Abstract
The assignment of thematic relations to particular constituents of a sentence is not always dependent on information contained in the valency (“thematic grid”) of individual lexical items; rather, there are a number of different mechanisms that assign thematic relations. Among these there is the possibility of relating constituents directly to variables present in the schema evoked by the verb, independently of grammatical mediation; the extent of this phenomenon is still to be verified, but it seems to be considerable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As is known, languages differ widely in their use of features for grammatical purposes. As an extreme example, Trask (1992, p. 44) mentions the semantic feature “long-stemmed flower” as one of the criteria in noun classification in Malay. In English a parallel phenomenon can be observed in the difference between the ways to express plurality of cat (two cats) and cattle (two heads of cattle, not *two cattles).
- 2.
Apud Leão (2015).
- 3.
The possibility of establishing this boundary is, as is known, questioned by some linguists; I do not intend to enter this discussion here, but may add that kee** the two kinds of knowledge apart seems to yield good results, descriptively speaking.
- 4.
Schemas are notated here in CAPITALS, and represent concepts, not words.
- 5.
The designation Theme for the entity that undergoes motion is common in the literature, and I have used it in my previous books. But it is an inconvenient term, since many authors use it in several very different meanings; I have accordingly substituted Mover, which is less ambiguous (I follow here Langacker 1991).
- 6.
See explanation of ETRs, semantic roles and elaboration in Sects. 3.2.4–3.2.5.
- 7.
At least nowadays. Until the mid-twentieth century some linguists attempted to work exclusively on the formal side of language, cf. Harris (1951). Hockett (1958, pp. 137–138) places the semantic subsystem in the periphery, suggesting that it be relegated to some “sister science” to linguistics. He adds that “anyone is free to focus on the central subsystems [grammar, understood as syntax plus morphology, phonology, and morphophonemics/MAP] or to invade the peripheral ones as he pleases”. I doubt that many linguists would accept this view today.
- 8.
With some variation; see Perini (2015, section 4.7.1).
- 9.
The last two examples are from Huddleston (1984, p. 191), where the problem is clearly identified.
- 10.
Terms like “first” and so on do not imply an ordering or rules; they are used for ease of exposition only.
- 11.
The converse situation, an ETR without an overt complement, is acceptable, and results in schematic filling-in, as in she is reading (necessarily, something). I avoid using the term “theta criterion”, which is, first, usually conceived of as grammatical, whereas the assignment requirement applies to CRs, and only mentions ETRs, not semantic roles; and, second, because I do not agree with the theta criterion’s one-to-one correlation between theta roles and complements (“arguments”).
- 12.
This is obviously only a partial representation of the CR, omitting many factors not directly connected with valency, such as definiteness (the), tense (gave), and so on.
- 13.
- 14.
We may also remember that object NPs with the role Agent seem to be forbidden, so that the tiger in [8] cannot in any case be understood as the Agent.
- 15.
Evidence for this is reported in Lima, Pinha, and Perini (ms); it is summarized in Perini (2015, section 5.1).
- 16.
Framenet: corporal_punishment.
References
Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. Roderick Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Gross, Maurice. 1975. Méthodes en syntaxe [Methods in syntax]. Paris: Hermann.
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Structural linguistics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18 (3): 369–411.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Leão, Ângela Vaz. 2015. ‘Um apólogo’ de Machado de Assis em seis vozes [‘Um apólogo’ by Machado de Assis in six voices]. Belo Horizonte: Ed. PUCMinas.
Perini, Mário A. 2015. Describing verb valency: Practical and theoretical issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
———. 2019. Thematic relations: A study in the grammar-cognition interface. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Ruppenhofer, Josef, et al. 2006. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu.
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge University Press.
Trask, R.L. 1992. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Perini, M.A. (2021). Assignment by Default. In: Function and Class in Linguistic Description. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78173-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78173-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78172-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78173-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)