Advertisement

Lexical Representation, Co-composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics

  • Robert D. Van ValinJr.
Chapter
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 46)

Abstract

The question of whether semantic representation of a sentence is projected from the lexical properties of the verb or is constructed based on the structure of the sentence is a fundamental one, and both projectionist and constructionist approaches have been proposed. This paper examines the alleged opposition between and argues that they are in fact complementary rather than contrasting explanations for semantic interpretation.

Keywords

Semantic Representation Activity Verb Lexical Entry Lexical Representation Mass Noun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Versions of this paper have been presented at the First International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, Université de Genève (April, 2001), at the 2002 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Universidad de La Rioja, Spain (July, 2002), at the Heinrich-Heine Universität, Düsseldorf (December, 2002), and the University of Colorado (February, 2003). I would like to thank Elizabeth Guest, Jean-Pierre Koenig, Anja Latrouite, Laura Michaelis, Christopher Piñón, and James Pustejovsky for comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dryer, M. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language, 62, 808–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Everett, D. (1986). Pirahã. In D. C. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. I, pp. 200–325). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Guerrero, L., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2004). Yaqui and the analysis of primary-object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70, 290–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of the inchoative/causative verb alternation. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and transitivity (pp. 87–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Holisky, D. A. (1981). Aspect theory and Georgian aspect. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax & semantics 14, pp. 127–144). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jolly, J. (1991). Prepositional analysis within the framework of role and reference grammar. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Jolly, J. (1993). Preposition assignment in English. In R. D. Van Valin Jr. (Ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar (pp. 275–310). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua, 92, 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mairal, R., & Faber, P. (2002). Functional grammar and lexical templates. In R. Mairal & M. Pérez Quintero (Eds.), New perspectives on argument structure in functional grammar (pp. 39–94). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Michaelis, L., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  15. Payne, D. L., & Payne, T. E. (1989). Yagua. In D. C. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 252–474). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Piñón, C. (2001). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11. Ithaca: CLC Publications/Cornell University.Google Scholar
  18. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17, 409–41.Google Scholar
  19. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia Linguistica, 32, 323–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and computational factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  22. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (Ed.). (1993). Advances in role and reference grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  23. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1999). Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics inter- face. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (Vol. 2, pp. 373–389). The Hague: Thesus [also available on RRG web site].Google Scholar
  24. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2006). Semantic macroroles and syntactic processing. In I. Bornkessel & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycho-/neurolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2004). Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar. In R. Kailuweit & M. Hummel (Eds.), Semantische Rollen (pp. 62–82). Narr: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  26. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Valin, R. D., Jr., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning & function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Verkuyl, H. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  29. Walton, C. (1986). Sama verbal semantics: Classification, derivation and inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
  30. Watters, J. K. (1988). Topics in the Tepehua Grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, D. J. (1989). A grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua (University of California publications in linguistics 112). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wilkins, D. P. (1989). Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  33. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistics Inquiry, 28, 27–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Information ScienceHeinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations