Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T08:06:13.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lexico-Syntactic Symbiosis in a Functional Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Peter Harder
Peter Harder
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 80, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. E-mail: harder@hum.ku.dk
Get access

Abstract

Based on a functional approach, the article proposes a role for lexical knowledge in human languages in relation to syntactic and encyclopaedic knowledge. A lexicon presupposes encyclopaedic knowledge in terms of which the semantic domain of lexical items can be defined – but this does not mean that there is no distinction between lexicon and encyclopaedia, only that one stands on the shoulders of the other. Syntax similarly presupposes a lexicon: there can be no combinations without items to be combined, whereas you can have (holophrastic) languages consisting solely of items. However, inside the domain of human, i.e. syntactically organized languages, syntax and lexicon presuppose each other: lexical items below full utterance size make no sense except in relation to a combinatory syntax, and a combinatory syntax presupposes elements that can enter into combinations.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2001 , pp. 232 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holte, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. 1980. Vocal Recognition in Free-ranging Vervet Monkeys. Animal Behaviour 28, 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, T. 1997. The Symbolic Species. The Co-Evolution of Language and the Human Brain. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M., Harder, P. & Kristoffersen, L. (eds) 1992. Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M. 2001. Productivity, Linguistic Layering, and Potential Compositionality. In Engberg-Pedersen, E. & Harder, P. (eds) Ikonicitet og struktur. København: Engelsk Institut, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harder, P. 1996. Functional Semantics. A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 87). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedergaard Thomsen, O. 1992. Unit Accentuation as an Expression Device for Predicate Formation. The Case of Syntactic Noun Incorporation in Danish. In Fortescue, M., Harder, P. & Kristoffersen, L. (eds), Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A. K. & Syder, F. H. 1983. Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (eds), Language and Communication. London and New York: Longman, pp. 191–226.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. How the Mind Creates Language. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1999. Words and Rules. The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar