search

langsci / 163

A lexicalist account of argument structure
1 stars 0 forks source link

Empirical problems (p. 17) [via PaperHive@docloop] #275

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

empirical prob- lems

Remi van Trijp wrote:

You are absolutely right that the (intentional) lack of formalization is problematic. However, the fact that cxg-inspired approaches have problems is not evidence that the Goldberg-approach has the same issues.

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Yes, this is true. But I still do not know how the Goldberg proposal is supposed to work. There is one more formal paper by Goldberg about Persian and I showed how it fails in Müller (2010). What else can I do? I can just discuss all the formal proposals that are made and show that problems I pointed out in publications so far also apply to these proposals. Müller, Stefan. 2010. Persian Complex Predicates and the Limits of Inheritance-Based Analyses. Journal of Linguistics 46(3). 601–655. DOI:10.1017/S0022226709990284.

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Remi van Trijp wrote:

There is nothing more you can do :). But I'm currently writing a book myself about this issue, I'll try to upload a demo video in January. Basically you have to imagine several layers of information (dependency structure, information structure, argument structure, ...) and an argument structure construction can leave the burden of word order, constituent structure, etc. entirely up to other constructions. It's as if the construction asks to constructions: please tell me which units are the Subject and Object of this clause, and then I can link their meanings.

Link to original comment. About docloop.