihin verbittömien konstruktioiden merkitystyypit perustuvat? Skemaattiset ja polyseemiset tapahtumanilmaukset. Sananjalka 531. 34–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Elävä lähde: Alkuasemaisen ablatiivin merkitystyypit verbittömässä konstruktiossa. Virittäjä 116(1). 67–97.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Pirinen, Veera, Soile Loukusa, Kurt Eggers, Jari Sivonen, Leena Mäkinen, Laura Mämmelä, Hanna Ebeling, Marja-Leena Mattila & Tuula Hurtig
2024. Could linguistic and cognitive factors, degree of autistic traits and sex predict speech disfluencies in autistic young adults and controls?. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Hyunwoo Kim
2021. Roles of verb and construction cues. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 332 ff. DOI logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho
2020. People also avoid repetition in sentence comprehension: Evidence from multiple postposition constructions in Korean. Linguistics Vanguard 6:1 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.