constructional approach as compared with projectionist approach to argument structure

1、<p>　　Constructional Approach as Compared with Projectionist Approach to Argument Structure</p><p>　　【Abstract】Projectionist accounts of argument structure give verb’s semantic representation a central

2、role in sentence interpretation， it is held that the argument structure and alternations related with a verb are always the product of its semantic representation. However， a circularity problem arises. To solve this pro

3、blem， Goldberg （1995）’s constructional approach proposed that argument structure patterns are linguistic units in their own right. This paper attempts to make a comparison between</p><p>　　【Key words】Constru

4、ctional Approach； Projectionist Approach； Argument Structure； Circularity </p><p>　　Introduction </p><p>　　In generative tradition， relations between a verb and its arguments are fundamental in

5、understanding syntax-semantics interface （Riemer， 2010）. Projectionist accounts of argument structure put verbs’ semantic representations in the central position， believing that it is verb’s semantic representation that

6、determines its syntactic behavior. However， since different syntactic complement structures reflect a different sense in a verb’s semantic representation， if a verb has too many alternations， t</p><p>　　Prob

7、lems with Projectionist Accounts of Argument Structure： </p><p>　　Although many psycholinguistic experiments had proved that verb representations play a decisive role in sentence comprehension （Healy & M

8、iller， 1970）， there are still some major problems with projectionist account of argument structure. First of all， a verb can appear with a number of quite distinct complement configurations， for example， kick can appear

9、in at least 8 argument structures （Goldberg， 1995）. If every configuration corresponds with one sense of the verb’s semantic representation， a </p><p>　　Advantages of constructional approach to argument stru

10、cture： </p><p>　　To avoid implausible verb senses and circularity， Goldberg （1995） proposed that constructions， which are form-meaning pairs， determine the argument structure of an expression. In her theory，

11、 construction involves an extensive range of linguistic units which differ in size and complexity. Morphemes， idioms and basic clauses can all be regarded as constructions. However， the meanings of constructions are not

12、predictable from their separate components. Yet the skeletal constructions are particular </p><p>　　Conclusion </p><p>　　The standard account of projectionist approach to argument structure hold

13、s a verb-centered view， believing that verb determines sentence comprehension and its argument structure. But this perspective would lead to a blow-out in verb senses and a problem of circularity. Goldberg’s construction

14、al approach， however， proposed that constructions are central in understanding sentences and determining argument structures. They are form-meaning patterns which can be instantiated by a number of lexical i</p>&

15、lt;p>　　References： </p><p>　　[1]Bencini，G.M.L & Goldberg，A.E.The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning[J].Journal of Memory and Language，2000（43）：640-651. </p>&l

16、t;p>　　[2]Goldberg，A.E.Constructions：A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Chicago：University of Chicago Press.1995. </p><p>　　[3]Healy，A.& Miller，G.The verb as the main determinant

17、of sentence meaning[J].Psychonomic Science，1970（20）：372. </p><p>　　[4]Riemer，N.Introducing Semantics[M].New York：Cambridge University Press.2010. </p><p>　　[5]Wu，H.A Study on the Interaction bet

18、ween Verbs and Constructions Based on Corpus and its Application in Teaching English Writing[D].Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.2011. </p><p>　　[6]沈家煊.句式和配價(jià)[J].中國(guó)語(yǔ)文，2000（4）：291-297. </p