Název: Лексико-конструкционный подход к синтаксической альтернации
Transliterovaný název
Leksiko-konstrukcionnyj podchod k sintaksičeskoj al'ternacii
Variantní název:
- A lexical-constructional approach to syntactic alternation
Zdrojový dokument: Linguistica Brunensia. 2022, roč. 70, č. 2, s. 7-20
Rozsah
7-20
-
ISSN1803-7410 (print)2336-4440 (online)
Trvalý odkaz (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/LB2022-2-1
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/digilib.76872
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
Syntactic alternation cannot be treated as a lexical or as a constructional phenomenon (as is in lexical and constructional approaches, respectively). Realizing the significance of both factors, in the present paper I offer a lexical-constructional account of syntactic alternation which seems to prevail against previous ones by eliminating their shortcomings but exploiting their advantages. I demonstrate the explanatory power of my conception by thorough analysis of three Russian verb classes. They include the alternation of manner-of-motion and directional motion verbs as well as the locative alternation and instrument–subject alternation. The fundamental feature of my proposal is the underspecified character of lexical-semantic representations. Although underspecification may have several forms, the general idea consists in postulating optional components in lexical representations. It can be stated that verbs alternate syntactically if they own an underspecified but encyclopedically and pragmatically enriched representation, so being compatible with all meanings appearing in alternations. If a verb does not have a lexical-semantic representation that can result in different interpretations, it cannot participate in an alternation. Because of the possible lexical specification of either variant, an underspecified type of representation is inevitably required for alternating verbs. The lexical-constructional approach to syntactic alternation naturally extends to lexical pragmatics. This extension means that the hypotheses about the characteristics of word meaning representations can also be applied to cases where words reach their full meanings in corresponding contexts without the change of syntactic structure.
Reference
[1] Апресян, Ю. Д. 2009. Исследования по семантике и лексикографии, т. 1: Парадигматика. Moсква: Языки славянских культур. [Apresjan, J. D. 2009. Issledovanija po semantike i leksikografii, t. 1: Paradigmatika. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul'tur]
[2] Дудчук, Ф. – Пшехотская Е. 2005. Локативная альтернация и введение аргументов. URL: http://dudchuk.narod.ru/Piter2005_hout.pdf, дата обращения: 15. 03. 2011. [Dudčuk, F. – Pšechotskaja, Je. 2005. Lokativnaja al'ternacija i vvedenie argumentov. URL:
[3] Падучева, Е. В. 2004. Динамические модели в семантике лексики. Москва: Языки славянской культуры. [Padučeva, Je. V. 2004. Dinamičeskie modeli v semantike leksiki. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury]
[4] Падучева, Е. В. – Розина, P. И. 1993. Семантический класс глаголов полного охвата: Толкование и лексико-синтаксические свойства. Вопросы языкознания, No 6, с. 5–16. [Padučeva, Je. V. – Rozina, R. I. 1993. Semantičeskij klass glagolov polnogo ochvata: Tolkovanie i leksiko-sintaksičeskie svojstva. Voprosy jazykoznanija, No 6, s. 5–16]
[5] Соколова, С. 2009. K вопросу о взаимодействии видовых приставок с глагольными конструкциями: Koнструкционный анализ глагола грузить. URL: http://iling.spb.ru/nord/materia/rusconstr2009/sokolova.pdf, дата обращения: 15. 03. 2011. [K voprosu o vzaimodejstvii vidovych pristavok s glagol'nymi konstrukcijami: Konstrukcionnyj analiz glagola gruzit'. URL:
[6] Bibok, Károly. 2004. Word meaning and lexical pragmatics. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51(3–4), pp. 265–308.
[7] Bibok, Károly. 2010. From syntactic alternations to lexical pragmatics. In: Németh T., Enikő – Bibok, Károly, eds. The Role of Data at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 261−304.
[8] Bibok, Károly. 2012. Лексико-конструкционный подход к русским глаголам лока- тивной альтернации. In: Szumska, Dorota, ред. Язык и метод, т. 1: Русский язык в лингвистических исследованиях XXI века. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, s. 33–40. [Bibok, Károly. 212. Leksiko-konstrukcionnyj podchod k russkim glagolam lokativnoj al'ternacii. In: Szumska, Dorota, red. Jazyk i metod, t. 1: Russkij jazyk v lingvističeskich issledovanijach XXI veka. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, s. 33–40]
[9] Bibok, Károly. 2014. Lexical semantics meets pragmatics. Argumentum 10, pp. 221–231.
[10] Bibok, Károly. 2018. Instrument−subject alternation: A further case study in lexical pragmatics. In: Bartos, Huba – den Dikken, Marcel – Bánréti, Zoltán – Váradi, Tamás, eds. Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics. Cham: Springer, pp. 33−50.
[11] Dudchuk, Philip. 2007. Instrument/subject alternation and event structure: Evidence from Russian. In: Kosta, Peter – Schürcks, Lilia, eds. Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages: Contributions of the Sixth European Conference Held at Potsdam University, November 30 – December 02, 2005. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, pp. 503–513.
[12] Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
[13] Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Kiefer, Ferenc. 2007. Jelentéselmélet. Budapest: Corvina., 2007, 2nd, enlarged and revised edition.
[15] Koenig, Jean-Pierre – Mauner, Gail – Bienvenue, Breton – Conklin, Kathy. 2008. What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role [sic!]. Journal of Semantics 25(2), pp. 175–220.
[16] Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago (IL) : University of Chicago Press.
[17] Levin, Beth – Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
[18] Partee, Barbara H. 2005. Formal semantics, lecture 10: The semantics of diathesis alternations. URL: http://people.umass.edu/partee/RGGU_2005/RGGU05Lec10.pdf, date of access: 15. 03. 2011.
[19] Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
[20] Pshehotskaya, E. 2007. Locative alternation and verbal prefix in Russian. URL: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~jungslav/fdsl/fdsl7/abstracts/Pshehotskaya_FA.pdf, date of access: 15. 03. 2011.
[21] Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
[22] Pustejovsky, James. 2012. Co-compositionality in grammar. In: Werning, Markus – Hinzen, Wolfram – Machery, Edouard, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 371–382.
[23] Rappaport Hovav, Malka – Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In: Butt, Miriam – Geuder, Wilhelm, eds. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford (CA): Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 97–134.
[2] Дудчук, Ф. – Пшехотская Е. 2005. Локативная альтернация и введение аргументов. URL: http://dudchuk.narod.ru/Piter2005_hout.pdf, дата обращения: 15. 03. 2011. [Dudčuk, F. – Pšechotskaja, Je. 2005. Lokativnaja al'ternacija i vvedenie argumentov. URL:
[3] Падучева, Е. В. 2004. Динамические модели в семантике лексики. Москва: Языки славянской культуры. [Padučeva, Je. V. 2004. Dinamičeskie modeli v semantike leksiki. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury]
[4] Падучева, Е. В. – Розина, P. И. 1993. Семантический класс глаголов полного охвата: Толкование и лексико-синтаксические свойства. Вопросы языкознания, No 6, с. 5–16. [Padučeva, Je. V. – Rozina, R. I. 1993. Semantičeskij klass glagolov polnogo ochvata: Tolkovanie i leksiko-sintaksičeskie svojstva. Voprosy jazykoznanija, No 6, s. 5–16]
[5] Соколова, С. 2009. K вопросу о взаимодействии видовых приставок с глагольными конструкциями: Koнструкционный анализ глагола грузить. URL: http://iling.spb.ru/nord/materia/rusconstr2009/sokolova.pdf, дата обращения: 15. 03. 2011. [K voprosu o vzaimodejstvii vidovych pristavok s glagol'nymi konstrukcijami: Konstrukcionnyj analiz glagola gruzit'. URL:
[6] Bibok, Károly. 2004. Word meaning and lexical pragmatics. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51(3–4), pp. 265–308.
[7] Bibok, Károly. 2010. From syntactic alternations to lexical pragmatics. In: Németh T., Enikő – Bibok, Károly, eds. The Role of Data at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 261−304.
[8] Bibok, Károly. 2012. Лексико-конструкционный подход к русским глаголам лока- тивной альтернации. In: Szumska, Dorota, ред. Язык и метод, т. 1: Русский язык в лингвистических исследованиях XXI века. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, s. 33–40. [Bibok, Károly. 212. Leksiko-konstrukcionnyj podchod k russkim glagolam lokativnoj al'ternacii. In: Szumska, Dorota, red. Jazyk i metod, t. 1: Russkij jazyk v lingvističeskich issledovanijach XXI veka. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, s. 33–40]
[9] Bibok, Károly. 2014. Lexical semantics meets pragmatics. Argumentum 10, pp. 221–231.
[10] Bibok, Károly. 2018. Instrument−subject alternation: A further case study in lexical pragmatics. In: Bartos, Huba – den Dikken, Marcel – Bánréti, Zoltán – Váradi, Tamás, eds. Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics. Cham: Springer, pp. 33−50.
[11] Dudchuk, Philip. 2007. Instrument/subject alternation and event structure: Evidence from Russian. In: Kosta, Peter – Schürcks, Lilia, eds. Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages: Contributions of the Sixth European Conference Held at Potsdam University, November 30 – December 02, 2005. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, pp. 503–513.
[12] Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
[13] Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Kiefer, Ferenc. 2007. Jelentéselmélet. Budapest: Corvina., 2007, 2nd, enlarged and revised edition.
[15] Koenig, Jean-Pierre – Mauner, Gail – Bienvenue, Breton – Conklin, Kathy. 2008. What with? The anatomy of a (proto)-role [sic!]. Journal of Semantics 25(2), pp. 175–220.
[16] Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago (IL) : University of Chicago Press.
[17] Levin, Beth – Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
[18] Partee, Barbara H. 2005. Formal semantics, lecture 10: The semantics of diathesis alternations. URL: http://people.umass.edu/partee/RGGU_2005/RGGU05Lec10.pdf, date of access: 15. 03. 2011.
[19] Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
[20] Pshehotskaya, E. 2007. Locative alternation and verbal prefix in Russian. URL: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~jungslav/fdsl/fdsl7/abstracts/Pshehotskaya_FA.pdf, date of access: 15. 03. 2011.
[21] Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
[22] Pustejovsky, James. 2012. Co-compositionality in grammar. In: Werning, Markus – Hinzen, Wolfram – Machery, Edouard, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 371–382.
[23] Rappaport Hovav, Malka – Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In: Butt, Miriam – Geuder, Wilhelm, eds. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford (CA): Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 97–134.