search

langsci / 163

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

LFG / labels (p. 71) [via PaperHive@docloop] #287

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

LFG since the labels

Remi van Trijp wrote:

I am not sufficiently familiar with LFG to fully understand this claim... having different labels seems to be a trivial problem that one could solve?

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

It is not. Maybe some proponents of LFG can confirm this. It is like saying OBJ is theme in one language and benefactive in another one. How would you generalize over this?

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Remi van Trijp wrote:

Ah, but is this because LFG assumes a universal functional structure, or am I still missing something?

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Maybe they do, but this is independent of the argument. The argument is: For language 1 you need X for language 2 you need Y and there is no generalization over X and Y.

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Ash Asudeh wrote:

What you write here is true of our analysis of English, but I'm not sure what the proper LFG analysis of German would have to be off the top of my head. The dative case on 'ihr' certainly makes it seem like an OBJ\theta morphosyntactically, however this particular dative argument can also passivize (or something like passive) , as discussed on page 45, so from that perspective its a better candidate for an OBJ. And what is the evidence that 'ihr' is an ARG3 independently of the (putative) fact that it's an OBJ_\theta?

Link to original comment. About docloop.