罗卓思
LUO Zhuosi

• 1:北京外国语大学

摘要(Abstract)：

本文以生成语言学中的“连接问题”为切入点，梳理论元释义研究的主要路径，区分原生法与派生法，考察二者在理论假设和实证解释上的差异。研究指出，原生法将论元释义视作先验的语义单位，虽然在形式上简洁，但在处理跨语言、跨结构的释义变化时常有不足；派生法则将论元释义视作句法-语义环境派生的结果，能够更统一地解释论元结构交替等现象。本文为论元实现研究及跨语言比较提供了新的分析视角。
Beginning with the linking problem in generative linguistics, this study surveys two major approaches, i.e., primitive and derivative approaches to argument interpretation and introduces a framework to compare the two. It examines how these two approaches differ in terms of their theoretical assumptions and empirical explanation. We argue that the primitive approach treats argument interpretations as semantic primitives; although formally simple, it often shows inadequacies in accounting for cross-linguistic and cross-structural variations in interpretation. By contrast, the derivative approach views argument interpretation as the result derived from the syntactic-semantic environment, allowing a more unified treatment of diverse phenomena, including argument-structure alternations. This discussion offers a new analytical perspective on argument realization and cross-linguistic comparison.

关键词(KeyWords)： 论元释义;连接问题;原生法;派生法;句法-语义接口
argument interpretation;linking problem;primitive approach;derivative approach;syntax-semantics interface

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目“汉外对比视角下致使结构的形式语义学研究”（2025ZZ027）的成果

作者(Author): 罗卓思
LUO Zhuosi

DOI: 10.19923/j.cnki.fltr.2026.04.003

参考文献(References)：

• 胡旭辉，2019，事件终结性的“词汇-句法”界面研究——基于生成构式理论的分析[J]，《语言学研究》（1）:45–59。 Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou&F. Sch??fer. 2015. External Arguments in TransitivityAlternations:A Layering Approach[M]. Oxford:OUP. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation:A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing[M]. Chicago:TheUniversity of Chicago Press. Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure[A]. In L. Haegeman(ed.), Elements ofGrammar:Handbook in Generative Syntax[C]. Dordrecht:Kluwer. 73–137. Beavers, J. 2006a. Argument/Oblique Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning[D].Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University. Beavers, J. 2006b. Semantic underspecificity in English argument/oblique alternations[A]. InM. Martínez, A. Alcázar&R. Hernández(eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-third WesternConference on Linguistics[C]. Fresno:California State University. 26–37. Biggs, A. 2019. Objects in motion verb phrases[J]. Glossa 4(1):Article No. 98. Biggs, A.&D. Embick. 2022. On the event-structural properties of the English get-passive[J].Linguistic Inquiry 53(2):211–254. Borer, H. 2005. The Normal Course of Events[M]. Oxford:OUP. Carlson, G. 1984. Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation[J]. Linguistics 22(3):259–279. Carter, R. 1988. Some linking regularities[A]. In B. Levin&C. Tenny(eds.), On Linking:Papersby Richard Carter[C]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Center for Cognitive Science. 1–92. Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization[A]. In R. Jacobs&P. Rosenbaum(eds.), Readingsin English Transformational Grammar[C]. Waltham, MA:Ginn and Company. 184–221. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Dordrecht:Foris. Coppola, M.&E. Newport. 2005. Grammatical subjects in home sign:Abstract linguistic structurein adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input[J]. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 102(52):19249–19253. Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences[A]. In N. Rescher(ed.), The Logic ofDecision and Action[C]. Pittsburgh, PA:University of Pittsburgh Press. 81–95. Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M]. Dordrecht:Reidel. Dowty, D. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion of‘thematic role’[A]. In G. Chierchia,B. Partee&R. Turner(eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings(Vol. 2):Semantic Issues[C].Dordrecht:Kluwer. 69–129. Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection[J]. Language 67(3):547–619. Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for Case[A]. In E. Bach&R. Harms(eds.), Universals in LinguisticTheory[C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1–88. Folli, R.&H. Harley. 2005. Flavors of v[A]. In P. Kempchinsky&R. Slabakova(eds.), AspectualInquiries[C]. Dordrecht:Springer. 95–120. Gao, Tao&B. Scholl. 2011. Chasing vs. stalking:Interrupting the perception of animacy[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance 37(3):669–684. Harley, H. 2017. The“bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v[A]. In R.D’Alessandro, I. Franco&??. Gallego(eds.), The Verbal Domain[C]. Oxford:OUP. 3–28. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar[M]. Cambridge, MA:TheMIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 7(1):89–150. Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory[J]. Linguistic Inquiry18(3):369–411. Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb[A]. In J. Rooryck&L. Zaring(eds.),Phrase Structure and the Lexicon[C]. Dordrecht:Springer. 109–137. Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution[A]. In I. Sag&A. Szabolcsi(eds.), Lexical Matters[C]. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.29–53. Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3):335–391. Legate, J. 2014. Voice and v:Lessons from Acehnese[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Luo, Zhuosi. 2024. Causality, Modality and Contextual Argument Interpretation:Lessons fromTeochew[D]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgetown University. Luo, Zhuosi. 2025. Contextual causee interpretation:Lessons from Teochew k??-causative[A]. In N.Webster et al.(eds.), Proceedings of the 41st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics[C].Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 419–426. Luo, Zhuosi. 2026a. Causality and Modality in Language:Lessons from Teochew[M]. Cham:Springer. Luo, Zhuosi. 2026b. On the elusive nature of AGENT and agentive diagnostics:Lessons fromcausee[J]. Language Sciences 113:Article No. 101773. Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax:Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of yourown lexicon[J]. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2):201–225. Marantz, A. 2013. Verbal argument structure:Events and participants[J]. Lingua 130:152–168. Marantz, A. 2022. Rethinking the syntactic role of word formation[A]. In N. Boneh et al.(eds.),Building on Babel’s Rubble[C]. Saint-Denis:Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. 293–316. Myler, N. 2016. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Nash, L. 2022. Nonunitary structure of unergative verbs in Georgian[J]. Natural Language&Linguistic Theory 40(4):1201–1267. Perlmutter, D.&P. Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law[A]. In D. Perlmutter&C.Rosen(eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.81–125. Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories[D]. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Pietroski, P. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture[M]. Oxford:OUP. Pylkk??nen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon:A First-Phase Syntax[M]. Cambridge:CUP. Reinhart, T. 2002. The Theta System—An overview[J]. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3):229–290. Reinhart, T. 2016. Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface:The Theta System[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Sag, I. 1987. Grammatical hierarchy and linear precedence[A]. In A. Ojeda&G. Huck(eds.),Discontinuous Constituency[C]. New York:Academic Press. 303–340. Schein, B. 1993. Plurals and Events[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer. Wechsler, S. 1995. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure[M]. Stanford, CA:CSLIPublications. Williams, A. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics[M]. Cambridge:CUP. Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure[M]. Cham:Springer. Wood, J.&A. Marantz. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments[A]. In R. D’Alessandro, I.Franco&??. Gallego(eds.), The Verbal Domain[C]. Oxford:OUP. 255–278.
• 1.文中的“原生法”和“派生法”分别对应作者博士论文（Luo 2024）中的listing approach和contextual approach（原译为“列举法”和“语境法”），现根据英语术语作出相应调整。 2 . Luo(2026a)指出，将CAUSE作为单一的、简单的语义操作符，在理论上存在根本不足。 3 .建构论学者近年来更倾向于使用contextualism一词，以避免与构式语法中的construction相混淆。本文采用“建构论”的译法以示区分。国内也有学者将其译为“生成构式”“构式取向”或“新构式主义”，参见胡旭辉（2019）等。 4 .另参见Myler(2016)对所有关系的类似讨论。 5 .另参见Luo(2026b)基于哲学区分两类AGENT的讨论。