Cover not available
Discussion published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2023) ► pp.576–595
Interview

Reflections on the study of language

An interview with Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.

ORCID logo | University of Manchester
ORCID logo | York University
This article reports an interview with Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., which was held on March 2, 2023, with follow-up e-mail exchanges. Robert Van Valin is the primary developer of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), a syntactic theory whose principles and commitments intersect with those of Cognitive Linguistics (CL). The article discusses RRG vis-à-vis CL and other approaches to the study of language. It aims to raise awareness about the shared principles of RRG and CL, to enhance cross-fertilization between the two approaches and ultimately inspire new research directions in linguistic theory. The paper is organized into three main parts: (i) background information on the birth and development of RRG, (ii) general principles and commitments of RRG and CL, and (iii) specific issues in the study of language.
Keywords: syntactic theory, the lexicon, linguistic constructions, Role and Reference Grammar, Cognitive Linguistics, Computational Linguistics
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Interview:
    • 1.Background: The birth and development of Role and Reference Grammar
    • 2.General principles and commitments of CL and RRG
      • 2.1Cognitive Commitment
      • 2.2Generalization Commitment
    • 3.Specific issues in the study of language
      • 3.1Usage-based analysis
      • 3.2Meaning-centered theories
      • 3.3Lexicon vs. Grammar
      • 3.4Constructions
      • 3.5Computational Linguistics
      • 3.6Future directions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00166.ben
References (55)
References
Asher, N. (1999). Discourse and the focus/background distinction. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 247–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bentley, D., Mairal-Usón, R., Nakamura, W., & Van Valin, Jr., R. D. (Eds.). (2023). The Cambridge handbook of Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brocher, A., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2017). About full and underspecified representations of alternations in the lexicon: Evidence from sentence reading. Linguistische Berichte, 251 1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
(1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. (2023). Morphology in RRG: The layered structure of the word, inflection and derivation. In D. Bentley, R. Mairal Usón, W. Nakamura, & R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 368–402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, R. D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2012). Cognitive linguistics. WIREs Cogn Sci. 3 1, 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. (2002, July). Toward an RRG theory of morphology. Lecture delivered at the 2002 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, University of La Rioja.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Foley, W., & Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guerrero Valenzuela, L., & Belloro, V. (2010). On word order and information structure in Yaqui. In J. Camacho, R. Gutiérrez-Bravo, & L. Sánchez (Eds.), Information structure in Indigenous languages of the Americas (pp. 115–138). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10 (2–3), 146–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, K. von. (1999). Intonation and information structure. Habilitation thesis, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). A new approach to clause structure in Role and Reference Grammar. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics, 1 1, 55–59. Davis: University of California.Google Scholar
Kallmeyer, L., & Osswald, R. (2023). Formalization of RRG syntax. In D. Bentley, R. Mairal Usón, W. Nakamura, & R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 737–784). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Hingham, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Arista, J. (2008). Unification and separation in a functional theory of morphology. In R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 119–145). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, R. (2008). A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 227–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavey, E. (2010). The structure of language: An introduction to grammatical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (Ed.). (1983). Studies in relational grammar 1 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M., & Rosen, C. (Eds.). (1984). Studies in relational grammar 2 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M., & Joseph, B. D. (1990). Studies in relational grammar 3 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1989). Encounters with Japanese verbs: Caregiver sentences and the categorization of transitive and intransitive action verbs. First Language, 9 1, 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). Levels of semantic representation: where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17 1, 26–47.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 491–518). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Grammatical relations (pp. 279–306). The Netherlands: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and lexical description, Vol. III, Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1977). Ergativity and the universality of subjects. Chicago Linguistic Society, 13 1, 689–705.Google Scholar
(1980). Meaning and interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4 1, 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985). Case marking and the structure of the Lakota clause. In J. Nichols & A. C. Woodbury (Eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field (pp. 363–413). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1986). An empty category as the subject of a tensed S in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 17 (3), 581–586. [URL]
(1987). The role of government in the grammar of head-marking languages. IJAL, 53 1, 371–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66 1, 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Incorporation in Universal Grammar: A case study in theoretical reductionism [Review of Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing, by M. C. Baker]. Journal of Linguistics, 28 (1), 199–220. [URL]
(1994). Extraction restrictions, competing theories and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In R. Corrigan, G. Iverson & S. Lima (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 243–259). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 221–249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2001). An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Minimalism and explanation. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 281–297). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in RRG. In R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Linguistics past and present: A view from the Rhine. In Z. Estrada Fernández, A. Álvarez González & M. Belén Carpio (Eds.), Ser lingüista: Un oficio diverso y polifacético. Diez años de una Maestría en Lingüística [Being a linguist, a diverse and multifaceted profession. Ten years of a Master’s degree in linguistics] (pp. 155–64). Hermosillo, MX: Editorial Unison. (Available on RRG website.)Google Scholar
(2023a). Principles of Role and Reference Grammar. In D. Bentley, R. Mairal Usón, W. Nakamura & R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 17–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023b). Grammatical aspects of language processing in the brain: A Role and Reference Grammar perspective. In D. Bentley, R. Mairal Usón, W. Nakamura & R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 693–736). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., Jr., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for ‘Effector’: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 289–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Original work published 1957). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weist, R. M. (1990). Neutralization and the concept of subject in child Polish. Linguistics, 28 1, 1331–1349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar