Article published In:
Advances in research on semantic rolesEdited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 463–484
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 463–484
Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies
In this paper, we illustrate a method for identifying clusters of semantic roles by cross-linguistic comparison. On the basis of data from 25 languages drawn from the ValPaL (Valency Patterns Leipzig) database, we show how one can visualize coexpression tendencies using quantitative methods (in particular, multidimensional scaling). Traditionally, the coexpression of semantic microroles (such as the breaker and the broken thing of the ‘break’ verb, the helper and the helpee of the ‘help’ verb, etc.) has been studied for particular languages, with generalized macroroles such as “agent”, “actor”, and “undergoer” being compared across languages in a next step. We set up a conceptual space of 87 microroles based on their coexpression tendencies, i.e. the extent to which they are expressed identically (via flagging and indexing) across our languages. The individual coding means (cases, adpositions, index-sets) can then be mapped onto this conceptual space, revealing broader alignment patterns.
Keywords: semantic map, coexpression, microrole, valency, alignment type
References
Bickel, Balthasar
2007 Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 111. 239–251. 
Campbell, Eric
2013 Zenzontepec Chatino valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL])
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cysouw, Michael
2010 Semantic maps as metrics on meaning. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 70–95.
2014 Inducing semantic roles. In: Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 23–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dixon, R.M.W
1979 Ergativity. Language 551. 59–138.
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
(eds.) 2008 The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
François, Alexandre
2008 Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change, 163–216. (Studies in Language Companion Series 106). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Furrer, Reinhard, Douglas Nychka & Stephen Sain
2012 Fields: Tools for spatial data. R package.
Haiman, John
1974 Concessives, conditionals, and verbs of volition. Foundations of Language 11(3). 341–359.
Hartmann, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor
(eds.) 2013 Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ([URL])
Haspelmath, Martin
2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 21, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687.
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingustic Typology 15(3). 535–567.
Haspelmath, Martin & Iren Hartmann
2014+ (to appear). Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Bernard Comrie & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E
1997 Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1(3). 279–346.
Lehmann, Christian
2006 Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani, 153–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Malchukov, Andrej L
2013 Alignment preferences in basic and derived ditransitives. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 263–289. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Newmeyer, Frederick J
2005 Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newmeyer, Frederick
1998 Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nichols, Johanna
2008 Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split-subject marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 121–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
R Development Core Team
2012 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL].
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr
2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wälchli, Bernhard
2009 Motion events in parallel texts: A study in primary-data typology. Bern: University of Bern Habilitationsschrift.
Wälchli, Bernhard & Michael Cysouw
2012 Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3). 671–710.
Cited by
Cited by 17 other publications
Croft, William
2022. On two mathematical representations for “semantic maps”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 41:1 ► pp. 67 ff. 
Croft, William & Meagan Vigus
2020. Event Causation and Force Dynamics in Argument Structure Constructions. In Perspectives on Causation [Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science, ], ► pp. 151 ff.
Denk, Lukas
2023. Visualizing the conceptual space of pluractionality. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:1 ► pp. 31 ff.
García-Miguel, José M. & María del Carmen Cabeza-Pereiro
2022. Argument and Verb Meaning Clustering From Expression Forms in LSE. Frontiers in Psychology 13
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2018. The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:2 ► pp. e12270 ff.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2022. New avenues and challenges in semantic map research (with a case study in the semantic field of emotions). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 41:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Haspelmath, Martin
2019. Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema :4, 2019 ► pp. 108 ff.
Hellan, Lars, Andrej Malchukov & Michela Cennamo
2017. Introduction. Issues in contrastive valency studies. In Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 237], ► pp. 2 ff.
Levshina, Natalia
2016. Why we need a token-based typology: A case study of analytic and lexical causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica 50:2
Rissman, Lilia & Asifa Majid
2019. Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26:6 ► pp. 1850 ff.
Rissman, Lilia, Saskia van Putten & Asifa Majid
2022. Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science 46:5
Shirtz, Shahar
2019. Isomorphic co-expression of nominal predication subdomains: An Indo-Iranian case study
. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 59 ff.
Spike, Matthew
2020. Fifty shades of grue: Indeterminate categories and induction in and out of the language sciences. Linguistic Typology 24:3 ► pp. 465 ff.
V S, Akshaya, Beatriz Lucia Salvador Bizotto & Mithileysh Sathiyanarayanan
2023. Human Intelligence and Value of Machine Advancements in Cognitive Science A Design thinking Approach. Journal of Machine and Computing ► pp. 159 ff.
van der Klis, Martijn & Jos Tellings
2022. Generating semantic maps through multidimensional scaling: linguistic applications and theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:3 ► pp. 627 ff.
肖, 珊
2021. A Review and Perspective of Studies on Semantic Map in Chinese Language: 2003~2021. Modern Linguistics 09:05 ► pp. 1334 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 september 2023. 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.