Role and reference grammar

Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
Table of contents

Role and Reference Grammar (RRG, Van Valin 1993a, 2005, 2008; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997; Kailuweit, et al. 2008) may be termed a ‘structural-functionalist theory of grammar’. This locates it on a range of perspectives from extreme formalist at one end to radical functionalist at the other. RRG falls between these two extremes, differing markedly from each. In contrast to the extreme formalist view, RRG views language as a system of communicative social action, and consequently, analyzing the communicative functions of morphosyntactic structures has a vital role in grammatical description and theory from this perspective. Language is a system, and grammar is a system in the traditional structuralist sense. What differentiates the RRG conception of grammar from the standard formalist one is the view that grammatical structure can only be understood and explained with reference to its semantic and communicative functions. Syntax is not autonomous; rather it is viewed as relatively motivated by semantic and pragmatic factors. In terms of the abstract paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations that define a structural system, RRG deals not only with relations of cooccurrence and combination in strictly formal terms but also with semantic and pragmatic cooccurrence and combinatory relations. Hence RRG may be properly designated as a structural-functionalist theory, rather than purely formalist or purely functionalist.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M. & Van Valin, R.D.Jr
2004 Syntactic templates and linking mechanisms: A new approach to grammatical function asymmetries. Poster presented at 17th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. [available at linguistics​.buffalo​.edu​/research​/rrg​.html].Google Scholar
Dowty, D.
1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1968 The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory: 1–88. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Foley, W. & R. Van Valin Jr
1977 On the viability of the notion of ‘subject’ in universal grammar. Proceedings of the 3rd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J.
1965 Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. Diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Guest, E.
2008 Parsing for Role and Reference Grammar. In R. Van Valin (ed.), 435–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1976 Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 89–150.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987 A new approach to clause structure in role and reference grammar. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 55–59.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, R., Staudinger, E., Wiemer, B., & Matasović, R.
(eds.) 2008 New Applications of Role and Reference Grammar: Diachrony, Grammaticalization, Romance Languages. Cambridge Scholar Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
1986 Topic, focus and the grammar of spoken French. Ph.D. Diss., University of California.Google Scholar
1987 Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorial distinction. Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 366–382.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Olson, M.
1981 Barai clause junctures. Ph.D. Diss., Australian National University.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M.
1991a The acquisition of verb subcategorization in a functionalist framework. First Language 11: 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shimojo, M.
1995 Focus structure and morphosyntax. In Japanese: wa and ga, and word order flexibility. Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY at Buffalo [avaliable at linguistics​.buffalo​.edu​/research​/rrg​.html].Google Scholar
1991b The mosaic acquisition of grammatical relations. Journal of Child Language 18: 517–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., R.
1977a Ergativity and the universality of subjects. Papers from the 13th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 689–706.Google Scholar
1977b Aspects of Lakhota syntax. Ph.D. Diss., University of California.Google Scholar
1980 On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50: 303–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5: 361–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Functionalist linguistic theory and language acquisition. First Language 11: 7–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van ValinJr., R.
1992 Extraction restrictions, competing theories and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In The reality of linguistic rules. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., R.
1993a A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In R. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar: 1–164. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993b The interaction of pragmatics and syntax. Paper, Fifth Biennial Symposium of the Department of Linguistics, Rice University.
Van Valin, R.D., Jr
1998 The acquistions of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquistion. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 221–249. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Semantic macroroles and language processing. In I. Bornkessel et al. (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives, 263–302. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2008 Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., Jr. & R.J. Lapolla
1997 Syntax: structure, meaning & function. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van ValinJr., R. & W. Foley
1980 Role and reference grammar. In E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 13: 329–52. Academic Press.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., R. & D. Wilkins
1993 Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations. In R. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar: 499–534. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z.
1967 Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wesit, R.M.
2002 The first language acquistion of tense and aspect: A review. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquistion, 21–78. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D. & R. Van Valin Jr
1993 The case for a case reopened. SUNY Buffalo Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 93(2).Google Scholar