Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-kw98b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-03T22:38:08.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part Two - Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences

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

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
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

References

Ambros, Arne A. 1998. Bonġornu, kif int? Einführung in die maltesische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, 14001413. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1(2): 123165.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Vogel, Petra M. and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 23), 65102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2005. Word classes, parts of speech, and syntactic argumentation. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 431441.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Osada, Toshiki. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 351390.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2008. Wari’ intentional state constructions. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 381–410.Google Scholar
Håkansson, Gisela and Westander, Jennie. 2013. Communication in Humans and Other Animals (Advances in Interaction Studies, 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Preestablished categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 3180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Rijkhoff, Jan. 2005. Mundari as a flexible language. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 406431.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Austin, Peter K. and Musgrave, Simon (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism), 247293. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203: 88111. [Reprinted in Wang, William S.-Y. 1982. Human Communication: Language and Its Psychobiological Bases. Scientific American: 4–12].Google Scholar
Kerkeʈʈa, K. P. 1990. Jujhair ɖā̃ɽ (khaɽiyā nāʈak). Ranchi: Janjātīya Bhāṣā Akādemī, Bihār Sarkār.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical Voice (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luuk, Erkki. 2010. Nouns, verbs and flexibles: Implications for typologies of word classes. Language Sciences 32(3): 349365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, Utz. 2004. ‘Finite’ and ‘nonfinite’ from a typological perspective. Linguistics 42(2): 359385.Google Scholar
Malhotra, V. (1982). The Structure of Kharia: a Study of Linguistic Typology and Language Change. Unpublished PhD dissertation. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.). 2007. Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 2005. There’s a grain of truth in every ‘myth’, or, Why the discussion of lexical classes in Mundari isn’t quite over yet. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 391405.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2011a. Kharia. A South Munda language (Brill’s Studies in the Languages of South and Southwest Asia, 1). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 2011b. Aspects of Kharia grammar – A Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) approach. In Singh, Rajendra and Sharma, Ghanshyam (eds.), Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 81124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 2013. Parts of speech in Kharia: a formal account. In Rijkhoff and van Lier (eds.), 131–168.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 2010. Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology, 7). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan and van Lier, Eva. 2013. Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society. April 14–16, 1972, 316–328.Google Scholar
Roy, Sarat Chandra and Roy, Ramesh Chandra. 1937. The Khāṛiās. Ranchi: Man in India.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of Human Communication (The Jean Nicod Lectures). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. 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 (ed.), 161–178.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2008. Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface (Studies in Language Companion Series 105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Amsler, Robert A. 1980. The Structure of the Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Amsler, Robert A. 1981. A taxonomy for English nouns and verbs. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 133138. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2019. The logical structure of verbs of quantized and non-quantized change. International RRG Conference, 19–21 August 2019. University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2012. An ontological approach to the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34: 619634.Google Scholar
Cortés, Francisco, González, Carlos and Jiménez, Rocío. 2012. Las clases léxicas. Revisión de la tipología de predicados verbales. In Mairal Usón, Ricardo, Guerrero, Lilián, and González, Carlos (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística. La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. Introducción, avances y aplicaciones, 5984. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspects and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1978. Stepwise Lexical Decomposition. Lisse: de Ridder.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1991. Frege and Other Philosophers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela and Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 1999. Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, Antonio (ed.), Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, 5588. Dordrecht: North Holland.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111137. Seoul, South Korea: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2006. Frame Semantics. In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 373400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Charles and Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2010. Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In Hovav, Malka Rappaport, Doron, Edit and Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, 3958. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Havasi, Catherine, Pustejovsky, James and Rumshisky, Anna. 2007. An evaluation of the Brandeis semantic ontology. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon. Paris, France.Google Scholar
Hirst, Graeme. 2009. Ontology and the lexicon. In Staab, Steffen and Studer, Rudi (eds.), Handbook on Ontologies, 269292. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1998. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levy, Jacob T. 2003. Language rights, literacy, and the modern state. In William Kymlicka and Alan Patten (eds.), Language Rights and Political Theory, 230249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo and Faber, Pamela. 2007. Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5: 137172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo and Pascual, Carlos Periñán. 2009. The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 22: 217244.Google Scholar
Martín Mingorance, Leocadio. 1984. Lexical fields and stepwise lexical decomposition in a contrastive English-Spanish verb valency dictionary. In Hartmann, Reinhardt (ed.), LEX’eter ’83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter, 226236. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Martín Mingorance, Leocadio. 1990. Functional Grammar and Lexematics. In Tomaszczyk, Jerzy and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (eds.), Meaning and Lexicography, 227253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín Mingorance, Leocadio. 1995. Lexical logic and structural semantics: methodological underpinnings in the structuring of a lexical database for natural language processing. In Hoinkes, Ulrich (ed.), Panorama der Lexikalischen Semantik, 461474. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 1989. Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of the Meaning–Text Linguistic Theory. Quaderni di Semantica 10(1): 65102.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 2012. Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nirenburg, Sergei and Raskin, Victor. 2004. Ontological Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Periñán Pascual, Carlos and Arcas-Túnez, Francisco. 2005. Microconceptual-knowledge spreading in FunGramKB. In 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, 239244Anaheim-Calgary-Zurich: ACTA.Google Scholar
Periñán Pascual, Carlos and Arcas-Túnez, Francisco. 2007. Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 39: 197204.Google Scholar
