Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-md2j5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-13T17:41:50.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Principles of Role and Reference Grammar

from Part One - Overview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

Delia Bentley
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Ricardo Mairal Usón
Affiliation:
Universidad National de Educación a Distancia, Madrid
Wataru Nakamura
Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Japan
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents the fundamental theoretical principles of Role and Reference Grammar. The exposition does not presuppose any previous familiarity with RRG, and it ties in with the relevant chapters in the Handbook. After a discussion of theoretical assumptions, the theory of syntactic structure, including clauses, phrases and words, is presented in detail, with new data not found in previous expositions of the theory. The presentation includes the structure of both simple and complex sentences. The next major section concerns semantic representation, and this includes the representation of simple clauses, semantics roles and interclausal semantic relations. There follows a very short mention of the notion of information structure; the reader is referred to two other chapters which present these ideas in detail. The final section concerns the linking between syntax and semantics in simple and complex sentences. The issue of representing language-specific vs. cross-linguistically valid grammatical information is a major theme of this section. RRG’s approach involving constructional schemata is quite distinct from that of mainstream construction grammar.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Balogh, Kata, Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2020. Nominal anchoring: Introduction. In Kata Balogh, et al. (eds.), Nominal Anchoring: Specificity, Definiteness, and Article Systems Across Languages, 118. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2010. The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86: 821864.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28: 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 51: 681706.Google Scholar
Becker, Alton. 1975. A linguistic image of nature: The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics 13: 109122.Google Scholar
Belloro, Valeria. 2007. Spanish Clitic Doubling: A Study of the Syntax–Pragmatics Interface. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2008. The interplay of focus structure and syntax: Evidence from two sister languages. In Van Valin (ed.), 263–284.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2019. The logical structure of verbs of quantized and non-quantized change. Paper presented at 2019 International Role and Reference Grammar Conference, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2022. Internally caused change as change by inner predisposition: Comparative evidence from Romance. Ms., University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Berio, Leda, Latrouite, Anja, Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Vosgerau, Gottfried. 2017. Immediate and general common ground. In Brézillon, Patrick, Turner, Roy and Penco, Carlo (eds.), Modeling and Using Context, 114. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Bril (ed.), 51–101.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz and Deloria, Ella. 1941. Dakota Grammar. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23. Washington, DC: US Govt. Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2019. Operator, information: Revisiting the operator projection in RRG, with special emphasis on tense, aspect, and finiteness. Paper presented at the 2019 RRG Conference, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2017. The Macro-event Property and the layered structure of the clause. Studies in Language 41: 142197.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Butler, Lindsay K. and Florian Jaeger, T.. 2016. Head-marking and agreement: Evidence from Yucatec Maya. In Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja and Osswald, Rainer (eds.), Explorations of the Syntax–Semantics Interface, 169207. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1975. Concept and percept: Two infinitive constructions and their vicissitudes. In World Papers in Phonetics: Festschrift for Dr. Onishi Kiju, 6591. Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 282390. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle (ed.). 2010. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce and Gair, James. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). Languages of the World/Materials 63. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Chief, Liangchen. 2007. Scalarity and Incomplete Event Descriptions in Mandarin Chinese. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2004. The German ‘bekommen-passive’ and RRG. In Brian, Nolan (ed.), Linguistic Theory and Practice: Description, Implementation and Processing. Proceedings of the 2004 RRG Dublin Conference, 4972.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2011. The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG. In Nakamura (ed.), 169–197.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.). 1976. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1984. The semantic basis of syntactic properties. BLS 10: 583595.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808845.Google Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2006. Patterns in Karitiâna: Articulation, Perception, and Grammar. PhD dissertation, Rice University, TX [available on Information Structure in Amazonian languages website].Google Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2008. Constituent Focus in Karitiâna. Unpublished ms. [available on Information Structure in Amazonian languages website].Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2002. Notes on an RRG Theory of Morphology. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 76: 621646.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2008. Wari’ intensional state constructions. In Van Valin (ed.), 381–412.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel and Kern, Doris. 1997. Wari’. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2016. Degree Gradation of Verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Bril (ed.), 27–50.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Karl. 1971. A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics C-16). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2009. Constructions at work. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 201224.Google Scholar
González Vergara, Carlos. 2006. Las construcciones no reflexivas con ‘se’: Una propuesta desde la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
González Vergara, Carlos. 2009. One rule to rule them all: Logical structures for Spanish non-reflexive se sentences. In Guerrero Valenzuela, Ibáñez and Belloro (eds.), 361–379.Google Scholar
González Vergara, Carlos. 2011. Se-incompatible predicates in Spanish: A RRG explanation. In Nakamura (ed.), 134–142.Google Scholar
Guerrero Valenzuela, Lilián, Ibáñez, Sergio and Belloro, Valeria (eds.). 2009. Studies in Role and Reference Grammar. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
Guerrero Valenzuela, Lilián and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2004. Yaqui and the analysis of primary object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 290319.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In Dixon (ed.), 78–105.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective TE in Japanese (Studies in Japanese Linguistics 5). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haviland, John. 1979. How to talk to your brother-in-law in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Languages and Their Speakers, 160239. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Kroeger, Paul (ed.), Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, 247293. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71: 103132.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-called ‘double objects’ and grammatical relations. Language 68: 251276.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss aft die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlects. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry and Zimmer, Karl. 1976. Embedded topic in French. In Charles Li (ed.), 189–211.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1985. ‘Activity’ – ‘accomplishment’ – ‘achievement’ – A language that can’t say ‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Makkai, A. and Melby, A. (eds.), Linguistics and Philosophy: Essays in honor of Rulon S. Wells, 265304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Imai, Shingo. 1998. Logical Structures and Case Marking in Japanese. MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories and non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 3976.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. A New Approach to Clause Structure in Role and Reference Grammar. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 5559. Davis: University of California.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2008. ‘Floating plurals’, pro drop and agreement: An optimality-based RRG approach. In Van Valin (ed.), 179–202.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Planck, Frans (ed.), Ergativity, 6178. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kihara, C. Patrick. 2017. Aspects of Gĩkũyũ (Kikuyu) Complex Sentences: A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Kolmer, Agnes. 1998. Pluralität im Tagalog (Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln, 31.) Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 167176.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2014. Event existentials in Tagalog: A Role and Reference Grammar account. In Wayan Arka, I. and Mas Indrawati, N. L. K (eds.), Argument Realizations and Related Constructions in Austronesian Languages, Papers from 12-ICAL, Vol. 2, 161174. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. An RRG account of aspects of the information structure-syntax interface in Tagalog. In Van Valin (ed.), 257–283.Google Scholar
Li, Charles (ed.). 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. Discourse Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2008. Transitivity in Kabardian. In Van Valin (ed.), 59–73.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2009. A new typology of control constructions within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar. In Guerrero Valenzuela, Ibáñez and Belloro (eds.), 305–318.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2010. Kabardian causatives, reflexives and case marking domains. Suvremena Lingvistika 69: 4563.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2017. Agreement in Role and Reference Grammar: A typology of possible targets. Suvremena Lingvistika 84: 157171.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru (ed.). 2011. New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2021. A neo-Jakobsonian account of default cases: Instrumental vs. dative. In Van Valin (ed.), 135–168.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 1998. A lexical semantic explanation for ‘quirky’ case marking in Hindi. Studia Linguistica 52: 4876.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. and Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8: 149211.Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke (eds.). 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuhn, Patrick. 2021. Ay-Inversion in Tagalog: Information Structure and Morphosyntax of an Austronesian Language. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Nunes, Mary L. 1993. Argument linking in English derived nominals. In Van Valin (ed.), 375–432.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2008. A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin (ed.), 227–244.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 2001. Some Thoughts on a New Systematization of Interclausal Semantic Relations. Unpublished ms. [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Osborne, C. R. 1974. The Tiwi Language. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Osswald, Rainer. 2021. Activities, accomplishments and causation. In Van Valin (ed.), 3–30.Google Scholar
Park, Ki-seong. 1993. Korean Causatives in Role and Reference Grammar. MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Rob. 2004. Towards a typology of non-configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 359408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1990. Explaining word order in the noun phrase. Linguistics 28: 542.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase: A Typological Study of Its Form and Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1982. We need (some kind of a) rule of conjunction reduction. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 557561.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ruhnau, Arne. 2011. Interpretation of the Topological Field Model of the German Clause in Terms of Role and Reference Grammar. MA thesis, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li (ed.), 491–518.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1993. On the syntactic and semantic alignment of attributive and identificational constructions. In Van Valin (ed.), 433–463.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 1995. Focus Structure and Morphosyntax in Japanese: wa and ga, and Word Order Flexibility. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2011. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Nakamura, Wataru (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 266293. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon (ed.), 112–171.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlotta. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Toratani, Kiyoko. 2002. The Morphosyntax and Logical Structures of Compound Verbs in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Ullrich, , Jan. 2011. New Lakota Dictionary (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Lakota Language Consortium.Google Scholar
Ullrich, , Jan. 2018. Modification, Secondary Predication and Multi-Verb Constructions in Lakota. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Ullrich, Jan and Black Bear, Ben Jr. 2018. Lakota Grammar Handbook (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Lakota Language Consortium.Google Scholar
Van Hooste, Koen. 2018. Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5: 361394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1985. Case marking and the structure of the Lakhota clause. In Johanna Nichols and Anthony Woodbury (eds.), Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, 363413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990a. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221260.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990b. Functionalism, anaphora and syntax. (Review article on S. Kuno, Functional Syntax.) Studies in Language 14: 169219.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145194.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin (ed.), 1–164.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 221–49. Mahwah, NJ: LEA [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. Generalized semantic roles and the syntax–semantics interface. In Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and Marandin, J.-M., (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2, 373389. The Hague: Thesus [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2001. The acquisition of complex sentences: A case study in the role of theory in the study of language development. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 36(2): 511531.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2002. The development of subject–auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language 29: 161175.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2003. Some remarks on the bekommen-‘passive’ in German. Invited paper presented at the 9th German Linguistics Association Conference, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2004. Semantic macroroles in Role and Reference Grammar. In Kailuweit, Rolf and Hummel, Martin (eds.), Semantische Rollen, 6282. Tübingen: Narr [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2006. Semantic macroroles and language processing. In Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Comrie, Bernard and Friederici, Angela D. (eds.), Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 263301. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2008. Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2008. RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in RRG. In Van Valin (ed.), 161–178.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots, and controllers. In Guerrero Valenzuela, Ibáñez and Belloro (eds.), 45–68.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012a. 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, 67107. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012b. Some issues in the linking between syntax and semantics in relative clauses. In Comrie, Bernard and Fernández, Zarina Estrada (eds.), A Typological Overview of Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas, 4764. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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. In honor of Johanna Nichols, 91124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2016. An overview of information structure in three Amazonian languages. In Fernandez-Vest, M. M. Jocelyne and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 7792. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018a. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisa and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 7194. Freiburg: FRIAS.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018b. Dative case and oblique subjects. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carey, Steven, Eythórson, Thórhallur and Pat-El, Na’ama (eds.), Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull Papers, 115131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2021. Challenges at the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: A Role and Reference Grammar Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. Cosubordination. In Van Valin (ed.), 241–283.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Wilkins, David P.. 1993. Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: remember in English and Mparntwe Arrernte. In Van Valin (ed.), 499–534.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Wilkins, David P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions, 289322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Charles. 1986. Sama Verbal Semantics: Classification, Derivation and Inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 1993. An investigation of Turkish clause linkage. In Van Valin, (ed.), 535–560.Google Scholar
Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. 1995. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. 2021. Why Eve shouldn’t eat the snake: An intelligent answer from corpus-driven information structure and reference tracking in Biblical Hebrew. In Van Valin (ed.), 285–307.Google Scholar
Yang, Byong-seon. 1994. Morphosyntactic Phenomena of Korean in Role and Reference Grammar: Psych-Verb Constructions, Inflectional Verb Morphemes, Complex Sentences, and Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY). Published by Hankuk Publishers, Seoul, 1994.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan and Thráinsson, Hölskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441483.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×