Lexical semantics

Lexical semantics (also known as lexicosemantics), as a subfield of linguist ic semant ics, is t he

st udy of word meanings.[1][2] It includes t he st udy of how words st ruct ure t heir meaning, how
t hey act in grammar and composit ionalit y,[1] and t he relat ionships bet ween t he dist inct senses
and uses of a word.[2]

The unit s of analysis in lexical semant ics are lexical unit s which include not only words but also
sub-words or sub-unit s such as affixes and even compound words and phrases. Lexical unit s
include t he cat alogue of words in a language, t he lexicon. Lexical semant ics looks at how t he
meaning of t he lexical unit s correlat es wit h t he st ruct ure of t he language or synt ax. This is
referred t o as synt ax-semant ics int erface.[3]

The st udy of lexical semant ics looks at :

t he classificat ion and decomposit ion of lexical it ems

t he differences and similarit ies in lexical semant ic st ruct ure cross-linguist ically

t he relat ionship of lexical meaning t o sent ence meaning and synt ax.

Lexical unit s, also referred t o as synt act ic at oms, can st and alone such as in t he case of root
words or part s of compound words or t hey necessarily at t ach t o ot her unit s such as prefixes and
suffixes do. The former are called free morphemes and t he lat t er bound morphemes.[4] They fall
int o a narrow range of meanings (semant ic fields) and can combine wit h each ot her t o generat e
new denot at ions.
Cognit ive semant ics is t he linguist ic paradigm/framework t hat since t he 1980s has generat ed
t he most st udies in lexical semant ics, int roducing innovat ions like prot ot ype t heory, concept ual
met aphors, and frame semant ics.[5]

Lexical relations: how meanings relate to each other

Lexical it ems cont ain informat ion about cat egory (lexical and synt act ic), form and meaning. The
semant ics relat ed t o t hese cat egories t hen relat e t o each lexical it em in t he lexicon.[6] Lexical
it ems can also be semant ically classified based on whet her t heir meanings are derived from
single lexical unit s or from t heir surrounding environment .

Lexical it ems part icipat e in regular pat t erns of associat ion wit h each ot her. Some relat ions
bet ween lexical it ems include hyponymy, hypernymy, synonymy, and ant onymy, as well as
homonymy.[6]

Hyponymy and hypernymy

Hyponymy and hypernymy refers t o a relat ionship bet ween a general t erm and t he more specific
t erms t hat fall under t he cat egory of t he general t erm.

For example, t he colors red, green, blue and yellow are hyponyms. They fall under t he general
t erm of color, which is t he hypernym.

Taxonomy showing the hypernym "color"

Color (hypernym) → red, green, yellow, blue (hyponyms)

Hyponyms and hypernyms can be described by using a t axonomy, as seen in t he example.

Synonymy

Synonymy refers t o words t hat are pronounced and spelled different ly but cont ain t he same
meaning.

Happy, joyful, glad [6]

Antonymy

Ant onymy refers t o words t hat are relat ed by having t he opposit e meanings t o each ot her. There
are t hree t ypes of ant onyms: graded ant onyms, complement ary ant onyms, and relat ional
ant onyms.

dead, alive [6]long, short

Homonymy

Homonymy refers t o t he relat ionship bet ween words t hat are spelled or pronounced t he same
way but hold different meanings.

bank (of river)

bank (financial institution)

Polysemy

Polysemy refers t o a word having t wo or more relat ed meanings.

bright (shining)
bright (intelligent)
An example of a semantic network

Semantic networks

Lexical semant ics also explores whet her t he meaning of a lexical unit is est ablished by looking at
it s neighbourhood in t he semant ic net , (words it occurs wit h in nat ural sent ences), or whet her t he
meaning is already locally cont ained in t he lexical unit .

In English, WordNet is an example of a semant ic net work. It cont ains English words t hat are
grouped int o synset s. Some semant ic relat ions bet ween t hese synset s are meronymy,
hyponymy, synonymy, and ant onymy.

Semantic fields

How lexical items map onto concepts

First proposed by Trier in t he 1930s,[7] semant ic field t heory proposes t hat a group of words wit h
int errelat ed meanings can be cat egorized under a larger concept ual domain. This ent ire ent it y is
t hereby known as a semant ic field. The words boil, bake, fry, and roast, for example, would fall
under t he larger semant ic cat egory of cooking. Semant ic field t heory assert s t hat lexical
meaning cannot be fully underst ood by looking at a word in isolat ion, but by looking at a group of
semant ically relat ed words.[8] Semant ic relat ions can refer t o any relat ionship in meaning
bet ween lexemes, including synonymy (big and large), ant onymy (big and small), hypernymy and
hyponymy (rose and flower), converseness (buy and sell), and incompat ibilit y. Semant ic field
t heory does not have concret e guidelines t hat det ermine t he ext ent of semant ic relat ions
bet ween lexemes. The abst ract validit y of t he t heory is a subject of debat e.[7]

Knowing t he meaning of a lexical it em t herefore means knowing t he semant ic ent ailment s t he

word brings wit h it . However, it is also possible t o underst and only one word of a semant ic field
wit hout underst anding ot her relat ed words. Take, for example, a t axonomy of plant s and animals:
it is possible t o underst and t he words rose and rabbit wit hout knowing what a marigold or a
muskrat is. This is applicable t o colors as well, such as underst anding t he word red wit hout
knowing t he meaning of scarlet, but underst anding scarlet wit hout knowing t he meaning of red
may be less likely. A semant ic field can t hus be very large or very small, depending on t he level of
cont rast being made bet ween lexical it ems. While cat and dog bot h fall under t he larger
semant ic field of animal, including t he breed of dog, like German shepherd, would require
cont rast s bet ween ot her breeds of dog (e.g. corgi, or poodle), t hus expanding t he semant ic field
furt her.[9]

How lexical items map onto events

Event st ruct ure is defined as t he semant ic relat ion of a verb and it s synt act ic propert ies.[10]
Event st ruct ure has t hree primary component s:[11]

primit ive event t ype of t he lexical it em

event composit ion rules

mapping rules t o lexical st ruct ure

Verbs can belong t o one of t hree t ypes: st at es, processes, or t ransit ions.

(1) a. The door is closed. [11] b. The door closed.

c. John closed the door.

(1a) defines t he st at e of t he door being closed; t here is no opposit ion in t his predicat e. (1b) and
(1c) bot h have predicat es showing t ransit ions of t he door going from being implicit ly open t o
closed. (1b) gives t he int ransit ive use of t he verb close, wit h no explicit ment ion of t he causer,
but (1c) makes explicit ment ion of t he agent involved in t he act ion.

Syntactic basis of event structure: a brief history

Generative semantics in the 1960s

The analysis of t hese different lexical unit s had a decisive role in t he field of "generat ive
linguist ics" during t he 1960s.[12] The t erm generative was proposed by Noam Chomsky in his book
Synt act ic St ruct ures published in 1957. The t erm generative linguistics was based on Chomsky's
generat ive grammar, a linguist ic t heory t hat st at es syst emat ic set s of rules (X' t heory) can
predict grammat ical phrases wit hin a nat ural language.[13] Generat ive Linguist ics is also known as
Government -Binding Theory. Generat ive linguist s of t he 1960s, including Noam Chomsky and
Ernst von Glasersfeld, believed semant ic relat ions bet ween t ransit ive verbs and int ransit ive verbs
were t ied t o t heir independent synt act ic organizat ion.[12] This meant t hat t hey saw a simple verb
phrase as encompassing a more complex synt act ic st ruct ure.[12]

Lexicalist theories in the 1980s

Lexicalist t heories became popular during t he 1980s, and emphasized t hat a word's int ernal
st ruct ure was a quest ion of morphology and not of synt ax.[14] Lexicalist t heories emphasized
t hat complex words (result ing from compounding and derivat ion of affixes) have lexical ent ries
t hat are derived from morphology, rat her t han result ing from overlapping synt act ic and
phonological propert ies, as Generat ive Linguist ics predict s. The dist inct ion bet ween Generat ive
Linguist ics and Lexicalist t heories can be illust rat ed by considering t he t ransformat ion of t he
word destroy t o destruction:

Generative Linguistics theory: st at es t he t ransformat ion of destroy → destruction as t he

nominal, nom + destroy, combined wit h phonological rules t hat produce t he out put destruction.
Views t his t ransformat ion as independent of t he morphology.