Periñán Pascual, Carlos and Arcas-Túnez, Francisco. 2010. The architecture of FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 26672674. Marrakech, Morocco: LREC.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 2010. La gramática de COREL: un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomazein 21: 1145.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 2011. The Coherent Methodology in FunGramKB. Onomazein 24: 1333.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 2012. La dimensión computacional de la RRG: la estructura lógica conceptual y su aplicación en el procesamiento del lenguaje natural. In Vergara, Carlos González, Valenzuela, Lilián Guerrero and Mairal Usón, Ricardo (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia: Introducción, avances y aplicaciones, 333348. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Procter, Paul. 1978Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 2001. Type construction and the logic of concepts. In Bouillon, Pierrette and Busa, Federica (eds.), The Language of Word Meaning, 91123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James and Batiukova, Olga. 2019. The Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, Havasi, Catherine, Littman, Jessica, Rumshisky, Anna and Verhagen, Marc. 2006. Towards a generative lexical resource: The Brandeis semantic ontology. Proceedings of the Fifth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, LREC 2006, 1702–1705. www.cs.brandeis.edu/~arum/publications/lrec-bso.pdf.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Amsterdam Studies in Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4: 11.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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, 7193. Freiburg; Universität Freiburg.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 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, 205228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Wilkins, David P.. 1993. Predicting syntax from semantics. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 499534. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Abreu Gomes, Cristina. 2003. Dative alternation in Brazilian Portuguese: Typology and constraints. Language Design 5: 6778.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 6: 197219.Google Scholar
Bellosta von Colbe, Valeriano. 2004. Das indirekte Objekt als syntaktisches Argument ohne Makrorolle. In Kailuweit and Hummel (eds.), 183–204.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2014. Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38(3): 485511.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. On the projection of arguments. In Benedicto, Elena and Runner, Jeffrey (eds.), Functional Projections, 1947. Amherst: GSLA.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, 329394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2008. The grammaticalization of the bekommen-passive in a RRG-perspective. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 87–145.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59138.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547619.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808845.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 188. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2003. Valency and semantic roles: The concept of deep structure case. In Ágel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig M., Eroms, Hans Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen and Lobin, Henning (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung / Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research 1, 457475. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
François, Jacques. 1997. La place de l’aspect et de la participation dans les classements conceptuels des prédications verbales. In François, Jacques and Denhière, Guy (eds.), Sémantique linguistique et psychologie cognitive. Aspects théoriques et expérimentaux, 119156. Grenoble: Presse Universitaire.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965 [1976]. Studies in Lexical Relations. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published as: Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2004. Yaqui and the analysis of primary object Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(3): 290319.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Ditransitive constructions: Towards a new Role and Reference Grammar account? In Van Valin (ed.), 75–100.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535689.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ibáñez Cerda, Sergio. 2008. ‘Saying’ verbs in Spanish. Deepening the lexical semantics description. In Van Valin (ed.), 3–21.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure (Jean Nicod Lectures). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2004. Protorollen und Makrorollen. In Kailuweit and Hummel (eds.), 84–104.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2005a. Lokativalternanz bei transitiven Verben – Englisch, Französisch, Spanisch und Deutsch im Vergleich. In Wotjak, Barbara and Schmitt, Christian (eds.), Beiträge zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich, Vol. 2, 183196. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2005b. Linking: Syntax und Semantik französischer und italienischer Gefühlsverben. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten).Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2008. A RRG description of locative alternation verbs in English, French, German and Italian. In Kailuweit, Wiemer, Staudinger and Matasović (eds.), 328–355.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2012. Macropapeles: entre semántica y sintaxis. In Carlos González Vergara, Lilián Guerrero and Ricardo Mairal (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 103123Tres Cantos: Ediciones Akal.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2013. Radical Role and Reference Grammar (RRRG): A sketch for remodelling the syntax–semantics interface. In Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke (eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar, 103–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2018. Activity Hierarchy and argument realization in (R)RRG. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisann and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 189213. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf and Hummel, Martin (eds.). 2004. Semantische Rollen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf, Wiemer, Björn, Staudinger, Eva and Matasović, Ranko (eds.). 2008. New Applications of Role and Reference Grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. 1985. Toward a typology of ergativity. In Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony (eds.), Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, 268323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. 1997. Beyond subjects and objects: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1: 279346.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian, Shin, Yong-Min and Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2004. Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. Munich: Lincom Studies in Language Typology.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Helen Fay. 1985. Emotion and Focus. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Case and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative, Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 1988. What to do with theta roles. In Wilkins (ed.), 7–36.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2015. The syntax–semantics interface. In Lappin, Shalom and Fox, Chris (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (2nd ed.), 593624. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 1988. Tiefenkasus, thematische Relationen und Thetarollen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The Theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3): 229290.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bozena. 1988. Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In Wilkins (ed.), 147–165.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1972. Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Staudinger, Eva, Hartung, Matthias and Kailuweit, Rolf. 2008. Linking syntax to semantics: template selection and PP-Attachment ambiguities. In Kailuweit, Wiemer, Staudinger and Matasović (eds.), 389–413.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. [1959] 1965. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksiek.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van, Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. Generalized semantic roles and the syntax–semantics interface. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin and J.-M. Marandin (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 2, 373389. The Hague: Thesus.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.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 I. Bornkessel et al. (eds.), Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 263302. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2007. The Role and Reference Grammar analysis of three-place predicates. Suvremena Lingvistika 63(1): 3164.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. 2010. Role and Reference Grammar as a framework for linguistic analysis. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 703738. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2013. 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. 2018. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisann and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 526. Freiburg: Freiburg University Library.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. D. Jr. and Wilkins, David 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Thompson, Sarah. A. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, 289321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Wendy (ed.). 1988. Thematic Relations, Vol. 21: Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

