A lexicalist account of argument structure

Stefan Müller

ISBN 10: 3961101221 / ISBN 13: 9783961101221

Verlag: Language Science Press, 2018

Beschreibung

A lexicalist account of argument structure | Stefan Müller | Buch | 104 S. | Englisch | 2018 | Language Science Press | EAN 9783961101221 | Verantwortliche Person für die EU: Freie Universität Berlin Edition Topoi, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Fabeckstr. 23-25, 14195 Berlin, katja[dot]reiher[at]fu-berlin[dot]de | Anbieter: preigu Print on Demand.

Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers 114823745

Bibliografische Details

• Titel: A lexicalist account of argument structure
• Verlag: Language Science Press
• Erscheinungsjahr: 2018
• Sprache: Englisch
• ISBN-10: 3961101221
• ISBN-13: 9783961101221
• Einband: Buch
• Zustand: Neu
• Abmessungen: 246B x 175 H x 13 T Millimeter Breite: 246 mm, Höhe: 175 mm, Tiefe: 13 mm
• Gewicht: 391 Gramm
• Verkäuferkataloge:
  • Bücher

Über diesen Titel

Inhaltsangabe

There are two prominent schools in linguistics: Minimalism (Chomsky) and Construction Grammar (Goldberg, Tomasello). Minimalism comes with the claim that our linguistic capabilities consist of an abstract, binary combinatorial operation (Merge) and a lexicon. Most versions of Construction Grammar assume that language consists of flat phrasal schemata that contribute their own meaning and may license additional arguments. This book examines a variant of Lexical Functional Grammar, which is lexical in principle but was augmented by tools that allow for the description of phrasal constructions in the Construction Grammar sense. These new tools include templates that can be used to model inheritance hierarchies and a resource driven semantics. The resource driven semantics makes it possible to reach the effects that lexical rules had, for example remapping of arguments, by semantic means. The semantic constraints can be evaluated in the syntactic component, which is basically similar to the delayed execution of lexical rules. So this is a new formalization that might be suitable to provide solutions to longstanding problems that are not available for other formalizations. While the authors suggest a lexical treatment of many phenomena and only assume phrasal constructions for selected phenomena like benefactive and resultative constructions in English, it can be shown that even these two constructions should not be treated phrasally in English and that the analysis would not extend to other languages as for instance German. I show that the new formal tools do not really improve the situation and many of the basic conceptual problems remain. Since this specific proposal fails for two constructions, it follows that proposals (in the same framework) that assume phrasal analyses for all constructions are not appropriate either. The conclusion is that lexical models are needed and this entails that the schemata that combine syntactic objects are rather abstract (as in Catego