Lexicalist theory: sees destroy and destruction as having idiosyncrat ic lexical ent ries based on
t heir differences in morphology. Argues t hat each morpheme cont ribut es specific meaning.
St at es t hat t he format ion of t he complex word destruction is account ed for by a set of
Lexical Rules, which are different and independent from synt act ic rules.[14]

A lexical ent ry list s t he basic propert ies of eit her t he whole word, or t he individual propert ies of
t he morphemes t hat make up t he word it self. The propert ies of lexical it ems include t heir
cat egory select ion c-selection, select ional propert ies s-selection, (also known as semant ic
select ion),[12] phonological propert ies, and feat ures. The propert ies of lexical it ems are
idiosyncrat ic, unpredict able, and cont ain specific informat ion about t he lexical it ems t hat t hey
describe.[12]

The following is an example of a lexical ent ry for t he verb put:

put: V DPagent DPexperiencer/PPlocative

Lexicalist t heories st at e t hat a word's meaning is derived from it s morphology or a speaker's

lexicon, and not it s synt ax. The degree of morphology's influence on overall grammar remains
cont roversial.[12] Current ly, t he linguist s t hat perceive one engine driving bot h morphological
it ems and synt act ic it ems are in t he majorit y.

Micro-syntactic theories: 1990s to the present

By t he early 1990s, Chomsky's minimalist framework on language st ruct ure led t o sophist icat ed
probing t echniques for invest igat ing languages.[15] These probing t echniques analyzed negat ive
dat a over prescript ive grammars, and because of Chomsky's proposed Ext ended Project ion
Principle in 1986, probing t echniques showed where specifiers of a sent ence had moved t o in
order t o fulfill t he EPP. This allowed synt act icians t o hypot hesize t hat lexical it ems wit h
complex synt act ic feat ures (such as dit ransit ive, inchoat ive, and causat ive verbs), could select
t heir own specifier element wit hin a synt ax t ree const ruct ion. (For more on probing t echniques,
see Suci, G., Gammon, P., & Gamlin, P. (1979)).

This brought t he focus back on t he synt ax-lexical semant ics int erface; however, synt act icians
st ill sought t o underst and t he relat ionship bet ween complex verbs and t heir relat ed synt act ic
st ruct ure, and t o what degree t he synt ax was project ed from t he lexicon, as t he Lexicalist
t heories argued.

In t he mid 1990s, linguist s Heidi Harley, Samuel Jay Keyser, and Kennet h Hale addressed some of
t he implicat ions posed by complex verbs and a lexically-derived synt ax. Their proposals
indicat ed t hat t he predicat es CAUSE and BECOME, referred t o as subunit s wit hin a Verb Phrase,
act ed as a lexical semant ic t emplat e.[16] Predicates are verbs and st at e or affirm somet hing
about t he subject of t he sent ence or t he argument of t he sent ence. For example, t he
predicat es went and is here below affirm t he argument of t he subject and t he st at e of t he
subject respect ively.

Lucy went home.

The parcel is here.

The subunit s of Verb Phrases led t o t he Argument St ruct ure Hypot hesis and Verb Phrase
Hypot hesis, bot h out lined below.[17] The recursion found under t he "umbrella" Verb Phrase, t he
VP Shell, accommodat ed binary-branching t heory; anot her crit ical t opic during t he 1990s.[18]
Current t heory recognizes t he predicat e in Specifier posit ion of a t ree in inchoat ive/ant icausat ive
verbs (int ransit ive), or causat ive verbs (t ransit ive) is what select s t he t het a role conjoined wit h a
part icular verb.[12]
Hale & Keyser 1990

Hale and Keyser 1990 structure

Kennet h Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser int roduced t heir t hesis on lexical argument st ruct ure during
t he early 1990s.[19] They argue t hat a predicat e's argument st ruct ure is represent ed in t he
synt ax, and t hat t he synt act ic represent at ion of t he predicat e is a lexical project ion of it s
argument s. Thus, t he st ruct ure of a predicat e is st rict ly a lexical represent at ion, where each
phrasal head project s it s argument ont o a phrasal level wit hin t he synt ax t ree. The select ion of
t his phrasal head is based on Chomsky's Empt y Cat egory Principle. This lexical project ion of t he
predicat e's argument ont o t he synt act ic st ruct ure is t he foundat ion for t he Argument St ruct ure
Hypot hesis.[19] This idea coincides wit h Chomsky's Project ion Principle, because it forces a VP
t o be select ed locally and be select ed by a Tense Phrase (TP).

Based on t he int eract ion bet ween lexical propert ies, localit y, and t he propert ies of t he EPP
(where a phrasal head select s anot her phrasal element locally), Hale and Keyser make t he claim
t hat t he Specifier posit ion or a complement are t he only t wo semant ic relat ions t hat project a
predicat e's argument . In 2003, Hale and Keyser put forward t his hypot hesis and argued t hat a
lexical unit must have one or t he ot her, Specifier or Complement , but cannot have bot h.[20]

Halle & Marantz 1993

Halle & Marantz 1993 structure

Morris Halle and Alec Marant z int roduced t he not ion of dist ribut ed morphology in 1993.[21] This
t heory views t he synt act ic st ruct ure of words as a result of morphology and semant ics, inst ead
of t he morpho-semant ic int erface being predict ed by t he synt ax. Essent ially, t he idea t hat under
t he Ext ended Project ion Principle t here is a local boundary under which a special meaning occurs.
This meaning can only occur if a head-project ing morpheme is present wit hin t he local domain of
t he synt act ic st ruct ure.[22] The following is an example of t he t ree st ruct ure proposed by
dist ribut ed morphology for t he sent ence "John's destroying the city". Destroy is t he root , V-1
represent s verbalizat ion, and D represent s nominalizat ion.[22]

Ramchand 2008

In her 2008 book, Verb Meaning and The Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax, linguist Gillian Ramchand
acknowledges t he roles of lexical ent ries in t he select ion of complex verbs and t heir
argument s.[23] 'First -Phase' synt ax proposes t hat event st ruct ure and event part icipant s are
direct ly represent ed in t he synt ax by means of binary branching. This branching ensures t hat t he
Specifier is t he consist ent ly subject , even when invest igat ing t he project ion of a complex verb's
lexical ent ry and it s corresponding synt act ic const ruct ion. This generalizat ion is also present in
Ramchand's t heory t hat t he complement of a head for a complex verb phrase must co-describe
t he verb's event .

Ramchand also int roduced t he concept of Homomorphic Unit y, which refers t o t he st ruct ural
synchronizat ion bet ween t he head of a complex verb phrase and it s complement . According t o
Ramchand, Homomorphic Unit y is "when t wo event descript ors are synt act ically Merged, t he
st ruct ure of t he complement must unify wit h t he st ruct ure of t he head."[23]

Classification of event types

Intransitive verbs: unaccusative versus unergative

Underlying tree Underlying tree

structure for (2a) structure for (2b)

The unaccusat ive hypot hesis was put forward by David Perlmut t er in 1987, and describes how
t wo classes of int ransit ive verbs have t wo different synt act ic st ruct ures. These are
unaccusat ive verbs and unergat ive verbs.[24] These classes of verbs are defined by Perlmut t er
only in synt act ic t erms. They have t he following st ruct ures underlyingly:

unaccusat ive verb: _ _ [VP V NP] [24]

unergat ive verb: NP [VP V]

The following is an example from English:

(2) Unaccusative
a. Mary fell. [25]

Unergative
b. Mary worked.

In (2a) t he verb underlyingly t akes a direct object , while in (2b) t he verb underlyingly t akes a
subject .

Transitivity alternations: the inchoative/causative alternation

The change-of-st at e propert y of Verb Phrases (VP) is a significant observat ion for t he synt ax of
lexical semant ics because it provides evidence t hat subunit s are embedded in t he VP st ruct ure,
and t hat t he meaning of t he ent ire VP is influenced by t his int ernal grammat ical st ruct ure. (For
example, t he VP the vase broke carries a change-of-st at e meaning of t he vase becoming broken,
and t hus has a silent BECOME subunit wit hin it s underlying st ruct ure.) There are t wo t ypes of
change-of-st at e predicat es: inchoat ive and causat ive.

Inchoat ive verbs are int ransit ive, meaning t hat t hey occur wit hout a direct object , and t hese
verbs express t hat t heir subject has undergone a cert ain change of st at e. Inchoat ive verbs are
also known as ant icausat ive verbs.[26] Causat ive verbs are t ransit ive, meaning t hat t hey occur
wit h a direct object , and t hey express t hat t he subject causes a change of st at e in t he object .

Linguist Mart in Haspelmat h classifies inchoat ive/causat ive verb pairs under t hree main
cat egories: causat ive, ant icausat ive, and non-direct ed alt ernat ions.[27] Non-direct ed alt ernat ions
are furt her subdivided int o labile, equipollent , and supplet ive alt ernat ions.

Underlying tree structure for

Underlying tree structure for
(3b)
(3a)

English t ends t o favour labile alt ernat ions,[28] meaning t hat t he same verb is used in t he
inchoat ive and causat ive forms.[27] This can be seen in t he following example: broke is an
int ransit ive inchoat ive verb in (3a) and a t ransit ive causat ive verb in (3b).

