Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T16:54:23.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Semantic Macroroles

from Part Two - Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

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

Summary

This chapter offers an in-depth discussion of semantic macroroles and macrorole assignment in Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). In the first part, the RRG theory of thematic relations is discussed in the context of a brief history of theta roles and generalized semantic roles. The second part turns to the role of Aktionsart, semantic and syntactic transitivity, and causativity in macrorole assignment. Although the focus of the chapter is on standard RRG, the third part of the chapter discusses alternative approaches, concerning the number of macroroles that should be postulated and the semantic features that are relevant to macrorole assignment.

Keywords

thematic relationslogical structuremacrorolescausativitythree-place predicates
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 242 - 268
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

Abreu Gomes, Cristina. 2003. Dative alternation in Brazilian Portuguese: Typology and constraints. Language Design 5: 67–78.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. 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): 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. On the projection of arguments. In Benedicto, Elena and Runner, Jeffrey (eds.), Functional Projections, 19–47. Amherst: GSLA.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, 329–394. 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: 59–138.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): 547–619.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. 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, 457–475. 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, 119–156. 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): 290–319.CrossRefGoogle 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: 535–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle 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, 183–196. 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, 103–123. Tres 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, 189–213. 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, 268–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. 1997. Beyond subjects and objects: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1: 279–346.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.), 593–624. 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): 229–290.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, 1–164. 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, 373–389. 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, 62–82. 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, 263–302. 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): 31–64.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, 703–738. 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, 67–107. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisann and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 5–26. 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 289–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, Wendy (ed.). 1988. Thematic Relations, Vol. 21: Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×