Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:02:24.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Anthony R. Davis and
Jean-Pierre Koenig
Anthony R. Davis*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Jean-Pierre Koenig*
Affiliation:
SUNY at Buffalo
*
Davis, Department of Linguistics, South Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, [tdavis@csli.stanford.edu]
Koenig, Linguistics Dept., 685 Baldy Hall, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-1030, [jpkoenig@acsu.buffalo.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose an account of linking patterns that does away with intermediary mechanisms such as thematic or actor/undergoer hierarchies. Instead, constraints on word classes, defined by both syntactic and semantic criteria, encode generalizations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments. We show that the generalizations a linking theory needs to capture can be modeled via the same mechanisms as other lexical generalizations, using conditions specified within the hierarchy of word classes. Each condition provides a partial specification of the mapping between semantic roles and syntactic arguments. We argue that this constraint-based, verb-class-based view of linking offers several empirical advantages: partial regularities and exceptions are easily accommodated, fine-grained semantic distinctions relevant to linking are countenanced, and cross-cutting similarities between semantic and syntactic verb classes are economically captured.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , March 2000, pp. 56 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alsina, Alex. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 517–56.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex., and Joshi, Smita. 1991. Parameters in causative constructions. Chicago Linguistics Society 27. 1–15.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex., and Mchombo, Sam. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa: Problems for a theta-theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, Alex., and Mchombo, Sam. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Mchombo, Sam, 17–45. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Belletti, Adriana, and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brachman, Ronald, and Schmolze, James. 1985. An overview of the KL-one knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9. 171–216.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 292–390. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan., and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan., and Kanerva, Jonni. 1992. The thematic hierarchy and locative inversion in UG: A reply to Paul Schachter's comments. Syntax and semantics 26: Semantics and the lexicon, ed. by Stowell, Tim and Wehrli, Eric, 111–25. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan., and Kaplan, Ronald. 1982. Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language. The mental representation of grammatical relations, xvii–lii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan., and Mchombo, Sam. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan., and Moshi, Lioba. 1993. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Mchombo, Sam, 47–91. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted, Copestake, Ann; and Paiva, Valeria de. 1993. Inheritance, defaults, and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Anthony. 1996. Lexical semantics and linking in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. Properties, types, and meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Raymond, 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1990. Argument roles and anaphora. Situation theory and its applications, ed. by Cooper, Robin, Mukai, Kuniaki, and Perry, John, 379–93. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1996. Psychological predicates and the syntax-semantics interface. Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, ed. by Goldberg, Adele, 131–47. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles., and Kay, Paul. 2000. Construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel. 1987. Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Foley, William, and Valin, Robert Van. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. Applicatives and preposition incorporation. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Dziwirek, K., Farrell, P., and Mejías-Bikandi, E., 183–98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark. 1983. Lexical representations and the semantics of complementation. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1992. Morphologically-mediated relational profiles. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18. 322–37.Google Scholar
Gibson, Jeanne. 1980. Clause union in Chamorro and in universal grammar. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Gibson, Jeanne., and Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. Clause union, the stratal uniqueness law and the chômeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Mme Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, Smita. 1989. Logical subject in Marathi grammar and the predicate argument structure. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 8. 207–19.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 115–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. Morphology and grammatical relations. Stanford: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1993. Linking constructions vs. linking rules: Evidence from French. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. 217–31.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre., 1994. Lexical underspecification and the syntax/semantics interface. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999a. Lexical relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999b. On a tué le président! The nature of passives and ultra-indefinites. Cognition and function in language, ed. by Fox, Barbara, Jurafsky, Daniel, and Michaelis, Laura, 235–51. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William, and Dowty, David. 1988. Toward a nongrammatical account of thematic roles. Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, ed. by Wilkins, Wendy, 62–74. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn., ed. by Ortony, A., 202–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1989. Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs. Language 65. 752–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth., and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher, and Sag, Ivan. 1998. Dissociations between argument structure and grammatical relations. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Kathol, Andreas, 63–78. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mauner, Gail, Tanenhaus, Michael; and Carlson, Greg. 1995. Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 34. 357–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauner, Gail, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Melinger, Alissa; and Bienvenue, Breton. 2000. The lexical source of unexpressed participants and their role in sentence and discourse understanding. Sentence processing and the lexicon: Formal, computational and experimental perspectives, ed. by Merlo, Paola and Stevenson, Suzanne. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan; and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetzky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase-structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1988. Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 635–70.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quillian, M. Ross. 1968. Semantic memory. Semantic information processing, ed. by Minsky, Marvin, 216–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1972. Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1982. Le datif épistémique en français et la condition d'opacité de Chomsky. Grammaire des insultes et autres études, 172–204. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1991. Linguistic theory and natural language processing. Natural language and speech, ed. by Klein, Ewan and Veltman, Frederik, 69–83. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan., and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67. 63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Mona. 1992. An event-based analysis of causatives. Chicago Linguistics Society 28. 515–29.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 1993. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. Advances in role and reference grammar, ed. by Valin, Robert Van, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert., and Lapolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Form, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1995a. Preposition selection outside the lexicon. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13. 416–31.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1995b. The semantic basis of argument structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1993. Symmetric and asymmetric passives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 679–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar