Discussion Note: Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?
Discussion Note: Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?
复制标题
讨论笔记：短语还是词汇结构？
DOI：
10.1353/lan.2006.0213
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Stefan Müller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stefan Müller
自20世纪90年代以来，越来越多的语言学论文在构式语法的框架下发表。尽管Kay和Fillmore（1999，第19页）明确指出构式不一定是短语构式，但大多数作者认为构式是短语构式。这在HPSG框架下的构式语法启发的研究中尤其明显。在下文中，我将说明短语教学法和词汇教学法之间的差异并不像人们有时声称的那样大，尽管选择一种教学法可能会产生严重的后果。本文主要讨论动结式结构，这一现象的短语和词汇分析已被建议。我表明，相当数量的不同的建设必须假设占所有的模式，可能会出现从相互作用的结果建设与组分重排和价变化过程。结果表明，动词，谓词复合体，派生形态构成相当大的问题，为短语的方法，而他们是没有问题的词汇规则为基础的方法。这个讨论对于所有不使用转换将短语配置映射到其他短语配置的框架都是相关的。约瑟夫，语言的编辑，他的副编辑詹姆斯麦克洛斯基，和一个匿名的评论家语言的详细意见，本文的早期版本。我感谢安·科佩斯塔克、克斯汀·菲舍尔、保罗·凯、劳拉·米切里斯、德特玛·莫雷尔斯、弗兰克·里希特、伊万·萨格、阿纳托尔·斯特凡诺维奇和阿恩·泽舍尔的讨论。我感谢约翰·贝特曼、多萝西·比尔曼、吉斯伯特·范斯洛、汉斯-乌尔里希·克里格、安德鲁·麦金太尔和什拉万·瓦西什对本文早期版本的讨论和评论。我在不莱梅大学的一般和应用语言学研究所、奥斯纳布吕克大学的认知科学研究所、图宾根大学的德语研讨会、鲁尔大学波鸿语言学研究所、爱丁堡2005年ESSLI的自然语言语法基础研讨会上，以及在里斯本举行的2005年HPSG。我感谢有关部门的邀请，感谢会议和研讨会的评论员提出的意见，以及观众提出的意见和讨论。动结式也是2005年在卑尔根举行的博士生语言与理论对比研讨会上讨论的话题之一。我非常喜欢这次讨论，并想再次感谢组织者Helge Dyvik和Torbjorn Nordgard，我的共同教师Miriam Butt，Helge Dyvik和Peter Svenonius以及观众。
Since the 1990s, more and more linguistic articles have been published in the framework of Construction Grammar. Although Kay and Fillmore (1999, p. 19) make it clear that Constructions are not necessarily phrasal, most of the authors suggest phrasal Constructions. This is especially apparent in Construction Grammar-inspired studies in the HPSG framework. In what follows, I show that the difference between phrasal approaches and lexical approaches is not as great as is sometimes claimed, although selecting one approach over the other may nevertheless have serious consequences. This discussion focuses on resultative constructions, a phenomenon for which both phrasal and lexical analyses have been suggested. I show that a considerable number of different Constructions must be postulated to account for all the patterns that may arise from the interaction of the resultative construction with both constituent reordering and valence changing processes. It is shown that adjuncts, predicate complexes, and derivational morphology pose considerable problems for the phrasal approach, while they are unproblematic for lexical rule-based approaches. The discussion is relevant for all frameworks that do not use transformations to map phrasal configurations to other phrasal configurations.∗ ∗I thank Brian D. Joseph, the editor of Language, his Associate Editor James McCloskey, and an anonymous reviewer of Language for detailed comments on an earlier version of this paper. I thank Ann Copestake, Kerstin Fischer, Paul Kay, Laura Michaelis, Detmar Meurers, Frank Richter, Ivan Sag, Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Arne Zeschel for discussion. I thank John Bateman, Dorothee Beermann, Gisbert Fanselow, Hans-Ulrich Krieger, Andrew McIntyre, and Shravan Vasishth for discussion and for comments on earlier versions of this paper. I gave presentations about phrasal and lexical analyses of the resultative construction at the Institute for General and Applied Linguistics at the University of Bremen, at the Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Osnabruck, at the Deutsches Seminar of the University of Tubingen, at the Linguistics Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum, at the workshop Foundations of Natural-Language Grammar at the ESSLLI 2005 in Edinburgh, and at HPSG 2005 in Lisbon. I thank the respective departments for the invitation, the reviewers of the conference and the workshop for comments, and the audiences for comments and discussion. The resultative construction was also one of the topics that were discussed during the PhD school Languages and Theories in Contrast in Bergen in 2005. I enjoyed the discussion very much and want to thank the organizers Helge Dyvik and Torbjorn Nordgard, my coteachers Miriam Butt, Helge Dyvik, and Peter Svenonius and the audience again.