In this contribution we start by critically evaluating the pros and cons of syntactically-oriented studies that were published from the ’90s onward, with the goal of pinning down the semantic properties of verbs. First, we highlight the strengths of this approach. Second, we address its two major weaknesses: the inability to clearly distinguish arguments from adjuncts and with the shortcomings in accounting for the optionality in the syntactic realization of arguments. We argue that these weaknesses may be overcome by adopting a semantic-oriented approach from the start. Specifically, we propose that, unlike adjuncts, arguments are complements that play a role in influencing the meaning that the verb acquires in its contexts of use, and that syntactic optionality is licensed by semantic factors, in particular the degree to which an argument is incorporated in the verb on which it depends.
An innovative approach to the study of verbs at the syntax-semantics interface
Jezek E.
2024-01-01
Abstract
In this contribution we start by critically evaluating the pros and cons of syntactically-oriented studies that were published from the ’90s onward, with the goal of pinning down the semantic properties of verbs. First, we highlight the strengths of this approach. Second, we address its two major weaknesses: the inability to clearly distinguish arguments from adjuncts and with the shortcomings in accounting for the optionality in the syntactic realization of arguments. We argue that these weaknesses may be overcome by adopting a semantic-oriented approach from the start. Specifically, we propose that, unlike adjuncts, arguments are complements that play a role in influencing the meaning that the verb acquires in its contexts of use, and that syntactic optionality is licensed by semantic factors, in particular the degree to which an argument is incorporated in the verb on which it depends.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
