Having admitted phrasal structures as possible constituents of lexical items, we also open up the possibility of
formulating interface constraints as“defective”lexical items. For instance, rules (15) and (19) in Chapter 5), which
relate linear order and intonational constituency in phonology to linear order and constituent structure in syntax, are
readily reformulated in the terms used in this chapter. Again it is a major challenge to future research to see if such a
progra mcan be carried through, but the potential rewards of theoretical consolidation ought to make the effort
worthwhile.
Among the interface constraints might be certain default principles that add independent biases of“constructional
meaning”to subject and object position when theverb leavesthe option open. (31) states two(not mutually exclusive)
possibilities.
(31) a.Preferably:
Subject corresponds to Agent; Object corresponds to Patient (entity affected by an action)
b. Preferably:
Subject corresponds to Figure; Object corresponds to GroundThe effects of (31a) are seen for instance in so-called“spray-load”alternations, illustrated in (32) (Pinker 1989; Levin
and Rappaport Hovav 1991).
(32) a.We sprayed paint on the wall.
We loaded furniture on the truck.
b. We sprayed the wall with paint.
We loaded the truck with furniture.These differ subtly in what is taken to be affected by the action, with somewhat greater emphasis on the paint and the
furniture in (32a) and on thewall and thetruck in (32b). This can be attributed to theeffect of thePatient condition in
(31a) on an otherwise ambiguous situation.^89
The effects of (31b) are seen with so-called“symmetric predicates”such asresembleandbe similar. Compare (33a) to
(33b, c).
LEXICAL STORAGE VS. ONLINE CONSTRUCTION 181
(^89) Much more has been made of this alternation, e.g. by Tenny (1994) , who claims that the direct objectstrongly influences the aspectuality of the event. Jackendoff (1996c)
refutes most aspects of this claim.