Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2014) ► pp.23–53

Aspectual features in Role and Reference Grammar

A layered proposal

| Instituto Universitario de Lingüística ‘Andrés Bello’, Universidad de La Laguna
The kernel of the semantic representation of a predicate in Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) is based on its characterization in terms of an Aktionsart typology based on Vendler’s (1957) classes plus some additional elements from Smith (1997) and Dowty (1979). This means that event structures are mainly considered a lexical phenomenon pertaining to predicates, and only occasionally higher predicational structures are considered in event construction. Even though this approach is adequate to a great extent, there are still some problems in the approach taken in RRG. The most significant drawback is that non-lexical aspects appear intermingled with predicate-only features, which leads to misinterpretations and misclassifications of predicates. Consequently, it sees more sensible to bring a functional model of grammar like RRG to a compromise position and, thus, consider in what ways different units identified as belonging to the different layers in RRG’s syntactic projections ‘conspire’ in the final aspectual characterization of events. In this line, this paper will propose a classification of aspectual features in terms of the levels found in the functional projection of the clause as devised in RRG, namely the Predicate Level (the domain of Aktionsart typology), the Nucleus (where morphological aspect has scope) and the Core (the locus for what will be described as ‘aspectuality’ features).
Keywords: lexical clases, Aktionsart, Role and Reference Grammar, telicity, layers
Published online: 8 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.02cor
References (65)
Albertuz, F.J. (1995). En torno a la fundamentación lingüística de la Aktionsart. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, 221, 285–337.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 171, 60–111.Google Scholar
. (2003). Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 31–67). Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2005). Structuring sense. Vol. 1: In name only and Vol. 2: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Declerck, R. (2005). Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 889–917. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cortés, F.J., González, C., & Jiménez, R. (2012). Las clases léxicas: Revisión de la tipología de predicados verbales. In R. Mairal, L. Guerrero & C. González (Eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. Introducción, avances y aplicaciones (pp. 59–84). Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Croft, W.A. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–120). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (2006). Qué es sintáctico y qué es léxico en la interficie entre sintaxis y léxico-semántica . Signo y seña, 151, 17–42.Google Scholar
De Miguel, E. (1999). El aspecto léxico. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 21 (pp. 2977–3060). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Dik, S.C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filip. H. (1999). Aspect, eventuality types and noun phrase semantics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Filip, H. (2011). Aspectual class and Aktionsart. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1186–1217). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Filipovic, L. (2007). Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Kay, P. (1997). The formal architecture of Construction Grammar. Unpublished. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, H., & Keyser, J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvan Bromberger (pp. 53–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (1998). The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 321, 73–118.Google Scholar
. (2000). Conflation. In A. Bravo, C. Luján & I. Pérez (Eds.), Cuadernos de Lingüística VII1 (pp. 39–76). Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 9 (pp. 127–144). Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (2000). On events in linguistic semantics. In J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi & A.C. Varzi (Eds.), Speaking of events (pp. 49–79).Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Isacenko, A.V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Teil 1: Formenlehre. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1979). Events, instants and temporal reference. In R. Bäuerle, U. Egli & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (pp. 376–417). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 197–235). Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. (1995) Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2008). New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 571, 137–158.Google Scholar
. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín Gálvez, R. (1999). Una propuesta para el tratamiento de la información aspectual en HPSG. Procesamiento del lenguaje natural, 241, 70–82.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. (1999). Universals of semantic construal for lexical syntactic relations. Paper presented at the 1999 GLOW Workshop: Sources of universals . University of Postdam, Postdam. Available in [URL].
. (2002). Argument structure: Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Mendikoetexea, A. (2007). En busca de los primitivos léxicos y su realización sintáctica: Del léxico a la sintaxis y viceversa. In T. Cabré (Ed.), Lingüística teòrica: Anàlisi i perspectives II (pp. 55–102). Bellaterra: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints (pp. 97–134).Stanford: CSLI/Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (1992). The noun phrase: A typological study of its form and structure. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ritter, E., & Rosen, S.T. (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (pp. 135–164). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2001). Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Two puzzles for a theory of lexical aspect: The case of semelfactives and degree adverbials. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow & M. Shaefer (Eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation (pp. 175–198). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Another look at accomplishments and incrementality. In V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change and state (pp. 60–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, R. (2007a). Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 171, 26–47.Google Scholar
. (2007b). The LCM: The general architecture of the model. Available at [URL] [URL].
Smith, C.S. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd edition). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D. (2004). Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. Unpublished manuscript available at: [[URL]].
. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957)[1967]. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. (1989). Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 121, 39–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H.J. (1993). A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1999). Aspectual issues: Structuring time and quantity. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.L., & Oh, E. (2007). On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, S. (1999). Incomplete events, intensionality and imperfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics, 71, 179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J. (2005). Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 281, 739–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cortés-Rodriguez, Francisco J.
2016. Revisiting Aktionsart types for lexical classes. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 498 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.