Share This Article:

Semantic Features in Argument Selection

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:337KB) PP. 233-251
DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2013.33032    3,276 Downloads   5,660 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

One of the problems that has to be dealt with by theorists of early language acquisition theory is the mismatch between semantic constructs, like Agent, and syntactic ones, like subject. It is proposed that the linguistic system is based on semantic features that are more fine-grained than thematic roles, and that selection of subject and direct object can be accounted for by merely four semantic features. These features are conceived of as properties of participants in the lexical entries of verbs, and in this respect, too, they are unlike thematic roles, which are ascribed to NPs in sentences. Thematic roles play a part only in the realization of certain other arguments, notably, the oblique object. It is shown that this different treatment of direct and oblique objects permits a parsimonious explanation of certain linguistic regularities that have posed problems for other theories. Early language acquisition can be explained in terms of the acquisition of these semantic features, and this account thus supersedes the semantic assimilation hypothesis proposed previously to deal with the lack of congruence between thematic roles and syntactic categories.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Schlesinger, I. (2013). Semantic Features in Argument Selection. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3, 233-251. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2013.33032.

References

[1] Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic inter pretation. Foundations of Language, 7, 387-396.
[2] Andrews, A. D. (2007). The major functions of the noun phrase. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 64-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[4] Baker, M. C. (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Hae geman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 72-137). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2
[5] Beavers, J. T. (2006). Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
[6] Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ theory. Natural Lan guage and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-352. doi:10.1007/BF00133902
[7] Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.
[8] Bowerman, M. F. (1974). Discussion summary—Development of con cepts underlying language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives—Acquisition, retardation, and inter vention (pp. 191-209). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
[9] Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics, 28, 1253-1289. doi:10.1515/ling.1990.28.6.1253
[10] Bowerman, M., & Croft, W. (2008). The acquisition of the English causative alternation. In M. Bowerman, & P. Brown (Eds.), Cross linguistic perspectives on argument structure (pp. 279-307). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[11] Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children’s first word combinations. Monogra phs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41 (1, Serial No. 164). doi:10.2307/1165959
[12] Braine, M. D. S., & Hardy, J. A. (1982). On what cases there are, why they are, and how they develop: An amalgam of a priori considera tions, speculation, and evidence from children. In E. Wanner, & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 219-239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Chomsky, N. (1982). The generative enterprise: A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.
[14] Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[15] Davis, A. R. (2001). Linking by types in the hierarchical lexicon. Stan ford, CA: CSLI Publications.
[16] Davis, A. R., & Koenig, J.-P. (2000). Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76, 56-91.
[17] Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion of “thematic role”. In G. Chiercha, B. H. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types and meaning (pp. 69-129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_3
[18] Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
[19] Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav ioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429-492.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
[20] Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
[21] Fillmore, C. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. A. Jacobs, & P. A. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transforma tional grammar (pp. 120-133). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
[22] Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Form and meaning in language, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
[23] Fortus, R. (1996). Semantic relations in the acquisition of language: An analysis of one child’s first word combinations. MA Thesis, Jerusa lem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
[24] Gelman, S. A., & Opfer, J. E. (2002). Development of the animate inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 151-166). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
doi:10.1002/9780470996652.ch7
[25] Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321-376. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00686-9
[26] Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generali zation in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[27] Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[28] Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203-257. doi:10.2307/415332
[29] Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991a). Affect edness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acqui sition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153-195.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90035-3
[30] Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991b). Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language, 18, 115-151. doi:10.1017/S0305000900013325
[31] Guberman, A. (1992). The development of the verb category in the He brew child language. Ph.D. Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
[32] Hoekstra, T. (1992). Aspect and Theta Theory. In I. M. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp. 145-174). Berlin: Foris. doi:10.1515/9783110872613.145
[33] Hopper, P. J., & Thompson. S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251-299.
[34] Hudson, R. (1992). So-called “double objects” and grammatical rela tions. Language, 68, 251-276. doi:10.2307/416941
[35] Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 369-411.
[36] Jackendoff, R. (1990a). On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 427-456.
[37] Jackendoff, R. (1990b). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[38] Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
[39] Kako, E. (2006). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cog nition, 101, 1-42.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.08.002
[40] Kasof, J., & Lee, J. Y. (1993). Implicit causality as implicit salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 877-892. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.877
[41] Keren-Portnoy, T. (In preparation). Long is easy, short is hard.
[42] Kiparsky, P. (2001). Structural case in Finnish. Lingua, 111, 315-376. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00035-8
[43] Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25, 265-288. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80006-9
[44] Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[45] Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[46] Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610479
[47] MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 213-256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[48] Maratsos, M. P. (1979). How to get from words to sentences. In D. Aronson, & R. W. Rieber (Eds.), Psycholinguistic research: Implica tions and applications (pp. 285-356). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl baum.
[49] Maratsos, M. (1981). Problems in categorial evolution: Can formal categories arise from semantic ones? In W. Deutsch (Ed.), The child’s construction of language (pp. 245-261). London: Academic Press.
[50] McClure, K., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2006). Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 23, 693-720.
doi:10.1017/S0305000906007525
[51] McRae, K., Todd, R., Ferreti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137-176. doi:10.1080/016909697386835
[52] Newmeyer, F. J. (2002). Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally-based optimality-theoretical syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 43-80. doi:10.1023/A:1014290005775
[53] Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619-653. doi:10.1017/S0305000999003931
[54] Ninio, A. (2006). Language learning and the learning curve. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299829.001.0001
[55] Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[56] Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argu ment structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[57] Premack, D. (1990). The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects. Cog nition, 36, 1-16.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90051-K
[58] Quine, W. Van O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[59] Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with θ-roles. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 21: Thematic relations (pp. 7-36). San Diego: Academic Press.
[60] Rappaport Hovav, M., & Beth Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129-167. doi:10.1017/S0022226707004975
[61] Rozwadowska, B. (1988). Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 21: Thematic rela tions (pp. 147-165). San Diego: Academic Press.
[62] Rosta, A. (2002). Review of the book cognitive space and linguistic case, by Izchak M. Schlesinger. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 69-78. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00013-3
[63] Schachter, P., & Otanes, F. T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[64] Schlesinger, I. M. (1971). Production of utterances and language acqui sition. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 63-101). New York: Academic Press.
[65] Schlesinger, I. M. (1974). Relational concepts underlying language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives acquisition, retardation and intervention (pp. 129-151). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
[66] Schlesinger, I. M. (1977). Production and comprehension of utterances. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[67] Schlesinger, I. M. (1988). The origin of relational categories. In Y. Levy, I. M. Schlesinger, & M. D. S. Braine (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition (pp. 121-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[68] Schlesinger, I. M. (1989). Instruments as agents: On the nature of se mantic relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 189-210. doi:10.1017/S0022226700012147
[69] Schlesinger, I. M. (1992). The experiencer as an agent. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 315-332. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90016-Q
[70] Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer sity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511551321
[71] Shibatani, M. (1996). Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive ac count. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical con structions: Their form and meaning (pp. 157-194). Oxford: Claren don Press.
[72] Siewierska, A. (1991). Functional grammar. London: Routledge.
[73] Slobin, D. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In G. B. Flores D’Arcais, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (pp. 174-186). Amsterdam: North Holland.
[74] Slobin, D. (1979). The role of language in language acquisition. Invited address to the 50th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological As sociation, Philadelphia. Unpublished ms., Berkeley, CA: University of California.
[75] Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527678
[76] Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic compe tence? Cognition, 74, 209-253. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4
[77] Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[78] Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
[79] Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantic interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610578
[80] Van Valin Jr., R. D., & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for ‘Effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 289-322). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[81] Wilkins, W. (1988). Thematic structure and reflexivization. In W. Wil kins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic relations (pp. 191-213). San Diego: Academic Press.
[82] Witman, S. (2000). Mussa’im yeshirim va’akifim betsarfatit, ivrit ve’anglit: Mehkar hashva’ati [Direct and oblique objects in French, Hebrew, and English: A comparative study]. Unpublished paper, Je rusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
[83] Zubizaretta, M. L. (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.