Constructional Approach as Compared with Projectionist Approach to Argument Structure

戴好運

【Abstract】Projectionist accounts of argument structure give verbs semantic representation a central 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 problem， 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 projectionist approach and constructional approach to argument structure and discuss constructional approachs advantage in reducing verb senses and avoiding circularity.

【Key words】Constructional Approach； Projectionist Approach； Argument Structure； Circularity

Introduction

In generative tradition， relations between a verb and its arguments are fundamental in understanding syntax-semantics interface （Riemer， 2010）. Projectionist accounts of argument structure put verbs semantic representations in the central position， believing that it is verbs semantic representation that determines its syntactic behavior. However， since different syntactic complement structures reflect a different sense in a verbs semantic representation， if a verb has too many alternations， the number of verb meanings/senses may explode （Goldberg， 1995）. Moreover， the traditional approach to argument structure may lead to an undesirable circular explanation. To solve this problem， Goldberg（1995） proposed a constructional approach which highlighted that arguments can be subcategoraized by construction itself rather than verb. Through this approach， we dont need to postulate different senses of verbs to account for the different argument structures， as it is the constructions that contribute to these subcategorizations. Therefore， the circularity problem is resolved. This paper attempts to analyze the problems of traditional verb-centered approaches to argument structure and compare them with Goldbergs constructional approach， trying to explain the advantage of constructional approach in terms of avoiding circularity.

Problems with Projectionist Accounts of Argument Structure：

Although many psycholinguistic experiments had proved that verb representations play a decisive role in sentence comprehension （Healy & Miller， 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 in at least 8 argument structures （Goldberg， 1995）. If every configuration corresponds with one sense of the verbs semantic representation， a blow-out in word meanings may occur. Moreover， many of these derivative senses can not be attributed to verb alone. For instance， in the sentence： Im baking Alex a birthday cake. （Bencini & Goldberg， 2000： 642）， when baking appears in ditransitive construction， it entails the meaning of “transfer” which is not inherently embodied in its semantic representation.

Secondly， as Goldberg （1995） pointed out， the Projection Principle of Government and Binding Theory assumed that verb determines the number and type of its complements， which enables verb to have an n-argument sense. However， this n-argument sense comes from the fact that a verb can appear with n complements， leading to a circular explanation of argument structure. As mentioned before， kick can appear in at least eight argument structure frames， according to projectionist view， kick has these n-argument sense because it can occurs with n arguments in different situations， and the reason kick can occur with different number of arguments is that it innately has these argument structures. The emphasis on verb semantic representation therefore results in circular argumentations， as the projectionist accounts determine that these two sides of verbs are interrelated and depend on each other. This problem may finally lead to a conclusion that no verbs have definite argument structures （Shen， 2000）， making these theories meaningless.

Advantages of constructional approach to argument structure：

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， 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 predictable from their separate components. Yet the skeletal constructions are particular grammatical patterns with a central， prototypical sense， waiting to be instantiated by a large number of lexical items. For instance， though the verbs in ditransitive construction sentences like she baked me a cake and he asked her a problem have quite different meanings， they are involved in a cluster of related senses of “transfer”. Benici and Goldberg （2000） conducted an experiment to examine the contribution of constructions to sentence comprehension. In their study participants were required to read twenty-five sentences which were cross-constructed by four verbs and four constructions. Then they categorized these sentences according to the overall meanings. Results suggested that they were more inclined to understand sentences through constructions rather than verbs. These findings suggest that constructions contribute directly to the overall meaning of sentences. Therefore， on a constructional approach to argument structure， it is plausible to assume that the different senses of the same verb can be attributed to particular constructions （Goldberg， 1995）.

On the one hand the constructional approach avoids the problem of imposing implausible meanings to verbs and reduces the proliferation of verb-senses. For instance， the word slice in the following sentences has different argument structures： 1. He sliced the bread. 2. Pat sliced the carrots into the salad. 3. Pat sliced Chris a piece of pie. 4. Pat sliced the box open. （Riemer， 2011）， if they are interpreted as productions of different semantic representations of the verb， the verb senses will blow out. But a constructional approach attributes all these different meanings to particular constructions. As slice enters transitive construction in sentence 1， caused motion construction in sentence 2， ditransitive construction in sentence 3 and resultative construction in sentence 4， these constructions determine its argument structure and basic semantic representation. On the other hand， from the perspective of constructional approach， constructions influence can override verbs prototypical argument structure. When a typical two-argument verb enters a construction denoting “transfer”， which requires three arguments （agent， patient， recipient）， it gains a three-argument sense. And a construction denoting “lose” forms a two argument （experiencer， theme） frame for any verbs enter it no matter whether they have a two-argument sense or three-argument sense originally （Yuan， 2004）. When the event type of a verb are compatible with a given construction， it is assimilated by the constructions configuration and meaning （Goldberg， 1995）. Therefore， the circularity problem observed in projectionist approach can be resolved—as a verb incorporated into particular constructions， it becomes an instance of these constructions with added information to detail them. The n-argument sense of verb is imposed by constructions rather than the fact that it occurs with n argument， thus the mediated stage of construction solved this circular explanation.

Conclusion

The standard account of projectionist approach to argument structure holds 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. Goldbergs constructional 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 items. As the verbs enter a particular construction， they acquire a particular argument structure which is framed by this construction. Therefore， the reason why a verb can have n complements or n-argument sense can all be explained by constructions rather than the verb itself， which helps avoid circularity.

References：

[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.

[2]Goldberg，A.E.Constructions：A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Chicago：University of Chicago Press.1995.

[3]Healy，A.& Miller，G.The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning[J].Psychonomic Science，1970（20）：372.

[4]Riemer，N.Introducing Semantics[M].New York：Cambridge University Press.2010.

[5]Wu，H.A Study on the Interaction between Verbs and Constructions Based on Corpus and its Application in Teaching English Writing[D].Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.2011.

[6]沈家煊.句式和配價[J].中國語文，2000（4）：291-297.

[7]袁毓林.論元結構和句式結構互動的動因、機制和條件——表達精細化對動詞配價和句式構造的影響[J].語言研究，2004（4）：1-10.