Semantic Features in Argument Selection

Izchak M Schlesinger

doi:10.4236/ojml.2013.33032

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.

Highlights

Several theories of argument selection have followed Fillmore’s (1968) seminal paper and dealt with the semantic-syntactic interface in terms of what have been variously called thematic relations, thematic roles, or θ-roles
The first section of this paper introduces the semantic features figuring in the present system
Linking rules for subject and direct object selection have been formulated in terms of a set of four semantic features, and the distinction between resulting and non-resulting features

Summary

Introduction

Several theories of argument selection have followed Fillmore’s (1968) seminal paper and dealt with the semantic-syntactic interface in terms of what have been variously called thematic relations, thematic roles, or θ-roles. The object participants of spill, pull, throw, and send involve changes of location; in those of break, mix, eat, and repair a change of state occurs; and the activity denoted by a verb like build, paint, sculpt, or write results in something coming into being, i.e., changing from non-existence to existence These verbs might seem to involve a conflict between features that license linking to the subject: Change, on the one hand, and Cause and Control (the features characterizing the “spiller”, “breaker”, “builder”, etc.), on the other. Control, and Change can be either resulting features, as in some causative verbs (and the participants to which they pertain become direct objects) or non-resulting ones (and they become subjects).

CA CO CH

Findings

Summary