References

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1914. An Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Henry Holt. (Photostatic reprint 1983 by John Benjamins, Amsterdam, with Forward by Konrad Koerner and Introduction by Joseph Kess.)Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602623. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2013. Radical Construction Grammar. In Trousdale, G. and Hoffmann, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 211232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Busser, Rik and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.). 2015. Language Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2000. A-constructions and O-constructions in Jarawara. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(1): 2256.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. The Jarawara Language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type, 115143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1987. Grammatical relations in Acehnese. Studies in Language 11: 365399.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas. 2002. Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1977. On the viability of the notion of ‘subject’ in universal grammar. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3: 293320.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, H. Georg, C. von der. 1869. Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax. Wort- und Satzstellung. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6: 376384.Google Scholar
Gary, Judith Olmstedt and Keenan, Edward L.. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole, P. and Sadock, J. M. (eds.), Grammatical Relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 83120. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1994. The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17: 179200.Google Scholar
Giridhar, P. P. 1980. Angami Grammar (CIIL Grammar Series 6). Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas and Patten, Amanda. 2011. Construction Grammar and grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 92104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1975. Functional relationships in grammar. Language 51(1): 89104.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Choctaw cases. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3: 204213.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes, 2142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, 1736. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Vols. I–VII. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 305333. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1992a. On the dating and nature of verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(2): 298315.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1992b. Anti-ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15(1): 19.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4): 759813.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘drift’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17(1): 6180.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. On the utility of the concepts of markedness and prototypes in understanding the development of morphological systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 66(4): 11491185.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2001. The role of migration and language contact in the development of the Sino-Tibetan language family. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Case Studies in Language Change, 225254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2004. On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Lin, Ying-jin, Hsu, Fang-min, Lee, Chun-chih, Sun, Jackson T.-S., Yang, Hsiu-fang and Ho, Dah-an (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday, 4374. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tsunoda, Tasaku and Kageyama, Taro (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2009. Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. In Nagano, Yasuhiko (ed.), Issues in Tibeto-Burman Historical Linguistics (Senri Ethnological Studies 75), 227237. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2010. Hierarchical person marking in Rawang. In Zhaoming, Dai (ed.), Forty Years of Sino-Tibetan Language Studies: Proceedings of ICSTLL-40, 107113. Harbin, China: Heilongjiang University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2015. On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. In De Busser, Rik and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), Language Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors, 3344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2019. Arguments for seeing Theme-Rheme and Topic-Comment as separate functional structures. In Martin, J. R., Doran, Y. and Figueredo, G. (eds.), Systemic Functional Language Description: Making Meaning Matter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J., with Huang, Chenglong. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang, with Annotated Texts and Glossary (Mouton Grammar Library 39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec P. 1982. Grammatical relations and explanation in linguistics. In Zaenen, Annie (ed.), Subjects and Other Subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations, 124. Bloomington, IN: IULC.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec P. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Platt, J. F. 1971. Grammatical Form and Grammatical Meaning: A Tagmemic View of Fillmore’s Deep Structure Concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Olson, Mike. 1978. Switch-reference in Barai. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 140157.Google Scholar
Olson, Mike. 1981. Barai Clause Junctures: Toward a Functional Theory of Inter-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul, revised by Reid, Lawrence A.. 2008. Tagalog. In Comrie, Bernard (ed.), The World’s Major Languages (2nd ed.), 833855. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fei T.. 1972. A Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. A. M. 1998. Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1977. Ergativity and the universality of subjects. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 689706.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3): 361394.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1987. Aspects of the interaction of syntax and pragmatics: Discourse coreference mechanisms and the typology of grammatical systems. In Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series 5), 513531. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots, and controllers. In Lilián Guerrero Valenzuela, Sergio Ibáñez and Valeria A. Belloro, (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 4568. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Allen, Barbara J., Gardiner, Donna B. and Frantz, Donald G.. 1984. Noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 50: 292311.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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, 5471. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808845.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 191. 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, 95107. 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, 361380. 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): 290319.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, 87120. 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, 325361. 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, 164. 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, 141180. 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: 847894.Google 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, 394417. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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: 294317.Google 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): 250282.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.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): 3164. 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, 67107. 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, 7193. 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, 165192. 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, 315344. 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, 1178. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

References

Agnihotri, Rama Kant. 2007. Hindi: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aikio, Ante. 2009. The Structure of North Saami. Course handout, Department of Linguistics, University of Utah.Google Scholar
Aldai, Gontzal. 2008. From ergative case marking to semantic case marking: The case of historical Basque. In Donohue, Mark and Wichmann, Søren (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment, 197218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aldai, Gontzal. 2009. Is Basque morphologically ergative? Western Basque vs. Eastern Basque. Studies in Language 33: 783831.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 427503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Case structure and control in Modern Icelandic. In Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 24: Modern Icelandic Syntax, 187234. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benvenuto, Maria Carmela and Pompeo, Flavia. 2015. The Old Persian genitive: A study of a syncretic case. In Krasnowolska, Anna and Rusek-Kowalska, Renata (eds.), Studies on the Iranian World I: Before Islam, 1329. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A. and Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 173191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2011. Case assignment, case concord, and the quantificational case construction. Lingua 121: 10421066.Google Scholar
Bricker, Victoria. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 83127.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of Nanosyntax: The Classical Armenian nominal declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 10151066.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andreas. 1995. A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 373463.Google Scholar
Colarusso, John. 1992. A Grammar of the Kabardian Language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2009. Comments on Austronesian nominalism: A Mayan perspective. Theoretical Linguistics 35: 7393.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of Split Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. Notes on the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 91106.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547619.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1987. Grammatical relations in Acehnese. Studies in Language 11: 365399.Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin. 1994. Russian influence and the change in progress in the Estonian adpositional system. Linguistica Uralica 3: 177193.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2009. The preposition with in Role and Reference Grammar. In Guerrero, Lilián, Ibáñez, Sergio and Belloro, Valeria A.( eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 179202. Mexico City: UNAM Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, George. 1996. Oblique passivization in Russian. The Slavic and East European Journal 40: 519545.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and A’ Binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gönczöl-Davies, Ramona. 2008. Romanian: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 547.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2013. The direct object marker in Romanian: A historical perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33: 140151.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen and Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565587.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 1996. Domain shifts and the grammaticalization of case: A case study of the Finnish adessive. Folia Linguistica Historica 30: 7396.Google Scholar
Inaba, Nobufumi and Blokland, Rogier. 2001. Allative, genitive, and partitive: On the dative in Old Finnish. Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 7, Pars IV: 421431.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936/1984. Beitrage zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240288. Reprinted in Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle (eds.), 1984. Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981, 59–103. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. The Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 5787.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia A. 1991. Prepositional Analysis within the Framework of Role and Reference Grammar. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia A. 1993. Preposition assignment in English. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 275310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Josephs, Lewis S. 1975. Palauan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35: 149.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Maffi, Luisa. 1999. Color appearance and the emergence and evolution of basic color lexicons. American Anthropologist 101: 743760.Google Scholar
Kilby, David A. 1977. Deep and Superficial Cases in Russian. Munich: Kubon and Sagner.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315376.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Mauner, Gail, Bienvenue, Breton and Conklin, Kathy. 2008. What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-roleJournal of Semantics 25: 175220.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Vesa. 2017. The essive in Karelian. In de Groot, Casper (ed.), Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State, 161184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1991[1996]. Remarks on the structure and history of the Uralic case system. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 83: 163180. Reprinted in Tapani Salminen (ed.), 1996. Typological and Historical Studies in Language by Mikko Korhonen, 219–242. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and Case in Tagalog: The Coding of Prominence and Orientation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina and Vihman, Virve-Anneli. 2017. Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’-constructions. Journal of Linguistics 53: 134.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo (eds.), Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, 4974. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 8: 234253.Google Scholar
Mardale, Alexandru. 2008. Microvariation within differential object marking: Data from Romance. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 53: 449467.Google Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1994. Is the Estonian adessive really a local case? Journal of Asian and African Studies 46/47: 223235.Google Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1996. The dative use of the adessive case in Estonian: A corpus-based study. In Matsumura, Kazuto and Hayashi, Tooru (eds.), The Dative and Related Phenomena, 3179. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. 2017. Predicative possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area. Folia Linguistica 51: 160.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2014. Partitive noun phrases in the Estonian core argument system. In Luraghi, Silvia and Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Partitive Cases and Related Categories, 177256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle and Erelt, Matti. 2006. Estonian clause patterns: From Finno-Ugric to Standard Average European. Linguistica Uralica 42: 254266.Google Scholar
Miljan, Merilin. 2008. Grammatical Case in Estonian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Miljan, Merilin and Cann, Ronnie. 2013. Rethinking case marking and case alternation in Estonian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36: 333379.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 1999a. Functional Optimality Theory: Evidence from split case systems. In Darnell, Michael et al. (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Vol. 2: Case Studies, 253276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 1999b. An Optimality-Theoretic account of the Japanese case system. Studies in Language 23: 607660.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2002. Deriving morphological cases: Markedness considerations. In Rapp, Reinhard (ed.), Sprachwissenschaft auf dem Weg in das dritte Jahrtausend. Akten des 34. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Germersheim 1999, Teil 1, 151158. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2008. Fluid transitivity and generalized semantic roles. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 101116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2011. Case syncretism in typological perspective: An RRG-OT account. In Nakamura, Wataru (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 3563. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2015. A neo-Jakobsonian account of default oblique cases: Instrumental vs. dative. Paper read at the 2015 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2016. A two-tiered theory of case features: The case of the Hindi case(-marking) system. Paper presented in the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Naples Federico II.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru. 2021. A neo-Jakobsonian account of default oblique cases: Instrumental vs. dative. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Challenges in the Analysis of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 1998. A lexical-semantic explanation for ‘quirky’ case marking in Hindi. Studia Linguistica 52: 4876.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Ito, Shinya. 2007. Re-constructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypologie and Universalienforschung 60: 273292.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical Case Assignment in Finnish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane. 2003. Case and adverbials in Inari Saami and Finnish. Nordlyd 31: 708722.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273313.Google Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2018. Unmarked case in Estonian nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 523562.Google Scholar
