fbpx
Wikipedia

Lexical semantics

Lexical semantics (also known as lexicosemantics), as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings.[1][2] It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality,[1] and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.[2]

The units of analysis in lexical semantics are lexical units which include not only words but also sub-words or sub-units such as affixes and even compound words and phrases. Lexical units include the catalogue of words in a language, the lexicon. Lexical semantics looks at how the meaning of the lexical units correlates with the structure of the language or syntax. This is referred to as syntax-semantics interface.[3]

The study of lexical semantics concerns:

  • the classification and decomposition of lexical items
  • the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure cross-linguistically
  • the relationship of lexical meaning to sentence meaning and syntax.

Lexical units, also referred to as syntactic atoms, can be independent such as in the case of root words or parts of compound words or they require association with other units, as prefixes and suffixes do. The former are termed free morphemes and the latter bound morphemes.[4] They fall into a narrow range of meanings (semantic fields) and can combine with each other to generate new denotations.

Cognitive semantics is the linguistic paradigm/framework that since the 1980s has generated the most studies in lexical semantics, introducing innovations like prototype theory, conceptual metaphors, and frame semantics.[5]

Lexical Relations edit

Lexical items contain information about category (lexical and syntactic), form and meaning. The semantics related to these categories then relate to each lexical item in the lexicon.[6] Lexical items can also be semantically classified based on whether their meanings are derived from single lexical units or from their surrounding environment.

Lexical items participate in regular patterns of association with each other. Some relations between lexical items include hyponymy, hypernymy, synonymy, and antonymy, as well as homonymy.[6]

Hyponymy and hypernymy edit

Hyponymy and hypernymy refers to a relationship between a general term and the more specific terms that fall under the category of the general term.

For example, the colors red, green, blue and yellow are hyponyms. They fall under the general term of color, which is the hypernym.

 
Taxonomy showing the hypernym "color"
Color (hypernym) → red, green, yellow, blue (hyponyms) 

Hyponyms and hypernyms can be described by using a taxonomy, as seen in the example.

Synonym edit

Synonym refers to words that are pronounced and spelled differently but contain the same meaning.

Happy, joyful, glad[6]

Antonym edit

Antonym refers to words that are related by having the opposite meanings to each other. There are three types of antonyms: graded antonyms, complementary antonyms, and relational antonyms.

Sleep, awake[6]long, short 

Homonymy edit

Homonymy refers to the relationship between words that are spelled or pronounced the same way but hold different meanings.

bank (of river) bank (financial institution) 

Polysemy edit

Polysemy refers to a word having two or more related meanings.

bright (shining) bright (intelligent) 
 
An example of a semantic network

Ambonym edit

Ambonym refers to the relationship between two words that apply them as both synonyms and antonyms simultaneously due to multiple definitions for the individual words. Not to be confused with contronym.

robbery (to take without permission; a swindling or overcharging) steal (to take without permission; a bargain) 

Semantic networks edit

Lexical semantics also explores whether the meaning of a lexical unit is established by looking at its neighbourhood in the semantic net, (words it occurs with in natural sentences), or whether the meaning is already locally contained in the lexical unit.

In English, WordNet is an example of a semantic network. It contains English words that are grouped into synsets. Some semantic relations between these synsets are meronymy, hyponymy, synonymy, and antonymy.

Semantic fields edit

How lexical items map onto concepts edit

First proposed by Trier in the 1930s,[7] semantic field theory proposes that a group of words with interrelated meanings can be categorized under a larger conceptual domain. This entire entity is thereby known as a semantic field. The words boil, bake, fry, and roast, for example, would fall under the larger semantic category of cooking. Semantic field theory asserts that lexical meaning cannot be fully understood by looking at a word in isolation, but by looking at a group of semantically related words.[8] Semantic relations can refer to any relationship in meaning between lexemes, including synonymy (big and large), antonymy (big and small), hypernymy and hyponymy (rose and flower), converseness (buy and sell), and incompatibility. Semantic field theory does not have concrete guidelines that determine the extent of semantic relations between lexemes. The abstract validity of the theory is a subject of debate.[7]

Knowing the meaning of a lexical item therefore means knowing the semantic entailments the word brings with it. However, it is also possible to understand only one word of a semantic field without understanding other related words. Take, for example, a taxonomy of plants and animals: it is possible to understand the words rose and rabbit without knowing what a marigold or a muskrat is. This is applicable to colors as well, such as understanding the word red without knowing the meaning of scarlet, but understanding scarlet without knowing the meaning of red may be less likely. A semantic field can thus be very large or very small, depending on the level of contrast being made between lexical items. While cat and dog both fall under the larger semantic field of animal, including the breed of dog, like German shepherd, would require contrasts between other breeds of dog (e.g. corgi, or poodle), thus expanding the semantic field further.[9]

How lexical items map onto events edit

Event structure is defined as the semantic relation of a verb and its syntactic properties.[10] Event structure has three primary components:[11]

  • primitive event type of the lexical item
  • event composition rules
  • mapping rules to lexical structure

Verbs can belong to one of three types: states, processes, or transitions.

(1) a. The door is closed.[11] b. The door closed.  c. John closed the door. 

(1a) defines the state of the door being closed; there is no opposition in this predicate. (1b) and (1c) both have predicates showing transitions of the door going from being implicitly open to closed. (1b) gives the intransitive use of the verb close, with no explicit mention of the causer, but (1c) makes explicit mention of the agent involved in the action.

Syntactic basis of event structure: a brief history edit

Generative semantics in the 1960s edit

The analysis of these different lexical units had a decisive role in the field of "generative linguistics" during the 1960s.[12] The term generative was proposed by Noam Chomsky in his book Syntactic Structures published in 1957. The term generative linguistics was based on Chomsky's generative grammar, a linguistic theory that states systematic sets of rules (X' theory) can predict grammatical phrases within a natural language.[13] Generative Linguistics is also known as Government-Binding Theory. Generative linguists of the 1960s, including Noam Chomsky and Ernst von Glasersfeld, believed semantic relations between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs were tied to their independent syntactic organization.[12] This meant that they saw a simple verb phrase as encompassing a more complex syntactic structure.[12]

Lexicalist theories in the 1980s edit

Lexicalist theories became popular during the 1980s, and emphasized that a word's internal structure was a question of morphology and not of syntax.[14] Lexicalist theories emphasized that complex words (resulting from compounding and derivation of affixes) have lexical entries that are derived from morphology, rather than resulting from overlapping syntactic and phonological properties, as Generative Linguistics predicts. The distinction between Generative Linguistics and Lexicalist theories can be illustrated by considering the transformation of the word destroy to destruction:

  • Generative Linguistics theory: states the transformation of destroydestruction as the nominal, nom + destroy, combined with phonological rules that produce the output destruction. Views this transformation as independent of the morphology.
  • Lexicalist theory: sees destroy and destruction as having idiosyncratic lexical entries based on their differences in morphology. Argues that each morpheme contributes specific meaning. States that the formation of the complex word destruction is accounted for by a set of Lexical Rules, which are different and independent from syntactic rules.[14]

A lexical entry lists the basic properties of either the whole word, or the individual properties of the morphemes that make up the word itself. The properties of lexical items include their category selection c-selection, selectional properties s-selection, (also known as semantic selection),[12] phonological properties, and features. The properties of lexical items are idiosyncratic, unpredictable, and contain specific information about the lexical items that they describe.[12]

The following is an example of a lexical entry for the verb put:

put: V DPagent DPexperiencer/PPlocative

Lexicalist theories state that a word's meaning is derived from its morphology or a speaker's lexicon, and not its syntax. The degree of morphology's influence on overall grammar remains controversial.[12] Currently, the linguists that perceive one engine driving both morphological items and syntactic items are in the majority.

