1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8706
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper proposes a reconciliation of two opposite perspectives on a syntactic configuration and its associated semantic interpretation. Of these two, one is the view that a syntactic maps onto its semantic structure on a strict compositionality condition, and one is the view that a syntactic is not strictly compositional but has an inherent, endowed meaning, not compositionally derived. The proposed resolution attempts to settle the disagreement by differentiating an endowed-meaning construction into a compatible compositional-meaning structure, which in reverse is integrated into the original construction. As a result, structure and construction emerge as two sides of the same coin, and the disagreement is resolved.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.17009.hsi
2018-12-13
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berwick, Robert C., and Noam Chomsky
    (2016) Why only us: language and evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    (2000) Meaning and Grammar, 2nd edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
  3. Goldberg, Adele
    (1995) Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2006) Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Goldberg, Adele, and Ray Jackendoff
    (2004) The resultative as a family of constructions. Language80:532–68. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  6. Heim, Irene , and Angelika Kratzer
    (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Her, Onesoon
    (1997) Interaction and Variation in the Chinese VO Constructions. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hsieh, Hsin-I.
    (1991) Interaction: some basic concepts. Unpublished Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Huang, C-T. James
    (2015) On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. InChinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. Audrey Li , Andrew Simpson , and Dylan Tsai , 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Newmeyer, Frederick J.
    (1992) Iconicity and generative grammar. Language68(4).756–96. 10.1353/lan.1992.0047
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0047 [Google Scholar]
  11. Tai, James H.-Y.
    (1985) Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. Iconicity in syntax, ed. byJohn Haiman, 49–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.04tai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.04tai
  12. (2002) Temporal sequence in Chinese: A rejoinder. Form and Function: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Shuanfan Huang, ed. ByLily I-wen Su, Chinfa Lien, and Kawai Chui, 331–351. Taipei: Crane.
  13. Talmy, Leonard
    (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 volumes). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Wang, W. S.-Y.
    (1999) Language and people of China. Chinese Languages and Linguistics V: Interactions in Language, ed. byYuen-mei Yin, I-li Yang, and Hui-chen Chan, 1–26. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.17009.hsi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.17009.hsi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): composition , construction , culture , structure and Theory of Interface
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error