Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Research on Semantic Roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 51–78

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 chapter 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: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.88.03bic
References
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.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni Kanerva
1989 Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study in factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bryant, David & Vincent Moulton
2004 Neighbor-Net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21. 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.) 2015 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 67. 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S
1989 Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13. 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 15. 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holisky, Dee A
1987 The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71. 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huson, Daniel H. & David Bryant
2006 Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23. 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].Google Scholar
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.Google 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 & Soren 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].Google Scholar
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]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sava, Graziano
2005 A grammar of Ts’amakko. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey
2011 Nekanoničeskoe markirovanie aktantov mnogomestnyx predikatov: opyt kvantitativno-tipologičeskogo issledovanija. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 7. 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 21. 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Issues in case-marking. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 2, 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