Abstract
Emonds (1991) claims that many phenomena that I attribute to the effects of conceptual structure on syntax in Jackendoff (1987a) are more properly accounted for in terms of syntax alone. The present paper shows that Emonds has misconstrued the role intended for conceptual structure in the interface between language and cognition. It then specifies precisely where Emonds's approach to argument selection differs technically from mine, and shows that the technical differences favor my approach as further developed in Jackendoff (1990). Finally, an improved account of the semantic selection of oblique arguments is proposed, but it is shown that still not all syntactic argument selection can be eliminated from lexical entries of verbs.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
