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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998) contrast projectionist accounts with what they call ‘constructional’ approaches, which derive sentence meaning from a general verb meaning plus the meaning of the syntactic construction in which the verb occurs. The term ‘constructionist’ as used here is meant to cover both constructional approaches as well as other approaches which attempt to derive the meaning of sentences from the verb plus co-occurring elements, regardless of whether they posit constructional meanings or not. Goldberg (1995) and Michaelis and Ruppenhofer (2001) would be an example of the first approach, which may also be termed ‘enriched compositionalist’ (Jackendoff 1997), and Pustejovsky (1995) of the second.
- 2.
Russian data are from Viktoriya Lyakh (personal communication).
- 3.
Detailed presentations of RRG can be found in Van Valin (2005) and Van Valin and LaPolla (1997). A bibliography of work in the theory, along with copies of recent papers, dissertations and theses can be found on the RRG web site: http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/research/rrg.html.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
RRG does not posit the traditional grammatical relations of subject and direct object as theoretical constructs, but because this paper is not concerned with grammatical relations, the traditional terms will be used for ease of presentation.
- 7.
Certain aspects of the syntactic representation have been simplified; and these simplifications are irrelevant to the points under discussion.
- 8.
Note that if the verb has been reach, as in The soldiers reached the park, then two macroroles would have been assigned, because reach is transitive. The LS is basically the same for both verbs, however, with reach having an unspecified verb of motion in the activity part of the LS.
- 9.
A consequence of the fact that these atelic uses of telic verbs are necessarily iterative, as in (35a´, c´), is that there is no change in their LS in the two uses. Hence there is no need to posit a lexical rule to relate these pairs of sentences.
- 10.
- 11.
The notation is taken from Wunderlich (1997).
- 12.
See Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 416-7) for justification of this LS for middle constructions.
- 13.
This raises an interesting issue about the structure of the lexicon. The LSs created by the lexical rules are not stored in the lexicon, unlike the input LSs, and therefore it appears that the lexicon must be divided into at least two parts, one in which lexical items and morphemes are stored, and another in which lexical rules operate and create items which are not stored permanently in the lexicon.
- 14.
See Van Valin (2006) for discussion of how a parser based on RRG could be constructed.
- 15.
The crucial role of the telic quale of the subject NP in the interpretation of this example was pointed out by James Pustejovsky (personal communication).
- 16.
The reason for the ‘?’ in the syntactic representation is that the PP cannot be correctly attached to the core until its meaning is determined. That is, if the PP is headed by to, then it would be an argument in the core, whereas if it were headed by in, as in Sam ran in the park, then it would be an adjunct in the periphery.
References
Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, M. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language, 62, 808–45.
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.
Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Guerrero, L., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2004). Yaqui and the analysis of primary-object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70, 290–319.
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.
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.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jolly, J. (1991). Prepositional analysis within the framework of role and reference grammar. New York: Peter Lang.
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.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua, 92, 35–77.
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.
Michaelis, L., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI.
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.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17, 409–41.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia Linguistica, 32, 323–47.
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.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (Ed.). (1993). Advances in role and reference grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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].
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.
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.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning & function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verkuyl, H. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Walton, C. (1986). Sama verbal semantics: Classification, derivation and inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Watters, J. K. (1988). Topics in the Tepehua Grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
Weber, D. J. (1989). A grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua (University of California publications in linguistics 112). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wilkins, D. P. (1989). Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistics Inquiry, 28, 27–68.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Valin, R.D. (2013). Lexical Representation, Co-composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics. In: Pustejovsky, J., Bouillon, P., Isahara, H., Kanzaki, K., Lee, C. (eds) Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 46. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5188-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5189-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)