Determining syntactic properties.

[metal56]

Hypothesis: syntactic properties are determined by their meaning.

What's your take on this quote?

"Verb meaning is a factor in determining the syntactic structure of sentences."

Found in extract from:

Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs)

by Beth Levin, Malka Rappaport Hovav

[LarryLatham]

OK, syntax is a function of meaning. A user's meaning, or pragmatic intent, is a factor in choosing the arrangement of his words.

However, couldn't you also say that meaning is a function of syntax? The arrangement of words certainly has an impact on meaning.

Kind of chicken/egg, it seems to me. What's clear is that meaning and syntax are related. But then, I haven't read the paper you cite. I suppose that's about the nature of the relationship.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

"Verb meaning is a factor in determining the syntactic structure of sentences.",

OK, syntax is a function of meaning. A user's meaning, or pragmatic intent, is a factor in choosing the arrangement of his words.

However, couldn't you also say that meaning is a function of syntax? The arrangement of words certainly has an impact on meaning.

Kind of chicken/egg, it seems to me. What's clear is that meaning and syntax are related. But then, I haven't read the paper you cite. I suppose that's about the nature of the relationship.

I've been meaning to get Beth Levin's English Verb Classes And Alternations as it is said to be the definitive book on verb patterns. I will one day.

My own study of verb patterns has led me to the same conclusion. I don't think that this is quite as "chicken and egg" as you think, Larry. There is usually a common core of meaning within each of the verbs that is followed by any one pattern. I ask my students to think about what the fact of being followed by a given pattern tells them about the meaning of that verb. It can give them surprising insights.

For instance, we can compare "want" and "fancy" in the sentences:
a) Do you want to go for a drink," and
b) Do you fancy going for a drink."

At first sight, these seem to have similar meaning. The second is probably more likely to be used by a native speaker. The difference is of course the degree of purpose. "to" + inf is just too purposeful for this question, what a drink, gives you some kind of purpose? I don't think so. No, we are just a little half-hearted. The reply is often, "OK, why not?" Implying that we haven't got anything better to do and acknowlege the leisure status of the activity. The Business textbook "In-Company" also stresses that use of a gerund is more diplomatic.

Other patterns show equally strong meanings, to pick out a few obscure ones:

Verb+object+v-ing often refers to some sort of restriction
Keep sbdy from doing sth
Prevent sbdy from doing sth
Stop sbdy from doing sth
("From" seems to figure heavily here too.)

Verb+the+v-ing indicates responsibility for sth
You look after the skiing and I'll take care of the snowboarding.

Verb+question word+to+Inf indicates analysis of a situation to decide what to do:
Pinpoint where to drop the bombs.
Sort out how to do it.

Either way, there are over 20 different patterns, and trust me, each seems to have its own core meaning.

The interesting cases are of course where there is a difference in meaning when followed by different structures. Perhaps with "use" we are talking about different verbs, but "stop" might be an example of where things really do move the other way and syntax determines meaning.

This idea of syntax following from meaning may also apply to transitivity.