Micro-syntactic theories: 1990s to the present edit

By the early 1990s, Chomsky's minimalist framework on language structure led to sophisticated probing techniques for investigating languages.[15] These probing techniques analyzed negative data over prescriptive grammars, and because of Chomsky's proposed Extended Projection Principle in 1986, probing techniques showed where specifiers of a sentence had moved to in order to fulfill the EPP. This allowed syntacticians to hypothesize that lexical items with complex syntactic features (such as ditransitive, inchoative, and causative verbs), could select their own specifier element within a syntax tree construction. (For more on probing techniques, see Suci, G., Gammon, P., & Gamlin, P. (1979)).

This brought the focus back on the syntax-lexical semantics interface; however, syntacticians still sought to understand the relationship between complex verbs and their related syntactic structure, and to what degree the syntax was projected from the lexicon, as the Lexicalist theories argued.

In the mid 1990s, linguists Heidi Harley, Samuel Jay Keyser, and Kenneth Hale addressed some of the implications posed by complex verbs and a lexically-derived syntax. Their proposals indicated that the predicates CAUSE and BECOME, referred to as subunits within a Verb Phrase, acted as a lexical semantic template.[16] Predicates are verbs and state or affirm something about the subject of the sentence or the argument of the sentence. For example, the predicates went and is here below affirm the argument of the subject and the state of the subject respectively.

Lucy went home. The parcel is here. 

The subunits of Verb Phrases led to the Argument Structure Hypothesis and Verb Phrase Hypothesis, both outlined below.[17] The recursion found under the "umbrella" Verb Phrase, the VP Shell, accommodated binary-branching theory; another critical topic during the 1990s.[18] Current theory recognizes the predicate in Specifier position of a tree in inchoative/anticausative verbs (intransitive), or causative verbs (transitive) is what selects the theta role conjoined with a particular verb.[12]

Hale & Keyser 1990 edit

 
Hale and Keyser 1990 structure

Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser introduced their thesis on lexical argument structure during the early 1990s.[19] They argue that a predicate's argument structure is represented in the syntax, and that the syntactic representation of the predicate is a lexical projection of its arguments. Thus, the structure of a predicate is strictly a lexical representation, where each phrasal head projects its argument onto a phrasal level within the syntax tree. The selection of this phrasal head is based on Chomsky's Empty Category Principle. This lexical projection of the predicate's argument onto the syntactic structure is the foundation for the Argument Structure Hypothesis.[19] This idea coincides with Chomsky's Projection Principle, because it forces a VP to be selected locally and be selected by a Tense Phrase (TP).

Based on the interaction between lexical properties, locality, and the properties of the EPP (where a phrasal head selects another phrasal element locally), Hale and Keyser make the claim that the Specifier position or a complement are the only two semantic relations that project a predicate's argument. In 2003, Hale and Keyser put forward this hypothesis and argued that a lexical unit must have one or the other, Specifier or Complement, but cannot have both.[20]

Halle & Marantz 1993 edit

 
Halle & Marantz 1993 structure

Morris Halle and Alec Marantz introduced the notion of distributed morphology in 1993.[21] This theory views the syntactic structure of words as a result of morphology and semantics, instead of the morpho-semantic interface being predicted by the syntax. Essentially, the idea that under the Extended Projection Principle there is a local boundary under which a special meaning occurs. This meaning can only occur if a head-projecting morpheme is present within the local domain of the syntactic structure.[22] The following is an example of the tree structure proposed by distributed morphology for the sentence "John's destroying the city". Destroy is the root, V-1 represents verbalization, and D represents nominalization.[22]

Ramchand 2008 edit

In her 2008 book, Verb Meaning and The Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax, linguist Gillian Ramchand acknowledges the roles of lexical entries in the selection of complex verbs and their arguments.[23] 'First-Phase' syntax proposes that event structure and event participants are directly represented in the syntax by means of binary branching. This branching ensures that the Specifier is the consistently subject, even when investigating the projection of a complex verb's lexical entry and its corresponding syntactic construction. This generalization is also present in Ramchand's theory that the complement of a head for a complex verb phrase must co-describe the verb's event.

Ramchand also introduced the concept of Homomorphic Unity, which refers to the structural synchronization between the head of a complex verb phrase and its complement. According to Ramchand, Homomorphic Unity is "when two event descriptors are syntactically Merged, the structure of the complement must unify with the structure of the head."[23]

Classification of event types edit

Intransitive verbs: unaccusative versus unergative edit

 
Underlying tree structure for (2a)
 
Underlying tree structure for (2b)

The unaccusative hypothesis was put forward by David Perlmutter in 1987, and describes how two classes of intransitive verbs have two different syntactic structures. These are unaccusative verbs and unergative verbs.[24] These classes of verbs are defined by Perlmutter only in syntactic terms. They have the following structures underlyingly:

  • unaccusative verb: __ [VP V NP][24]
  • unergative verb: NP [VP V]

The following is an example from English:

(2) Unaccusative a. Mary fell.[25] Unergative b. Mary worked. 

In (2a) the verb underlyingly takes a direct object, while in (2b) the verb underlyingly takes a subject.

Transitivity alternations: the inchoative/causative alternation edit

The change-of-state property of Verb Phrases (VP) is a significant observation for the syntax of lexical semantics because it provides evidence that subunits are embedded in the VP structure, and that the meaning of the entire VP is influenced by this internal grammatical structure. (For example, the VP the vase broke carries a change-of-state meaning of the vase becoming broken, and thus has a silent BECOME subunit within its underlying structure.) There are two types of change-of-state predicates: inchoative and causative.

Inchoative verbs are intransitive, meaning that they occur without a direct object, and these verbs express that their subject has undergone a certain change of state. Inchoative verbs are also known as anticausative verbs.[26] Causative verbs are transitive, meaning that they occur with a direct object, and they express that the subject causes a change of state in the object.

Linguist Martin Haspelmath classifies inchoative/causative verb pairs under three main categories: causative, anticausative, and non-directed alternations.[27] Non-directed alternations are further subdivided into labile, equipollent, and suppletive alternations.

 
Underlying tree structure for (3a)
 
Underlying tree structure for (3b)

English tends to favour labile alternations,[28] meaning that the same verb is used in the inchoative and causative forms.[27] This can be seen in the following example: broke is an intransitive inchoative verb in (3a) and a transitive causative verb in (3b).

(3) English[26] a. The vase broke. b. John broke the vase. 

As seen in the underlying tree structure for (3a), the silent subunit BECOME is embedded within the Verb Phrase (VP), resulting in the inchoative change-of-state meaning (y become z). In the underlying tree structure for (3b), the silent subunits CAUS and BECOME are both embedded within the VP, resulting in the causative change-of-state meaning (x cause y become z).[12]

English change of state verbs are often de-adjectival, meaning that they are derived from adjectives. We can see this in the following example:

(4) a. The knot is loose.[29] b. The knot loosened. c. Sandy loosened the knot. 

In example (4a) we start with a stative intransitive adjective, and derive (4b) where we see an intransitive inchoative verb. In (4c) we see a transitive causative verb.

Marked inchoatives edit

Some languages (e.g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs.[30] Generally speaking, these languages separate their inchoative verbs into three classes: verbs that are obligatorily unmarked (they are not marked with a reflexive pronoun, clitic, or affix), verbs that are optionally marked, and verbs that are obligatorily marked. The causative verbs in these languages remain unmarked. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation.

 
Underlying tree structure for (4a)
 
Underlying tree structure for (4b)

For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun sich, Class B verbs form inchoatives necessarily without the reflexive pronoun, and Class C verbs form inchoatives optionally with or without the reflexive pronoun. In example (5), the verb zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form.[30]

(5) German[30] a. Die Vase zerbrach. the vase broke 'The vase broke.' b. Hans zerbrach die Vase. John broke the vase 'John broke the vase.' 
 
Underlying tree structure for (5a)
 
Underlying tree structure for (5b)

In contrast, the verb öffnete is a Class A verb which necessarily takes the reflexive pronoun sich in its inchoative form, but remains unmarked in its causative form.

(6) German[30] a. Die Tür öffnete sich. the door opened REFL 'The door opened.' b. Hans öffnete die Tür. John opened the door 'John opened the door.' 

There has been some debate as to whether the different classes of inchoative verbs are purely based in morphology, or whether the differentiation is derived from the lexical-semantic properties of each individual verb. While this debate is still unresolved in languages such as Italian, French, and Greek, it has been suggested by linguist Florian Schäfer that there are semantic differences between marked and unmarked inchoatives in German. Specifically, that only unmarked inchoative verbs allow an unintentional causer reading (meaning that they can take on an "x unintentionally caused y" reading).[30]

Marked causatives edit

 
Underlying tree structure for (7a)
 
Underlying tree structure for (7b)

Causative morphemes are present in the verbs of many languages (e.g., Tagalog, Malagasy, Turkish, etc.), usually appearing in the form of an affix on the verb.[26] This can be seen in the following examples from Tagalog, where the causative prefix pag- (realized here as nag) attaches to the verb tumba to derive a causative transitive verb in (7b), but the prefix does not appear in the inchoative intransitive verb in (7a). Haspelmath refers to this as the causative alternation.

(7) Tagalog[26] a. Tumumba ang bata. fell the child 'The child fell.' b. Nagtumba ng bata si Rosa. CAUS-fall of child DET Rosa 'Rosa knocked the child down.' 

Ditransitive verbs edit

Kayne's 1981 unambiguous path analysis edit

 
Tree diagram (8a)
 
Tree diagram (8b)

Richard Kayne proposed the idea of unambiguous paths as an alternative to c-commanding relationships, which is the type of structure seen in examples (8). The idea of unambiguous paths stated that an antecedent and an anaphor should be connected via an unambiguous path. This means that the line connecting an antecedent and an anaphor cannot be broken by another argument.[31] When applied to ditransitive verbs, this hypothesis introduces the structure in diagram (8a). In this tree structure it can be seen that the same path can be traced from either DP to the verb. Tree diagram (7b) illustrates this structure with an example from English. This analysis was a step toward binary branching trees, which was a theoretical change that was furthered by Larson's VP-shell analysis.[32]

Larson's 1988 "VP-shell" analysis edit

 
Tree diagram for (9a)
 
Tree diagram for (9b)

Larson posited his Single Complement Hypothesis in which he stated that every complement is introduced with one verb. The Double Object Construction presented in 1988 gave clear evidence of a hierarchical structure using asymmetrical binary branching.[32] Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:

 
Larson's proposed binary-branching VP-shell structure for (9)
(9) a. John sent Mary a package.[33] b. John sent a package to Mary. 

It appears as if the verb send has two objects, or complements (arguments): both Mary, the recipient and parcel, the theme. The argument structure of ditransitive verb phrases is complex and has undergone different structural hypothesis.

The original structural hypothesis was that of ternary branching seen in (9a) and (9b), but following from Kayne's 1981 analysis, Larson maintained that each complement is introduced by a verb.[31][32]

Their hypothesis shows that there is a lower verb embedded within a VP shell that combines with an upper verb (can be invisible), thus creating a VP shell (as seen in the tree diagram to the right). Most current theories no longer allow the ternary tree structure of (9a) and (9b), so the theme and the goal/recipient are seen in a hierarchical relationship within a binary branching structure.[34]

Following are examples of Larson's tests to show that the hierarchical (superior) order of any two objects aligns with a linear order, so that the second is governed (c-commanded) by the first.[32] This is in keeping with X'Bar Theory of Phrase Structure Grammar, with Larson's tree structure using the empty Verb to which the V is raised.

Reflexives and reciprocals (anaphors) show this relationship in which they must be c-commanded by their antecedents, such that the (10a) is grammatical but (10b) is not:

(10) a. I showed Mary herself.[32] b. *I showed herself Mary. 

A pronoun must have a quantifier as its antecedent:

(11) a.  I gave every worker his paycheck.[32] b. *I gave its owner every paycheck. 

Question words follow this order:

(12) a. Who did you give which paycheck?[32] b. *Which paycheck did you give who? 

The effect of negative polarity means that "any" must have a negative quantifier as an antecedent:

 
General tree diagram for Larson's proposed underlying structure of a sentence with causative meaning
(13) a. I showed no one anything.[32] b. *I showed anyone nothing. 

These tests with ditransitive verbs that confirm c-command also confirm the presence of underlying or invisible causative verbs. In ditransitive verbs such as give someone something, send someone something, show someone something etc. there is an underlying causative meaning that is represented in the underlying structure. As seen in example in (9a) above, John sent Mary a package, there is the underlying meaning that 'John "caused" Mary to have a package'.

Larson proposed that both sentences in (9a) and (9b) share the same underlying structure and the difference on the surface lies in that the double object construction "John sent Mary a package" is derived by transformation from a NP plus PP construction "John sent a package to Mary".

Beck & Johnson's 2004 double object construction edit

Beck and Johnson, however, give evidence that the two underlying structures are not the same.[35] In so doing, they also give further evidence of the presence of two VPs where the verb attaches to a causative verb. In examples (14a) and (b), each of the double object constructions are alternated with NP + PP constructions.

(14) a. Satoshi sent Tubingen the Damron Guide.[35] b. Satoshi sent the Damron Guide to Tübingen. 

Beck and Johnson show that the object in (15a) has a different relation to the motion verb as it is not able to carry the meaning of HAVING which the possessor (9a) and (15a) can. In (15a), Satoshi is an animate possessor and so is caused to HAVE kisimen. The PP for Satoshi in (15b) is of a benefactive nature and does not necessarily carry this meaning of HAVE either.

(15) a. Thilo cooked Satoshi kisimen.[35] b. Thilo cooked kisimen for Satoshi. 

The underlying structures are therefore not the same. The differences lie in the semantics and the syntax of the sentences, in contrast to the transformational theory of Larson. Further evidence for the structural existence of VP shells with an invisible verbal unit is given in the application of the adjunct or modifier "again". Sentence (16) is ambiguous and looking into the two different meanings reveals a difference in structure.

(16) Sally opened the door again.[35]
 
Underlying tree structure for (17a)
 
Underlying tree structure for (17b)

However, in (17a), it is clear that it was Sally who repeated the action of opening the door. In (17b), the event is in the door being opened and Sally may or may not have opened it previously. To render these two different meanings, "again" attaches to VPs in two different places, and thus describes two events with a purely structural change.

(17) a. Sally was so kind that she went out of her way to open the door once again.[35] b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened the door again. 

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ a b Pustejovsky, J. (2005) Lexical Semantics: Overview in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, second edition, Volumes 1-14
  2. ^ a b Taylor, J. (2017) Lexical Semantics. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 246-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316339732.017
  3. ^ Pustejovsky, James (1995). The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262661409.
  4. ^ Di Sciullo, Anne-Marie; Williams, Edwin (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  5. ^ Geeraerts, Dirk (2010) Introduction, p. xiv, in Theories of Lexical Semantics
  6. ^ a b c d Loos, Eugene; Anderson, Susan; H. Day, Jr., Dwight; Jordan, Paul; Wingate, J. Douglas. "What is a lexical relation?". Glossary of linguistic terms. LinguaLinks.
  7. ^ a b Famer, Pamela B.; Mairal Usón, Ricardo (1999). "Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs". Functional Grammar (in English) 23 (illustrated ed.). Walter de Gruyter. p. 350. ISBN 9783110164169.
  8. ^ Lehrer, Adrienne (1985). "The influence of semantic fields on semantic change" (PDF). Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 283–296.
  9. ^ Grandy, Richard E. (2012). "Semantic Fields, Prototypes, and the Lexicon". Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Routledge. pp. 103–122. ISBN 9781136475801.
  10. ^ Malaia; et al. (2012), "Effects of Verbal Event Structure on Online Thematic Role Assignment", Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41 (5): 323–345, doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9195-x, PMID 22120140, S2CID 207201471
  11. ^ a b Pustejovsky, James (2012). "The syntax of event structure" (PDF). Cognition. 41 (1–3): 47–81. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-y. PMID 1790655. S2CID 16966452.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h Sportiche, Dominique; Koopman, Hilda; Stabler, Edward (2014). An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. WILEY Blackwell.
  13. ^ Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton de Gruyter.
  14. ^ a b Scalise, Sergio; Guevara, Emiliano (1985). "The Lexicalist Approach to Word-Formation". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. ^ Fodor, Jerry; Lepore, Ernie (Aug 1999). "All at Sea in Semantic Space". The Journal of Philosophy. 96 (8): 381–403. doi:10.5840/jphil199996818. JSTOR 2564628. S2CID 14948287.
  16. ^ Pinker, S. 1989. "Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure." Cambridge. MIT Press. pp 89
  17. ^ Harley, Heidi. "Events, agents and the interpretation of VP-shells." (1996).
  18. ^ Kayne, Richard S. The antisymmetry of syntax. No. 25. MIT Press, 1994.
  19. ^ a b Hale, Kenneth; Keyser, Samuel Jay (1993). "On Argument Structures and the Lexical expression of syntactic relations". Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger.
  20. ^ Paul Bennett, 2003. Review of Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser, Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Machine Translation. Vol 18. Issue 1
  21. ^ Halle, Morris; Marantz, Alec (1993), Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, The View from Building 20 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 111–176
  22. ^ a b Marantz, Alec. 1997. 'No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon.' Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics
  23. ^ a b Ramchand, Gillian (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511486319.
  24. ^ a b Lappin, S. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
  25. ^ Loporcaro, M. (2003). The Unaccusative Hypothesis and participial absolutes in Italian: Perlmutter’s generalization revised. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 199-263.
  26. ^ a b c d Johnson, Kent (2008). "An Overview of Lexical Semantics" (PDF). Philosophy Compass: 119–134.
  27. ^ a b Haspelmath, Martin (1993). "More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations". Causatives and transitivity, edited by Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky. Studies in Language Companion Series. Vol. 23. Benjamins. pp. 87–121. doi:10.1075/slcs.23.05has. ISBN 978-90-272-3026-3. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  28. ^ Piñón, Christopher (2001). "A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation": 346–364. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  29. ^ Tham, S (2013). "Change of state verbs and result state adjectives in Mandarin Chinese". Journal of Linguistics. 49 (3): 647–701. doi:10.1017/s0022226713000261.
  30. ^ a b c d e Schafer, Florian (2008). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 9789027255099.
  31. ^ a b Kayne, R. (1981). Unambiguous paths. In R. May & F. Koster (Eds.), Levels of syntactic representation (143-184). Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.
  32. ^ a b c d e f g h Larson, Richard (1988). "On the Double Object Construction". Linguistic Inquiry. 19 (3): 589–632. JSTOR 25164901.
  33. ^ Miyagawa, Shigeru; Tsujioka, Takae (2004). "Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese". Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 13 (1): 1–38. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.207.6553. doi:10.1023/b:jeal.0000007345.64336.84. S2CID 122993837.
  34. ^ Bruening, Benjamin (November 2010). "Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation". Linguistic Inquiry. 41 (4): 519–562. doi:10.1162/LING_a_00012. S2CID 57567192.
  35. ^ a b c d e Sigrid, Beck; Johnson, Kyle (2004). "Double Objects Again" (PDF). Linguistic Inquiry. 35 (1): 97–124. doi:10.1162/002438904322793356. S2CID 18749803.

External links edit

  •   Media related to Lexical semantics at Wikimedia Commons

lexical, semantics, also, known, lexicosemantics, subfield, linguistic, semantics, study, word, meanings, includes, study, words, structure, their, meaning, they, grammar, compositionality, relationships, between, distinct, senses, uses, word, units, analysis,. Lexical semantics also known as lexicosemantics as a subfield of linguistic semantics is the study of word meanings 1 2 It includes the study of how words structure their meaning how they act in grammar and compositionality 1 and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word 2 The units of analysis in lexical semantics are lexical units which include not only words but also sub words or sub units such as affixes and even compound words and phrases Lexical units include the catalogue of words in a language the lexicon Lexical semantics looks at how the meaning of the lexical units correlates with the structure of the language or syntax This is referred to as syntax semantics interface 3 The study of lexical semantics concerns the classification and decomposition of lexical items the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure cross linguistically the relationship of lexical meaning to sentence meaning and syntax Lexical units also referred to as syntactic atoms can be independent such as in the case of root words or parts of compound words or they require association with other units as prefixes and suffixes do The former are termed free morphemes and the latter bound morphemes 4 They fall into a narrow range of meanings semantic fields and can combine with each other to generate new denotations Cognitive semantics is the linguistic paradigm framework that since the 1980s has generated the most studies in lexical semantics introducing innovations like prototype theory conceptual metaphors and frame semantics 5 Contents 1 Lexical Relations 1 1 Hyponymy and hypernymy 1 2 Synonym 1 3 Antonym 1 4 Homonymy 1 5 Polysemy 1 6 Ambonym 1 7 Semantic networks 2 Semantic fields 2 1 How lexical items map onto concepts 2 2 How lexical items map onto events 3 Syntactic basis of event structure a brief history 3 1 Generative semantics in the 1960s 3 2 Lexicalist theories in the 1980s 3 3 Micro syntactic theories 1990s to the present 3 3 1 Hale amp Keyser 1990 3 3 2 Halle amp Marantz 1993 3 3 3 Ramchand 2008 4 Classification of event types 4 1 Intransitive verbs unaccusative versus unergative 4 2 Transitivity alternations the inchoative causative alternation 4 2 1 Marked inchoatives 4 2 2 Marked causatives 4 3 Ditransitive verbs 4 3 1 Kayne s 1981 unambiguous path analysis 4 3 2 Larson s 1988 VP shell analysis 4 3 3 Beck amp Johnson s 2004 double object construction 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksLexical Relations editLexical items contain information about category lexical and syntactic form and meaning The semantics related to these categories then relate to each lexical item in the lexicon 6 Lexical items can also be semantically classified based on whether their meanings are derived from single lexical units or from their surrounding environment Lexical items participate in regular patterns of association with each other Some relations between lexical items include hyponymy hypernymy synonymy and antonymy as well as homonymy 6 Hyponymy and hypernymy edit Hyponymy and hypernymy refers to a relationship between a general term and the more specific terms that fall under the category of the general term For example the colors red green blue and yellow are hyponyms They fall under the general term of color which is the hypernym nbsp Taxonomy showing the hypernym color Color hypernym red green yellow blue hyponyms Hyponyms and hypernyms can be described by using a taxonomy as seen in the example Synonym edit Synonym refers to words that are pronounced and spelled differently but contain the same meaning Happy joyful glad 6 Antonym edit Antonym refers to words that are related by having the opposite meanings to each other There are three types of antonyms graded antonyms complementary antonyms and relational antonyms Sleep awake 6 long shortHomonymy edit Homonymy refers to the relationship between words that are spelled or pronounced the same way but hold different meanings bank of river bank financial institution Polysemy edit Polysemy refers to a word having two or more related meanings bright shining bright intelligent nbsp An example of a semantic networkAmbonym edit Ambonym refers to the relationship between two words that apply them as both synonyms and antonyms simultaneously due to multiple definitions for the individual words Not to be confused with contronym robbery to take without permission a swindling or overcharging steal to take without permission a bargain Semantic networks edit Lexical semantics also explores whether the meaning of a lexical unit is established by looking at its neighbourhood in the semantic net words it occurs with in natural sentences or whether the meaning is already locally contained in the lexical unit In English WordNet is an example of a semantic network It contains English words that are grouped into synsets Some semantic relations between these synsets are meronymy hyponymy synonymy and antonymy Semantic fields editHow lexical items map onto concepts edit First proposed by Trier in the 1930s 7 semantic field theory proposes that a group of words with interrelated meanings can be categorized under a larger conceptual domain This entire entity is thereby known as a semantic field The words boil bake fry and roast for example would fall under the larger semantic category of cooking Semantic field theory asserts that lexical meaning cannot be fully understood by looking at a word in isolation but by looking at a group of semantically related words 8 Semantic relations can refer to any relationship in meaning between lexemes including synonymy big and large antonymy big and small hypernymy and hyponymy rose and flower converseness buy and sell and incompatibility Semantic field theory does not have concrete guidelines that determine the extent of semantic relations between lexemes The abstract validity of the theory is a subject of debate 7 Knowing the meaning of a lexical item therefore means knowing the semantic entailments the word brings with it However it is also possible to understand only one word of a semantic field without understanding other related words Take for example a taxonomy of plants and animals it is possible to understand the words rose and rabbit without knowing what a marigold or a muskrat is This is applicable to colors as well such as understanding the word red without knowing the meaning of scarlet but understanding scarlet without knowing the meaning of red may be less likely A semantic field can thus be very large or very small depending on the level of contrast being made between lexical items While cat and dog both fall under the larger semantic field of animal including the breed of dog like German shepherd would require contrasts between other breeds of dog e g corgi or poodle thus expanding the semantic field further 9 How lexical items map onto events edit Event structure is defined as the semantic relation of a verb and its syntactic properties 10 Event structure has three primary components 11 primitive event type of the lexical item event composition rules mapping rules to lexical structureVerbs can belong to one of three types states processes or transitions 1 a The door is closed 11 b The door closed c John closed the door 1a defines the state of the door being closed there is no opposition in this predicate 1b and 1c both have predicates showing transitions of the door going from being implicitly open to closed 1b gives the intransitive use of the verb close with no explicit mention of the causer but 1c makes explicit mention of the agent involved in the action Syntactic basis of event structure a brief history editGenerative semantics in the 1960s edit The analysis of these different lexical units had a decisive role in the field of generative linguistics during the 1960s 12 The term generative was proposed by Noam Chomsky in his book Syntactic Structures published in 1957 The term generative linguistics was based on Chomsky s generative grammar a linguistic theory that states