search

langsci / 163

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

Terminology (p. 20) [via PaperHive@docloop] #277

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

lexical constructional proposal

Remi van Trijp wrote:

Why "lexical constructional"? What are the "constructions" in this approach?

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Lexical rules as understood in HPSG are constructions. They are unary branching rules. Goldberg (2013) calls them templates. They may add affixes (something explicitly listed as construction in Goldberg, 2006). They may extend valence and add meaning. This is an explicit formalization of coercion (something discussed a lot in CxG publications). SBCG has lexical constructions (Sag, 2012: 107). These are the lexical rules from HPSG. As in Standard HPSG there is a DTRS feature (see for example Figure 12 in Sag, 2012). In addition there is a MOTHER feature but this is irrelevant in the current discussion. See also Riehemann (1993, 1997) for the first publications in Construction Morphology: Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Argument Structure Constructions vs. Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates. Mind and Language 28(4). 435–465. DOI:10.1111/mila.12026. Riehemann, Susanne. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies: A Case Study of bar-Adjectives in German. Also published as SfS-Report-02-93, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Tübingen. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen Magisterarb. Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-Based Derivational Morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2(1). 49–77. Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (Hrsg.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 193), 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Link to original comment. About docloop.