Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:45:57.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synonyms and syntax1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard Hudson ,
Andrew Rosta ,
Jasper Holmes  and
Nikolas Gisborne
Richard Hudson
Affiliation:
University College London
Andrew Rosta
Affiliation:
University College London & Roehampton Institute
Jasper Holmes
Affiliation:
University College London
Nikolas Gisborne
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent work in a variety of different theoretical traditions has tended to emphasize the close match between syntax and semantics (Dixon 1991; Langacker 1987, 1990, 1995; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991, 1992; Wierzbicka 1988). It is very easy to be left with the impression that, if only we could analyse the relevant syntactic and semantic structures correctly, this match would be total. The following are fairly typical statements:

The picture that emerges is that a verb's behavior arises from the interaction of its meaning and general principles of grammar. Thus the lexical knowledge of a speaker of a language must include knowledge of the meaning of individual verbs, the meaning components that determine the syntactic behavior of verbs, and the general principles that determine behavior from verb meaning. (Levin 1993: 11)

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 1996 , pp. 439 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carlson, G. & Roeper, T. (1980). Morphology and subcategorization and the unmarked Complex Verb. In Hoekstra, T., Van Der Hulst, H. & Moortgaat, M. (eds.) Lexical grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 123–164.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. (1991). A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1972). Evidence for ungrammaticality. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 227.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1993). On the role of conceptual structure in argument selection: A reply to Emonds. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language 71. 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport, H. M. (1991). Wiping the slate clean. A lexical semantic exploration. In Levin, B. & Pinker, S. (eds.) Lexical and conceptual semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. 123–151.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport, H. M. (1992). The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: the perspective from unaccusativity. In Roca, I. (ed.) Thematic structure: its role in grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar