I thank Sam Guttenplan, Ray Jackendoff, Paul Kay, and Stefan Müller for comments on an earlier draft. They are of course not responsible for the perspective described here. I am grateful for funding from the Einstein Foundation in Berlin and Freie Universität for supporting this work.
Argument Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates
Article first published online: 2 SEP 2013
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Mind & Language
Volume 28, Issue 4, pages 435–465, September 2013
How to Cite
GOLDBERG, A. E. (2013), Argument Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates. Mind & Language, 28: 435–465. doi: 10.1111/mila.12026
- Issue published online: 2 SEP 2013
- Article first published online: 2 SEP 2013
The idea that correspondences relating grammatical relations and semantics (argument structure constructions) are needed to account for simple sentence types is reviewed, clarified, updated and compared with two lexicalist alternatives. Traditional lexical rules take one verb as ‘input’ and create (or relate) a different verb as ‘output’. More recently, invisible derivational verb templates have been proposed, which treat argument structure patterns as zero derivational affixes that combine with a root verb to yield a new verb. While the derivational template perspective can address several problems that arise for traditional lexical rules, it still faces problems in accounting for idioms, which often contain specifications that are not appropriately assigned to individual verbs or derivational affixes (regarding adjuncts, modification, and inflection). At the same time, it is clear that verbs play a central role in determining their distribution. The balance between verbs and phrasal argument structure constructions is addressed via the Principles of Semantic Coherence and Correspondence together with a usage-based hierarchy of constructions that contains entries which can include particular verbs and other lexical material.