The KEY to lexical semantic representations

It is widely accepted that the semantic content of a lexical entry determines to a large extent its syntactic subcategorization or other contexts of occurrence. However, clarifying the precise extent to which this hypothesis holds has proven difficult and on occasion controversial. To maintain this hypothesis, scholars have in many difficult cases introduced syntactic diacritics in their lexical semantic representations, thereby running the risk of rendering it vacuous. Our answer to this challenge is two-fold. First, on the substantive side, we argue that the problem lies in the assumption that the semantic content of lexical entries consists of a recursive predicate-argument structure. In contrast, we claim that the semantic content of lexical entries can consist of a set of such structures, thus eschewing semantically unmotivated predicates that merely ensure the correct semantic geometry. Second, on the structural side, we suggest that the semantic content of words can idiosyncratically select one of those predicate-argument structures for the purposes of direct grammatical function assignment. We show that this hypothesis, which builds on independently motivated proposals regarding the form of underspecified natural language semantic representations, provides a clean account of linking phenomena related to several classes of predicators: verbs whose denotata require the presence of an instrument, the semantic role of French 'adjunct' clitics, commercial event verbs, the spray/load alternations, and lexical subordination constructions.

[1]  Susanne Z. Riehemann,et al.  Type-based derivational morphology , 1998 .

[2]  David R. Dowty Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[3]  B. Levin,et al.  What to do with theta-roles , 1986 .

[4]  B. Levin,et al.  What to do with Theta -Roles in Thematic Relations. , 1988 .

[5]  Anthony R. Davis,et al.  Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon , 2000 .

[6]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  THE CASE FOR CASE. , 1967 .

[7]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu , 1995 .

[8]  Dan Flickinger,et al.  Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction , 2005 .

[9]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Computer Models of Thought and Language , 1974 .

[10]  Philip H. Miller,et al.  Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar , 1992 .

[11]  Christopher D. Manning Ergativity : Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations , 2000 .

[12]  Ray Jackendoff Semantics and Cognition , 1983 .

[13]  Anthony Ruiz Davis,et al.  Lexical semantics and linking in the hierarchical lexicon , 1996 .

[14]  À. Keith,et al.  The role of argument structure in grammar , 1996 .

[15]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[16]  W. Bruce Croft Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations , 1990 .

[17]  김두식,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations , 2006 .

[18]  C. Fillmore The case for case reopened , 1977 .

[19]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Sublexical Modality And The Structure Of Lexical Semantic Representations , 2001 .

[20]  Anthony R. Davis,et al.  Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon , 2001 .

[21]  Randy J. LaPolla,et al.  Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function , 1999 .

[22]  B. Levin Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface , 1994 .

[23]  Alex Alsina,et al.  On the argument structure of causatives , 1992 .

[24]  R. Valin A synopsis of role and reference grammar , 1992 .

[25]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Arguments for adjuncts , 2003, Cognition.

[26]  S. Wechsler The semantic basis of argument structure , 1995 .

[27]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure , 1991, Cognition.

[28]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  French Body-Parts and the Semantics of Binding , 1999 .

[29]  Malka Rappaport Hovav,et al.  An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives , 2001 .

[30]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics , 1989 .

[31]  Joan Bresnan,et al.  Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar , 1989 .

[32]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[33]  George Lakoff,et al.  Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure , 1968 .

[34]  S. Pinker Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[35]  J. Gawron Situations and prepositions , 1986 .

[36]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Semantically transparent linking in HPSG , 2003, Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.

[37]  Robert D. Van Valin,et al.  Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar , 1984 .

[38]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[39]  Gosse Bouma,et al.  Satisfying Constraints on Extraction andAdjunction , 2001 .

[40]  B. Landau Language and experience , 1985 .

[41]  L. Talmy Toward a Cognitive Semantics , 2003 .

[42]  Dieter Wunderlich,et al.  Cause and the structure of verbs , 1997 .

[43]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  An Algebra for Semantic Construction in Constraint-based Grammars , 2001, ACL.