Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:50:18.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

I. M. Schlesinger
I. M. Schlesinger
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a widespread current assumption that the semantic relations underlying linguistic constructions reflect the way human beings ineluctably, and hence universally, perceive events and situations. This assumption will be questioned in this paper. To make the point, a linguistic construction purportedly expressing the instrumental case will be examined. It will be convenient here to juxtapose my treatment of this construction with the one proposed by case grammarians, and by Fillmore in particular. However, the discussion has implications for semantic relations in any linguistic theory, whether they appear there as semantic roles, thematic relations, theta roles, or whatever. These implications will be discussed in the final section.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 189 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1973). Some thoughts on agentivity. JL 9. 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Wilkins, W. (1986). Control, PRO, and the projection principle. Lg 62. 120–153.Google Scholar
Delancey, S. (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8. 181–213.Google Scholar
Dillon, G. L. (1974). Some postulates characterizing volitive NPs. JL 10. 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, R. C. (1970). Recent studies on language universals. FL 6. 505–561.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1969). Subjects, speakers, and roles. Unpublished MS, August 1969.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Types of lexical information. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovitz, L. A. (eds.) Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 370–392.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. 59–81.Google Scholar
Forster, J. F. (1979). Agents, accessories and owners: the cultural base and the rise of ergative structures, with particular reference to Ozark English. In Plank, F. (ed.) Ergativity. towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional–typological introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J. E. (1978). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1970). Some remarks on case grammar. LIn 1. 501–511.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. LIn 18. 369–412.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 303–333.Google Scholar
Koch, W. (1978). Kasus-Kognition-Kausalität: zur semantischen Analyse der instrumentalen mit-Phrase. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic Gestalts. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 236–287.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, D. L. F. (1973). The instrumental case in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pleines, J. (1978). 1st der Universalitätsanspruch der Kasusgrammatik berechtigt? In Abraham, W. (ed.) Valence, semantic case, and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 316–328.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1974). Relational concepts underlying language. In Schiefelbusch, M. L. & Lloyd, L. L. (eds.) Language perspectives – Acquisition, retardation and intervention. Baltimore, Maryland: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1977). Production and comprehension of utterances. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1979). Cognitive and linguistic structures: the case of the instrumental. JL 15. 307–324.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1982). Steps to language: toward a theory of language acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1988). The origin of relational categories. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds.) Categories and strategies in language acquisition theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. & Halter, A. (forthcoming). The experiencer as an agent.Google Scholar
Starosta, St. (1978). The one per sent solution. In Abraham, W. (ed.) Valence, semantic case, and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Oosten, J. (1977). Subjecthood and agenthood in English. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 459–471.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). The case for surface case. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar