meanings that explaintheir argument structure.^191 For instance, (23) shows how a simplesentence of motionexpresses
a conceptual structure in this format. (I omit the semanticfield feature, which is Spatial, as well as the interpretations
of the Tense and the definite article.)
(23) a.Syntax and phonology:
[John]iwentj[intok[the room]m]
b. CS:
[EventGO(ObjectJOHN]i[PathTO(PlaceIN([objectROOM]m)])]k)]jIn this example, the verbwentexpresses the functionGO(X,Y); the other constituents—the NPJohnand the PPinto the
room—express its arguments.Intomeans roughly‘to in’: it expresses a Path-function whose argument is a Place, which
itself has a Function-argument structure (not discussed in the previous subsection—see Jackendoff 1990a). The
syntactic argument ofintoexpresses the argument of this Place.
As the labeled bracketing (23b) may be a bit difficult to read, I offer the alternative tree notation in (24), where
functions are attached by double lines and their arguments by single lines.(Johnandroom, as phrasal heads, are treated
as a zero-argument functions, i.e. constants.) The contributions of each word are picked out by dashed lines; the
overlaps between the mare the points of attach ment where variables are satisfied.^192
Another way to express the structure (23b) isJohn entered the room. In this case the verb“incorporates”the Path- and
Place-functions, as in (25a); the lexical entry of the verb thus decomposes as (25b).
LEXICAL SEMANTICS 365
(^191) This strategy was recognized already by Gruber (1965) , and, in a different guise, it played an important role in the Generative Semantics analyses of verb meanings
(McCawley 1968; Postal 1970a). A recent version of the Generative Semantics approach has resurfaced in Hale and Keyser (1993) ; see Jackendoff (1997a: 231–2) for
commentary.
(^192) Yet a different notation is offered by Nikanne (1990; 2000a).