A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language

Xiqin Liu; Xintong Lin; Rulin Luo; Zhiruo Gao

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

| Peer-Reviewed

A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language

Xiqin Liu, Xintong Lin, Rulin Luo, Zhiruo Gao

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 11, Issue 3)

Received: 10 April 2023 Accepted: 8 May 2023 Published: 22 May 2023

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In microlinguistics, the syntax-lexical semantics interface is a key research area that focuses on the interaction between the lexical properties of predicates and the related syntactic structures. This paper provides an overview of the main studies in the area published internationally in the past four decades, categorizing them into three major groups of approaches (the Projectionist, the Constructionist, and the interactive). It also offers a critical reflection on the field and provides suggestions for future research. Two recent trends of research are highlighted: (1) empirical research with evidence from neurocognitive experiments; (2) emphasis shifting from the first language (L1) to second language (L2) acquisition with an eye on linguistic typology and special interest in Chinese, a language of typological significance. We hold that the Projectionist theory or approach could be used to explain the syntactic differences among verbs whereas the Constructionist may be more suitable for explaining the realization of different argument structures of the same verb. The recent interactive and dynamic approach to the syntax-lexical semantics interface seems to have the strongest explanatory power, which is supported by an increasing body of neurocognitive evidence. Further interdisciplinary research from such perspectives as linguistic typology, cognitive psychology and neurocognitive science may be instrumental in solving important issues including Baker’s Paradox and cross-linguistic variation regularities of verb lexicalization.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 11, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
Page(s)	87-93
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, Predicate, Syntactic Structure, Lexical Semantics

