See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292436688

Review of Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.: An Introduction to Syntax (Cambridge,

2001).

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

0 298

1 author:

Klaas Willems
Ghent University
118 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The alternation between the Indirect Object Construction and the Prepositional Object Construction in present-day German. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Klaas Willems on 13 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 60 Reviews

König, Ekkehard (1988), "Concessive Connectives and rent linguistic research. Along with Simon Dik's good
Concessive Sentences: Cross-Linguistic Regulariries Fwnctional Grammar, the rheory o{ Role and Ref- ensui
and Pragmatic Principles", tn: Language (Jniversals,
erence Grammarwas one of the first models within mati(
edited byJohn A. Hawkins, Oxford: Blackwell, 145-
the wider generative paradigm to pay due artenrion
166. Parti
Lehmann, Christian (19S4), Der Relatittsatz. Typologie not only to syntactic structures proper but also to a ren
seiner Strwk.twren. Theorie seiner Funletionen. Kom- relations between syntactic rules and semantic as wait
p en diwm s e ine r Gr ammatik (Languase lJniversals well as pragmatic aspecrs of language (cf. Van Valin ent s1
Series 3), Tiibingen: Gunter Narr. 1993 f or a summary of his theory and Van Valin and ern-c
Raible,'Wolfgan g (199 2), J wnk ti o n. E in e D im e n s i on d e r LaPoila 1997 for a more comprehensive account). conc
Sprache und ihre Realisierungsformen zwischen Ag-
It comes as no surprise, then, that Van Valin's take ,
gre gation und Integration, Heidelberg: C. Vinter.
new textbook shares some characteristics with his fo re,
Seiler, Hansjakob (1995), "Cognitive-Conceptual
Structure and Linguistic Encoding: Language Uni- own theory - and this is not to the disadvantage of and c
versals and Typology in the UNITYP Framework", the book. The author shows a keen interesr in top- rexrb
in: Approaches to Language Typology, edited by ics which transcend the boundaries of individual sive1,
Masayosl.ri Shibatani and Theodora Bynon, Ox{ord: theories, for example problems concerning the tra- role <

Clarendon P ress, 27 3 -326. ditional notion of parts of speech Qtartes orationis), rect c
Linguistic Typ o Lo gy : M orp h olo gy
Song, Jae Jung (2001 ),
the relation between verb-specific semantic roles
and Syntax, Harlow: Longman. fier a
and thematic relations, the way syntactic hierarchy ifiers
Thompson, Sandra A. (1998), "A Discourse Explana-
tion for the Cross-Linguistic Differences in and lexical entries are related, as well as, more gen- tiona
tl're
Grammar of Interrogation and Negation", in.. Case, erally, perspectiviry, i.e. the differences that arise time
Typology and Grammar: in Honor of Barry J. Blake, when the same grammatical phenomena are ana- refer,
edited by Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, Am- lysed from different points of view Of course, inas
sterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 309-341. many issues are merely touched upon by the struc
author, but this is not surprising nor should it be tiona
Reoieuted by Torsten Leuschner (Gent)
considered a shortcoming since the book is explic- that i
itly presented as an Introdwction to syntax, nor as a uents
fi nal in-deprh analysis. coufl
Special menrion should be made of the fact that T
An Introduction to Syntax. Robert D. Van Valin, the book has been very carefully edited (no typos, whic
Jr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 , clearly printed figures, .rt..rrirré lrrrglrrgL ,rrj *b- Gran
xvi + 239 p. ject indices) and includes valuable suggestions for tenti(
further reading as well as exercises at the end of Gran
each chapter. consi
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. is Chair of the Department The organisation of the book is transparent and prim
of Linguistics at the University at Buffalo (The engaging thanks to its cumulative structure. The Sema
State University of New York). Among syn- first chapter is a clear and well-written survey of Rwnr,
tacticians and typologists, he is best known for some of the basic concepts and distinctions com- mean
developing as well as inspiring the theory of gram- mon to modern theories of syntax. Moreover, all ask r
mar called Role and Reference Grammar. While basic concepts are printed in boldface, rendering sema
undoubtedly an offshoot of the generative para- this first chapter parricularly suitable for introduc- t hls
digm, this theory has a wider, more differentiated tory courses in syntax and the theory of grammar reiev,
and phenomenologically more adequate scope at graduate level. Thanks ro this introducrory of vi
than canonical Chomskyan grammar (Govern- chapter the book presupposes virtually no prior 'Mac
ment-and-Binding Tbeory and the Minimalist knowledge of syntactic theory. The remainder of siden
Program). The obvious reason is that Role and the book is divided into five chaprers, entitled elega
Reference Grammar explicitly reiecrs Chomsky's 'Grammatical relations','Dependency relations,, one ir
so-called Awtonomous Syntax Principle, which 'Constituent structure','Grammar and lexicon,, eraliz
says that syntactic rules do not make reference to and 'Theories of syntax', respectively. In
pragmatic, phonological, or semantic information In the second chapter the author is concerned relati
(cf. Radford 1988,31). This principle, anachronis- with the norion oÍ grammatical relations, previ- suPer
tic and odd as it may be, is stillwidely held in cur- ously introduced on p.4, and this chapter can with Amer

i:od reason be considered as the basis for the
=nsuing chapters. Chapter 3, too, deals with gram-
::atical relations, but from the point of view of a
rarticular theorS viz. Dependency Grammar. It is
: remarkable feature of the book rhat one has to
r-ait until chapter 5 to learn more about .constiru-
-nt strucrure' - usually the topic which many mod_
:rn-day introductions ro synrax (especially those
:cnceived along the lines of Chomskyan grammar)
:;ke as their starting point. It is worthwhile, rhere-
::re, to recall the distinction between relational
:.:d constituent structure, which also underlies this
::rtbook. 'Relational structure'- the topic exten-
s:..'ely dealt with in chapters 2 and 3 concerns the
- does, however, discuss representational schemata
:-.le of concepts hke subject, direct object and indi-
-:ct object, as well as relationshipsbetween modi-
,-:er and modified. (as in NPs with attributive mod-
r-iers or in VPs with adverbial modifiers). .Rela-
:ional structure'is interrelated with, yer at the same
:ime distinct from 'constituent structure,, which
:efers to the hierarchical organization of the unirs
in a sentence. According to Van Valin, ,constituent
structure' (or'phrase structure') differs from ,rela-
tional structure' in being purely formal in narure,
that is, not based upon the meaning of the constit-
uents (p.110). Vhether this view is correct, is, of
course, debatable.
The second chapter focuses on some conceprs
.
:,.-hiclr play a major role in Role and Reference
Grammar. For instance, the author pays much at-
:ention ro semanric roles (cf. Ch. Fillmore,s Case
Grammar), which is not surprising since he justly
considers the syntax/semantics interface to be of
nrimary importance to the theory of grammar.
Semantic roles can be highly specific (e.g., Giver,
Runner, Preswmer, Smeller,etc.), depending on the
neaning of the verb, which promprs the author to
ask which levels of generality with respect to
semantic roles "are linguistically relevanr,, (p.Zg).
This focus induces Van Valin ro assume thai it is
relevant from a contrastive and typological point
oi view to distinguish between ,*o-ro-àIl.d
'\'lacroroles', Actor and Undergoer, which he con_
siders to be "very useful conceprs thar permit the
elegant expression of important lingulstic (and,
one is inclined to add, cross-linguistic, K.rW.) gen-
eralizations" (p.30).
_
In chapter 3 Van Valin discusses d,ependency
relations. Although compact, rather one-sided and
superficial, this chapter has its merits from an
American point of view. The least one can say
Reviews
about it is that this chapter is a valuable atrempr ar
introducing a perspective on syntactic relations
and cooccurrence which many linguists still are
urrfamiliar with (compaÍe, e .g.r palÀer §94).The
chapter focuses on aspects of structuralist syntax,
in particular valency and concomitant representa_
tional issues. Curiousiy, however, the author re_
frains from discussing the theory of Dependency
Grammar founded by French linguist Lucien
Tesnière. This theory - which can be found in
Tesnière's posrhumous Élé*ént, de syntaxe
structurale (1959) - is in fact the only full-fledged
theory of dependency relations so far. Van Valin
found in Richard Hudson's 'Word Grammar
(1984),uzhich corresponds to Tesnière,s theory in a
number of points.
Chapter 4 is a rather conventional introduction
to constituent structure along the lines of genera_
tive gramma r (X-bar Syntax).Theauthor discusses
and exemplifies several syntactic tests, taking grear
pains to clarify technical terms whenever neces_
sary. As is the case throughout the book, this chap_
ter benefits from a wealth of examples, often from
typologically very different languages recall that
-
the author is an expert in Lakhota (Siouan) and
YateeZapotec (Oto-Manguean). The examples in
this book are taken from over 50 languages, includ-
ing Japanese, Basque, Malagasy, Russian, Dutch,
Swahili, and Tagalog.
Like the preceding chapter, chapter 5 (,Gram_
mar and lexicon') mainly addresses issues of tradi-
tional generative syntax, above all the problem of
subcategorization, distinguishing verÈs with no
object (e.g. the English verb die) from verbs occur-
ring with one NP (e.g. devour), with an Np and a
PP (e.g.put),erc. (p. 156-157).Here again Van Valin
contrasts phrase-structure rules with relational_
dependency rules (p.162ff.), thus exemplifying
how the relarions between synractic structirres and
the lexicon can be described from different theo_
retical perspectives.
Finally, chapter 6 is particularly instructive to
students. It is a comparison of four generarive the_
ories with regard to the concepts and tools used in
analysing phenomena like case assignment, finite
verb agreement, active-passive alternation and the
kind of transformation called ,dative shift' (e.g.,
The yowng teacber gdve ít neto book to tbe old.
reoman -+ The young teacher gave tlte old.lnomdn
anew book,p.175).The four theories discussed are
62 Reviews
Relational Grammar (D. Perlmutter), Lexical-
Functional Grammar (J. Bresnan), Government-
and-BindingTbeory (N. Chomsky), and Role and
Reference Grammar. Although the discussion
tends to simplify a number of issues, one cannot
deny that this part of the book is very useful as it
gives a brief illustration of how different points of
view within the overall generative paradigm come
to different conclusions concerning the same sub-
jects. Furthermore, the chapter illustrates that the
1abe1 of 'generative grammar' covers a variety of
perspectives that are not always entirely comPati-
ble, ranging from those primarily aiming at formal
accounts of syntactic structures to those in which
syntactic explanations merge with semantic and
Pragmatic ones.
With hindsight, it is an attractive feature of this
book not to restrict its focus to a single theory or
theoretical model. For students who will use it cs a
textbook it offers, therefore, an opportunity to
become acquainted not only with several PersPec-
tives in current syntactic research but also with a
bevy of technical terms used in most of them, like
ergativity, (left- and right-)branching, object agree-
ment, configurational vs. non-configurational lan-
guages, thematic relation, dependency, valency,
case, etc. At the same time, however, this Introduc-
tion displays a number of shortcomings as we1l. I
have already pointed out thàt some chapters are
somewhat superficial (especially chapter 3), and
the final chapter is based on a rather arbitrary sam-
ple of theories, leaving out other equally interest-
ing, if not morc promising theories, above ali
Dependency Grammar, Functional Grammar, Sys-
temic-Funtional Grammar (M.A.K. Halliday) as
weil as recent communication-based approaches to
syntax. Of course, a textbook like the one under
rcview always depends on what the author consid-
ers himself to be an expert of, inevitably causing
somc aspects to be overemphasized while others
are unduely paid 1itt1e or no attention. However, a
tldellke An introdwction to syntd.x inevitably raises
certain expectations which the present textbook
cannot match, as too many aspects of syntax and its
theory are simply lacking.
This kind of incompleteness and arbitrariness
can also be found occasionally inthe wayVanValin
builds his arguments. One example to illustrate
this may suffice. Onp.92 Van Valin sets out to dis-
cuss the - as a1l dependency grammarians wili
heartily agree - highly intricate distinction be-
tween a complement ('actant') and an adjunct
('circonstant'), depending on whether one or more
constituents are obligatory with a given valency-
bearing element (e.g., the object-NP in Cbris gave
tbe present to Pat) or not (e.g., the adverbial in
Chris gaoe tbe present at the party). To decide
whether prepositionai phrases (PPs) are optional,
the author proposes the following, rather unusual
test (p.94):
a. The boy broke the window (with a rock).
a'. The rock broke the window.
b. The girl ate the pasta (with a fork).
b'. "The fork ate the pasta.
According to the author, these examples show that
thewitb-PP is optional in both (a) and (b), but that
it is a complement (or semantic argument) of the
verb break, and an adjunct of the verb eat, the rca'
son obviously being that the PP can be trans-
formed into the subject o{break (a'), but not oÍ eat
(b'). I will not go into the question here v,'hether it
is legitimate to consider, like Van Yal.in, the roith-
PP in all four sentences a so-called instrument
(which is far from obviotts, cf. Coseriu 1987). The
crucial point is: Is his transformational test able to
provide conclusive evidence for the view that the
witb-PP is a complement in (a) but an adjunct in
(b)? The answer to this question must be negative,
simply because the test merely demonstrates that
Tbe rock broke the ruindor.u is an acccptable sen-
tence in English whe reas Tbe forle ate the pasta (Íor
whatever reason) is not. The possibility Ío vse tbe
rocle as a subject with breale (a') and the impossibil-
ity to use tbe fork as a subject with eat (b') is not
enough to infer that breale - unlike eat - semanti-
cally require s awith-PP. The fallacy becomes clear
when the same "test" is applied to a verb like stare
in, e.g., the following sentence:
c. "(the rats) stared at me with eye s that spoke an
unblinking death" (Charles Bukowski).1
Nothing prevents us from paraphrasing this sen-
tence using, e.g., the followrng syntactic form:
c'. the rats' eyes stared at me ...
No linguist would \il'ant to claim that the witb-PP
is somehow semantically required by the valency
I Unlike Van Valin, I prefer "authentic" examples (cf.
Beaugrande 2001) to fabricated ones - another aspect of
this Introdwction one could object to.
 Reviews 63

of the verb stare, and yet this would be the inevita-

ble outcome of Van Valin's rest. As a test for the Coserius Gescbicbte der rom)tnischen
valency (complements and adjuncts) of verbs, it is Sprachw issen scb aÍt - ers tmals kompl ett

therefore useless. und in Buchform

Despite such criticism I am confident that this
Eugenio Coseriu
Introdwction to syntd,x will prove a valuable text-
book and a genuine help to students as well as lec- Geschichte der romanischen
turers in the years to come, Those who are not Sprachwissenschaft
entirely satisfied with it- and I suspect there will be Band 1: Von den Anfàngen b'ts 1492
a fair number of them - are kindly invited to do
Bearbeirer und aktualisiert von
better.
Reinhard Meisterfeld
2OO2,29ASeiten, geb. C l+.-ZSf, SC,IO
References tsBN 3-8233_464t_5
Beaugrande, Robert de (2001), "Text Grammar Revisit- Coserius umfassendes Werk schreibt die Geschichte
ed", in: Trends in Text Linguistics, Logos and Lan- der romanischen Sprachwissenschaít als historische
guage, II: 1, edited by K..il/illerns, Tiibingen: Gunter Identifizierung der Probleme der Disziplin und ver-
Narr, 1-13. handelr dabei des gesamte Spektrum jener Fregen zu
Bresnan, Joan (2000), Lexical-Fwnctional Grammar, den Sprachcn der Romania, die iu verschi.à.n.n
Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Zeiten ruI verschiedene \Weise und mit unrerschierl.
Chomsky, Noam (1993), Lectures on Government and lichem Erfolg gestellr und beantwbrtet wurden.
Binding. The Pisa Lectwres (TtL edirion), Berlin/New Aws dem Inhalt aon Band l:
York: Mouton de Gruyrer. l. Die Lage in der Geschichte der romenischen
Coseriu, Eugenio (1987), Formen und Funktionen. Sprechw issenschaft_ (U rspriinge u nd periodisie-
Studien zur Grammatile, edited by IJ. perersen, rungen) - 2. Die Ar:[inge der rominisch.n Sprach_
Tiibingen: Niemeyeq 133-L7G. wissenscha[t in der Gelloromani.r (Friihesre Ie*ik,.,.
Dik, Simon (1978), Functional Grammar, Amsterdam: graphische Quellen) - 3. Die Anfànge in Italien
North-Holland. (D.rnté) - 4. Diè romanische Sprachwissenr.h"ii i*
Fillmore, Cl'rarles J. (1968) "The Case for Case,,, in: Zeitelter des italienischen Humenismus (Von der
Unioersals in Linguistic Tbeory, edited by E. Bach Florentiner Debarte bis zur ..r,." i,J;l"ir.i""
und R. Flarms, New York/Chicago/San È.ancisco, Grammarik) - 5. Die Betrachrung der romanischen
Holt, Rinehart and .il7inston, 1-88. Sprachen in den iibrigen Lindern (Ènqlische
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1994), An Introdwction to
Functional Grammar (2,d edition), London: Arnold.
Fludson, Richard (1984), Word. Grammar, OxÍord: Gunrer Narr Verlag Ttibingen
Basil Blackwell.
Palmer, Frank (1994), Grammatical roles and relations,
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Perlmutter, David M. and C. Rosen, Eds. (19g4), Stuclies
ln preparation:
in Re lational Grammar 2,Chicago, Ill.: University of
Chicago Press.
Radford, Andrew (1988), Transformational grammar: a 2002:
first course, Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry press. No. I: Translation Studies: Current
Tesnière, Lucien (1966) , Élómrnts dc syntaxe structurale Theoretical Problems
(2'd edition), Preface by Jean Fourquer, paris: No. II: Intercultural Communication
Klincksieck.
Van Valin, Robert D.Jr. (1993), "A Synopsis of Role and 2003:
Reference Grammar", in: Arloance s in Role and Ref- No. I: Linguistic Typology and Language
erence Grammar, edited. by R. D. Van Valin, I'r., Evolution
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1-164. No. II: Language Theory and
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Randy J. Lapolla (1997),
Ncu rolingu istics
Syntax: structure, meaning and function, Cambridge:
Cambrid ge lJniversity Press. 2004:
No. I: Parts of Speech
Reviewed ó2 K. Willems (Gent) No. II: Topics in Discourse Analysis

View publication stats