Cover not available
Article published In:
Advances in research on semantic roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 512–542

Semantic roles and verbless constructions

A Finnish challenge for verb-centered approaches

| University of Oulu & University of Helsinki
| University of Helsinki

Semantic roles constitute one of the most notorious notions in linguistics because they have been defined in numerous ways depending on the author’s theoretical framework and goals. Typically these definitions are somehow, more or less explicitly, based on verbs and their properties. In this paper, semantic roles are discussed from a completely different perspective; we examine genuinely verbless constructions attested in Finnish newspaper headlines. The paper addresses three main questions: First, what kinds of constructions do not need a finite verb to express dynamic events? Second, what kind of information remains unconceptualized in verbless constructions? And finally, what are semantic roles based on if there is no verb? The goal of the paper is to show that verbs are not needed to define semantic roles, as an array of semantic roles can be recognized even in constructions lacking a verb.

Keywords: Cognitive Construction Grammar, verbless constructions, semantic roles, headlines, Finnish
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.04vas
References
Åkermalm, Åke
1965 Rubriksvenska och andra studier (Skrifter utgivna av Modersmålslärarnas Förening 100). Falköping: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Conon, Lars
1973 Rubrikspråket på Dagens Nyheters förstasidor I–II (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Philologiae Scandinavicae Upsaliensia 8). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1984 Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8(2). 181–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Event construal and case role assignment. Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS). 338–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W
2010 Basic Linguistic Theory: Volume 1 methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1989 On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, types and meaning II: Semantic issues (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy), 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Seppo Kittilä & Leena Kolehmainen
2010 The linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34(3). 565–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
1968 The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1970 The grammar of hitting and breaking . In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Waltham: Ginn.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 (Constructional Approaches to Language 2), 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture). Chicago & London: The 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 dissertation.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 A grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
1991 Syntaktiset rakenteet kertomuksen jäsennyksen osoittimina. Virittäjä 95(1). 33–47.Google Scholar
2001 Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 9). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas
2003 Incremental existence: The world according to the Finnish existential sentence. Linguistics 41(3). 461–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Krista Ojutkangas
2006 An introduction to Finnish spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277), 11–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1972 Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar (Current Studies in Linguistics 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1976 Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 71. 89–150.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2005 Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word 56(3). 381–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Animacy effects on Differential Goal Marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2). 245–268. DOI logoGoogle 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 (Typological Studies in Language 99), 29–64. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopotev, Mikhail
2007a What a difference a verb makes! Russian and Finnish verbless sentences. In Marja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi (eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, May 19-20, 2006 (Studies in Languages, University of Joensuu, vol. 41), 177–192. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
2007b Where Russian syntactic zeros start: Approaching Finnish? In Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), Topics on the ethnic, linguistic and cultural making of the Russian North (Slavica Helsingiensia 32), 116–137. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1998 Actancy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Pentti
1993 Polysemia – kielen moniselitteisyys: Suomen kielen kognitiivista kielioppia 1 (Kieli 7). Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
2001 Verbit, konstruktiot ja lausetyypit. In Pentti Leino, Ilona Herlin, Suvi Honkanen, Lari Kotilainen, Jaakko Leino & Maija Vilkkumaa, Roolit ja rakenteet: Henkilöviitteinen allatiivi Biblian verbikonstruktioissa (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 813), 11–66. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Moor, Marianne
1985 Studien zum lesgischen Verb. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Mårdh, Ingrid
1980 Headlinese: On the grammar of English frontpage headlines (Lund Studies in English 58). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2003 Transitivity: From semantics to structure. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
2007 Prototypical transitivity (Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J
2010 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E
1997 Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
2008 The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 441. 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1996 Syntactic effects of lexical operations: Reflexives and unaccusatives. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2000 The theta system: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2001 Experiencing derivations. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Semantic and Linguistic Theory (SALT 11), 365–387. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar
2002 The theta system – an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3). 229–290.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata
2007 Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Are thematic relations discrete? In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic categorization (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 61), 115–130. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Kristina
2000 The emergence and development of headlines in British newspapers. In Friedrich Ungerer (ed.), English media texts – past and present: Language and textual structure (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 80), 45–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
1981 The grammar of headlines in The Times 1870–1970 (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 95). Brussels: Paleis der Academiën.Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo
1964 Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2011 There’s more than “more animate”: The Organization/Document Construction in Korean. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (Typological Studies in Language 99), 183–206. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straumann, Heinrich
1935 Newspaper headlines: A study in linguistic method. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Vahtera, Ralf
2009 Otsikkorakenteita: Kontrastiivinen tutkimus suomen- ja ruotsinkielisten sanomalehtien syntaktis-semanttisista otsikkotyypeistä (Acta Wasaensia No 209, Kielitiede 41). Vaasa: University of Vaasa.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning and function (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Västi, Katja
2011a A case in search of an independent life: Semantics of the initial allative in a Finnish verbless construction. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (Typological Studies in Language 99), 65–109. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b Mihin verbittömien konstruktioiden merkitystyypit perustuvat? Skemaattiset ja polyseemiset tapahtumanilmaukset. Sananjalka 531. 34–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Elävä lähde: Alkuasemaisen ablatiivin merkitystyypit verbittömässä konstruktiossa. Virittäjä 116(1). 67–97.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Shin, Gyu-Ho
2020. People also avoid repetition in sentence comprehension: Evidence from multiple postposition constructions in Korean. Linguistics Vanguard 6:1 DOI logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Hyunwoo Kim
2021. Roles of verb and construction cues. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 332 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.