SELIM12.doc Marta González Orta, Selim 12 (2003-2004): 33—48 THE OLD ENGLISH VERBS OF SMELL PERCEPTION AND EMISSION: ANALYSIS OF THE INTERFACE OF THEIR SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC REPRESENTATION1 � � 1. INTRODUCTION The aim of this paper is to provide the information necessary to establish the interaction of meaning and syntax in the set of verbs designating smell perception and emission in Old English. As a result of the analysis of these verbal predicates, a lexical template will be proposed for each lexical subclass. Following the Lexical Grammar Model, a lexical template encodes the semantic description of a lexical (sub-)class in a formal system of representation which will allow us to explain the syntactic and morphological phenomena within a given lexical (sub-)class. In consonance with this, this theory puts forward a procedure of lexical representation by means of an inventory of lexical templates and lexical mapping rules which will enable us to account for the syntactic configuration of a given predicate. This analysis has been applied to the verbal predicates bladesian, eðian, (ge)stincan, geswæccan, hrenian, recelsian, reocan, steran, and (to)stincan, which according to A Thesaurus of Old English express the faculty of smell in Old English.2 We posit that these lexemes will show basically the same morphological and syntactic behaviour, except for certain particularities which may arise in a detailed description of these lexical units, as this paper will point out. In order to exemplify this research, the Old English 1 This paper is part of the research projects EX2003-0118 and BFF2002-00659, funded by the State University Office with Social European Funds, and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology, respectively. Besides, my thanks to Drs. Francisco Cortés and Ricardo Mairal for generous assistance. 2 The predicate æþmian, though primarily included by Roberts and Kay within this group, has been excluded since in the lexicographic sources below this lexeme appears defined as to raise vapour, boil, or to be heated. Likewise, we have not obtained examples for the predicates gewyrtian, besmocian, and drincan, sharing the meaning to perfume. Marta González Orta 34 dictionaries by Bosworth & Toller (B&T) and Toller & Campbell (T&C) and The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HSK) will supply us with the contexts in which these lexemes appear. 2. THE CONCEPT OF LEXICAL TEMPLATE: SEMANTIC DECOMPOSITIONS ENRICHING ROLE AND REFERENCE GRAMMAR LOGICAL STRUCTURES Within the Lexical Grammar Model, lexical templates are conceived as lexical representations which include syntactic and semantic information within the same format, supplying Role and Reference Grammar logical structures with a semantic decomposition which will define different lexical classes (cf. Cortés & Mairal 2001; Mairal & Cortés forthcoming; Mairal & Faber 2002; Mairal & Van Valin 2001). Van Valin & LaPolla (1997)’s logical structures are based on the classification of predicates attending to their Aktionsart, making reference to the inherent properties of the events that the predicates designate. This classification implies a way to capture syntactic and morphological phenomena, such as the combinatory possibilities of predicates and case assignment, characteristic of the different verbal classes. Thus, within Role and Reference Grammar four classes of verbal predicates are distinguished: states [+static, -telic, -punctual], activities [-static, -telic, -punctual], achievements [-static, +telic, +punctual], and accomplishments (or active accomplishments) [-static, +telic, -punctual], together with their causative counterparts. These are the lexical representations corresponding to the verbal classes mentioned above (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 109): The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 35 9HUE�FODVV� /RJLFDO�VWUXFWXUH� State SUHGLFDWH� (x) or (x, y) Activity GR� (x, [SUHGLFDWH´ (x) or (x, y)]) Achievement INGR SUHGLFDWH� (x) or (x, y), or INGR GR� (x, [SUHGLFDWH´ (x) or (x, y)]) Accomplishment BECOME SUHGLFDWH� (x) or (x, y), or BECOME GR� (x, [SUHGLFDWH´ (x) or (x, y)]) Active accomplishment GR� (x, [SUHGLFDWH�´ (x, (y))]) & BECOME SUHGLFDWH�� (z, x) or (y) Causative a CAUSES b where a, b are LS of any type Table 1: Lexical representations for Aktionsart classes As the chart above shows, logical structures follow the conventions of formal semantics. Constants, in boldface followed by a prime, are part of the semantic metalanguage and will be applied to any language. However, variables in normal typeface are filled by lexical items from the language under study. Finally, the elements in capitals, such as INGR, BECOME or CAUSE, will modify the predicate (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 102). However, more information is required for a detailed description of lexical units, since logical structures lack the semantic information characteristic of lexical classes. This is achieved by incorporating the semantic and syntactic features (internal variables and semantic primitives and external variables, respectively) which are common to the set of verbs which belong to the same lexical class into one unified representation. Thus, in order to construct a lexical template, logical structures will be complemented by a semantic decomposition in terms of ontological constants or internal variables and semantic primitives corresponding to the different lexical classes. The result will be a procedure of lexical representation where meaning description is encapsulated and interacts with the syntactic behaviour of lexical units. Accordingly, Mairal & Faber (2002: 54) describe lexical templates in the following way: Marta González Orta 36 Lexical templates conflate both syntactic information (those aspects of the meaning of a word which are grammatically relevant) and semantic information (those aspects which act as distinctive parameters within a whole lexical class) into one unified representation. 3. THE LEXICAL CLASS OF SMELL VERBS IN OLD ENGLISH Taking into account the information provided by the lexicographic sources mentioned in the introduction of this paper, one interesting feature of the architecture of the lexical class of smell verbs is that it appears divided into two major subclasses: a first one corresponding to the verbs that express the apprehension of things through the sense of smell, and a second one, integrated by those verbal predicates that do not denote any activity in terms of which a smell is perceived, but merely encode the emission of a smell. Therefore, two general (or canonical) lexical templates must be posited: a) Smell perception: [[GR´ (x, [XVH´ (x, QRVH�)])] CAUSE [KDYH�DLU�LQ�OXQJV� (x)]] CAUSE [INGR IHHO´ (x, z)] This lexical representation involves two subevents where an effector (x) participates in the activity of breathing in, which has been further decomposed in the first subevent [[GR´ (x, [XVH´ (x, QRVH�)])] CAUSE [KDYH�DLU�LQ�OXQJV� (x)]], causing the second subevent [INGR IHHO´ (x, z)], where the effector perceives (z). Besides, the operator INGR (ingressive) stands for a punctual state of affairs, as encoded in this terminal subevent. This template, thus, contains the logical structure of a causative active accomplishment showing two external variables (x) and (z), or external argument positions, marked in Roman letters, which will have a syntactic representation. Moreover, the internal variable and instrument QRVH� can have a syntactic realisation, as will be shown in the instrument construction below. b) Smell emission: [KDYH.VPHOO�,�[EH��(smell��[�XQ�SOHDVDQW�])] (x)] The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 37 This second template codifies mainly the emission of a smell (pleasant or unpleasant, depending on the constructions), with no specification of the source of such smell or of any causing entity or activity. 4. FROM LEXICAL TEMPLATES TO MORPHO-SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES: THE LINKING ALGORITHM WITHIN THE LEXICAL GRAMMAR MODEL The two general lexical templates proposed above not only include the semantic information corresponding to the set of verbs of smell perception and emission in Old English, respectively, but also will allow us to explain the morpho-syntactic structures and alternations shown by these verbal predicates. Then, the linking system entails two phases: the first phase of linking will depart from the general lexical templates in order to provide an adequate description of the semantics of the constructions where the lexical class of smell verbs participate. The second phase of linking, on the other hand, will make use of a set of morpho-syntactic rules in order to describe the morphological and syntactic structure of the constituents in the different constructions. In consonance with this, the first phase of the linking algorithm attempts to apply the Lexical Template Modeling Process, which by means of an inventory of lexical mapping rules proposed by Mairal & Cortés (forthcoming) will enable us to account for the mapping between the general lexical template and the semantic constructions shown by the members of each lexical subclass, together with their corresponding construction-based templates, that is, transitive construction, instrument construction, and unspecified object construction within the lexical subclass of smell perception, and stimulus subject construction and resultative stative construction in the subclass of smell emission. The Lexical Template Modeling Process has been summarised by Mairal & Faber (2002: 87) as follows: Lexical templates can be modeled by suppressing external variables, instantiating internal variables, eliminating operators (e.g. CAUSE), or else, by introducing elements resulting from the fusion with other templates iff there is a compatibility between the Marta González Orta 38 features in the lexical template and the syntactic construction under scrutiny. With regard to the second phase of linking, the macrorole assignment principles will motivate the syntactic and morphological behaviour of these verbal predicates from their semantic structure. They concern the assignment of the macroroles Actor and Undergoer, which are “generalizations across the argument-types found with particular verbs which have significant grammatical consequences” (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 139). Thus, the Actor macrorole comprises those arguments whose nature is closer to that of an Agent and the Undergoer subsumes those arguments closer to a Patient. Macroroles are only assigned to core arguments, that is, arguments with no morphological marking as in Present-day English or marked by a grammatical case as in Old English,3 in opposition to oblique arguments, which are introduced by prepositions. According to Van Valin & LaPolla’s macrorole assignment principles (1997: 152-53), the first argument of verbs of smell perception designating an activity will take the macrorole Actor and the second argument Undergoer, whereas in the case of smell emission these predicates involve a state where the first argument becomes Undergoer. Moreover, case assignment is also predicted by the assignment of macroroles: nominative will be assigned to the Actor and Undergoer in the events encoded in the subclasses of smell perception and smell emission, respectively, and accusative to the Undergoer in the subclass of smell perception, except when syntactically realised by a complex structure, as will be shown below.4 3 For a detailed discussion of the Old English grammatical case, see Allen 1995, Denison 1993, Fischer et al. 2000, McLaughlin 1983, and Mitchell 1985. 4 For an exhaustive treatment of Old English syntax from the RRG perspective, with special attention to the relationship between arguments, macroroles and grammatical cases, see Martín 2001, Martín & Caballero 2002, and Roberts 1995. The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 39 5. FROM THE LEXICAL TEMPLATE OF VERBS OF SMELL PER- CEPTION TO THEIR SEMANTIC CONSTRUCTIONS We will now turn our attention to the semantic constructions where the set of verbs of smell perception participate. The Old English predicates which express the perception of a smell are eðian, (ge)stincan, geswæccan, hrenian, and (to)stincan. 5.1. TRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTION (1) Ðonne ge ða swetan stencas JHVWLQFDì, ‘When you smell the sweet odours’ (B&T: Blickl. Homl. 59, 3) (2) Æfæst næfre win KUHQLJH, ‘The religious never smells the wine’ (T&C: Scint. 106, 5) Properties [[GR´ (x, [XVH´ (x, QRVH�)])] CAUSE [KDYH�DLU�LQ�OXQJV� (x)]] CAUSE [INGR IHHO´ (x, z)] x Nominative Actor z Accusative Undergoer Comments The first construction under study is the transitive construction. As the Lexical Template Modeling Process stipulates, the corresponding construction-based template above which provides a semantic representation of this construction and the general lexical template codified by this lexical subclass meet the lexical mapping rule “full matching”, introduced by Mairal & Cortés (forthcoming), according to which there exists an identification of variables, subevents and operators between both the general lexical template and the constructional template. Therefore, this constructional template coincides entirely with the general template above. Moreover, applying the macrorole assignment principles, the variable (x) takes the macrorole Actor and Nominative case and the variable (z) takes the Undergoer macrorole and Accusative. Marta González Orta 40 5.2. INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCTION (3) We oft JHVWLQFDè mid urum nosum ðæt we mid urum eagum gesion ne magon, ‘We usually smell with our noses what we cannot see with our eyes’ (T&C: Past. 433, 20) (4) Hy mid nosan ne magon naht JHVZ FFDQ, ‘They cannot smell anything with the nose’ (T&C: Dom. L. 207) (5) Ðurh ða nosu we WRVWLQFDì, hwæt clæne biþ, hwæt�ful, ‘Through the nose we smell what is clean and what is dirty’ (B&T: Homl. Th. ii. 372, 30)�� Properties [[GR´ (x, [XVH´ (x, QRVH�)])] CAUSE [KDYH�DLU�LQ�OXQJV� (x)]] CAUSE [INGR IHHO´ (x, z)] x Nominative Actor z Accusative / Clausal subordination Undergoer QRVH´ mid/ ðurh + Dative/Accusative Argument-Adjunct Comments The second construction to be analysed is the instrument construction. The corresponding constructional template and the general lexical template also meet the lexical mapping rule “full matching”. As observed in this constructional template, not only the two external variables (x) and (z) have a syntactic realisation, but also the internal variable and instrument QRVH´, as opposed to the previous semantic construction. Taking into account the first subevent in the constructional template, [GR´ (x, [XVH´ (x, QRVH´)])], where according to Mairal & Cortés (forthcoming) “the potential instrument is part of a causal chain and the argument of an implement predicate like XVH´”, if (x) is chosen as Actor, then the instrument QRVH´ will be introduced by the Old English prepositions mid or ðurh. According to Jolly (1991)’s description of prepositional phrases, both adjunct prepositions and argument-adjunct prepositions are predicates “in their own right,” but the difference between them is that the former “introduce an NP into the clause and head PPs which are peripheral (adjunct) modifiers of the core,” whereas the latter “introduce an argument into the The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 41 clause and share it with the LS of the core, rather than taking the LS of the core as an argument” (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 159). In order to account for the argument-adjunct prepositions combined with smell verbs, we must apply Van Valin (2004)’s lexical rule, which says: Assign with [Old English mid, ðurh] to a non-MR argument which is a possible actor […] but which is not selected as a MR. Applying the macrorole assignment principles, the variable (x) takes the macrorole Actor and Nominative case, QRVH´ as an argument-adjunct will be assigned the prepositions mid or ðurh, and (z) takes the Undergoer macrorole and Accusative, except in the case of being syntactically realised by complex structures. Within Role and Reference Grammar, complex structures are the result of combining the theory of juncture and the theory of nexus. The theory of juncture deals with the types of units involved in complex constructions derived from the layered structure of the clause, that is, nuclear, core, clausal, or sentential. The theory of nexus, on the other hand, takes into account the type of relationship among the units in complex constructions: coordination, cosubordination or subordination. The difference between subordinate and non-subordinate junctures lies in the fact that only the former function as arguments of the main verb, since they may be clefted and occur as privileged syntactic arguments in a passive construction (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 461-62). Thus, as the properties in this construction illustrate, clausal subordinations will take the macrorole Undergoer. 5.3. UNSPECIFIED OBJECT CONSTRUCTION (6) Habbaþ opene nose, ne magon HèLDQ, ‘They have open noses, but they cannot smell’ (B&T: Ps. 113) (7) Sume magon gehiran, sume JHVWLQFDQ, ‘Some can hear, some can smell’ (B&T: Bt. 41, 5; Fox 252, 24) Properties [[GR´ (x, [XVH´ (x, QRVH�)])] CAUSE [KDYH�DLU�LQ�OXQJV� (x)]] CAUSE [INGR IHHO´ (x, Ø)] Marta González Orta 42 x Nominative Actor Comments The last construction to be explained within this lexical subclass is the unspecified object construction. Levin (1993: 33) posits that this construction “is manifested with a wide range of activity verbs. […] The verb in this variant is understood to have as object something that qualifies as a typical object of the verb”. The corresponding constructional template and the general lexical template meet the lexical mapping rule “suppression of variables”, according to which “canonical LT variables can be suppressed iff the basic interpretation of the canonical LT is not violated” (cf. Mairal & Cortés forthcoming). Therefore, in this constructional template there will be only a macrorole Actor corresponding to the variable (x) and taking Nominative case, since the external variable (z) is not lexically filled. As a conclusion from the above discussion, it should be pointed out that taking into account the Lexical Iconicity Principle-Beta Reading (cf. Cortés & Mairal 2002: 20), which says that the syntactic variability of a lexeme is connected with its higher position within the semantic hierarchy of a given (sub-)class, the predicate stincan (together with its variables gestincan and tostincan) seems to codify a generic meaning within the lexical subclass of smell perception since it participates in all the semantic constructions described above (cf. examples in (1), (3), (5), and (7)), whereas the predicates eðian, geswæccan, and hrenian, which only take part in a semantic construction, the unspecified object construction, the instrument construction, and the transitive construction, respectively (cf. (6), (4), and (2)), can be regarded as more specific. 6. FROM THE LEXICAL TEMPLATE OF VERBS OF SMELL EMISSION TO THEIR SEMANTIC CONSTRUCTIONS The Old English predicates which express the emission of a smell are bladesian, recelsian, reocan, steran, and stincan. The semantic constructions under this lexical subclass are presented below: 6.1. STIMULUS SUBJECT CONSTRUCTION a.1. (8) %ODGHVLDè, ‘They smell (pleasantly)’ (T&C: An. Ox. 554) The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 43 a.2. (9) nu he VWLQJè, ‘Now he smells (unpleasantly)’ (HSK: Cowsgosp ) (10) he U\Fì, ‘He smells (very strongly)’ (B&T: Lchdm, i. 260, 8) (11) Ond se lichoma VWDQF ond þæt heafod swa swote swa rosan blostma ond lilian, ‘And the body and the head smelt as sweaty as roses and lilies’ (HSK: Comartyr ) (12) ond ic fulre eom þonne þis fen swearte þæt her yfle adelan VWLQFHè, ‘And I am more unclean than this dark dirt that here smells like evil dirt’ (HSK: Coriddle ) Properties a.1. [KDYH.VPHOO�,�[EH��(smell��[SOHDVDQW�])] (x)] x Nominative Undergoer a.2. [KDYH.VPHOO�,�[EH��(smell��[XQSOHDVDQW�])] (x)] x Nominative Undergoer Comments The first construction under study within the lexical subclass of smell emission is the stimulus subject construction. As Levin (1993: 188) points out, these predicates “do not take the perceiver as their subject”, as in the subclass of smell perception. “Rather, these verbs take the stimulus as their subject and express the perceiver in a to prepositional phrase. In addition, these verbs take an adjective phrase complement predicated of the stimulus”, (cf. (11) and (12)). However, in opposition to Present-day English, the Old English predicates in the stimulus subject construction do not express lexically the perceiver. Thus, in this constructional template there will be only a macrorole Undergoer corresponding to the emitter of a pleasant (in a.1) or unpleasant (in a.2) smell, that is, the variable (x), which takes Nominative case since the state of affairs in this constructional template denotes a stative logical structure. Marta González Orta 44 6.2. RESULTATIVE STATIVE CONSTRUCTION a.1. (13) 6WHU hyne mid ðære wyrte, ‘Perfume him with the herb’ (B&T: Lchdm. i. 98, 19: 206, 2) a.2. (14) 5HFHOVD hine, ‘Perfume it (with incense)’ (B&T: Lchdm. ii. 344, 18) Properties a.1. [GR´ (w, [XVH´ (w, y)])] CAUSE [KDYH.VPHOO�,� [EH�� (smell�� [SOHDVDQW�])] (x)] w Nominative Actor y mid + Dative Argument-Adjunct x Accusative Undergoer a.2. [GR´ (w, [XVH´ (w, Ø)])] CAUSE [KDYH.VPHOO�,� [EH�� (smell�� [SOHDVDQW�])] (x)] w Nominative Actor x Accusative Undergoer Comments The last construction to be explained is the resultative stative construction. This constructional template and the general lexical template above meet the lexical mapping rule “predicate integration condition”, according to which “the constructional template may introduce a new predicate into the canonical lexical template if the semantics of the added predicate is compatible with the semantic content of the lexical template. A case in point is the middle, the caused motion and the resultative construction” (cf. Mairal & Cortés forthcoming). That is the case of the constructional templates in (a.1) and (a.2), in which a new subevent is introduced, [GR´ (w, [XVH´ (w, y)])] and [GR´ (w, [XVH´ (w, Ø)])], respectively. In these constructional templates the external variable (w) acts as effector using the instrument (y) in order to cause the emission of a pleasant smell. Thus, (w) functions as Actor and takes Nominative case, the variable (y) when lexically filled, as already described in the instrument The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 45 construction, will be introduced by the preposition mid, and finally (x) will take the Undergoer macrorole and Accusative case. Finally, it is important to note that, unlike the subclass of smell perception, the results obtained for the lexical subclass of smell emission have proved that it is quite impossible to distinguish a lexical unit showing a more generic or prototypical nature in terms of the Lexical Iconicity Principle-Beta Reading; in fact, as illustrated above (cf. examples in (8-14)), the predicates which participate in the stimulus subject construction, that is, bladesian, reocan, and stincan, do not take part in the resultative stative construction (in which recelsian and steran do), and vice versa. 7. CONCLUSION The notion of lexical template has been integrated in the Lexical Grammar Model framework for lexical analysis as a way of representing the interaction between syntax and semantics within lexical classes. Thus, lexical templates enrich the logical structures as developed by Van Valin & LaPolla (1997) with a semantic decomposition which allows for the capture of generalisations within verbal classes, reducing the information to be included in the lexical entries. Therefore, this paper has accounted for the interaction between the semantic structure of the set of verbs conforming the lexical subclasses of smell perception and emission in Old English and their syntactic behaviour, together with the morphological marking of the constituents in the sentences where they appear. Thus, our proposal of a general lexical template for these two verbal subclasses and a set of linking mechanisms between the constructional templates and the morphological and syntactic patterning exhibited by their members implies a way to capture the interrelation of the semantic and syntactic structure of smell verbs. Marta González Orta UNED Marta González Orta 46 WORKS CITED Allen C. L. 1995: Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Clarendon Press, Oxford & New York. Bosworth, J. & T. N. Toller 1973: An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cortés, F. J. & R. Mairal 2001: Representaciones Semánticas y Estructuras Sintácticas: Propuestas de Interrelación entre el Léxico y la Gramática. In Polifonías Textuales: Ensayos in Honorem Mª del Carmen Fernández Leal. Ed. M. Brito & J. I. Oliva. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses Ediciones, La Laguna. 75-83. Cortés, F. J. & R. Mairal 2002: A Preliminary Design for a Syntactic Dictionary of Old English on Semantic Principles. In A Changing World of Words. Ed. J.E. Díaz. Rodopi, Amsterdam. 3-46. Denison, D. 1993: English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. Clarendon Press, London & New York. Fischer O., A. van Kemenade, W. Koopman & W. van der Wurff 2000: The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jolly, J. 1991: Prepositional Analysis within the Framework of Role and Reference Grammar. Peter Lang, New York. Levin, B. 1993: English Verb Classes and Alternations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London. Mairal, R. & F. J. Cortés (forthcoming): Rethinking Lexical Representations in Role and Reference Grammar. In The English Lexicon: Structure and Genesis. Ed. D. Kastovsky. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Mairal, R. & P. Faber 2002: Functional Grammar and Lexical Templates. In New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar. Ed. R. Mairal & M. J. Pérez. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 39-94. Mairal, R. & R. D. Van Valin, Jr. 2001: What Role and Reference Grammar Can Do for Functional Grammar. In Challenges and Developments in The OE Verbs of Smell Perception and Emission 47 Functional Grammar. Ed. M. J. Pérez. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 42: 137-166. Martín, J. 2001: Sintaxis medieval I: Complementación, caso y sintaxis verbal. In Lingüística histórica inglesa. Ed. I. de la Cruz & J. Martín. Ariel, Barcelona: 224-312. Martín, J. & L. Caballero 2002: Arguments or Macroroles Two Functional Approaches to Old English Quirky Case. Journal of English Studies 3: 131-148. McLaughlin, J. C. 1983: Old English Syntax: A Handbook. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Mitchell, B. 1985: Old English Syntax. Clarendon Press, Oxford & New York. Nakamura, W. 1997: A Constraint Based Typology of Case Systems: Role and Reference Grammar Website. http:// wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg. Paris, L. A. 1999: The Spanish Causative Construction ‘Hacer-Infinitive’. A Role and Reference Grammar Description: Role and Reference Grammar Website. http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg. Park, K. 1995: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Case Marking in Korean: A Role and Reference Grammar Account: Role and Reference Grammar Website. http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg. Rissanen, M. & O. Ihalainen 1991: The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic and Dialectal. University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Roberts, J. & C. Kay 1995: A Thesaurus of Old English. King’s College London Medieval Studies, London. Roberts, L. 1995: Pivots, Voice and Macroroles: From Germanic to Universal Grammar. Australian Journal of Linguistics 15: 157-214. Toller T. N. & A. Campbell 1972: An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Supplement. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Van Valin, R. D. 2004: Lexical Representation, Co-composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics: Role and Reference Grammar Website. http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg. http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/rrg Marta González Orta 48 Van Valin, R. D. & R. LaPolla 1997: Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. * † *