Argument structure
Argument structure is the list of selected arguments associated with a lexical category, such as a verb (SKS, 2015). When every predicate, otherwise known as a verb, is used, it selects a specific set of arguments that need to be fulfilled to create a well-formed sentence (Kroger, 2005). These are arguments such as AGENT, PATIENT, EXPERIENCER, THEME, RECIPIENT, and STIMULUS. To illustrate this, the sentence ''The adults asked if the cats would pee on the sofa'', has been broken down into its semantic roles and argument selections below. It is necessary to understand the fundamentals of argument structure to understand the idea of subcategorization because subcategorization, as noted above, refers to the sub-categories a verb (or other semantic role) requires (Kroger, 2005). For example, the verb ''ask'' from above subcategorizes for a DPAGENT and CPTHEME, otherwise known as a subject and direct object, respectively. In this way, subcategorization is an important piece of information to include in any lexical entry.Thematic roles and S-selection
''Theta roles'' identify the meaning relation between the constituent and the selected predicate (SKS, 2015). There are eight theta roles: AGENT, THEME, CAUSE, POSSESSOR, LOCATION, GOAL, EXPERIENCER, and BENEFICIARY. Each term indicates the relationship between the verb, predicate, and one of its arguments. This is what is called ''s-selection'', a shortening of semantic selection. S-Selection is an important addition to any lexical entry in order to make them easier to interpret (SKS, 2015). It is important to understand that, according to the ''Theta Criterion'', every argument bears one and only one theta role (Chomsky, 1965). Below is an example for each theta role (SKS, 2015): CAUSE: a cause; ''The dog bit the child. This made him cry'' AGENT: a person or entity which intentionally is causing or doing something; ''Joshua intentionally hit him'' EXPERIENCER: a sentient being inside of, or acquiring, a psychological state; ''Sam hates cats/Josh noticed Alice'' LOCATION: a location; ''Marianne leaped through the field'' GOAL: a location/being that is the endpoint; ''Moses gave Josh a toothbrush'' BENEFICIARY: a beneficiary; ''Susie made cookies for Sarah'' POSSESSOR: a possessor; ''Shelly owns cats'' POSSESSEE/POSSESSED: what is possessed; ''Shelly's cats'' *POSSESSEE/POSSESSED is a subset of POSSESSOR which is why it has been included but not given its own role THEME: something that undergoes a change, such as location change, or any kind of progression; ''Josie sent Riven cookies/'' *THEME is also commonly used for things that do not fit any other theta role, such as ''Josie is short'' or ''Sarah said that it is foggy''Projection principle
The Projection principle states that properties of lexical items must be satisfied in order to create well-formed sentences (SKS, 2015).Locality of selection
Locality of selection states that if α selects β, then β appears as a complement, subject, or adjunct of α (SKS, 2015).Subcategorization frames
In a notation developed by Chomsky in the 1960s, the basic position of verbs in a phrase structure tree would be shown by assigning it to a subcategorization frame.Matthews, P. (2014). subcategorization. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. : Oxford University Press. A transitive verb like “make”, for example, was assigned the feature --NPmeaning that “make” can (+) appear before (--) a noun phrase (NP). Verbs that take just one argument are classified as intransitive, while verbs with two and three arguments are classified as transitive and ditransitive, respectively. The following sentences are employed to illustrate the concept of subcategorization: ::Luke worked. ::Indiana Jones ate chilled monkey brain. ::Tom waited for us. The verb ''worked/work'' is intransitive and thus subcategorizes for a single argument (here ''Luke''), which is the subject; therefore its subcategorization frame contains just a subject argument. The verb ''ate/eat'' is transitive, so it subcategorizes for two arguments (here ''Indiana Jones'' and ''chilled monkey brain''), a subject and an optional object, which means that its subcategorization frame contains two arguments. And the verb ''waited/wait'' subcategorizes for two arguments as well, although the second of these is an optional prepositional argument associated with the preposition ''for''. In this regard, we see that the subcategorization frame of verbs can contain specific words. Subcategorization frames are sometimes schematized in the following manner: ::work P __ ::eat P __ (NP)::wait P __ (''for'' NP) These examples demonstrate that subcategorization frames are specifications of the number and types of arguments of a word (usually a verb), and they are believed to be listed asValency
The subcategorization notion is similar to the notion of valency, although subcategorization originates withSee also
* Argument *Notes
References
* Bennet, P. 1995. A course in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. London: UCL Press Limited. * Burton-Robers, 1986. Analysing sentences: An introduction to English grammar. London: Longman. * Cattell, R. 1984. Composite predicates in English. Syntax and Semantics 17. Sydney: Academic Press. * Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. * Fromkin, V. et al. 2000. Linguistics: An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. * Green, G. and J. Morgan. 1996. Practical guide to syntactic analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. * Grimshaw, J. 2003. Subcategorization and Selection. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2 Apr. 2020. * Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. * Horrocks, G. 1986. Generative Grammar. Longman:London. * Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan. 1982. Lexical Functional Grammar: A formal system of grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173-281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. * Kroeger, P. 2005. Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK; New York;:Cambridge University Press. * Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: The University Press of Chicago. * Sportiche, D. et al. 2014. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell. * Tallerman, M. 2011. Understanding Syntax. Oxford: Hodder Education. * Tesnière, L. 1959. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. * Tesnière, L. 1969. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale, 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck. {{DEFAULTSORT:Subcategorization Frame Generative syntax Syntax–semantics interface ru:Модель управления