References

[1]	Fillmore, C. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 120-133). Georgetown University Press.
[2]	Carter, R. (1976). Some Linking Regularities in English. Universite de Paris.
[3]	Arad, M. (1996). A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8.
[4]	Liu, Y. (2013). Bidirectional Interaction of Lexicon and Syntax Interface. Peking University Press.
[5]	Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An Introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[6]	Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[7]	Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.
[8]	Jackendoff, R. (1976). Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7 (1), 89-150.
[9]	Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure [Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
[10]	Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
[11]	Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition (Vol. 8). MIT Press.
[12]	Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-semantics Interface. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[13]	Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Ed.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1-88). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
[14]	Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications.
[15]	Huddleston, R. (1970). Some remarks on Case-Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 1 (4), 501-511.
[16]	Starosta, S. (1978). The one per sent solution. In Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations (pp. 459-576). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[17]	Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67 (3), 547-619.
[18]	Perlmutter, D., & Postal, P. (1984). The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 81-125). University of Chicago Press.
[19]	Rosen, C. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 38-77). University of Chicago Press.
[20]	Anderson, S. R. (1977). Comments on the paper by Wasow. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 361-377). Academic Press.
[21]	Baker, C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 56 (7), 833-839.
[22]	Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. MIT Press.
[23]	Givón, T. (1984). Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In F. Plank (Ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations (pp. 151-182). Academic Press.
[24]	Kiparsky, P. (1985). Morphology and Grammatical Relation. Stanford University Press.
[25]	Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (3), 335-391.
[26]	Larson, R. K. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21 (4), 589-632.
[27]	Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (1996). From lexical semantics to argument realization. Unpublished manuscript.
[28]	Carter, R. (1988). Towards a linking grammar of English. In B. C. Levin & C. Tenny (Eds.), On linking: Papers by Richard Carter, Lexicon Project Working Papers (pp. 93-108). MIT Press.
[29]	Foley, W. A., & Van Valin Jr, R. D. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
[30]	Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.
[31]	Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
[32]	Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II, Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press.
[33]	Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. University of Chicago Press.
[34]	Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press.
[35]	Hokes, J., Stowe, L., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59-73.
[36]	Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greenwald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In M. Carreiras, & C. Clifton, Jr., (Eds.), The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and Beyond (pp. 271-308). Psychology Press.
[37]	Van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22 (2), 241-255.
[38]	Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (2), 205-225.
[39]	Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100 (3), 223-237.
[40]	Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax–semantic interface. Brain Research, 1146, 50-58.
[41]	Shen, Y. (2007). Syntax-Semantics Interface. Shanghai Educational Publishing House.
[42]	Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
[43]	Aurnhammer, C., Delogu, F., Schulz, M., Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2021). Retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) in expectation-based comprehension. PLOS ONE, 16 (9), e0257430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257430
[44]	Aurnhammer, C., Delogu, F., Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2023). The P600 as a continuous index of integration effort. Psychophysiology, e14302. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14302
[45]	Skeide, M. A., Brauer, J., & Friederici, A. D. (2014). Syntax gradually segregates from semantics in the developing brain. NeuroImage, 100, 106-111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.080
[46]	Wang, Z., Yan, X., Liu, Y., Spray, G. J., Deng, Y., & Cao, F. (2019). Structural and functional abnormality of the putamen in children with developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 130, 26-37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.014
[47]	Liu, Y., Xu, X., & Panther, K.-U. (2013). An ERP approach to thematic hierarchies regarding grammatical objects of the Chinese verb chi (eat). Language Sciences, 40, 36-44.
[48]	Xu, X., & Liu, C. (2008). The key respect of sentence comprehension: A further review on the relation between syntax and semantics. Advances in Psychological Science, 16 (4), 532-540.
[49]	Baker, C. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10 (4), 533-581.
[50]	Fodor, J. A. (1985). Fodor’s guide to mental representation: The intelligent auntie’s vade-mecum. Mind, 94 (373), 76-100.
[51]	Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16 (3), 261-283.
[52]	Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. The MIT Press.
[53]	Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Harvard University Press.
[54]	Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. The MIT Press.
[55]	Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and Experience: Evidence from the Blind Child. Harvard University Press.
[56]	Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17 (2), 357-374.
[57]	Fisher, C., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua, 92, 333-375.
[58]	Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (3), 289-316.
[59]	Tomasello, M. (1992). First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge University Press.
[60]	Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. 3, pp. 57-149). Cambridge University Press.
[61]	Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and Transitivity (Vol. 23, pp. 87-120). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[62]	White, L. (1991). Argument structure in second language acquisition. Journal of French Language Studies, 1 (2), 189-207.
[63]	Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9 (1), 22-47.
[64]	Sorace, A. (1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood (Eds.), The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 153-175). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[65]	Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (2), 153-170.
[66]	Inagaki, S. (2002). Japanese learners’ acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18 (1), 3-27.
[67]	Montrul, S. (2001). Representational and Developmental Issues in the Lexico-syntactic Interface: Acquiring Verb Meaning in a Second Language. Cambridge University Press.
[68]	Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Wiley-Blackwell.
[69]	Römer, U. (2019). A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24 (3), 268-290. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00013.roe
[70]	Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98 (4), 952-975. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12149
[71]	Römer, U., Skalicky, S., & Ellis, N. (2020). Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English learner production: Insights from corpora and verbal fluency tasks. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 16 (2), 303-331. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0055
[72]	Juffs, A. (1996). Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12 (2), 177-221.
[73]	Juffs, A. (2000). An overview of the second language acquisition of links between verb semantics and morpho-syntax. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory (pp. 170-179). Wiley-Blackwell.
[74]	Lv, S. (1942). A Brief Introduction to Chinese Grammar. The Commercial Press.
[75]	Ding, S., & Lv, S. (1961). Remarks on Modern Chinese Grammar. The Commercial Press.
[76]	Deng, S. (1971). Some remarks on aspects in Mandarin. Project on Linguistic Analysis, (2), 15.
[77]	Tang, T. (1972). A Case Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Hai Guo Book Corp.
[78]	Tao, H. (2000). The dynamic character of the thematic structure of verbs: Taking chi (eat) as an example. Language Research (Yuyan Yanjiu), (3), 21-38.
[79]	Hu, J., & Tao, H. (2017) A corpus-based study of low transitivity features of the verb nong in Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 49 (1), 64-72.
[80]	Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
[81]	Thompson, S. & Hopper, P. (2001). Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. L. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 27-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[82]	Yuan, Y. (1998). Research on the Valence of Chinese Verbs. Jiangxi Education Press.
[83]	Shen, J. (2000). Sentence pattern and valence. Studies of the Chinese Language (Zhongguo Yuwen), (4), 291-297.
[84]	Lu, J. (2004). Dynamics of syntax and semantics of words and phrases: An interpretation of the Construction Grammar approach. Journal of Foreign Languages (Waiguoyu), (2), 15-20.
[85]	Tsai, W.-T. D. (2001). On subject specificity and theory of syntax-semantics interface. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10 (2), 129-168.
[86]	Zhan, W. (2004). Thematic structure and sentence pattern variation. Studies of the Chinese Language (Zhongguo Yuwen), (3), 209-221.
[87]	Cheng, Q. (2006). Conceptual Framework and Cognition. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[88]	Yu, X., & Zhaozi, J. (2023). Argument alignment patterns and the structural property of the BA (把) construction: A crosslinguistic perspective. Contemporary Linguistics (Dangdai Yuyanxue), 25 (1), 75-100.
[89]	Li, F. (2018). The mapping of thematic roles onto grammatical functions in Mandarin Ba construction indicating disposal: From the perspective of lexical mapping theory. Language and Translation (Yuyan yu Fanyi), (3), 42-52.
[90]	Yang, S., Cai, Y., Xie, W., & Jiang, M. (2021). Semantic and syntactic processing during comprehension: ERP evidence from Chinese QING structure. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.701923
[91]	Yang, L. (2017). A corpus-based study of semantic-syntactic interfaces of Chinese and English change-of-state verbs. Journal of Foreign Languages (Waiguoyu), 40 (3), 52-60.
[92]	Guo, C. (2017). A Cognitive-oriented Contrastive Study of Syntax-semantics Interfaces between Chinese and English. Hubei People’s Press.
[93]	Sun, D., & Shi, S. (2018). On the interaction between lexicon and syntax in the horizon of “syntax-semantics” interface. Foreign Language Research (Waiyu Xuekan), (4), 29-35.
[94]	Guo, J. (1999). On “fei shanghai” and intransitive verbs with objects. Studies of the Chinese Language (Zhongguo Yuwen), (5), 337-346.
[95]	Feng, S. (2000). “Xie maobi” and verb merging triggered by prosody. Language Teaching and Research (Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu), (3), 25-31.
[96]	Chen, C. (2001). A different view of tool subject and tool object. Chinese Teaching in the World (Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue), (1), 65-73.
[97]	Liu, Z., & Liu, R. (2003). Vi ＋NP: From the perspective of decategorization. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu), 35 (4), 243-250.
[98]	Wang, Z. (2006). On the cognitive motivation of the Vi + NP construction in Chinese. Chinese Linguistics (Hanyu Xuebao), (3), 62-68.
[99]	Yang, Y. (2009). The parametric analysis of the types of sentences with non-patient objects. Modern Foreign Languages (Xiandai Waiyu), (1), 33-42.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Xiqin Liu, Xintong Lin, Rulin Luo, Zhiruo Gao. (2023). A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 87-93. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Xiqin Liu; Xintong Lin; Rulin Luo; Zhiruo Gao. A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2023, 11(3), 87-93. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Xiqin Liu, Xintong Lin, Rulin Luo, Zhiruo Gao. A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language. Int J Lang Linguist. 2023;11(3):87-93. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14,
  author = {Xiqin Liu and Xintong Lin and Rulin Luo and Zhiruo Gao},
  title = {A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  pages = {87-93},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20231103.14},
  abstract = {In microlinguistics, the syntax-lexical semantics interface is a key research area that focuses on the interaction between the lexical properties of predicates and the related syntactic structures. This paper provides an overview of the main studies in the area published internationally in the past four decades, categorizing them into three major groups of approaches (the Projectionist, the Constructionist, and the interactive). It also offers a critical reflection on the field and provides suggestions for future research. Two recent trends of research are highlighted: (1) empirical research with evidence from neurocognitive experiments; (2) emphasis shifting from the first language (L1) to second language (L2) acquisition with an eye on linguistic typology and special interest in Chinese, a language of typological significance. We hold that the Projectionist theory or approach could be used to explain the syntactic differences among verbs whereas the Constructionist may be more suitable for explaining the realization of different argument structures of the same verb. The recent interactive and dynamic approach to the syntax-lexical semantics interface seems to have the strongest explanatory power, which is supported by an increasing body of neurocognitive evidence. Further interdisciplinary research from such perspectives as linguistic typology, cognitive psychology and neurocognitive science may be instrumental in solving important issues including Baker’s Paradox and cross-linguistic variation regularities of verb lexicalization.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language
AU  - Xiqin Liu
AU  - Xintong Lin
AU  - Rulin Luo
AU  - Zhiruo Gao
Y1  - 2023/05/22
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 87
EP  - 93
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
AB  - In microlinguistics, the syntax-lexical semantics interface is a key research area that focuses on the interaction between the lexical properties of predicates and the related syntactic structures. This paper provides an overview of the main studies in the area published internationally in the past four decades, categorizing them into three major groups of approaches (the Projectionist, the Constructionist, and the interactive). It also offers a critical reflection on the field and provides suggestions for future research. Two recent trends of research are highlighted: (1) empirical research with evidence from neurocognitive experiments; (2) emphasis shifting from the first language (L1) to second language (L2) acquisition with an eye on linguistic typology and special interest in Chinese, a language of typological significance. We hold that the Projectionist theory or approach could be used to explain the syntactic differences among verbs whereas the Constructionist may be more suitable for explaining the realization of different argument structures of the same verb. The recent interactive and dynamic approach to the syntax-lexical semantics interface seems to have the strongest explanatory power, which is supported by an increasing body of neurocognitive evidence. Further interdisciplinary research from such perspectives as linguistic typology, cognitive psychology and neurocognitive science may be instrumental in solving important issues including Baker’s Paradox and cross-linguistic variation regularities of verb lexicalization.
VL  - 11
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Xiqin Liu

