Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 1–22

Perspectives on semantic roles

An introduction

ORCID logo | University of Pavia
| Tohoku University
Published online: 19 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.01lur
References (51)
References
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1982. The “perfect” as a universal and as a language specific category. In Tense – Aspect. Between Semantics and Pragmatics [Typological Studies in Language 1], Paul J. Hopper (ed.), 227–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Marianne Mithun (eds), 273–312. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2004. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Comrie, Bernard & Friederici, Angela D. (eds). 2006. Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking. Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In Markedness, Fred R. Eckman, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds), 85–106. New York NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & van den Berg, Helma. 2006. Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Bornkessel et al. (eds), 127–154.
Creissels, Denis & Mounole, Céline. 2011. Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies, and the case of Basque. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 157–182.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Poole, Keith T. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Semantic maps as metrics on meanings. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 70–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds), 1–88. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
. 1971. Some problems for case grammar. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 10: 245–65.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–43. Mahwah NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2009. Terminology of case. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 505–517. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike 1991. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura. 1993. The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2004. Protorollen und Makrorollen. In Semantische Rollen, Rolf Kailuweit & Martin Hummel (eds), 83–103. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Västi, Katja & Ylikoski, Jussi (eds). 2011. Case, Animacy, and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 525–606. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1949. Le problème du classement des cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 9: 20–43. Reprinted in: Kuryłowcz, Jerzy. 1960. Esquisses linguistiques. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Kuryłowcz, Jerzy. 1960. Esquisses linguistiques. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Typological Studies in Participation [Studia Typologica 7], Christian Lehmann (ed.), 9–104. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The best of two maps. Comment on ‘A Diachronic Dimension in Maps of Case Functions’ by Heiko Narrog. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 255–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Parodi, Claudia. 2010. Key Terms in Syntax and Syntactic Theory. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2001. Some remarks on instrument, comitative, and agent in Indo-European. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(4): 385–401.Google Scholar
. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. A Study of the Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdan: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Paradigm size, possible syncretism, and the use of cases with adpositions in inflectional languages. In Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, Frans Plank (ed.), 57–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Case in Cognitive Linguistics. In The Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 136–150. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2009. Cases as radial categories: The limits of polysemy. Paper presented at the SKY Conference on Case , 27–30 August 2009, Helsinki.
. 2011. Human landmarks in spatial expressions: From Latin to Romance. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 209–234.
Malchukov, Andrej & Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Case polysemy. In The Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 518–534. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Ito, Shinya. 2007. Reconstructing semantic maps. The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(4): 273–292.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2010. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 233–254. 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
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meaning of the genitive. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2): 149–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, Yoshiki. 1993. Agentivity in cognitive grammar. In Conceptualization and Mental Processing in Language, Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 488–530. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108], Johanna Barddal & Shobhanna Chelliah (eds), 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beate. 2006. Mismatches in semantic-role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Bornkessel et al. (eds), 89–126.
Radden, Günter. 1989. Semantic roles. In A User’s Grammar of English, René Dirven & Richard A. Geiger (eds), 421–471. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Raineri, Sophie & Evola, Vito. 2008. A Construction Grammar Analysis of the Empathetic Dative Construction in French and Italian. Ms.
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2008. In defense of classical semantic maps. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1): 39–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2010. Similarity semantics and building probabilistic semantic maps from parallel texts. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 331–271.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Henkin, Roni & Letizia Cerqueglini
2023. Spatial prepositions min and ʕan in Traditional Negev Arabic. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia, Chiara Naccarato & Erica Pinelli
2020. The u+gen construction in Modern Standard Russian. Cognitive Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
TOYOTA, JUNICHI
2017. <i>Perspectives on Semantic Roles</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:2 ► pp. 567 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.