systematic sets of rules X theory can predict grammatical phrases within a natural language 13 Generative Linguistics is also known as Government Binding Theory Generative linguists of the 1960s including Noam Chomsky and Ernst von Glasersfeld believed semantic relations between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs were tied to their independent syntactic organization 12 This meant that they saw a simple verb phrase as encompassing a more complex syntactic structure 12 Lexicalist theories in the 1980s edit Lexicalist theories became popular during the 1980s and emphasized that a word s internal structure was a question of morphology and not of syntax 14 Lexicalist theories emphasized that complex words resulting from compounding and derivation of affixes have lexical entries that are derived from morphology rather than resulting from overlapping syntactic and phonological properties as Generative Linguistics predicts The distinction between Generative Linguistics and Lexicalist theories can be illustrated by considering the transformation of the word destroy to destruction Generative Linguistics theory states the transformation of destroy destruction as the nominal nom destroy combined with phonological rules that produce the output destruction Views this transformation as independent of the morphology Lexicalist theory sees destroy and destruction as having idiosyncratic lexical entries based on their differences in morphology Argues that each morpheme contributes specific meaning States that the formation of the complex word destruction is accounted for by a set of Lexical Rules which are different and independent from syntactic rules 14 A lexical entry lists the basic properties of either the whole word or the individual properties of the morphemes that make up the word itself The properties of lexical items include their category selection c selection selectional properties s selection also known as semantic selection 12 phonological properties and features The properties of lexical items are idiosyncratic unpredictable and contain specific information about the lexical items that they describe 12 The following is an example of a lexical entry for the verb put put V DPagent DPexperiencer PPlocativeLexicalist theories state that a word s meaning is derived from its morphology or a speaker s lexicon and not its syntax The degree of morphology s influence on overall grammar remains controversial 12 Currently the linguists that perceive one engine driving both morphological items and syntactic items are in the majority Micro syntactic theories 1990s to the present edit By the early 1990s Chomsky s minimalist framework on language structure led to sophisticated probing techniques for investigating languages 15 These probing techniques analyzed negative data over prescriptive grammars and because of Chomsky s proposed Extended Projection Principle in 1986 probing techniques showed where specifiers of a sentence had moved to in order to fulfill the EPP This allowed syntacticians to hypothesize that lexical items with complex syntactic features such as ditransitive inchoative and causative verbs could select their own specifier element within a syntax tree construction For more on probing techniques see Suci G Gammon P amp Gamlin P 1979 This brought the focus back on the syntax lexical semantics interface however syntacticians still sought to understand the relationship between complex verbs and their related syntactic structure and to what degree the syntax was projected from the lexicon as the Lexicalist theories argued In the mid 1990s linguists Heidi Harley Samuel Jay Keyser and Kenneth Hale addressed some of the implications posed by complex verbs and a lexically derived syntax Their proposals indicated that the predicates CAUSE and BECOME referred to as subunits within a Verb Phrase acted as a lexical semantic template 16 Predicates are verbs and state or affirm something about the subject of the sentence or the argument of the sentence For example the predicates went and is here below affirm the argument of the subject and the state of the subject respectively Lucy went home The parcel is here The subunits of Verb Phrases led to the Argument Structure Hypothesis and Verb Phrase Hypothesis both outlined below 17 The recursion found under the umbrella Verb Phrase the VP Shell accommodated binary branching theory another critical topic during the 1990s 18 Current theory recognizes the predicate in Specifier position of a tree in inchoative anticausative verbs intransitive or causative verbs transitive is what selects the theta role conjoined with a particular verb 12 Hale amp Keyser 1990 edit nbsp Hale and Keyser 1990 structureKenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser introduced their thesis on lexical argument structure during the early 1990s 19 They argue that a predicate s argument structure is represented in the syntax and that the syntactic representation of the predicate is a lexical projection of its arguments Thus the structure of a predicate is strictly a lexical representation where each phrasal head projects its argument onto a phrasal level within the syntax tree The selection of this phrasal head is based on Chomsky s Empty Category Principle This lexical projection of the predicate s argument onto the syntactic structure is the foundation for the Argument Structure Hypothesis 19 This idea coincides with Chomsky s Projection Principle because it forces a VP to be selected locally and be selected by a Tense Phrase TP Based on the interaction between lexical properties locality and the properties of the EPP where a phrasal head selects another phrasal element locally Hale and Keyser make the claim that the Specifier position or a complement are the only two semantic relations that project a predicate s argument In 2003 Hale and Keyser put forward this hypothesis and argued that a lexical unit must have one or the other Specifier or Complement but cannot have both 20 Halle amp Marantz 1993 edit Main article Distributed morphology nbsp Halle amp Marantz 1993 structureMorris Halle and Alec Marantz introduced the notion of distributed morphology in 1993 21 This theory views the syntactic structure of words as a result of morphology and semantics instead of the morpho semantic interface being predicted by the syntax Essentially the idea that under the Extended Projection Principle there is a local boundary under which a special meaning occurs This meaning can only occur if a head projecting morpheme is present within the local domain of the syntactic structure 22 The following is an example of the tree structure proposed by distributed morphology for the sentence John s destroying the city Destroy is the root V 1 represents verbalization and D represents nominalization 22 Ramchand 2008 edit In her 2008 book Verb Meaning and The Lexicon A First Phase Syntax linguist Gillian Ramchand acknowledges the roles of lexical entries in the selection of complex verbs and their arguments 23 First Phase syntax proposes that event structure and event participants are directly represented in the syntax by means of binary branching This branching ensures that the Specifier is the consistently subject even when investigating the projection of a complex verb s lexical entry and its corresponding syntactic construction This generalization is also present in Ramchand s theory that the complement of a head for a complex verb phrase must co describe the verb s event Ramchand also introduced the concept of Homomorphic Unity which refers to the structural synchronization between the head of a complex verb phrase and its complement According to Ramchand Homomorphic Unity is when two event descriptors are syntactically Merged the structure of the complement must unify with the structure of the head 23 Classification of event types editIntransitive verbs unaccusative versus unergative edit nbsp Underlying tree structure for 2a nbsp Underlying tree structure for 2b The unaccusative hypothesis was put forward by David Perlmutter in 1987 and describes how two classes of intransitive verbs have two different syntactic structures These are unaccusative verbs and unergative verbs 24 These classes of verbs are defined by Perlmutter only in syntactic terms They have the following structures underlyingly unaccusative verb VP V NP 24 unergative verb NP VP V The following is an example from English 2 Unaccusative a Mary fell 25 Unergative b Mary worked In 2a the verb underlyingly takes a direct object while in 2b the verb underlyingly takes a subject Transitivity alternations the inchoative causative alternation edit Main article Causative alternation The change of state property of Verb Phrases VP is a significant observation for the syntax of lexical semantics because it provides evidence that subunits are embedded in the VP structure and that the meaning of the entire VP is influenced by this internal grammatical structure For example the VP the vase broke carries a change of state meaning of the vase becoming broken and thus has a silent BECOME subunit within its underlying structure There are two types of change of state predicates inchoative and causative Inchoative verbs are intransitive meaning that they occur without a direct object and these verbs express that their subject has undergone a certain change of state Inchoative verbs are also known as anticausative verbs 26 Causative verbs are transitive meaning that they occur with a direct object and they express that the subject causes a change of state in the object Linguist Martin Haspelmath classifies inchoative causative verb pairs under three main categories causative anticausative and non directed alternations 27 Non directed alternations are further subdivided into labile equipollent and suppletive alternations nbsp Underlying tree structure for 3a nbsp Underlying tree structure for 3b English tends to favour labile alternations 28 meaning that the same verb is used in the inchoative and causative forms 27 This can be seen in the following example broke is an intransitive inchoative verb in 3a and a transitive causative verb in 3b 3 English 26 a The vase broke b John broke the vase As seen in the underlying tree structure for 3a the silent subunit BECOME is embedded within the Verb Phrase VP resulting in the inchoative change of state meaning y become z In the underlying tree structure for 3b the silent subunits CAUS and BECOME are both embedded within the VP resulting in the causative change of state meaning x cause y become z 12 English change of state verbs are often de adjectival meaning that they are derived from adjectives We can see this in the following example 4 a The knot is loose 29 b The knot loosened c Sandy loosened the knot In example 4a we start with a stative intransitive adjective and derive 4b where we see an intransitive inchoative verb In 4c we see a transitive causative verb Marked inchoatives edit Some languages e g German Italian and French have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs 30 Generally speaking these languages separate their inchoative verbs into three classes verbs that are obligatorily unmarked they are not marked with a reflexive pronoun clitic or affix verbs that are optionally marked and verbs that are obligatorily marked The causative verbs in these languages remain unmarked Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation nbsp Underlying tree structure for 4a nbsp Underlying tree structure for 4b For example inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun sich Class B verbs form inchoatives necessarily without the reflexive pronoun and Class C verbs form inchoatives optionally with or without the reflexive pronoun In example 5 the verb zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B which also remains unmarked in its causative form 30 5 German 30 a Die Vase zerbrach the vase broke The vase broke b Hans zerbrach die Vase John broke the vase John broke the vase nbsp Underlying tree structure for 5a nbsp Underlying tree structure for 5b In contrast the verb offnete is a Class A verb which necessarily takes the reflexive pronoun sich in its inchoative form but remains unmarked in its causative form 6 German 30 a Die Tur offnete sich the door opened REFL The door opened b Hans offnete die Tur John opened the door John opened the door There has been some debate as to whether the different classes of inchoative verbs are purely based in morphology or whether the differentiation is derived from the lexical semantic properties of each individual verb While this debate is still unresolved in languages such as Italian French and Greek it has been suggested by linguist Florian Schafer that there are semantic differences between marked and unmarked inchoatives in German Specifically that only unmarked inchoative verbs allow an unintentional causer reading meaning that they can take on an x unintentionally caused y reading 30 Marked causatives edit nbsp Underlying tree structure for 7a nbsp Underlying tree structure for 7b Causative morphemes are present in the verbs of many languages e g Tagalog Malagasy Turkish etc usually appearing in the form of an affix on the verb 26 This can be seen in the following examples from Tagalog where the causative prefix pag realized here as nag attaches to the verb tumba to derive a causative transitive verb in 7b but the prefix does not appear in the inchoative intransitive verb in 7a Haspelmath refers to this as the causative alternation 7 Tagalog 26 a Tumumba ang bata fell the child The child fell b Nagtumba ng bata si Rosa CAUS fall of child DET Rosa Rosa knocked the child down Ditransitive verbs edit Kayne s 1981 unambiguous path analysis edit nbsp Tree diagram 8a nbsp Tree diagram 8b Richard Kayne proposed the idea of unambiguous paths as an alternative to c commanding relationships which is the type of structure seen in examples 8 The idea of unambiguous paths stated that an antecedent and an anaphor should be connected via an unambiguous path This means that the line connecting an antecedent and an anaphor cannot be broken by another argument 31 When applied to ditransitive verbs this hypothesis introduces the structure in diagram 8a In this tree structure it can be seen that the same path can be traced from either DP to the verb Tree diagram 7b illustrates this structure with an example from English This analysis was a step toward binary branching trees which was a theoretical change that was furthered by Larson s VP shell analysis 32 Larson s 1988 VP shell analysis edit nbsp Tree diagram for 9a nbsp Tree diagram for 9b Larson posited his Single Complement Hypothesis in which he stated that every complement is introduced with one verb The Double Object Construction presented in 1988 gave clear evidence of a hierarchical structure using asymmetrical binary branching 32 Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs as we can see in the following example nbsp Larson s proposed binary branching VP shell structure for 9 9 a John sent Mary a package 33 b John sent a package to Mary It appears as if the verb send has two objects or complements arguments both Mary the recipient and parcel the theme The argument structure of ditransitive verb phrases is complex and has undergone different structural hypothesis The original structural hypothesis was that of ternary branching seen in 9a and 9b but following from Kayne s 1981 analysis Larson maintained that each complement is introduced by a verb 31 32 Their hypothesis shows that there is a lower verb embedded within a VP shell that combines with an upper verb can be invisible thus creating a VP shell as seen in the tree diagram to the right Most current theories no longer allow the ternary tree structure of 9a and 9b so the theme and the goal recipient are seen in a hierarchical relationship within a binary branching structure 34 Following are examples of Larson s tests to show that the hierarchical superior order of any two objects aligns with a linear order so that the second is governed c commanded by the first 32 This is in keeping with X Bar Theory of Phrase Structure Grammar with Larson s tree structure using the empty Verb to which the V is raised Reflexives and reciprocals anaphors show this relationship in which they must be c commanded by their antecedents such that the 10a is grammatical but 10b is not 10 a I showed Mary herself 32 b I showed herself Mary A pronoun must have a quantifier as its antecedent 11 a I gave every worker his paycheck 32 b I gave its owner every paycheck Question words follow this order 12 a Who did you give which paycheck 32 b Which paycheck did you give who The effect of negative polarity means that any must have a negative quantifier as an antecedent nbsp General tree diagram for Larson s proposed underlying structure of a sentence with causative meaning 13 a I showed no one anything 32 b I showed anyone nothing These tests with ditransitive verbs that confirm c command also confirm the presence of underlying or invisible causative verbs In ditransitive verbs such as give someone something send someone something show someone something etc there is an underlying causative meaning that is represented in the underlying structure As seen in example in 9a above John sent Mary a package there is the underlying meaning that John caused Mary to have a package Larson proposed that both sentences in 9a and 9b share the same underlying structure and the difference on the surface lies in that the double object construction John sent Mary a package is derived by transformation from a NP plus PP construction John sent a package to Mary Beck amp Johnson s 2004 double object construction edit Beck and Johnson however give evidence that the two underlying structures are not the same 35 In so doing they also give further evidence of the presence of two VPs where the verb attaches to a causative verb In examples 14a and b each of the double object constructions are alternated with NP PP constructions 14 a Satoshi sent Tubingen the Damron Guide 35 b Satoshi sent the Damron Guide to Tubingen Beck and Johnson show that the object in 15a has a different relation to the motion verb as it is not able to carry the meaning of HAVING which the possessor 9a and 15a can In 15a Satoshi is an animate possessor and so is caused to HAVE kisimen The PP for Satoshi in 15b is of a benefactive nature and does not necessarily carry this meaning of HAVE either 15 a Thilo cooked Satoshi kisimen 35 b Thilo cooked kisimen for Satoshi The underlying structures are therefore not the same The differences lie in the semantics and the syntax of the sentences in contrast to the transformational theory of Larson Further evidence for the structural existence of VP shells with an invisible verbal unit is given in the application of the adjunct or modifier again Sentence 16 is ambiguous and looking into the two different meanings reveals a difference in structure 16 Sally opened the door again 35 nbsp Underlying tree structure for 17a nbsp Underlying tree structure for 17b However in 17a it is clear that it was Sally who repeated the action of opening the door In 17b the event is in the door being opened and Sally may or may not have opened it previously To render these two different meanings again attaches to VPs in two different places and thus describes two events with a purely structural change 17 a Sally was so kind that she went out of her way to open the door once again 35 b The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened the door again See also edit nbsp Linguistics portalContent word Lexical analysis Lexical chain Lexicalization Lexical markup framework Lexical verb Minimal recursion semantics Ontology Polysemy Semantic primes Semantic satiation SemEval Thematic role Troponymy Word sense Word sense disambiguationReferences edit a b Pustejovsky J 2005 Lexical Semantics Overview in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics second edition Volumes 1 14 a b Taylor J 2017 Lexical Semantics In B Dancygier Ed The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics pp 246 261 Cambridge Cambridge University Press doi 10 1017 9781316339732 017 Pustejovsky James 1995 The Generative Lexicon MIT Press ISBN 9780262661409 Di Sciullo Anne Marie Williams Edwin 1987 On the definition of word Cambridge MA MIT press Geeraerts Dirk 2010 Introduction p xiv in Theories of Lexical Semantics a b c d Loos Eugene Anderson Susan H Day Jr Dwight Jordan Paul Wingate J Douglas What is a lexical relation Glossary of linguistic terms LinguaLinks a b Famer Pamela B Mairal Uson Ricardo 1999 Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs Functional Grammar in English 23 illustrated ed Walter de Gruyter p 350 ISBN 9783110164169 Lehrer Adrienne 1985 The influence of semantic fields on semantic change PDF Historical Semantics Historical Word Formation Walter de Gruyter pp 283 296 Grandy Richard E 2012 Semantic Fields Prototypes and the Lexicon Frames Fields and Contrasts New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization Routledge pp 103 122 ISBN 9781136475801 Malaia et al 2012 Effects of Verbal Event Structure on Online Thematic Role Assignment Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 41 5 323 345 doi 10 1007 s10936 011 9195 x PMID 22120140 S2CID 207201471 a b Pustejovsky James 2012 The syntax of event structure PDF Cognition 41 1 3 47 81 doi 10 1016 0010 0277 91 90032 y PMID 1790655 S2CID 16966452 a b c d e f g h Sportiche Dominique Koopman Hilda Stabler Edward 2014 An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory WILEY Blackwell Chomsky Noam 1957 Syntactic Structures Mouton de Gruyter a b Scalise Sergio Guevara Emiliano 1985 The Lexicalist Approach to Word Formation a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Fodor Jerry Lepore Ernie Aug 1999 All at Sea in Semantic Space The Journal of Philosophy 96 8 381 403 doi 10 5840 jphil199996818 JSTOR 2564628 S2CID 14948287 Pinker S 1989 Learnability and Cognition The Acquisition of Argument Structure Cambridge MIT Press pp 89 Harley Heidi Events agents and the interpretation of VP shells 1996 Kayne Richard S The antisymmetry of syntax No 25 MIT Press 1994 a b Hale Kenneth Keyser Samuel Jay 1993 On Argument Structures and the Lexical expression of syntactic relations Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger Paul Bennett 2003 Review of Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure Machine Translation Vol 18 Issue 1 Halle Morris Marantz Alec 1993 Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection The View from Building 20 Cambridge MA MIT Press 111 176 a b Marantz Alec 1997 No escape from syntax Don t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium Penn Working Papers in Linguistics a b Ramchand Gillian 2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon A First Phase Syntax Cambridge University Press ISBN 9780511486319 a b Lappin S Ed 1996 Handbook of contemporary semantic theory Oxford UK Blackwell Publishers Loporcaro M 2003 The Unaccusative Hypothesis and participial absolutes in Italian Perlmutter s generalization revised Rivista di Linguistica Italian Journal of Linguistics 15 199 263 a b c d Johnson Kent 2008 An Overview of Lexical Semantics PDF Philosophy Compass 119 134 a b Haspelmath Martin 1993 More on the typology of inchoative causative verb alternations Causatives and transitivity edited by Bernard Comrie amp Maria Polinsky Studies in Language Companion Series Vol 23 Benjamins pp 87 121 doi 10 1075 slcs 23 05has ISBN 978 90 272 3026 3 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a journal ignored help Pinon Christopher 2001 A finer look at the causative inchoative alternation 346 364 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Tham S 2013 Change of state verbs and result state adjectives in Mandarin Chinese Journal of Linguistics 49 3 647 701 doi 10 1017 s0022226713000261 a b c d e Schafer Florian 2008 The Syntax of Anti Causatives John Benjamins Publishing Company p 1 ISBN 9789027255099 a b Kayne R 1981 Unambiguous paths In R May amp F Koster Eds Levels of syntactic representation 143 184 Cinnaminson NJ Foris Publications a b c d e f g h Larson Richard 1988 On the Double Object Construction Linguistic Inquiry 19 3 589 632 JSTOR 25164901 Miyagawa Shigeru Tsujioka Takae 2004 Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13 1 1 38 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 207 6553 doi 10 1023 b jeal 0000007345 64336 84 S2CID 122993837 Bruening Benjamin November 2010 Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation Linguistic Inquiry 41 4 519 562 doi 10 1162 LING a 00012 S2CID 57567192 a b c d e Sigrid Beck Johnson Kyle 2004 Double Objects Again PDF Linguistic Inquiry 35 1 97 124 doi 10 1162 002438904322793356 S2CID 18749803 External links edit nbsp Media related to Lexical semantics at Wikimedia Commons Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Lexical semantics amp oldid 1202100995, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.