The job of a theory of linking is to make sense of the semantics-syntax mappings across all verb types. Can we predict, from the semantic arguments in a verb’s lexical representation, the number, type, and arrangement of syntactic arguments that the verb takes in a sentence? Consider number. It is true that for many verbs, the number of semantic arguments matches the number of syntactic arguments. For example, devour requires a “devourer” and a “devouree” – in the terms of traditional theta grids, an agent (internal argument, inside the square brackets) and a theme (external, outside the brackets) – both of which link to syntactic NP positions.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Carrier-Duncan, J. (1985) Linking of thematic arguments in derivational word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 1–34.Google Scholar
- Levin, B., and T. Rapoport (1988) Lexical subordination. Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 275–289.Google Scholar
- Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
- Jackendoff, R. (1990) On Larson’s analysis of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 427–456.Google Scholar
- Hale, K., and S.J. Keyser (2002) Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Pesetsky, D. (1982) Paths and categories, PhD dissertation. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
- Travis, L. (1984) Parameters and effects of word order variation, PhD dissertation. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar