Cover not available

In:Advances in Research on Semantic Roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 1–26

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles

 | University of Helsinki
 | University of Bern
Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.88.01kit
This introductory chapter briefly introduces a few milestones in the voluminous previous literature on semantic roles, and charts the territory in which the chapters of this volume aim to make a contribution. This territory is characterized by fairly disparate conceptualizations of semantic roles and their status in theories of grammar and the lexicon, as well as by diverse and probably complementary ways of deriving or identifying them based on linguistic data. Particular attention is given to the question of how selected roles appear to relate to each other, and we preliminarily address the issue of how roles, subroles, and role complexes are best thought of in general.
References (42)
References
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 353–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae-Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Céline Mounole. 2011. Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies, and the case of Basque. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi and Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 157–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixonx, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume I: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Seppo Kittilä & Leena Kolehmainen. 2010. Linguistics of weather: Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34(3). 565–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexicon expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Choctaw cases. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 3. 204–213.
Hopper, Paul J. 1985. Causes and affects. In William H. Elifort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the Twenty-first Regional Meeting of CLS, 67–88. Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klokeid, T.J. 1976. Lardil. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 550–584. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2014. Partitive noun phrases in the Estonian core argument system. In Tuomas Huumo & Silvia Luraghi (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories, 177–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3). 688–695. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patz, Elizabeth. 1991. Djabugay. In R.M.W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages. Volume 4. The Aboriginal language of Melbourne and other grammatical sketches, 244–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David & Paul Postal. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3). 229–290.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1998. GIVE in Amele. In John Newman (ed.), The linguistics of giving, 1–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Are thematic relations discrete? In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1964. Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga. 2006. Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59. 284–303.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Cai, Tianyuan, Meichun Liu & John Sie Yuen Lee
2025. Chinese Verb Frames in Primary Education: From Basic Communication to Cognitive Complexity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:4 ► pp. 2301 ff. DOI logo
Klimenko, Sergei
2019. Criteria for establishing the inventory of semantic participants and voices in Tagalog. Studies in Language 43:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue