论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Projectionist accounts of argument structure give verb’s semantic representation a central role in sentence interpretation， it is held that the argument structure and alternations related with a verb are always the product of its semantic representation. However， a circularity problem arises. To solve this problem， Goldberg （1995）’s constructional approach proposed that argument structure patterns are linguistic units in their own right. This paper attempts to make a comparison between projectionist approach and constructional approach to argument structure and discuss constructional approach’s advantage in reducing verb senses and avoiding circularity.
【Key words】Constructional Approach； Projectionist Approach； Argument Structure； Circularity
Introduction
In generative tradition， relations between a verb and its arguments are fundamental in understanding syntax-semantics interface （Riemer， 2010）. Projectionist accounts of argument structure put verbs’ semantic representations in the central position， believing that it is verb’s semantic representation that determines its syntactic behavior. However， since different syntactic complement structures reflect a different sense in a verb’s semantic representation， if a verb has too many alternations， the number of verb meanings/senses may explode （Goldberg， 1995）. Moreover， the traditional approach to argument structure may lead to an undesirable circular explanation. To solve this problem， Goldberg（1995） proposed a constructional approach which highlighted that arguments can be subcategoraized by construction itself rather than verb. Through this approach， we don’t need to postulate different senses of verbs to account for the different argument structures， as it is the constructions that contribute to these subcategorizations. Therefore， the circularity problem is resolved. This paper attempts to analyze the problems of traditional verb-centered approaches to argument structure and compare them with Goldberg’s constructional approach， trying to explain the advantage of constructional approach in terms of avoiding circularity.
Problems with Projectionist Accounts of Argument Structure：
Although many psycholinguistic experiments had proved that verb representations play a decisive role in sentence comprehension （Healy
【Key words】Constructional Approach； Projectionist Approach； Argument Structure； Circularity
Introduction
In generative tradition， relations between a verb and its arguments are fundamental in understanding syntax-semantics interface （Riemer， 2010）. Projectionist accounts of argument structure put verbs’ semantic representations in the central position， believing that it is verb’s semantic representation that determines its syntactic behavior. However， since different syntactic complement structures reflect a different sense in a verb’s semantic representation， if a verb has too many alternations， the number of verb meanings/senses may explode （Goldberg， 1995）. Moreover， the traditional approach to argument structure may lead to an undesirable circular explanation. To solve this problem， Goldberg（1995） proposed a constructional approach which highlighted that arguments can be subcategoraized by construction itself rather than verb. Through this approach， we don’t need to postulate different senses of verbs to account for the different argument structures， as it is the constructions that contribute to these subcategorizations. Therefore， the circularity problem is resolved. This paper attempts to analyze the problems of traditional verb-centered approaches to argument structure and compare them with Goldberg’s constructional approach， trying to explain the advantage of constructional approach in terms of avoiding circularity.
Problems with Projectionist Accounts of Argument Structure：
Although many psycholinguistic experiments had proved that verb representations play a decisive role in sentence comprehension （Healy