Search

Telicity and agentivity are semantic factors that split intransitive verbs into (at least two) different classes. Clear-cut unergative verbs, which select the auxiliary HAVE, are assumed to be atelic and agent-selecting; unequivocally unaccusative verbs, which select the auxiliary BE, are analyzed as telic and patient-selecting. Thus, agentivity and telicity are assumed to be inversely correlated in split intransitivity. We will present semantic and experimental evidence from German and Mandarin Chinese that casts doubts on this widely held assumption. The focus of our experimental investigation lies on variation with respect to agentivity (specifically motion control, manipulated via animacy), telicity (tested via a locative vs. goal adverbial), and BE/HAVE-selection with semantically flexible intransitive verbs of motion. Our experimental methods are acceptability ratings for German and Chinese (Experiments 1 and 2) and event-related potential (ERP) measures for German (Experiment 3). Our findings contradict the above-mentioned assumption that agentivity and telicity are generally inversely correlated and suggest that for the verbs under study, agentivity and telicity harmonize with each other. Furthermore, the ERP measures reveal that the impact of the interaction under discussion is more pronounced on the verb lexeme than on the auxiliary. We also found differences between Chinese and German that relate to the influence of telicity on BE/HAVE-selection. They seem to confirm the claim in previous research that the weight of the telicity factor locomotion (or internal motion) is cross-linguistically variable.

This paper demonstrates how a number of well described but problematic verb–preposition constructions in English can be analysed in a consistent and unified manner within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). The analyses proposed make extensive use of the novel feature in FDG of separating lexemes from their predicate (now predication) frames. It is shown that the syntactic and semantic differences between the various verb–preposition constructions can be accounted for by assuming three different predication frames: the ‘composite predicate frame’, the ‘resultative frame’ and the ‘verb + prepositional complement frame’. Next the question is addressed of how to match lexemes and predication frames in such a way that both under- and overgeneration of verb–preposition constructions is prevented. It is suggested that the lexicon plays a crucial role here, in the sense that it is the information provided by or inferrable from the meaning definition of a lexeme that determines which combinations of lexemes and predication frame are acceptable. Finally, it is argued that the separate storage of lexemes and predication frames calls for a new perspective on the difference between arguments and modifiers. It is concluded that what matters is not the obligatory or optional expression of a participant as dictated by the predicate, but its presence – obligatory or optional – in the predication frame selected.

Hale and Keyser's Lexical Aargument Structure (LAS) (1993, 1997, 1998) is a currently influential hypothesis of verb derivation based entirely on the syntactic principles of head movement/incorporation (Travis, 1984/Baker, 1988). A specific claim of LAS concerns two types of denominal verbs: locatum, e.g., to saddle, from the syntax of the light verb to provide with, and location, e.g., to shelve, from the light verb to put. This article presents a reanalysis of locatum/location verbs within the framework of Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM) (Beard, 1995). LMBM, one detailed realization of the type of lexeme-based morphology long advocated by Aronoff (1976, 1994), maintains a strict segregation of open-class lexical categories (lexemes: adjectives, verbs and nouns) from closed-classes (morphemes: adpositions, affixes, pronouns, etc.). By eliminating preposition as a lexical head of phrase, Prepositional Phrases (PP) must be reanalyzed as either Noun Phrase (NP) or Adjective Phrase (AP), a distinction which allows us to take advantage of insights provided by Kiparsky (1997), who notes that syntax of the type assumed by Hale and Keyser is incapable of distinguishing non-existent from existing locatum/location verbs. In addition to the syntactic distinctions provided by LMBM, the adoption of the notion telic role, “information about the use or purpose of an object” (Pustejovsky, 1995: 86), as part of the semantic representation of nouns, provides a mechanism to account for Kiparsky's observation that a denominal locatum/location verb must be derived from a “canonical use” of the base (Kiparsky, 1997: 482). In contrast with Hale and Keyser's arguments for syntactic sufficiency and Kiparsky's call for reliance on semantic principles, however, we argue in accord with LMBM's strict modularity that both syntax and semantics have a role.

The treatment of morphology in Word Grammar has received less attention than syntax and semantics, but the general principles are equally applicable to morphology. We outline a theory of inflectional morphology which uses ideas familiar from the Word-and-Paradigm tradition — Inflection, Lexeme and Stem — in combination with the logic of default inheritance. We apply this theory to a range of different morphological data: agglutinative (Swahili) and fusional, with and without syncretism (English, Welsh). We show that it is possible to analyse each of these types in a natural way without forcing it into an unsuitable mould, and in a discussion of Cree we show how dialect variation can be accommodated. We compare the WG theory with other approaches which are currently popular, especially a-morphous morphology, distributed morphology and network morphology.

One of the most productive sources of vocabulary in contemporary French is the deriviation from the predicate component of a structure organized in line with surface structure. Since the analysis of binomial verbal and nominal elements is indifferent to the semantic distinctions between transitivity, instrumentality and metaphor, as required, for example, for the characterization of, respectively, grade-cǒtes, grade-foue, baise-mains , light is thrown on the intermediate stages in a generative model, of importance for the development of such lexis. Problems such as the explanation of croque-monsieur are resolved by the incorporation of causative construction in the model. Morphological and phonological constraints on the first element and on the whole binomial allow conclusions to be drawn about the necessary stages in the development from syntagm to lexeme in contemporary French.

The power of a grammar as an explanatory device is limited by the kind of data brought within its scope. Tranel (1976) considered the phonology of the cardinal numbers in Standard and Montreal French, linking the description to an evaluation of synchronic grammar. Essential to an explanation of the phonology of numbers is the acknowledgement of their duality of function, as lexeme and as clitic; and of the differences in the synchronic and diachronic status of final consonant loss, with the consequent differences in the synchronic phonology on which lexemic constraints operate in Standard French and the French of Montreal. The linguist who excludes historical and social data, or who selects linguistic data too narrowly cannot hope to match explanation with psychological reality.

The definition of a lexeme is generally based on a number of parameters is ensure his discreteness versus other lexemes that may share some but not all of its features. This leads to the semantically based distinction of xynonyms, antonyms, etc. However, frequently the shades of meaning that differentiate lexical items are subtle and the distinction between genuine polysemy and mere connotational divergence becomes a difficult exercise. This paper discusses a number of non-semantic parameters that may be considered to resolve this dilemma and in particular argues for valency to be included in the analysis of lexemes that have this feature.

The concepts of synonymy and polysemy are the stock in trade of the linguist and particularly the semanticist. Yet certain complications concerning these concepts seem to have been overlooked. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to these complications and to suggest how they might be handled. The paper begins by identifying three levels of synonymy, i.e. form-synonymy, lexeme-synonymy and sense-synonymy, of which the last is shown to be the most important and the one which linguists tend to have in mind when they talk about synonymy. From the nature of sense-synonymy, it is seen to follow that to be operationally adequate any conception of synonymy in terms of sense-synonymy presupposes a method of dividing the meaning of a lexeme into a finite number of senses. Some linguists, however, view synonymy and polysemy as interdependent and propose to solve the problem of polysemy by means of synonym substitution tests. The present paper argues against this position, showing (a) that to treat synonymy and polysemy as interdependent is to be guilty of circularity, and (b) that, if polysemy is treated as dependent on synonym substitution tests, the latter will either fail to serve as a sufficient condition of polysemy or fail to serve as a non-circular condition at all. A more viable approach, it is suggested, is to treat polysemy as methodologically prior to synonymy and to handle polysemy independently of synonymy. The outlines of such an approach are offered on the basis of Weinreich's distinction between contrastive and complementary senses. Contrastive senses can be operationally distinguished by means of the well-known ambiguity tests, while complementary senses can be operationally distinguished by means of semantic inferability tests (for which the author ventures to claim some originality). In the light of this approach to polysemy, sense-synonymy is seen to exist on two levels, that of contrastive sense and that of complementary sense, of which the latter is the more useful for dealing with synonymy in a natural language, such as English.

This paper argues that contemporary morphological theories are undermined by the concept of the linguistic sign, the morpheme or the word, which forms the basis of these theories. Instead of the sign, grammars operate on two distinct and definitionally incompatible basic units, the lexeme , which is a linguistic sign, and the (grammatical) morpheme , which is not. Grammars must contain autonomous lexical and morphological components in order to have sufficient power to explain the independence of the sets of conditions on lexical, syntactic and morphological rules. Such a model can be properly constrained to prevent these components from operating in disregard of each other by (a) discrete definitions of ‘lexeme’ and ‘morpheme’; (b) one specific principle constraining features added to underlying lexical bases by abstract (phonology-free) lexical derivations, and (c) an independently motivated markedness theory. This model also maps morphology onto abstract lexical and syntactic derivates in the proper order, accounting for what Baker has recently called the ‘Mirror Principle’ plus the exceptions to it.

The articles have generally a threefold use in Polynesian, viz. personal, deictic, and ligative. The forms of the personal and deictic articles may serve as morphological criteria for the classification of the Polynesian languages, which at present is based on exclusively phonetic indices. In function the articles are more complex than their names: “definite” and “indefinite” do not always have their European values, and the contrast of singular and plural is rather an antithesis of collective and numerative. All the Polynesian articles, except the vestigial ligative, help to differentiate noun from verb, to define personality and substance in the lexeme, sometimes with the added sense of plurality, emphasis, and size, but not of gender as in Indo-European and isolatedly in Indonesian. Their origin appears to be associated with demonstrative or selective usage like that of the allied Austronesian articles, to which they bear a close resemblance in function, if not in form. The articles, as part of the wider category of particles, constitute, with the pronouns, the active elements in the Polynesian (and the Austronesian) sentence.