Advertisement

Introduction

  • Mário A. Perini
Chapter

Abstract

Thematic relations are the connections between complements of a sentence—its subject, object, prepositional phrases, and so on—and semantic functions such as Agent and Patient, which are ultimately variables of the schemata evoked by a verb or other lexical items. Thematic relations include, but are not limited to, semantic roles; they also comprise elaborate relations such as “kicker,” “drinker,” and “with his foot,” which are ingredients of our final understanding of a sentence, its cognitive representation. This book is concerned with thematic relations, in general, and the rather complex ways they are assigned to sentence constituents. In this chapter some basic notions necessary in the study of such relations are defined.

Keywords

Cognitive representation Elaborate thematic relation Elaboration Role assignment Semantic roles Thematic relations 

References

  1. ADESSE (Alternancias de diátesis y esquemas sintáctico-semánticos del español). Retrieved from http://adesse.uvigo.es
  2. Busse, W. (Ed.). (1994). Dicionário sintáctico de verbos portugueses [A syntactic dictionary of Portuguese verbs]. Coimbra: Almedina.Google Scholar
  3. Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. S. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DICOVALENCE (2010). Dictionnaire de valence des verbes français [A valency dictionary of French verbs]. Retrieved from bach.arts.kuleuven.be/dicovalence/Google Scholar
  5. DISC. (1997). Dizionario italiano Sabatini-Coletti. Firenze: Giunti.Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns. A challenge for semantic-based accounts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Framenet (data). Retrieved from Framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu
  9. Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I. F., & Götz, D. (2004). A valency dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns and adjectives. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Perini, M. A. (2015). Describing verb valencies: Practical and theoretical issues. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schlesinger, I. M., Keren-Portnoy, T., & Parush, T. (2001). The structure of arguments. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Straňáková-Lopatková, M., Reznckova, V., & Zabokrtský, Z. (Internet). Valency Lexicon for Czech: From verbs to nouns. Prague: Center for Computational Linguistics, Charles University. Retrieved from http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz
  16. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Talmy, L. (2007). Foreword. In M. González-Márquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Vilela, M. (1992). Gramática de valências: teoria e aplicação [Valency grammar: Theory and applications]. Coimbra: Almedina.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mário A. Perini
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations