Meaning and mapping (1996)
暂无分享,去创建一个
This thesis examines lexical-syntactic relations in French, focusing on the lexical presentation of verbs and their arguments. I propose greater autonomy between the lexicon and the syntax: in particular, syntactic structures are neither referred to in lexical entries nor projected from them. I argue against the Unaccusativity Hypothesis, which posits a lexically-marked syntactic distinction among intransitive verbs. From a close examination of the morphosyntactic behaviours purported to indicate unaccusativity, I conclude that the evidence for this distinction is unpersuasive. Hence, the motivation for representing syntactic information in the lexicon is weakened. I establish a distinction between a verb's lexical arguments, essential to its meaning, and other arguments that may appear with the verb in a sentence; and I show that there is not always a one-to-one relation between lexical arguments and semantic roles. Turning to verbal alternations, I look first at pronominal verbs, those that may be marked with the reflexive clitic. A unified, coherent account is impossible if this marking is taken to represent or absorb an argument of the verb; rather, it is middle-marking, indicating low elaboration of the situation depicted in the sentence (Kemmer 1993). Next I examine verbs that alternate between an intransitive and transitive use. The addition of a causer argument hinges on two semantic factors: the possibility of the causer being viewed as the sole cause and the ability of the theme argument to undergo change or motion autonomously. The interaction of these two factors with different verb-argument combinations accounts for the nuances between transitive and periphrastic causatives, as well as the availability of the intransitive. A second alternation, involving the addition of a delimiter argument, is also explored. Lastly, I look at the full range of intransitive and transitive mappings and their interaction with middle-marking. I show that gaps in mapping--that is, the inability of a verb to display all mapping possibilities--can often be explained in terms of verbal semantics, without recourse to idiosyncratic marking.