(3) English [26]

a. The vase broke.

b. John broke the vase.
As seen in t he underlying t ree st ruct ure for (3a), t he silent subunit BECOME is embedded wit hin
t he Verb Phrase (VP), result ing in t he inchoat ive change-of-st at e meaning (y become z). In t he
underlying t ree st ruct ure for (3b), t he silent subunit s CAUS and BECOME are bot h embedded
wit hin t he VP, result ing in t he causat ive change-of-st at e meaning (x cause y become z).[12]

English change of st at e verbs are oft en de-adject ival, meaning t hat t hey are derived from
adject ives. We can see t his in t he following example:

[29]
(4) a. The knot is loose.
b. The knot loosened.
c. Sandy loosened the knot.

In example (4a) we st art wit h a st at ive int ransit ive adject ive, and derive (4b) where we see an
int ransit ive inchoat ive verb. In (4c) we see a t ransit ive causat ive verb.

Marked inchoatives

Some languages (e.g., German, It alian, and French), have mult iple morphological classes of
inchoat ive verbs.[30] Generally speaking, t hese languages separat e t heir inchoat ive verbs int o
t hree classes: verbs t hat are obligat orily unmarked (t hey are not marked wit h a reflexive pronoun,
clit ic, or affix), verbs t hat are opt ionally marked, and verbs t hat are obligat orily marked. The
causat ive verbs in t hese languages remain unmarked. Haspelmat h refers t o t his as t he
ant icausat ive alt ernat ion.

Underlying tree structure for

Underlying tree structure for
(4b)
(4a)
For example, inchoat ive verbs in German are classified int o t hree morphological classes. Class A
verbs necessarily form inchoat ives wit h t he reflexive pronoun sich, Class B verbs form
inchoat ives necessarily wit hout t he reflexive pronoun, and Class C verbs form inchoat ives
opt ionally wit h or wit hout t he reflexive pronoun. In example (5), t he verb zerbrach is an unmarked
inchoat ive verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in it s causat ive form.[30]

[30]
(5) German
a. Die Vase zerbrach.
the vase broke
'The vase broke.'
b. Hans zerbrach die Vase.
John broke the vase
'John broke the vase.'

Underlying tree structure for

(5a) Underlying tree structure for
(5b)

In cont rast , t he verb öffnete is a Class A verb which necessarily t akes t he reflexive pronoun sich
in it s inchoat ive form, but remains unmarked in it s causat ive form.
 [30]
(6) German
a. Die Tür öffnete sich.
the door opened REFL
'The door opened.'
b. Hans öffnete die Tür.
John opened the door
'John opened the door.'

There has been some debat e as t o whet her t he different classes of inchoat ive verbs are purely
based in morphology, or whet her t he different iat ion is derived from t he lexical-semant ic
propert ies of each individual verb. While t his debat e is st ill unresolved in languages such as
It alian, French, and Greek, it has been suggest ed by linguist Florian Schäfer t hat t here are
semant ic differences bet ween marked and unmarked inchoat ives in German. Specifically, t hat
only unmarked inchoat ive verbs allow an unint ent ional causer reading (meaning t hat t hey can t ake
on an "x unintentionally caused y" reading).[30]

Marked causatives

Underlying tree structure for (7b)

Underlying tree structure for (7a)

Causat ive morphemes are present in t he verbs of many languages (e.g., Tagalog, Malagasy,
Turkish, et c.), usually appearing in t he form of an affix on t he verb.[26] This can be seen in t he
following examples from Tagalog, where t he causat ive prefix pag- (realized here as nag)
at t aches t o t he verb tumba t o derive a causat ive t ransit ive verb in (7b), but t he prefix does not
appear in t he inchoat ive int ransit ive verb in (7a). Haspelmat h refers t o t his as t he causat ive
alt ernat ion.

[26]
(7) Tagalog
a. Tumumba ang bata.
fell the child
'The child fell.'
b. Nagtumba ng bata si Rosa.
CAUS-fall of child DET Rosa
'Rosa knocked the child down.'

Ditransitive verbs
Kayne's 1981 unambiguous path analysis

Tree diagram (8b)

Tree diagram (8a)

Richard Kayne proposed t he idea of unambiguous pat hs as an alt ernat ive t o c-commanding
relat ionships, which is t he t ype of st ruct ure seen in examples (8). The idea of unambiguous pat hs
st at ed t hat an ant ecedent and an anaphor should be connect ed via an unambiguous pat h. This
means t hat t he line connect ing an ant ecedent and an anaphor cannot be broken by anot her
argument .[31] When applied t o dit ransit ive verbs, t his hypot hesis int roduces t he st ruct ure in
diagram (8a). In t his t ree st ruct ure it can be seen t hat t he same pat h can be t raced from eit her
DP t o t he verb. Tree diagram (7b) illust rat es t his st ruct ure wit h an example from English. This
analysis was a st ep t oward binary branching t rees, which was a t heoret ical change t hat was
furt hered by Larson's VP-shell analysis.[32]

Larson's 1988 "VP-shell" analysis

Tree diagram for (9b)

Tree diagram for (9a)

Larson posit ed his Single Complement Hypot hesis in which he st at ed t hat every complement is
int roduced wit h one verb. The Double Object Const ruct ion present ed in 1988 gave clear
evidence of a hierarchical st ruct ure using asymmet rical binary branching.[32] Sent ences wit h
double object s occur wit h dit ransit ive verbs, as we can see in t he following example:

Larson's proposed binary-branching VP-shell structure for (9)

 [33]
(9) a. John sent Mary a package.
b. John sent a package to Mary.

It appears as if t he verb send has t wo object s, or complement s (argument s): bot h Mary, t he
recipient and parcel, t he t heme. The argument st ruct ure of dit ransit ive verb phrases is complex
and has undergone different st ruct ural hypot hesis.

The original st ruct ural hypot hesis was t hat of t ernary branching seen in (9a) and (9b), but
following from Kayne's 1981 analysis, Larson maint ained t hat each complement is int roduced by
a verb.[31][32]

Their hypot hesis shows t hat t here is a lower verb embedded wit hin a VP shell t hat combines
wit h an upper verb (can be invisible), t hus creat ing a VP shell (as seen in t he t ree diagram t o t he
right ). Most current t heories no longer allow t he t ernary t ree st ruct ure of (9a) and (9b), so t he
t heme and t he goal/recipient are seen in a hierarchical relat ionship wit hin a binary branching
st ruct ure.[34]

Following are examples of Larson's t est s t o show t hat t he hierarchical (superior) order of any
t wo object s aligns wit h a linear order, so t hat t he second is governed (c-commanded) by t he
first .[32] This is in keeping wit h X'Bar Theory of Phrase St ruct ure Grammar, wit h Larson's t ree
st ruct ure using t he empt y Verb t o which t he V is raised.

Reflexives and reciprocals (anaphors) show t his relat ionship in which t hey must be c-commanded
by t heir ant ecedent s, such t hat t he (10a) is grammat ical but (10b) is not :

(10) a. I showed Mary herself.[32]

b. *I showed herself Mary.

A pronoun must have a quant ifier as it s ant ecedent :

(11) a. I gave every worker his paycheck.[32]

b. *I gave its owner every paycheck.

Quest ion words follow t his order:

 (12) a. Who did you give which paycheck? [32]

b. *Which paycheck did you give who?

The effect of negat ive polarit y means t hat "any" must have a negat ive quant ifier as an
ant ecedent :

General tree diagram for Larson's proposed underlying structure of a sentence with causative meaning

(13) a. I showed no one anything.[32]

b. *I showed anyone nothing.

These t est s wit h dit ransit ive verbs t hat confirm c-command also confirm t he presence of
underlying or invisible causat ive verbs. In dit ransit ive verbs such as give someone something,
send someone something, show someone something et c. t here is an underlying causat ive
meaning t hat is represent ed in t he underlying st ruct ure. As seen in example in (9a) above, John
sent Mary a package, t here is t he underlying meaning t hat 'John "caused" Mary t o have a
package'.

Larson proposed t hat bot h sent ences in (9a) and (9b) share t he same underlying st ruct ure and
t he difference on t he surface lies in t hat t he double object const ruct ion "John sent Mary a
package" is derived by t ransformat ion from a NP plus PP const ruct ion "John sent a package t o
Mary".

Beck & Johnson's 2004 double object construction

Beck and Johnson, however, give evidence t hat t he t wo underlying st ruct ures are not t he
same.[35] In so doing, t hey also give furt her evidence of t he presence of t wo VPs where t he verb
at t aches t o a causat ive verb. In examples (14a) and (b), each of t he double object const ruct ions
are alt ernat ed wit h NP + PP const ruct ions.

(14) a. Satoshi sent Tubingen the Damron Guide.[35]

b. Satoshi sent the Damron Guide to Tübingen.

Beck and Johnson show t hat t he object in (15a) has a different relat ion t o t he mot ion verb as it
is not able t o carry t he meaning of HAVING which t he possessor (9a) and (15a) can. In (15a),
Sat oshi is an animat e possessor and so is caused t o HAVE kisimen. The PP for Satoshi in (15b) is
of a benefact ive nat ure and does not necessarily carry t his meaning of HAVE eit her.

(15) a. Thilo cooked Satoshi kisimen.[35]

b. Thilo cooked kisimen for Satoshi.

The underlying st ruct ures are t herefore not t he same. The differences lie in t he semant ics and
t he synt ax of t he sent ences, in cont rast t o t he t ransformat ional t heory of Larson. Furt her
evidence for t he st ruct ural exist ence of VP shells wit h an invisible verbal unit is given in t he
applicat ion of t he adjunct or modifier "again". Sent ence (16) is ambiguous and looking int o t he
t wo different meanings reveals a difference in st ruct ure.

(16) Sally opened the door again.[35]

 Underlying tree structure Underlying tree structure
for (17a) for (17b)

However, in (17a), it is clear t hat it was Sally who repeat ed t he act ion of opening t he door. In
(17b), t he event is in t he door being opened and Sally may or may not have opened it previously.
To render t hese t wo different meanings, "again" at t aches t o VPs in t wo different places, and
t hus describes t wo event s wit h a purely st ruct ural change.

(17) a. Sally was so kind that she went out of her way to open the
door
once again.[35]
b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but
Sally opened
the door again.

See also

Cont ent word Semant ic primes

Lexical chain Semant ic sat iat ion

Lexical markup framework SemEval

Lexical verb Themat ic role

Minimal recursion semant ics Troponymy

Ont ology Word sense

Polysemy Word-sense disambiguat ion

References

1. Pustejovsky, J. (2005) Lexical Semantics: Overview (https://books.google.it/books?id=cxYGQfiD_1oC&p

g=PT11380) in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, second edition, Volumes 1-14
 2. Taylor, J. (2017) Lexical Semantics (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-co
gnitive-linguistics/lexical-semantics/798AB6901B9AD5B0AC42C94A52EC8ECF/core-reader) . In B.
Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in
Language and Linguistics, pp. 246-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781316339732.017 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2F9781316339732.017)

3. Pustejovsky, James (1995). The Generative Lexicon (https://books.google.com/books?id=p2GJBNpBVg

4C&q=%22lexical+semantics%22) . MIT Press. ISBN 9780262661409.

4. Di Sciullo, Anne-Marie; Williams, Edwin (1987). On the definition of word (https://archive.org/details/ond

efinitionofwo00disc) . Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

5. Geeraerts, Dirk (2010) Introduction (https://books.google.it/books?id=JC8TDAAAQBAJ) , p. xiv, in

Theories of Lexical Semantics

. Loos, Eugene; Anderson, Susan; H. Day, Jr., Dwight; Jordan, Paul; Wingate, J. Douglas. "What is a lexical
relation?" (http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsALexicalRelation.htm) .
Glossary of linguistic terms. LinguaLinks.

7. Famer, Pamela B.; Mairal Usón, Ricardo (1999). "Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs". Functional
Grammar (in English) 23 (illustrated ed.). Walter de Gruyter. p. 350. ISBN 9783110164169.

. Lehrer, Adrienne (1985). "The influence of semantic fields on semantic change" (http://alehrer.faculty.ari
zona.edu/sites/alehrer.faculty.arizona.edu/files/Semantic%20fields%20and%20change.pdf) (PDF).
Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 283–296.

9. Grandy, Richard E. (2012). "Semantic Fields, Prototypes, and the Lexicon". Frames, Fields, and
Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Routledge. pp. 103–122.
ISBN 9781136475801.

10. Malaia; et al. (2012), "Effects of Verbal Event Structure on Online Thematic Role Assignment", Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 41 (5): 323–345, doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9195-x (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs10936-011-9195-x) , PMID 22120140 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22120140) ,
S2CID 207201471 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:207201471)

11. Pustejovsky, James (2012). "The syntax of event structure" (http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/james/Pape

rs/Pustejovsky-event-structure.pdf) (PDF). Cognition. 41 (1–3): 47–81. doi:10.1016/0010-
0277(91)90032-y (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0277%2891%2990032-y) . PMID 1790655 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1790655) . S2CID 16966452 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
16966452) .

12. Sportiche, Dominique; Koopman, Hilda; Stabler, Edward (2014). An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis
and Theory. WILEY Blackwell.

13. Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

14. Scalise, Sergio; Guevara, Emiliano (1985). "The Lexicalist Approach to Word-Formation".
15. Fodor, Jerry; Lepore, Ernie (Aug 1999). "All at Sea in Semantic Space" (https://semanticscholar.org/pape
r/b71ab3386f6eb9fbf5e855fa4cf4b80d9dc3b268) . The Journal of Philosophy. 96 (8): 381–403.
doi:10.5840/jphil199996818 (https://doi.org/10.5840%2Fjphil199996818) . JSTOR 2564628 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/2564628) . S2CID 14948287 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:149482
87) .

1 . Pinker, S. 1989. "Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure." Cambridge. MIT
Press. pp 89

17. Harley, Heidi. "Events, agents and the interpretation of VP-shells." (1996).

1 . Kayne, Richard S. The antisymmetry of syntax. No. 25. MIT Press, 1994.

19. Hale, Kenneth; Keyser, Samuel Jay (1993). "On Argument Structures and the Lexical expression of
syntactic relations". Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger.

20. Paul Bennett, 2003. Review of Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser, Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument
Structure. Machine Translation. Vol 18. Issue 1

21. Halle, Morris; Marantz, Alec (1993), Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, The View from
Building 20 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 111–176

22. Marantz, Alec. 1997. 'No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your
own Lexicon (https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1795&context=pwpl) .'
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics

23. Ramchand, Gillian (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 9780511486319.

24. Lappin, S. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

25. Loporcaro, M. (2003). The Unaccusative Hypothesis and participial absolutes in Italian: Perlmutter’s
generalization revised. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 199-263.

2 . Johnson, Kent (2008). "An Overview of Lexical Semantics" (http://www.lps.uci.edu/~johnsonk/Publicatio

ns/Johnson.AnOverviewOfLexicalSemantics.pdf) (PDF). Philosophy Compass: 119–134.

27. Haspelmath, Martin (1993). "More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations" (https://w
ww.academia.edu/3452966) . Causatives and transitivity, edited by Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky
(https://zenodo.org/record/227093) . Causatives and Transitivity. Studies in Language Companion
Series. Vol. 23. Benjamins. pp. 87–121. doi:10.1075/slcs.23.05has (https://doi.org/10.1075%2Fslcs.23.
05has) . ISBN 978-90-272-3026-3.

2 . Piñón, Christopher (2001). "A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation" (http://elanguage.net/jo
urnals/salt/article/viewFile/11.346/1719) : 346–364.

29. Tham, S (2013). "Change of state verbs and result state adjectives in Mandarin Chinese". Journal of
Linguistics. 49 (3): 647–701. doi:10.1017/s0022226713000261 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0022226
713000261) .
30. Schafer, Florian (2008). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 1.
ISBN 9789027255099.

31. Kayne, R. (1981). Unambiguous paths. In R. May & F. Koster (Eds.), Levels of syntactic representation
(143-184). Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.

32. Larson, Richard (1988). "On the Double Object Construction". Linguistic Inquiry. 19 (3): 589–632.
JSTOR 25164901 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164901) .

33. Miyagawa, Shigeru; Tsujioka, Takae (2004). "Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese".
Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 13 (1): 1–38. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.207.6553 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.ed
u/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.207.6553) . doi:10.1023/b:jeal.0000007345.64336.84 (https://doi.or
g/10.1023%2Fb%3Ajeal.0000007345.64336.84) . S2CID 122993837 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:122993837) .

34. Bruening, Benjamin (November 2010). "Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation".
Linguistic Inquiry. 41 (4): 519–562. doi:10.1162/LING_a_00012 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2FLING_a_
00012) . S2CID 57567192 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:57567192) .

35. Sigrid, Beck; Johnson, Kyle (2004). "Double Objects Again" (http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/Beck_
and_Johnson_2004.pdf) (PDF). Linguistic Inquiry. 35 (1): 97–124.
doi:10.1162/002438904322793356 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2F002438904322793356) .
S2CID 18749803 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18749803) .

External links

Media relat ed t o Lexical semant ics at Wikimedia Commons

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Lexical_semantics&oldid=1116497722"

Last edited 2 months ago by LizardJr8