1887
Volume 48, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study answers the following questions: why the semantic roles of agent or patient are often unmarked; why other semantic roles, such as benefactive, stative locative, goal, or source, are unmarked when used with some verbs and marked when used with other verbs; and why semantic relations such as ‘associative’, ‘instrumental’, ‘reason’, ‘purpose’, and others often referred to as ‘adjuncts’ are usually marked. The study, based on Sino-Russian idiolects spoken in the Far East of Russia, proposes that at an early stage in the formation of grammatical systems by adult speakers, if a noun phrase fulfills the role of one of the participants in the minimal participant structure of the event, the semantic role of the noun phrase is not marked. If the noun phrase does not fulfill the role of one of the participants in the minimal participant-structure of the event, the role of the noun phrase must be marked.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.22029.fra
2023-08-24
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beavers, John
    2010 The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language86(4). 821–864. 10.1353/lan.2010.0040
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0040 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden
    2020The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chao, Yuen-Ren
    1968A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. COCA Corpus of Contemporary American English
    COCA Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (last access16 July 2023).
  7. Dixon, R. M. W.
    2009–2012Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 1: Methodology> (2009); Vol. 2: Grammatical topics (2010); Vol. 3: Further grammatical topics (2012). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dobrushina, Nina & Elena Sokur
    2022 Spoken corpora of Slavic languages. Russian Linguistics46(3). 77–93. 10.1007/s11185‑022‑09254‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-022-09254-9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dowty, David
    1979Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. 1991 Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language67(3). 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  11. Feng, Shengli
    2019Prosodic syntax of Chinese. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, Charles
    1968 The case for case. InEmmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–25. London: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
    2004 Tense and aspect as coding means. InBernard Comrie & Ekkehard Wolff (eds), Journal of West African Languages Special Issue30(2). 53–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018 Coding locative predication in Chadic. InAlessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives, 203–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.339.12fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.339.12fra [Google Scholar]
  15. 2022 Toward a functional typology of adpositions. Theoretical implications. Folia Linguistica56(1). 123–151. 10.1515/flin‑2021‑2006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2021-2006 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2023A typology of reference systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192896438.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192896438.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Natalia Gurian & Sergei Karpenko
    2021Formation of grammar by adult speakers: The case of Sino-Russian idiolects. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004465848
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465848 [Google Scholar]
  18. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Meichun Liu & Yingying Ye
    2020 The reference system of Modern Mandarin. Australian Journal of Linguistics40(1). 45–73. 10.1080/07268602.2019.1698512
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2019.1698512 [Google Scholar]
  19. Geeraerts, Dirk
    2010Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gruber, Jeffrey S.
    1965 Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
  21. Hagège, Clause
    2010Adpositions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
    2006From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.280
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.280 [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, James C. T., Audrey Li & Yafei Li
    2009The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kandell, Eric
    2006In search of memory. New York-London: W.W. Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue
    1997 The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research13(4). 301–347. 10.1191/026765897666879396
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897666879396 [Google Scholar]
  26. LaPolla, Randy
    1990 Grammatical relations in Chinese: Synchronic and diachronic considerations. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.
  27. LaPolla, Randy J.
    1993 Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology63(4). 759–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lazard, Gilbert
    2001 La typologie actancielle. InLazard, Gilbert, (ed.), Études de linguistique générale. Typologie grammaticale, 65–78. Leuven-Paris: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Levin, Beth & Steven Pinker
    (eds.) 1991Lexical and conceptual semantics. Oxford: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mallinson, Graham & Barry J. Blake
    1981Language typology. Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Matthews, Peter
    1997The concise Oxford Dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mithun, Marianne
    2004 On the assumption of the sentence as the basic unit of syntactic structure. InZygmunt Frajzyngier, David Rood & Adam Hodges (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories. [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], 169–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mithun, Marianne & Wallace Chafe
    1999 What are S, A, and O?Studies in Language23(3). 579–606. 10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit [Google Scholar]
  35. Moretti, Lucia, Marleen Hentrup, Kurt Kotrschal & Friederike Range
    2015 The influence of relationships on neophobia and exploration in wolves and dogs. Animal Behavior1071. 159–173. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Perekhval’skaya, E. V. / Перехвальская Е. В
    2013 Pусско-китайский пиджин и pусский “интepязык” [Russian-Chinese pidgin and the Russian ‘interlanguage’]. Труды института лингвистических исследований. v.IX1, part 3. St. Petersburg: Nauka
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pustejovsky, James
    1995The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Edit Doron and Ivy Sichel
    2010Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Riesberg, Sonja, Kurt Malcher & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2019 How universal is agent-first? Evidence from symmetrical voice languages. Language95(3). 523–561. 10.1353/lan.2019.0055
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0055 [Google Scholar]
  40. Selinker, Larry
    1972 Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics101. 209–241. 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1‑4.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 [Google Scholar]
  41. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
    2019 Argument selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations. An introduction. InWitzlack-Makarevich & Bickel (eds.), Argument selectors. A new perspective on grammatical relations, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.123.01wit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.01wit [Google Scholar]
  42. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Balthasar Bickel
    2019Argument selectors. A new perspective on grammatical relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.123
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.22029.fra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.22029.fra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error