The motivation to assume SF as a separate level of
representation is minimality, but also the possibility to
express generalizations for the mappings between semantic and morphological/syntactic
structure.
·
The SF of
a lexical item is a partial (minimal) semantic representation, formulated by
means of a binary syntax for logical types (with the bracketing [A [& B]]
for the conjunction &).
·
SF is
part of grammar insofar as it determines morphological and syntactic aspects of
clause structure; for this reason SF may involve partial decomposition into more
atomic predicates..
·
All
predicates used in SF can be explicated by means of conceptual conditions in CS.
·
Everything
that can be inferred by general means is not part of SF itself, although it may
be incorporated in CS, a more elaborated semantic representation. Notions such
as implicit argument, subevent, thematic or eventive roles do not belong to SF
itself, but rather to CS.
Some examples
1. Basic ditransitive verbs (which always have a causal meaning)
give: {act(x) & become poss(y,z)}(s)
The complex predicate {A & B} - also called the propositional body of the verb - predicates of the situation s.
Because the process predicate act and the transition predicate become do not have the same temporal structure, and thus cannot be contemporaneous, Coherence implies that there is a causal relationship between the two subpredicates. The respective result state is characterized by poss(y,z).
2. Resultative extension of a transitive verb (They drank the wine cellar empty)
drink (something) empty : {drink(x,y) & become empty(z)}(s)
Structural Argument predicts that the thing being drunk ('y') cannot be expressed structurally.
3. Possessor extension of a transitive verb (Er wusch mir das Hemd 'He washed my shirt')
poss(wash) : {wash(x,y) & poss(z,u)}(s)
Connexion requires that the nonstructural argument ('y') is identified with u.
Studies that have been concerned with the Structure of SF:
Kaufmann 1995, Stiebels 1996, Kaufmann & Wunderlich 1998, Wunderlich 1997, 2000