Oniga, Renato. 2014. Latin: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oranen, Nicklas. 2019. On the use of the adessive case in Tver Karelian. Lähivõrdlusi 29: 204227.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2012. The absence of an implicit object in unergatives: New and old evidence from Basque. Lingua 122: 278288.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan, Albizu, Pablo and Etxepare, Ricardo. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of case. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 12731330.Google Scholar
Rissman, Lilia. 2010. Instrumental with, locatum with, and the argument/adjunct distinction. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2010.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2016 Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics 52: 639688.Google Scholar
Sadakane, Kumi and Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. On the nature of the ‘dative’ particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33: 533.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva and Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8: 59131.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2015. Dative experiencer constructions as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. In Arkadiev, Peter, Holvoet, Axel and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, 325348. 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, 112171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1980/1993. Of nominatives and datives: Universal Grammar from the bottom up. Unpublished manuscript. Reprinted in Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 465498. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1996. Restrictiveness in Case Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component of UG. Presented at University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew K. and Reid, Lawrence A.. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Halim, Amram, Carrington, Lois and Wurm, S. A. (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers, 145170.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia and Urdze, Aina. 2006. On Comitatives and Related Categories: A Typological Study with Special Focus on Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sulkala, Helena and Karalainen, Merja. 1992. Finnish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2007. Perfectivity, telicity, and Estonian verbs. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30: 229255.Google Scholar
Tomić, Olga Mišeska. 2004. The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction. In Tomić, Olga Mišeska (ed.), Balkan Syntax and Semantics, 155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1979. On the origins of ergativity. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Ergativity: Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relations, 385404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru Language of Kimberley, Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Valijärvi, Riita-Liisa and Kahn, Lily. 2017. North Sámi: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.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. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Case in role and Reference Grammar. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 102120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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, 67107. Dordrecht: Springer.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, 91123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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, 7193. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On ‘ergativity’ in Halkomelem Salish. In Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane and Ndayiragije, Juvenal (eds.), Ergativity, 197227. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217250.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 2001. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A.. 2003. Syntactic atomicity. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 93128.Google Scholar
Alonso Ramos, M. and Tutin, A.. 1996. A classification and description of lexical functions for the analysis of their combinations. In Wanner, L. (ed.), Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing, 146167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. and Fudeman, K.. 2011. What Is Morphology? (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Batiukova, O. 2008. Morfología: del léxico a la sintaxis oracional. In Actas del VIII Congreso de Lingüística General. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. www.lllf.uam.es/clg8/actas/index.html.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2018. Monotonicity in word formation: The case of Italo-Romance result-state adjectives. Transactions of the Philological Society 116(3): 285319.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2019. The logical structure of verbs of quantized and non-quantized change. Paper delivered at the 2019 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. The State University of New York, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Bosque, I. 2012. On the lexical integrity hypothesis and its (in)accurate predictions. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(1): 140173.Google Scholar
Boutin, M. 2011. Towards a realizational approach to morphology in RRG. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 234. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2006a. Derivational morphology in Role and Reference Grammar: A new proposal. RESLA: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 19: 4166.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2006b. Negative affixation within the Lexical Grammar Model. RÆL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 5: 2756.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2009. The inchoative construction: Semantic representation and unification constraints. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 247270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. and Sosa, E.. 2008. The morphology–semantics interface in word-formation. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 91108.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. and Sosa, E.. 2012. La morfología derivativa. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 1942. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. and Williams, E.. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. 2011. The layered structure of the German word: An RRG approach to inflectional morphology. Ms. Paper delivered at the 2011 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. The Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. and Nolan, B.. 2011. The syllable in the LSW: A proposal for an RRG morphophonological interface. Ms. paper delivered at the 2011 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. The Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2002. Towards an RRG theory of morphology. Lecture given at the 2002 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Universidad de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain.Google Scholar
