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
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
Introduction
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
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
Summary
After introducing the aims and scope of the Handbook, this chapter reflects on the contribution of Role and Reference Grammar to modern linguistic theory, highlighting the key features which uniquely characterize this framework and distinguish it from others.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 1 - 14Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Bentley, Delia. 2018. Grammaticalization of subject agreement on evidence from Italo-Romance. Linguistics 56(6): 1245–1301.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2019. The logical structure of verbs of quantized and non-quantized change. Paper delivered at the International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, University at Buffalo (SUNY), 19–21 August 2019.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia and Cennamo, Michela. 2022. Thematic and lexico-aspectual constraints on V-S agreement: Evidence from Northern Italo-Romance. In Ledgeway, A., Vincent, N. and Smith, J. C. (eds.), Periphrasis and Inflexion in Diachrony. A View from Romance, 335–361. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia and Vincent, Nigel (forthcoming). LFG and Role and Reference Grammar. In Dalrymple, Mary (ed.), The Handbook of Lexical Functional Grammar (Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/312.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense I: In Name Only: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005c. Structuring Sense III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Nordlinger, Rachel and Sadler., Louisa 2019. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 282–390. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2005a. Functional approaches to language. In Butler, Christopher S., Gómez-González, María de los Ángeles and Doval Suárez, Susana (eds.), The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives, 3–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2005b. Functionalist theories of language. In Brown, K., (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), Vol. 1–14, 696–704. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Casti, Francesco. 2012. Testing the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy: Aspectual and Modal Periphrases in Modern Sardinian. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Syntax: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. Forthcoming. The Handbook of Lexical Functional Grammar. (Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/312.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2002. Towards an RRG theory of morphology. Lecture delivered at the International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, University of La Rioja.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4: 333–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
González-Orta, Marta Maria. 2002. Lexical templates and syntactic variation: The syntax-semantics interface of the Old English speech verb secgan. In Mairal Usón and Pérez Quintero (eds.), 281–302.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7(1): 89–150.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo and Faber, Pamela. 2002. Functional Grammar and lexical templates. In Mairal Usón, and Pérez Quintero (eds.), 39–94.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo and Pérez Quintero, María Jesus (eds.). 2002. New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo, Guerrero, Lilián and González, Carlos (eds.). 2012. El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística. La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. Introducción, avances y aplicaciones. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, Javier. 2009. A typology of morphological constructions. In Butler, Christopher and Martín Arista, Javier (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 85–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2008. Patterns of grammaticalization and the layered structure of the clause. In Kailuweit, Rolf et al. (eds.), New Applications of Role and Reference Grammar, 45–57. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pavey, Emma L. 2010. The Structure of Language. An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. (ed.). 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. and Joseph, Brian D. (eds.). 1990. Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. and Rosen, Carol G. (eds.). 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane, (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan and Wasow, Thomas. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2004. Quantifier float and information processing: A case study from Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 375–406.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Van Valin, Robert (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 285–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2016. Saliency in discourse and sentence form: Zero anaphora and topicalization in Japanese. In Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest, M. M. and Van Valin, Robert Jr. (eds.), Information Structure and Spoken Language in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 55–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1977. Ergativity and the universality of subjects. Communication and Linguistics Studies 13: 689–706.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5: 361–394.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. The Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2008. RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 161–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Linguistics past and present: A view from the Rhine. In Fernández, Zarina Estrada, González, Albert Álvarez and Carpio, María Belén (eds.), Ser lingüista: un oficio diverso y polifacético. Diez años de una Maestría en Lingüística, 155–164. Hermosillo, MX: Editorial Unison.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2013. Head-marking languages and linguistic theory. In Bickel, Balthasar, Grenoble, Lenore A., Peterson, David A. and Timberlake, Alan (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2014. On the place of information structure in a grammar. In Ana Díaz Galán et al., Comunicación, Cognición, Cibernétic@. Actas del XXXI Congreso de AESLA, 88–108. www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg.html.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla., Randy 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 2014. Interfacing the lexicon and an ontology in a linking algorithm. In Gómez, María Ángeles, de Mendoza, Francisco Ruiz and Gonzálvez-García, Francisco (eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space, 205–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 97–121. (Previously published in Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 56: 143–160.)Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. Forthcoming. Information structure. In Mary Dalrymple, (ed.), The Handbook of Lexical Functional Grammar (Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/312.Google Scholar