Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 71–124 | Cite as

Sublexical Modality And The Structure Of Lexical Semantic Representations

  • Jean-Pierre Koenig
  • Anthony R Davis

Abstract

This paper argues for a largely unnoted distinction between relational and modal components in the lexical semantics of verbs. Wehypothesize that many verbs encode two kinds of semantic information:a relationship among participants in a situation and a subset ofcircumstances or time indices at which this relationship isevaluated. The latter we term sublexical modality.

We show that linking regularities between semantic arguments andsyntactic functions provide corroborating evidence in favor of thissemantic distinction, noting cases in which the semantic groundingof linking through participant-role properties apparently fails. Thissemantic grounding can be preserved, however, once we abstractaway from sublexical modality in lexical semantic representations.Semantically-based linking constraints are insensitive to the sublexicalmodality component of lexical entries and depend only on informationin a predicator's “situational core”.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alsina, A.: 1996, The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and J. Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Bresnan, Joan (ed.): 1982, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, B.: 1992, The Logic of Typed Feature Structures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, R.: 1976, ‘Some Constraints on Possible Words’, Semantikos 1, 27–66.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: 1995, The Dynamics of Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Copestake, A., D. Flickinger, and I. A. Sag: 1997, Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction. Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  9. Croft, W.: 1991, Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Croft, W.: 1998, ‘Event Structure in Argument Linking’, in M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments, pp. 21–63, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, A.: 1996, Lexical Semantics and Linking in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, A. and J.-P. Koenig: 1999, ‘Sublexical Modality and Linking Theory’, in K. N. Shahin, S. Blake, and E.-S. Kim (eds.), WCCFL 17, pp. 162–174, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, A. and J.-P. Koenig: 2000, ‘Linking as Constraints onWord Classes in a Hierarchical Lexicon’, Language 76, 56–91.Google Scholar
  14. de Swart, H.: 1998, ‘Aspect Shift and Coercion’, Natural Language and Theory 16, 347–385.Google Scholar
  15. Dowty, D.: 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Dowty, D.: 1991, ‘Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection’, Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C.: 1968, ‘The Case for Case’, in E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–87, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Fillmore, C.: 1977, ‘The Case for Case Reopened’, in P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical Relations, pp. 59–81, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Fillmore, C.: 1982, ‘Frame semantics’, in The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–137, Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul.Google Scholar
  20. Foley, W. and R. Van Valin: 1984, Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Gawron, J. M.: 1986, ‘Situations and Prepositions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 327–382.Google Scholar
  22. Goldberg, A.: 1995, Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Goldberg, A.: 1997, ‘The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions’, in M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, and E. Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, pp. 383–398, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Green, G.: 1974, Semantics and Syntactic Regularity, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  25. Grimshaw, J.: 1981, ‘Form, Function, and the Language Acquisition Device’, in C. L. Baker and J. J. McCarthy (eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, pp. 165–182, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Grimshaw, J.: 1990, Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Grimshaw, J.: 1993, Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Representation, Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  28. Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, and R. Goldberg: 1991, ‘Affectedness and Direct Objects: The Role of Lexical Semantics in the Acquisition of Verb Argument Structure’, Cognition 41, 153–195.Google Scholar
  29. Heim, I.: 1983, ‘On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions’, in D. Flickinger et al. (eds.), WCCFL 2, pp. 114–125, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  30. Horn, L.: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Jackendoff, R.: 1976, ‘Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 89–150.Google Scholar
  33. Jackendoff, R.:1983, Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Jackendoff, R.: 1990, Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Kiparsky, P.: 1987, Morphology and Grammatical Relations, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  36. Koenig, J.-P.: 1994, Lexical Underspecification and the Syntax/Semantics Interface, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  37. Koenig, J.-P. and A. Davis: to appear, ‘Linking from the Outside In’, in Texas Linguistic Forum: Perspective on argument structure, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  38. Kratzer, A.: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in H.-J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts, pp. 38–74, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  39. Krifka, M.: to appear, ‘Manner in Dative Alternation’, in WCCFL 18, Cascadilla Press, Sommerville, MA.Google Scholar
  40. Lakoff, G.: 1968, ‘Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure’, Foundations of Language 4, 4–29.Google Scholar
  41. Langacker, R.: 1987, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  42. Larson, R. K.: 1988, ‘Implicit Arguments in Situation Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 169–201.Google Scholar
  43. Levin, B.:1993, English Verb Classes and Alternations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav: 1995, Unaccusativity At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, D.: 1973, Counterfactuals, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  46. McCawley, J.: 1988, ‘The Comparative Conditional Construction in English, German, and Chinese’, in S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, and H. Singmaster (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting Language of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 176–187, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  47. Moens, M. and M. Steedman: 1988, ‘Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference’, Computational Linguistics 14, 15–28.Google Scholar
  48. Montague, R.:1974, Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  49. Oehrle, R.: 1976, The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Pesetsky, D.: 1982, Paths and Categories, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  51. Pesetsky, D.: 1995, Zero Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  52. Pinker, S.:1989, Learnability and Cognition: the Acquisition of Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  53. Pinkham, J.: 1985, The Formation of Comparative Clauses in French and English, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Portner, P.: 1998, ‘The Progressive in Modal Semantics’, Language 74, 760–787.Google Scholar
  55. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin: 1998, ‘Building Verb Meanings’, in M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments, pp. 97–134, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  56. Sag, I. and C. Pollard: 1991, ‘An Integrated Theory of Complement Control’, Language 67, 63–113.Google Scholar
  57. Searle, J.: 1969, Speech Act, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  58. Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken: 1985, Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  59. Stalnaker, R.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics vol. 9: Pragmatics, pp. 315–322, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Talmy, L.: 1985, ‘Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms’, in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, pp. 57–149, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Talmy, L.: 1988, ‘Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition’, Cognitive Science 12, 49–100.Google Scholar
  62. Talmy, L.: 1991, ‘Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation’, in L. Sutton and C. Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 480–519, Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  63. Talmy, L.: 2000, Toward a Cognitive Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  64. Tenny, C.: 1994, Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  65. Van Valin, R.: 1993, ‘A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar’, in R. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, pp. 1–164, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  66. Van Valin, R.: 1990, ‘Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity’, Language 66, 221–260.Google Scholar
  67. van Voorst, J.: 1992, ‘The Aspectual Semantics of Psychological Verbs’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 65–92.Google Scholar
  68. Wechsler, S.: 1995a, ‘Preposition Selection Outside the Lexicon’, in R. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, and M. Senturia (eds.), WCCFL 13, pp. 416-431, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  69. Wechsler, S.: 1995b, The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Pierre Koenig
    • 1
  • Anthony R Davis
    • 2
  1. 1.University at Buffalo, State University of New YorkUSA
  2. 2.AnswerLogic, IncUSA

Personalised recommendations