Article published in:
Advances in Research on Semantic Roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 1–26

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 chapters 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: lexical semantics, role complex, semantic role, subrole
Published online: 29 June 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.88.01kit
References

References

Andvik, Erik
2010 A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
1988 Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 353–389. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2012 Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff
2005 Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixonx, R.M.W.
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Seppo Kittilä & Leena Kolehmainen
2010 Linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34(3). 565–601. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey
1977 Choctaw cases. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 3. 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
2010 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. CrossrefGoogle 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 2. 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. CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
1989 Are thematic relations discrete? In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga
2006 Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59. 284–303.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Klimenko, Sergei
2019. Criteria for establishing the inventory of semantic participants and voices in Tagalog. Studies in Language 43:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 april 2021. 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.