Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Pedagogical Guide to The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Introduction
- Part One Overview
- Part Two Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
- 2 Lexical and Grammatical Categories in RRG
- 3 A Conceptually Oriented Approach to Semantic Composition in RRG
- 4 Semantic Macroroles
- 5 Grammatical Relations
- 6 Argument Structure Alternations
- 7 Case Assignment
- 8 Morphology in RRG
- 9 Adverbs, Mimetics and Ideophones
- 10 Adposition Assignment and Adpositional Phrase Types in RRG
- 11 The RRG Approach to Information Structure
- 12 Information Structure and Argument Linking
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
6 - Argument Structure Alternations
from Part Two - Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Pedagogical Guide to The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Introduction
- Part One Overview
- Part Two Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
- 2 Lexical and Grammatical Categories in RRG
- 3 A Conceptually Oriented Approach to Semantic Composition in RRG
- 4 Semantic Macroroles
- 5 Grammatical Relations
- 6 Argument Structure Alternations
- 7 Case Assignment
- 8 Morphology in RRG
- 9 Adverbs, Mimetics and Ideophones
- 10 Adposition Assignment and Adpositional Phrase Types in RRG
- 11 The RRG Approach to Information Structure
- 12 Information Structure and Argument Linking
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses argument structure alternations capitalizing on the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) notions of logical structure, macrorole and privileged syntactic argument assignment, and linking. A distinction is drawn between lexical and syntactic processes. The lexical alternations (for example, causativization and anticausativization) are often limited in productivity and serve to enrich the lexicon. The syntactic alternations (for example, passivization and antipassivization) are characterized by mappings between the lexical and the syntactic levels, and may play an important role in referent tracking or topic continuity.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 292 - 317Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Allen, Barbara J., Gardiner, Donna B. and Frantz, Donald G.. 1984. Noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 50: 292–311.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2019. The Logical Structure of Verbs of Quantized and Non-Quantized Change. Paper presented at the International RRG Conference, 19–21 August 2019, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Centineo, Giulia. 1996. The distribution of si in Italian intransitive/inchoative pairs. In Simmons, Mandy and Galloway, Theresa (eds.), Proceedings of SALT V, 54–71. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–91. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, VanClay, Mary, Niepokuj, Mary and Feder, Deborah (eds.), Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D.. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
González Vergara, Carlos. 2009. One rule to rule them all: Logical structures for Spanish non-reflexive se sentences. In Guerrero, Lilián, Cerda, Sergio Ibáñez and Belloro, Valeria A. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 361–380. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián and Van Valin, Robert D.. 2004. Yaqui and the analysis of primary object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70( 3): 290–319.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Müller-Bardey, Thomas. 2001. Valency change. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, 207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/staff/haspelmt/pdf/2005val.pdf.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee A. 1981. Aspect theory and Georgian aspect. In Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia. 1991. Prepositional Analysis within the Framework of Role and Reference Grammar. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Dryer, Matthew S.. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 325–361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andre, Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov, Andre, Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. A Comparative Handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1997. Grammatical structures in noun incorporation. In Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Davidse, Kristin and Noël, Dirk (eds.), Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 141–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miller, Mark. 2007. A Grammar of West Coast Bajau. PhD dissertation, (Arlington), University of Texas.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. and Postal, Paul M.. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passive. In Whistler, K., Van Valin, R. D. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 3, 394–417. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Antipassive constructions. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/108.Google Scholar
Rosen, Sarah Thomas. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language 65: 294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. Language 13(2): 250–282.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2007. The Role and Reference Grammar analysis of three-place predicates. Suvremena Lingvistika 33.1( 63): 31–64. https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/rrg/vanvalin_papers/RRG-Analysis_Three-Place_Pred.pdf.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012. Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. In Pustejovsky, James, Bouillon, Pierrette, Isahara, Hitoshi, Kanzaki, Kyoko and Lee, Chungmin (eds.), Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory: Text, Speech and Language Technology, Vol. 46, 67–107. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisann and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 71–93. Freiburg: Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr and LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967[1957]. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. (Previously published in Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 56: 143–160.)Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 2017. Tlachichilco Tepehua: Semantics and function of verb valency change. In González, Álvaro and Ía Navarro, (eds.), Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives, Typological Studies in Language 120, 165–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 2019. La preposición en tepehua y construcciones semejantes. In Guerrero, Lilián (ed.), Adposiciones y elementos de su tipo en lenguas de América. Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas 9, 315–344. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zylstra, Carol F. 1991. A syntactic sketch of Alacatlazala Mixtec. In Bradley, C. Henry and Hollenbach, Barbara E. (eds.), Studies in the Syntax of Mixtecan Languages, Vol. 3, 1–178. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar