Chapter 2

VALENCY
1. Below the surface – some cognitive remarks – cognitive alignment
When observing the world around us, it is perceived in terms of tangible and
intangible entities undergoing states or engaged in activities and processes. Since birth
language users are exposed to recurring language situations by which they respond to
extralinguistic phenomena by linearly-arranged utterances. They classify and fit items of their
surrounding environment into cognitive categories that may be elicited by a set of basic
questions, i.e. Who/What? – Does/Is undergoing – What? – (to Whom?) – (How?) –
(Where?) – (When?) (these questions were mentioned as one of the tests for delimitation of
phrases (the Cognitive Question Test) in Chapter 1). The exposure to the 1 numerous parole
experiences generates language material enabling language users to identify certain recurring
alignments of language signs; these alignments are gradually fixed and mentally stored as
sets of syntactic generalizations. Interactions between the alignment of cognitive categories
(mental “deep level” representations or cognitive alignment) and their surface projections
(grammatical relations or coding alignment) will be discussed in the following sections.
The general cognitive categories and their formal projections are examined from
specific points of view in various linguistic disciplines (word formation, morphology,
lexicology) studying onomasiological categories of substance, quality, action and
circumstantances (”substance, vlastnost, děj, okolnost” in Dokulil, 1962:32), and their
projection into parts of speech or generation of new words. In syntax these general cognitive
concepts are examined in terms of cognitive roles (other terms used in literature are semantic
roles, thematic roles, theta roles or deep level roles), and their combinations that will be
discussed further as cognitive alignments.

2. Lexical versus syntactic meaning

As was mentioned, general cognitive categories are reflected and refined in the
fundamental concepts of various linguistic disciplines. In lexicology, the lexical meaning is
understood as a set of general (general-cognitive) and distinctive (unit-specific) semantic
features/semes that serve as a certain potential semantic range for a word-rank unit. The
concrete realization of the unit´s lexical potential depends on its particular syntagmatic
environment – context.
In syntax, the syntactic meaning is considered to be generated by various
combinations of general cognitive features (such as un/willed action, state, perception,
causativeness, qualification, circumstantiality, etc.), and it either allows (ex. 1a) or bans (ex.
1b) concrete lexical units to enter particular cognitive frames.
(1a) John wrote a letter. versus (1b) The stone wrote a letter.*
A word-rank unit, along with its range of lexical semes, enters the domain of syntactic
meaning through the level of phrase. It is the phrase, rather that the word, that is able to

1
In general, two layers are admitted to exist: the grammatical layer and the semantic one
activate the syntactic meaning by its position and relational arrangement on the level of
clause. The phrase rank is thus central to the syntactic analysis no matter if decomposition is
performed semasiologically (from the form to the meaning) or onomasiologically (from the
meaning to the form) as will be shown later. Syntactic and lexical meanings are mutually
dependent, interacting: the potential lexical meaning of a lexeme turns into a concrete, actual
meaning of a lexical unit by the word´s realization of a phrase (in a clause), and, on the other
hand, syntactic chains/frames allow or disallow the employment of particular lexical units.
The distinction between the lexical and syntactic meanings may be demonstrated as
follows: a sentence composed of the same autosemantic words boy, dropped, pen may
activate two different syntactic cognitive readings of phrases of which these items are Head
constituents:
S V O
(2) The boy /dropped /a pen.
NP VP NP

a) Doer + Willed Action + Affected Entity

b) Unintentional Performer + Unwilled Action + Specifier
Depending on the combination of cognitive features within the concept of Action, the phrase
the boy may be perceived either as Doer, if the Action is willed, or Unintentional Performer,
if not. Translation into another language (especially into a typologically different one, such as
Slovak, which encodes Unintentional Performer or Experiencer by morphologically different
forms) may also aid in realizing the distinction between the two of the meanings:
a) Chlapec odhodil pero. (NOM – VERB - ACC)
b) Chlapcovi spadlo pero. (DAT – VERB - NOM)
While in Slovak these two meanings require distinct surface chains and even distinct lexical
units, in the above English sentence (2), there is actually no distinct surface indicator to
distinguish the two of the above readings; it is the situational or textual context that would
determine which cognitive frame is to be activated.
The combination possibilities of general and distinctive semes building up lexical
meanings on the level of word outnumber those available for the combinations within the
syntactic meaning domain. The number of combinations of cognitive roles (cognitive frames
or alignments) making up the syntactic meaning is rather limited which results from the fact
that the syntactic meaning involves much more generalization.

3. Valency - a surface/coding or deep-level/cognitive phenomenon?

The reply to this question depends on the methodological starting point of a syntactic analysis.
The syntactic/cognitive meaning becomes manifested on the level of clause through the rank
of phrases. As example (2) above shows, the cognitive interpretation of the noun phrase the
boy in the clause The boy dropped a pen. as either Doer or Unintentional Performer will
depend on whether the Action is Willed /Intentional or Unwilled/Unintentional. The Action,
canonically realized by the verb phrase, is central to the syntactic analysis. This has already
been noted in relation to the Cognitive Question Test which is performed through simple
questions centred around the Verb, such as Who? What action is going on? What is done? To
whom is something done? Where, When, and How is it done?, by which even the most
complicated sentences may be reduced to a very limited number of fundamental clause slots.
This Test is obviously verb-centred and each autosemantic verb (even a non-finite one)
contained in a clause retains its own “cognitive sphere of influence” over the clause it
governs.
The fact that the verb (here the verb phrase) is the centre of gravity of the clause
around which the rest of the clause elements are arranged with various degrees of attraction
was noticed by many linguists long ago. Tesnière (1959) made a parallel between the central
position of the verb toward the other clause elements and the sun as the centre of the solar
system around which the circulating planets are arranged in dependent positions. Allerton
(1982) used the term valency (also spelled as valence) to analyse the same phenomenon,
borrowing it from chemistry/physics where it is used to express the central position of the
nucleus in an atom requiring a particular number of electrons and protons to co-occur.
Allerton defined valency linguistically as ”the different potentials that individual verbs have
for occurring in a variety of sentence structures“ (Allerton, 1982:57).
The syntactic concept of valency was introduced into linguistics to account for the
verb-dependent ability of phrases to co-occur within a clause. It is therefore the
fundamental clause-diagnostic feature that distinguishes phrases from clauses/semi-
clauses (as mentioned in Chapter 1). Valency as a capability of the verb phrase to extend its
scope of influence over the other syntactic segments on the level of clause, or semi-clause,
may be analysed from two points of view: semasiologically, i.e. starting from the surface
function segments (S, O, C, A), or onomasiologically/cognitively, i.e. starting from the
cognitive roles (Doer, Performer, Goal etc.).
In this textbook both of these methodological approaches, semasiological and
onomasiological, will be accounted for, since it is believed that for any syntactic analysis to
be accomplished successfully both of the methods should be employed as they are perceived
as complementary to each other. Nevertheless, methodologically, the onomasiological
account will be given prominence, as it is believed by the author to be inherently universal,
and its prevalence becomes relevant in many cases, e.g. the primary relevance of the
Cognitive Question Test for the delimitation of phrases and clause slots.
As indicated in the above discussions, cognitively, valency may be viewed as
projection of humans´ perception of relations existing between various states or processes,
entities and circumstances observed in the extra-linguistic environment into sets of alignments
of cognitive roles (e.g. Agent/Action/Patient) which are realized by surface segments (e.g.
Subject/Verb/Object). It is based on the human´s ability to employ such patterns on a
recurrent and analogical basis (e.g. inanimate cognitive patterns seem to be modelled
according to animate cognitive patterns, e.g. John damaged the car.> Lightning damaged the
car.). Valency is taken to result from the language user´s ability to identify and effect a proper
arrangement of cognitive roles linguistically by means of language-specific formal means
rather than to be a faculty of particular verb. In the context of cognitive linguistics/syntax, the
study of valency is therefore not concerned with strict sub-categorization of verbs as
in/transitive or copular. Since the employment of verbs as to cognitive patterns is rather
unlimited (by way of metaphoric extensions), valency is not a matter of the verb´s potential to
influence the selection of its elaborators, but rather as an issue of the communicator´s ability
to identify recurring patterns of combinations of particular cognitive roles projected into their
surface verbalizations. In this perspective the selection of cognitive constituents of a clause
arranged around the action is a matter of cognitive interdependence of constituents aimed at
effecting cognitive completeness rather than surface dependence of forms on a particular
valency class of the verb (which is a common understanding of valency in semasiologically-
grounded conceptions).

4. Valency constituents – Verb or Action elaborators?

As has been mentioned, two methodological approaches may be taken when examining
valency patterns, namely onomasiological (starting from cognitive valency frames), and
semasiological (deriving from surface valency chains). What they share methodologically is
the central position of the verb (sloveso-dej) which determines the kind and number of its
companions. The difference is the layer on which the minimum mandatory arrangement of the
verb´s companions is identified. The semasiological approach to valency is focused on the
minimum surface chains of clause elements concentrated around the Verb, whereas in the
onomasiological perspective valency is concerned with the framing of general cognitive
categories arranged around the Action. Cognitively, the selection is not with the verb, but
rather with the users that employ a particular verb in a particular setting, exploiting its lexical
potential.
Allerton´s understanding of valency is surface-oriented, i.e. his analyses rely on the
function terms Object, Objoid (Object-like element), Complement, Adverbial, including the
Subject (Allerton, 1982), to which particular semantic roles are assigned. Similarly, the
approach of Quirk´s et al. (1985) may be described as semasiological, too, as they
distinguish three main verb classes used to generate predications about the Subject, namely
intransitive followed by no obligatory clause element, copular followed by the Subject
Complement or Adverbial, and transitive subcategorized as monotransitive followed either by
the Object only, ditransitive followed by two Objects, and complex transitive followed by the
Object and either Object Complement or Adverbial. In this conception the Subject is given a
prominent position of an entity in respect of which the predication is accomplished, and as
such it is not counted as Argument of the Verb, but rather as a clause constituent syntactically
equivalent to the Verb. If Allerton´s and Quirk´s models are contrasted and compared, the
former includes while the latter excludes the Subject. As a result, Allerton´s monovalent
chains are treated as intransitive by Quirk et al., Allerton´s divalent chains correspond to
Quirk´s monotransitive clause types, and Allerton´s trivalent chains to Quirk´s ditransitive
and complex transitive patterns (Quirk, 1985; Allerton, 1982).
While both of the above approaches are semasiologically based, in Fillmore´s conception
(1968), who derived from the tradition of Transformational Grammar, the same phenomenon
is studied in terms of the so called deep cases making up frames of semantic roles which
influence the combination of surface clause elements. His methodological approach can
therefore be labelled onomasiological. In his Case for Case (1968) Fillmore added some
substantive modifications to the Transformational Grammar by pointing out that the account
of the coding categories should be extended by additional information concerning their
underlying/covert characteristics which he called “cases”, i.e. semantic roles, whose list
contained 6 types: Agent (A)– instigator of the action, Instrumental (I)– inanimate force
involved in the action, Dative (D)– inanimate affected by the state or action, Factitive (F)–
object or being resulting from the action, Locative (L)– location or special orientation of the
state or action, Objective (O)– anything representable by a noun whose role in the action is
identified by the verb (Fillmore, 1968).
Fillmore referred to the alignments of cases as “case frames” which he defined as “an
abstraction telling us what particular elaborators a verb required to be completed” and “the
function of which is to provide a bridge between descriptions of situations and underlying
syntactic representations” (Filmore,1968:28). Since 1990 the Berkeley University has
developed an annotated database of English based on the Fillmore´s Frame Semantics entitled
FrameNet available at https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal.

5. Arguments and Non-Arguments

It has already been shown how the phrase structure of a clause, actually, reveals the
syntactic slots on the level of clause. In other words, each phrase performs a particular clause-
relevant syntactic function. The list of the functions has already been provided, here we also
supply the Slovak counterparts of the respective terms along with an annotated example:
Subject (S)- podmet
Verb (V)- slovesný prísudok
Object (O)- predmet
Subject Complement (Cs)– menná časť slovesno-menného prísudku
Object Complement (Co)– povinné doplnenie predmetu
Adverbial (A)– príslovkové určenie

A S V O O
Yesterday/ the girl /wrote /a long letter/ to her boyfriend/.
AP NP VP NP PP
Each of the above surface clause slots has been assigned a particular cognitive role, i.e.
Temporal, Agent, Action, Theme, Donee, respectively.

Table XXX Function / Cognitive / Structure aspects of syntactic analysis

Yesterday the girl Wrote a long letter to her boyfriend
Cognitive Temporal Agent Action Theme Donee
role
Function Adverbial Subject Verb Object direct Object indirect
Structure AP NP VP NP PrepP

As indicated above there are three sets of linearity annotation available for the purposes of
syntactic analysis, namely:
1. PrepP+NP+VP+NP+NP 2. A+S+V+Od+Oi 3. Temporal+Doer+Action+Theme+Donee
Although each of them is concerned with a specific aspect of syntactic analysis: the structure,
the function and the syntactic meaning, respectively, they do not indicate a degree of the
syntactic “tightness” obtaining between the particular elaborators and the verb phrase. Even
without any sound linguistic background, language users would be able to decide which of the
segments of the above clause may be omitted without leaving the rest of the clause
cognitively incomplete. Both semasiologically and onomasiologically, it would definitely be
the Temporal Circumstantial feature realized by the prepositional phrase and functioning as
Adverbial. Both the cognitive and coding alignments are centred around the Action and the
verb-phrase, respectively. No matter whether the valency is perceived semasiologically or
onomasiologically, it is generally admitted that the verb phrase/Action exerts various degrees
of syntactic attraction over the rest of the clause segments. Depending on the “force” exerted
by the verb phrase/Action, there may be identified valency-mandatory components (also
called direct elaborators or Arguments) and valency-optional components (also termed
indirect elaborators or Non-Arguments). The valency-mandatory components, i.e.
Arguments, built up coding valency chains on the surface level, and cognitive valency
frames on the deep level. Valency may therefore be specifically defined as the alignment of
the minimum mandatory verb phrase elaborators/Arguments on both the
grammatical/surface level as well as cognitive/deep level (distinction between deep and
surface levels based on Chomsky (1976:80 as cited in Allerton (1982:43).
Various labels have been used in linguistics to account for the difference between the
valency-mandatory, i.e. Arguments, and valency-optional, i.e. Non-Arguments, clause
segments. For example, Tesnière (1959) distinguished between actants (the mandatory items)
and circonstants (the optional items), while Miller (2008:9) used terms complements and
adjuncts, respectively, as the sub-categories of modifiers. Van Valin (2001: 92) distinguished
between the semantic and syntactic layers of the arrangement of the verb´s dependents.
Semantically, he referred to direct participants of the verbal action as arguments of the verb,
whereas locative/temporal references were referred to as its adjuncts. Syntactically, Van Valin
made a difference between terms (Subject, Direct Object and Indirect Object) and non-terms
(the rest of the clause elements), the former belonging to the core of the clause, the latter into
its periphery with the verb being the nucleus of the clause (Van Valin, 2000:3). In Van Valin
´s system the term valence of a verb “refers to the number of arguments that it takes.“ (Van
Valin, 2001:92), which implies that he foregrounded valency as a combination of cognitive
roles. In this textbook we will use, as already indicated, the terms Arguments for valency-
mandatory verb elaborators, and Non-Arguments for the optional ones, both on the
surface as well as deep levels, depending on whether a particular syntactic analysis takes a
semasiological or onomasiological stance.
Table 7 Demonstration of an analysis of clause components as Arguments and Non-
Arguments
Non- Argument Action/V Argument Argument
Argument
Example Yesterday John gave a bunch of to Jane
flowers
Coding Adverbial Subject Verb Object Object
alignment direct indirect
Coding valency --- S V Object Object
chain/Arguments direct indirect
Cognitive Circumstantial Agent Action Theme Donee
alignment
Cognitive --- Agent Action Theme Donee
valency
frame/Arguments

6. Coding Arguments marking and coding chains

On the surface, Arguments will be identified as coding clause elements: Subject, Object,
Subject Complement, Object Complement, Adverbial; on the deep level, they will be treated
as categories of abstract syntactic meaning, i.e. cognitive roles: Agent, Perceiver, Patient,
Localizer, Qualifier, etc. The coding stance is focused on various formal flags, available either
cross-linguistically (typology, universal grammar), or in a concrete language to activate a
particular surface valency chain. The explicit, or coding, markers, i.e. ‘coding properties’
(Van Valin, 2001, p. 34), include, cross-linguistically, inflection of
nouns/pronouns/articles/adjectives/verbs, Subject/Verb agreement, pluripersonal concord,
prepositions, aspect, tense and voice verb contrasts, word order, prosody, various types of
reflexive structures, but also lexical items – lexical base contrast, adverbs, special types of
auxiliaries (in Basque, for example). These markers are never used alone, but rather in various
combinations depending on the language type, and language typologists try to formulate
various surface implicature rules based on the observations of various types of combinations
of these coding markers.
Apart from the explicit coding markers, the implied markers include context or so
called ‘cognitive feasibility check’ of a particular alignment of Arguments that is inevitably
performed when the overt flagging fails (Janigová, 2014, p.19). As an example we may use a
Slovak sentence where the feminine nouns take the same form in both NOM and ACC SG,
which exposes such a sentence to two valency readings:

(4) Loď prevrát-i-l-a plť.

ship.NOM or ACC.SG overturn.PST.FEM raft.NOM or ACC.SG
AgentNOM or PatientACC AgentNOM or PatientACC
Since in Slovak, being inflectional language, word order is not fully grammaticalized, both
interpretations ‘the ship overturned the raft’ or ‘the raft overturned the ship’ are possible, and
only the context or cognitive feasibility check (´which option is more feasible in reality´) may
be used to determine the proper valency ordering of Arguments. Whereas in English the only
variant of the ship overturned the raft would be Agent+Action+Patient and Subject+Verb+
Object due to the fact that the major explicit coding marker used in English as an analytical
language is word order. Case syncretism of inflectional languages unsupported by the
grammaticalized word order (such as identity of NOM-ACC forms in 75% of inflectional
nominal paradigms in Slovak) leaves the language users more exposed to cognitive feasibility
or context testing (otherwise, by implication, word order of inflective languages is much more
grammaticalized than is usually admitted). The actual purpose of both the explicit and
implicit markers is to allow the hearer/reader to identify the intended cognitive meaning of
the constituents; in the following chapters they will be used to diagnose the particular surface
clause elements.
As has already been outlined in this Chapter, in terms of the semasiological concept of
valency some linguists classify verbs as being mono-valent (taking only the Subject), divalent
(taking the Subject and Object), trivalent (taking the Subject, and two Objects), etc. (Allerton,
1982). Others would discuss the issue of verb complementation which is actually the same,
but for the fact that it is focused on the mandatory right-to-the verb elements only (Quirk et
al., 1985, Dušková, 2003).
The following table summarizes the 7 kernel types (surface valency chains) of English
clauses (based on Quirk et al. “major clause types”(1985:721), and Dušková´s four types of
verb complementation 1999:98), along with the corresponding English and Slovak
terminology, which will also correspond to the 7 basic coding valency chains as used in this
textbook:
Table 8. Kernel clause types/coding valency chains
Coding Type of verb Corresponding Example
valency complementation Slovak terms of
chain verb and Verb
1 SV Intransitive slovesný The sun is shining.
proper prísudok -
intranzitívne
sloveso
2 SVCs Copular sponové The girl is/seems nice.
sloveso v
slovesno-
mennom
prísudku
3 SVA Copular sponové John is at home.
sloveso v
slovesno-
mennom
prísudku
4 SVO Monotransitive monotranzitívne She helped John.
sloveso –
slovesný
prísudok,
5 SVOO Ditransitive ditranzitívne Mary gave him a book.
sloveso –
slovesný
prísudok,
6 SVOA Complex komplexne- Mary put the baby in the cradle.
transitive tranzitívne
sloveso –
slovesný
prísudok,
7 SVOCo Complex komplexne- The jury finds him guilty.
transitive tranzitívne
sloveso –
slovesný
prísudok,

6. Cognitive Arguments – valency frames of cognitive roles

It has been mentioned that in syntax cognitive roles are general categories of syntactic
meaning as mental projections of extralinguistic phenomena which are realized through the
PHRASE rank and become manifest on the CLAUSE rank. Cognitively, it is the Action that
dis/allows various kinds of combinations of cognitive roles. The cognitive combinations
reduced to the minimum mandatory cognitive roles capable of being perceived by the
addressee as cognitively complete sets have been termed cognitive valency frames. All
components of such frames are mandatory Action companions and thus qualify as cognitive
Arguments. The combinations including both mandatory and non-mandatory Action
elaborators have been termed simply cognitive alignments. The list of the core cognitive
valency frames as used in this textbook is the following:
Table XXX Core cognitive valency frames
Cognitive valency frame Example

I Action focused frame activated as Agent The sun is shining.

+ Action
II Existential frame activated as Agent + There is a girl over there.
Action (+ Localizer) A big ship appeared on the horizon.
The problem still exists.
III Qualifying frame activated as The girl is nice.
Qualified Entity + Copula + Qualifier
IV Patient frames– activated as She helped John.
Agent/Experiencer + Action +Patient (+ John gave Marry a bunch of flowers.
Patient)
VI Circumstantial frames – attributing John went to school today.
circumstances either to Agent/Experiencer Mary put the baby in the cradle.
or to Patient
VII Patient qualifying frame – activated as The jury finds him guilty.
Agent + Action + Patient + Patient Qualifier
Table 10 Terminology chart of syntactic constituents
Aspects of Structure terms Function terms Cognitive role terms
analysis →
Ranks in the
Syntactic
Pyramid ↓
Sentence simple sentence speech-act functions:
compound sentence statement, question,
(copulative, command, wish…
adversative….) grammatical types:
complex sentence declarative, interrogative,
imperative, optative,
exclamative
Clause main/matrix clause Subject Entity
dependent clause Object Fact
(nominal, relative, Adverbial Process
adverbial) Subject Complement Circumstantial
Object Complement
Postmodifier
Semi-clause gerund Subject Entity
participle Object Fact
infinitive Adverbial Process
Subject Complement Circumstantial
Object Complement
Premodifier/Postmodifier
Phrase noun phrase Verb Agent
verb phrase Subject Patient
adverb phrase Object Action
adjective phrase Subject Complement Circumstantial
prepositional Object Complement Qualified Entity
phrase Adverbial Qualifier
 Premodifier Focus
Postmodifier Etc.
Word parts of speech: Head
noun, verb, Modifier
adjective, adverb… (Premodifier/Postmodifier
)
Determiner
Auxiliary
Prepositional Navigator
Prepositional Complement

As can be seen, rank labels are also included in denominations of structure labels since the
rank and structure are, as if, inseparable concepts, it is more like a rank-structure interface
rather than fully discrete aspects of syntactic analysis. Cognitive labels are primarily used for
the level of phrase/clause interface, clauses and semi-clauses in complex sentences actually
copy the cognitive relationships obtaining between phrases in a clause. The function and
cognitive boxes for the sentence do not show any labels since this rank is the ultimate level of
syntactic analysis in terms of both semasiology as well as onomasiology and it becomes the
subject of textual syntax, pragmatics, functional sentence perspective, etc. To sum up:
- phrases are composed of words
- words function as Heads, Pre/Postmodifiers, Determiners, Auxiliaries,
Prepositional Navigators, Prepositional Complements in phrases;
- clauses are composed of phrases
- phrases function as clause elements (S, V, O, Cs, Co, A) in clauses
- phrases realize cognitive roles (Agent, Action, Patient, Circumstantial…) in
clauses
- sentences are composed of clauses

7. Coding versus cognitive annotation of valency (additional reading)

In the semasiologically-oriented linguistic typology three major intransitive and
monotransitive surface alignment types are admitted to exist across languages: “accusative
alignment, neutral alignment and ergative alignment” (Haspelmath, 2005, p.1). The accusative
alignment is based on the identity of intransitive and transitive Subject which is kept distinct
from the Object. In the neutral alignment type intransitive and transitive Subject, as well as
Object are formally the same. In the ergative alignment transitive Subject is distinct, and
intransitive Subject and Object are treated alike. It may be noted, however, that the formal
identity of the surface elements is never full, since languages employ several flags (not just
inflectional paradigm of one item), i.e. it is probably never a solitary marker, but rather
clusters of properties that are employed at a time to aid in distinguishing between surface
elements.
The above difference between semasiological and onomasiological approaches is
reflected also in the annotation systems. The semasiologically-oriented typological research
focused on the surface markers of syntactic relations is usually based on the clause-element
labelling of word order accompanied with English-based glossing systems (e.g. the Leipzig
Glossing Rules) for morphological categories (number, person, case). The semasiological
annotation showing the coding alignment type may be exemplified as follows:
John-0 dropp-ed a pen-0 > S V O or SNOM V OOBL
John.NOM.SG drop.PST.SG a.ART pen.OBL.SG
However, because of the fact that a single surface alignment frame (e.g. case frame NOM-
ACC, ABS-DAT, etc.) may be loaded with several cognitive chains (e.g. Doer-Theme,
Unintentional Performer+Specifier etc.), a mere specification of the coding alignment type
(mostly in form of clause-element word order), does not always show the information
necessary for the proper syntactic reading (in terms of syntactic meaning) of a particular
surface chain, it may be supplemented by an onomasiological annotation specifically showing
a concrete cognitive alignment frame (DO…Doer, THE…Theme, UP…Unintentional
Performer, SP…Specifier):
John / dropped / a pen > 1.DONOM - THEOBL or 2. UPNOM - SPOBL
As might be expected, a combination of both approaches and annotation of both aspects, i.e.
the coding as well as cognitive properties of a single string, may bring interesting results.
Especially so, when typologically distinct languages are contrasted. The annotations of the
Basque variants of intentional and unintentional versions of sentence John dropped a pen.
May be the following:
Semasiological/surface Onomasiological/cognitive annotation
annotation
1.Nik boligrafoa Nik boligra bota Nik boligrafoa bota dut
bota dut. foa dut.
SERG OABS V DOERG THABS UNACT
ni-k boligrafoa. bota V
PRON ABS.SG d-u-t-ERG/ABS
ni- AUX ‘I have it’
1.ERG.SG 3.ABS.SG-u-
ERG.SG
PLRPC
2. Niri Niri boligra erori Niri boligrafoa erori zait.
boligrafoa erori foa zait.
zait.
ODAT SABS V UNPERDAT SPABS UNACT
nir-i boligrafoa. erori V
I.1.DAT.S ABS.SG za-i-t-DAT/ABS
G AUX
‘it/s/he is to me’
za-1.DAT.SG-
3.ABS. SG
PLRPC
Table 2. Exemplification of annotation of coding and cognitive alignments
More syntactic information than just word order is necessitated by the language specific
syntactic rules which cannot always be fixed with overall typological generalizations. For
example, surface annotation of the two of the following Slovak sentences would not indicate
how to interpret them as to their syntactic meaning:
a. Páči sa/ mi/ ten obraz. VOS or VODATSNOM
b. Mám rada/ ten obraz. (S)VO or SNOMVOACC
Adding the cognitive roles may be more informative:
a. Páči sa/ mi / ten obraz. EMST+ EMRDAT + EMFOCNOM
b. Mám rada/ ten obraz. (EMR)+ EMST + EMFOCACC
A chart format could look like this:
Sentence WO Emoter (EMR) Emotive State Emotion Focus
(EMST) (EMFOC)
1.Páči sa mi VOS mi páči-0 Head V ten PRON
ten obraz. I.1.DAT.SG like-3.SG obraz N.NOM.SG
sa-REFL PART
2.Mám rada ten (S)V (ja) má-m AUX ten PRON
obraz. O I.1.NOM.SG have-1.SG obraz N.ACC.SG
activated by-m- rad-a-ADJ
V INFL.1.SG glad-F

In Georgian the personal pronoun ‘me’ displays case syncretism and the only indicator of its
ergative or dative reading, (i.e. Intentional Performer versus Unintentional Performer) is
activated by person concord or pluripersonal concord between the Subject and the Verb, i. e. -
m- or -v- verbal introfixes, respectively. This can hardly be indicated by SVO or OSV labels
only:
Sentence WO
Intentional Willed Action Theme Coding
Performer Marker
Me davagde SVO me da-v-a-gd-e Verb k’alami Concord
k’alami. PRON.1.ERG.S PST-1.ERG.SG- N.ABS.SG v-ERG
G VERS-gd-ABS infix
‘I dropped a PLPRC (activating
pen’ -v- ERG INFL willed
INFIX of V action)
intentional
variant

Sentence WO
Unintentional Unwilled Action Specifier Coding
Performer marker
Me k’alami OSV me da-m-i-vard-a Verb k’alami PLRPC
damivarda. PRON.1.DAT.S PST-1.DAT.SG- N.ABS.SG -m-DAT
G VERS-vard- Object
‘I dropped a PLRPC 3.ABS.SG -a-ABS
pen’ m- prefix of V Subject

unintentional
variant

As was outlined above, the combination of surface and cognitive alignment marking along
with the specification of mechanisms that allow the language users to identify the proper
surface and cognitive reading of particular syntagmas may be capable of bringing more
informative results and facilitate cross-linguistic comparisons. The following chart may be
used to exemplify the point.
Lg Sentence WO Emoter Emotive State Emotion Coding
Focus marker/
Alignme
nt type
EN I like that SVO I like-0 V.PRS- that Word
picture. PRON.1.NOM. 1.SG PRON order
SG picture N.
OBL.SG
DA Jeg synes om SVO jeg synes-0 V det ART Word
N det billed. PRON.1.NOM. like-1.SG billed N. order
‘I like that SG om-PART OBL.SG
picture.’
IT Mi piace OVS mi piac-e V quella Oblique
quella foto. PRON.1.DAT.S like-3.SG PRON form of
‘To me pleases G foto N. PRON +
that picture.’ -e-V Infl.3.SG NOM.SG SV
concord
BGi Тази картина SOV mi haresv-a V tazi PRON Oblique
ми харесва. PRON.1.DAT.S like-3.SG kartina form of
‘That picture G N.NOM.S PRON +
to-me pleases.’ -a-V INFL.3.SG G SV
concord
BGi Аз харесвам SVO az haresv-am V tazi PRON NOM
i тази PRON.1.NOM. like-1.SG kartina infl.+ V
картина. SG N.OBL.S infl. –
‘I like that -am-V G concord
picture.’ INFL.1.SG
HUi Tetszik nekem VOS nekem- tetszik-0 V az PRON PREP+O
az a kép. PREP+PRON.1. like-3.SG/INF a-ART BL
‘That picture OBL.SG kép PRON
pleases for ‘for me’ N.NOM.S
me.’ G
HUi Kedvelem azt (S)V (én) kedvel-em V azt PRON NOM
i a képet. O PRON.1.NOM. like-1.SG/INF a ART infl.+ V
‘I like that SG kép-et N infl. –
picture.’ activated by kép- concord
-em-V ACC.SG
INFL.1.SG
Table 3. Exemplification of cross-linguistic annotation of coding and cognitive alignments
List of abbreviations:

EXERCISES
Perform the Structure/Function/Cognitive roles analysis of the following clauses. Use the
chart as exemplified:
 Yesterday the girl wrote a long letter to her boyfriend
Function Adverbial Subject Verb Object direct Object indirect
Meaning Temporal Agent Action Theme Donee
Structure AP NP VP NP PrepP

II. Try to analyse the following sentences as to structure and cognitive roles. Decide
which slot is cognitively omissible. .
1. The trial / comes / to an end.
S V A
NP VP PreP
Det + head head prep + head + head
Exponent Action

2. He / came / home / drunk.

S V A A
NP VP NP AdjP
Head Head Head Head
Agent (Int. Per) Action

3. He / went / home / drunk.

4. Who / will / you / take?

5. A hard-nosed trial lawyer / couldn´t have been / more curious.

S V A
NP VP AdjP
Det + PreMod + PreMod + head operator + aux. + aux PreMod + head
Experiencer Action
Bearer of states

6. The ladies / finally / left.

S A V
NP AP VP
Det + head. Head
Agent
Intentional performer

7. With no known heirs, a settlement would be impossible.

8. How old are you now?

9. Two days after Christmas / Max Pace / arrived / with a companion.
A S V O
AdvP NP VP PrepP
??? Head + head Head prep + NP

Det + head
??? Agent Patient
Intentional performer

10. Like a general moving his troops, Clay assigned two lawyers and a paralegal to the
Skinny Ben front.
11. She was lying on her stomach on the couch, her chin on the armrest, facing Eloise.

12. Eloise / laughed / suddenly / from her diaphragm.

S V A O
NP VP AdvP PreP
Head head ?? ?? prep + NP

Det + head
Experiencer