School of Foreign Languages, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Xintong Lin

School of Foreign Languages, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Rulin Luo

School of Foreign Languages, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Zhiruo Gao

School of Foreign Languages, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Xiqin Liu, Xintong Lin, Rulin Luo, Zhiruo Gao. (2023). A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 87-93. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Xiqin Liu; Xintong Lin; Rulin Luo; Zhiruo Gao. A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2023, 11(3), 87-93. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Xiqin Liu, Xintong Lin, Rulin Luo, Zhiruo Gao. A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language. Int J Lang Linguist. 2023;11(3):87-93. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14,
  author = {Xiqin Liu and Xintong Lin and Rulin Luo and Zhiruo Gao},
  title = {A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  pages = {87-93},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20231103.14},
  abstract = {In microlinguistics, the syntax-lexical semantics interface is a key research area that focuses on the interaction between the lexical properties of predicates and the related syntactic structures. This paper provides an overview of the main studies in the area published internationally in the past four decades, categorizing them into three major groups of approaches (the Projectionist, the Constructionist, and the interactive). It also offers a critical reflection on the field and provides suggestions for future research. Two recent trends of research are highlighted: (1) empirical research with evidence from neurocognitive experiments; (2) emphasis shifting from the first language (L1) to second language (L2) acquisition with an eye on linguistic typology and special interest in Chinese, a language of typological significance. We hold that the Projectionist theory or approach could be used to explain the syntactic differences among verbs whereas the Constructionist may be more suitable for explaining the realization of different argument structures of the same verb. The recent interactive and dynamic approach to the syntax-lexical semantics interface seems to have the strongest explanatory power, which is supported by an increasing body of neurocognitive evidence. Further interdisciplinary research from such perspectives as linguistic typology, cognitive psychology and neurocognitive science may be instrumental in solving important issues including Baker’s Paradox and cross-linguistic variation regularities of verb lexicalization.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - A Narrative Review of Studies on the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface: With Special Reference to the Chinese Language
AU  - Xiqin Liu
AU  - Xintong Lin
AU  - Rulin Luo
AU  - Zhiruo Gao
Y1  - 2023/05/22
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 87
EP  - 93
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231103.14
AB  - In microlinguistics, the syntax-lexical semantics interface is a key research area that focuses on the interaction between the lexical properties of predicates and the related syntactic structures. This paper provides an overview of the main studies in the area published internationally in the past four decades, categorizing them into three major groups of approaches (the Projectionist, the Constructionist, and the interactive). It also offers a critical reflection on the field and provides suggestions for future research. Two recent trends of research are highlighted: (1) empirical research with evidence from neurocognitive experiments; (2) emphasis shifting from the first language (L1) to second language (L2) acquisition with an eye on linguistic typology and special interest in Chinese, a language of typological significance. We hold that the Projectionist theory or approach could be used to explain the syntactic differences among verbs whereas the Constructionist may be more suitable for explaining the realization of different argument structures of the same verb. The recent interactive and dynamic approach to the syntax-lexical semantics interface seems to have the strongest explanatory power, which is supported by an increasing body of neurocognitive evidence. Further interdisciplinary research from such perspectives as linguistic typology, cognitive psychology and neurocognitive science may be instrumental in solving important issues including Baker’s Paradox and cross-linguistic variation regularities of verb lexicalization.
VL  - 11
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download