Faber, P. and Mairal Usón, R.. 1999. Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127157.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2009. Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and conceptual semantics. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 105128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. and Busa, F.. 1999. Qualia structure and the compositional interpretation of compounds. In Viegas, E. (ed.), Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons, 167187. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Lapointe, S. 1981. A lexical analysis of the English auxiliary verb system. In Hoekstra, T., van der Hulst, H. and Moortgat, M. (eds.), Lexical Grammar, 215254. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M 2001. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, pp. 248271. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT (published by Garland Press, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 78104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. and Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2000–2001. Semantic packaging and syntactic projections in word formation processes: The case of agent nominalizations. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada) 14: 271294.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.. 2008. New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 137158.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 153198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., Periñán-Pascual, C. and Pérez Cabello de Alba, M. B.. 2012. La representación léxica: Hacia un enfoque ontológico. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 85102. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2008. Unification and separation in a functional theory of morphology. In Valin, R. D. Van Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 85115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2009. A typology of morphological constructions, In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 85116. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2011. Projections and constructions in functional morphology: The case of Old English HRĒOW. Language and Linguistics 12(2): 393425.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2012. La morfología flexiva. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 4358. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Martín Mingorance, L. 1998 [1985]. Bases metodológicas para un estudio contrastivo del léxico derivado. In Rubiales, A. Marín (ed.), El Modelo Lexemático Funcional, 6182. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. 1989. Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of the Meaning-Text Linguistic Theory. Quaderni di Semantica 10(1): 65102.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. and Wanner, L.. 1996. Lexical functions and lexical inheritance for emotion lexemes in German. In Wanner, L. (ed.), Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory, 209227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Möllemann, R. 2016. Implications of German Word Formation Processes for a Role and Reference Grammar Approach to Morphology. MSc, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Implications-of-German-word-formation-processes-for-Mollemann/fcc1cf700f876136c0300269f5391671155c3be1.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. 2011. Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the Layered Structure of the Modern Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 64101. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2008. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pavey, E. L. 2010. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2009. Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43: 265273.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. et al. 2001. Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. and Baitukova, O.. 2019. The Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. R. 2015. Distributives in Amele. A Role and Reference Grammar analysis. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2015–001. www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/16/20/84/162084215824434557688405164453437430340/silewp2015_001.pdf.Google Scholar
Roberts, T. 1999. Grammatical relations and ergativity in Sta’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Journal of American Linguistics 65: 275302.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. T. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language 65: 294317.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics, 231270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2007a. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K., Berg, T. and Siemund, P. (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction, 3351. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2007b. Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística 17: 2647.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1998. Morphophonological operations. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 123143. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2004. Morphology: An overview of central concepts. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 67109. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2005a. Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2005b. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 207232. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2005. The Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2008. RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 161178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2013. Head-marking languages and linguistic theory. In Bickel, B., Grenoble, L. A., Peterson, D. A. and Timberlake, A. (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, 91124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and Wilkins, D. P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions, 289322. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and LaPolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 245274.Google Scholar

References

Akita, Kimi. 2009. A Grammar of Sound-Symbolic Words in Japanese: Theoretical Approaches to Iconic and Lexical Properties of Mimetics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Kobe University.Google Scholar
Akita, Kimi and Usuki, Takeshi. 2016. A constructional account of the ‘optional’ quotative marking on Japanese mimetics. Journal of Linguistics 52: 245275.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2008. Ideophones, adverbs, and predicate qualification in Upper Necaxa Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics 74: 146.Google Scholar
Bobuafor, Mercy. 2013. A Grammar of Tafi. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Leiden University.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( 1): 142297.Google Scholar
Childs, Tucker G. 1994. African ideophones. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna and Ohala, John J. (eds.), Sound Symbolism, 178204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, Francisco J. and Rodríguez-Juárez, Carolina. 2019. The syntactic parsing of ASD-STE100 adverbials in ARTEMIS. Revista De Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 14: 5979.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2001. Setsuwana ideophones as uninflected predicative lexemes. In Voeltz, E. F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, C. (eds.), Ideophones, 7685. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Alan Cruse, D.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Jong, Nicky. 2001. The ideophone in Didinga. In Voeltz, E. F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, C. (eds.), Ideophones, 121138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2017. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu, STUF – Language Typology and Universals 70(2): 363385.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2019. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Akita, K. and Pardeshi, P. (eds.), Ideophones, Mimetics, and Expressives, 1333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Doke, Clement Martyn. 1935. Bantu Linguistic Terminology. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Engels, Eva. 2012. Optimizing Adverb Positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2014. The syntax of adverbs. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D. and Sato, Y. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, 108130. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2020. The syntax of adverbials. Annual Review of Linguistics 6(1): 89109.Google Scholar
Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The Sound-Symbolic System of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hirose, Masayoshi. 1981. Japanese and English Contrastive Lexicography: the Role of Japanese ‘Mimetic Adverbs’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2006. Sound Symbolism and Motion in Basque. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kulemeka, Andrew Tilimbe Clement. 1993. The Status of the Ideophone in Chichewa. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. Adverbs and logical form. Language 58: 144184.Google Scholar
Moshi, Lioba. 1993. Ideophones in KiVunjo-Chaga. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(2): 185216.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1968. Ideophones from a syntactic point of view. The Journal of West African Languages 5: 107117.Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis B. 1996. Sounds Like Life: Sound-Symbolic Grammar, Performance and Cognition in Pastaza Quechua. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patent, Jason. 1998. A willy-nilly look at Lai ideophones. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21(1): 155200.Google Scholar
Reiter, Sabine. 2011. Ideophones in Awetí. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1992. Adverb incorporation and the syntax of adverbs in modern Greek. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 289331.Google Scholar
Sawada, Harumi. 1978. A contrastive study of Japanese and English sentence adverbials: From the viewpoint of speech act theory [in Japanese]. Gengo Kenkyu 74: 136.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1985. Parts-of-speech systems. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I: Clause structure, 361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaefer, Ronald P. 2001. Ideophonic adverbs and manner gaps in Emai. In Voeltz, E. F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, C. (eds.), Ideophones, 339354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Storch, Anne. 2014. A Grammar of Luwo: An Anthropological Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toratani, Kiyoko. 2005. A cognitive approach to mimetic aspect in Japanese. Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 335–346.Google Scholar
Toratani, Kiyoko. 2007. An RRG analysis of manner adverbial mimetics. Language and Linguistics 8(1): 311342.Google Scholar
Toratani, Kiyoko. 2017. The position of to/Ø-marked mimetics in Japanese sentence structure. In Iwasaki, N., Sells, P. and Akita, K. (eds.), The Grammar of Japanese Mimetics: Perspectives from Structure, Acquisition and Translation (Routledge Studies in East Asian Linguistics), 3572. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko and Deguchi, Masanori. 2007. Semantic integration of mimetics in Japanese. Communication and Linguistics Studies 39(1): The Main Session: Papers from the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 339–353.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. 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, 161178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voeltz, Erhard F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, Christa (eds.). 2001. Ideophones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Watson, Richard L. 2001. A comparison of some Southeast Asian ideophones with some African ideophones. In Voeltz, E. F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, C. (eds.), Ideophones, 385405. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 2013. Transitivity, constructions, and the projection of argument structure in RRG. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics, 2340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

References

Alarcos Llorach, Emilio. 1972. Estudios de gramática funcional del español. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Clause Linkage Typology. Lecture series delivered at the 2003 International Role and Reference Grammar Conference, UNESP, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Brazil.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax, Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cano Aguilar, Rafael. 1999. Los complementos de régimen verbal. In Bosque, I. and Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol. 2, 18071854. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1994. La ditransitividad en español: Léxico y sintaxis. In Demonte, V. (ed.), Gramática del español, 431470. Mexico: Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. PhD dissertation, MIT. (Published with revisions as Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.)Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Salvador. 1978. Sobre los dativos superfluos. Archivum XXVII–XXVIII: 415452.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56: 515540.Google Scholar
Hernández Alonso, César. 1990. En torno al suplemento. Anuario de Letras XXVIII: 525.Google Scholar
Ibáñez Cerda, Sergio. 2005. Los verbos de movimiento intransitivos del español. Una aproximación léxico-sintáctica. Mexico: ENAH-UNAM.Google Scholar
Ibáñez Cerda, Sergio. 2009. Prepositional phrases in RRG: A case of study from Spanish. In Guerrero, L., Ibáñez, S. and Belloro, V. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 469490. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar
Ibáñez Cerda, Sergio. 2011. PP types in RRG: A top-down approach to their classification. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 200217. Newcastle upon Tyne : Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ibáñez Cerda, Sergio. 2021. Two-themes constructions and preposition assignment in Spanish. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Challenges at the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: a Role and Reference Grammar Perspective, 189211. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia. 1993. Preposition assignment in English. In Van Valin (ed.), 275–310.Google Scholar
Martínez García, Hortensia. 1986. El suplemento en español. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56119.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1981. Case marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 227246.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Of nominatives and datives: Universal Grammar from the bottom up. In Van Valin (ed.), 465–498.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. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Belloro, Valeria. 2004. A Role and Reference Grammar Account of Third Person Clitic Clusters in Spanish. MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Belloro, Valeria. 2015. To the Right of the Verb: An Investigation of Clitic Doubling and Right Dislocation in Three Spanish Dialects. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2008. The interplay of focus structure and syntax. Evidence from two sister languages. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 263–284.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2010. Focus fronting in the layered structure of the clause. In Nakamura (ed.), 4–28. https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/rrg/ProceedingsofRRG2009_02.pdf.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2018. Grammaticalization of subject agreement on evidence from Italo-Romance. Linguistics 56: 12451301.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria, Cruschina, Silvio and Ramsammy, Michael. 2016. Micro-variation in information structure: Existential constructions in Italo-Romance. In Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest, M. M. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Information Structure and Spoken Language in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 95120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 2755. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 2152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Russian. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Languages and Their Status, 91150. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Russian. In Chisolm, W. S. Jr. (ed.), Interrogativity, 746. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2006. Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of Interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar 91), 363385. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus Structure. In Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria and Cruschina, Silvio (eds.), Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, 4398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Cia, Simone. 2019. The Syntactic-Pragmatic Interface in North-Eastern Italian Dialects: Consequences for the Geometry of the Left Periphery. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1989. Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65: 5680.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1990. Subject, topic and the Sesotho passive. Journal of Child Language 17: 6784.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2008. Where is the precore slot? Mapping the layered structure of the clause and German sentence typology. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 203–224.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2017. Dislocations and framings. In Dufter, Andreas and Stark, Elisabeth (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17), 472501. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara and Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Winkler, Susanne and Schwabe, Kerstin (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 87116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith and Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274307.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Hingham, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert and Krifka, Manfred (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure, 1355. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269320.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen. 2011. Quand passent les cicognes: Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen and Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2012. Word order in French, Spanish and Italian: A grammaticalization account. Folia Linguistica 46: 129.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. Topic, Focus and the Grammar of Spoken French. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.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
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24: 611682.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1990. Grammatical Relations in Chinese: Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4): 759813.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese. In Downing, Pamela and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, 297329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leone, Alfonso. 1995. Profilo di sintassi siciliana. Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 459489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru (ed.). 2010. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG 2009). https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/rrg/ProceedingsofRRG2009_02.pdf.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2008. A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 227–244.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD Dissertation, MIT (published in 1988 by Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, 295324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 5394.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert (eds.), Wh-Movement. Moving On, 97133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Ürgen. 1987. The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511580.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 1995. Focus Structure and Morphosyntax in Japanese: Wa and ga, and Word Order Flexibility. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 285–304.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2009. Focus structure and beyond: Discourse-pragmatics in Role and Reference Grammar. In Guerrero, Lilián, Cerda, Sergio Ibáñez and Belloro, Valeria A. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 111141. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2010. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Wataru Nakamura (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG 2009), 315–235. www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg.html.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
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1983. Relazioni d’ordine e segmentazione della frase in italiano: Per una teoria della sintassi affettiva. In Benincà, Paola, Cortelazzo, Michele, Prosdocimi, Aldo, Vanelli, Laura and Zamboni, Alberto (eds.), Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 561577. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Stempel, Wolf-Dieter. 1981. L’amour elle appelle ça – L’amour tu connais pas. In Rohrer, Christian (ed.), Logos Semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, Vol. 4: Grammatik, 351367. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of the Weak Locative. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In Raxilina, Ekatarina and Testelec, Yakov G. (eds.), Typology and Linguistic Theory: From Description to Explanation, 511524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. 2015. An overview of information structure in three Amazonian Languages. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, 7792. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Balogh, Kata. 2021. Additive particle uses in Hungarian: A Role and Reference Grammar account. Studies in Language 45: 428469.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. 2018. Grammaticalization of subject agreement on evidence from Italo–Romance. Linguistics 56: 12451301.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
Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Some assertions about presuppositions and pronominalization. Communication and Linguistics Studies 11, Parasession on Functionalism, 580609.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1979. Pronouns in discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax, 289310. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741782.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1989. Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65: 5680.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine and Johnson, Mark.1989. Interaction between discourse functions and agreement in Setswana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11: 2135.Google Scholar
Filchenko, Andrey. 2007. Aspect [sic] of the Grammar of Eastern Khanty. PhD dissertation, Tomsk State Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Typology, 209239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 2012. Pragmatics and information structure. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 585598. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Han, Jeonghan. 1999. On Grammatical Coding of Information Structure in Korean: A Role and Reference Grammar Account. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Hingham, MA: Kluwer.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
Kim, Alan H. O. 1988. Preverbal focusing and type XXIII languages. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 147172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koshkaryova, N. 2000. Sentences with ditransitive verbs in Khanty. Paper presented at the 2000 RRG Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred and Musan, Renate (eds.). 2012. The Expression of Information Structure. (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 5). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972a. Functional Sentence Perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269320.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972b. Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 161196.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. CLS Parasession on Functionalism, 276–336.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1991. Remarks on quantifier scope. In Nakajima, H. (ed.), Current English Linguistics in Japan, 261287. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., Takami, K. and Wu, Y.. 1999. Quantifier scope in English, Chinese and Japanese. Language 75: 63111.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorial distinction. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 366382.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Case and Voice in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2021. Specification predication: Unexpectedness and cleft constructions in Tagalog. Faits de Langues 52(1): 227254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514–05201011.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja and Riester, Arndt. 2018. The role of information structure for morphosyntactic choices in Tagalog. In Riesberg, Sonja and Shiohara, Asako (eds.), Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages. Studies in Diversity Linguistics, 247284. Berlin: Language Science Press.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
Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nuhn, Patrick. 2021. Ay-Inversion in Tagalog: Information Structure and Morphosyntax of an Austronesian Language. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2008. A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin (ed.), 227–244.Google Scholar
Park, Ki-seong. 1995. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Case Marking in Korean: A Role and Reference Grammar Account. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Planck, Frans. 1995. Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 491518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi. 1985. The acquisition of Kaluli. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, 525593. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Hajicova, Eva and Panevova, Jarmila. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, ed. by Mey, Jacob L.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Van Valin (ed.), 285–304.Google Scholar
Van Hooste, Koen. 2018. Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Van Hooste, Koen. 2021. A cross-linguistic survey of the instrument-subject alternation. In Van Valin (ed.), 169–188.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Functionalism, anaphora and syntax. (Review article on S. Kuno, Functional Syntax.) Studies in Language 14: 169219.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1994. Extraction restrictions, competing theories and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In Lima, Susan, Corrigan, Roberta L. and Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.), The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 243259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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, 221249. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [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. 2008. Some remarks on Universal Grammar. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Őzçalişkan, S. and Nakamura, K. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 311320. New York: Psychology Press.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. 2009. Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots and controllers. In Guerrero, Lilián, Cerda, Sergio Ibáñez and Belloro, Valeria A. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 4568. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2016. An overview of information structure in three Amazonian languages. In Jocelyn Fernandez-Vest, M. M. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, 7792. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 1999. Intonation and Information Structure. Habilitationsschrift, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar