Subcategorization
In linguistics, subcategorization refers to the types of arguments required or allowed by lexical items (usually verbs).[1] The properties of a word that are crucial to their linguistic analysis are included in its lexical entry.[2] Violating the requirements of subcategorization and selection will produce an ill-formed sentence.
"They put the papers {under the desk/*to the desk/*the desk/*tidy}." (from Grimshaw, 2003)
Keeping in mind that an asterisk (*) is used to indicate ungrammaticality, this example shows that out of the options given, only "under the desk" leads to the production of a well-formed sentence. The term selection is commonly used alongside subcategorization, but the two encode two different types of information.[2] Selection is used to represent the semantic requirements placed on arguments and subcategorization is used to represent the syntactic requirements placed on complements.
"They tried to kill the {president/person/weeds/*box}.
They tried to murder the {president/person/*weeds/*box}.
They tried to assassinate the {president/*person/*weeds/*box}." (from Grimshaw, 2003)
Here we see that the object of the verb "kill" can be any living thing, that of "murder" must be human, and that of "assassinate" must be a famous human.
The notion of subcategorization is similar to the notion of valency,[3] although the two concepts (subcategorization and valency) stem from different traditions in the study of syntax and grammar.
Lexical Entries
A lexical entry indicates crucial syntactic information about the heard of a phrase, such as what it selects and where it must be positioned. In linguistics, we call these subcategorization frames and selection information. Each lexical item (LI) is associated with a lexical entry, minimally a triplet of features: Phonological, Formal, and Semantic.
Below is an example sentence, "The adults asked if the cats would pee on the sofa", with a chart illustrating lexical entries for each word: The adults asked if the cats would pee on the sofa
| Category (Head) | Selection Restriction: Argument Selection | |
|---|---|---|
| ask | V | {DPAGENT, CPTHEME |
| pee | V | {DPAGENT, CPTHEME |
| adults | N | |
| cats | N | |
| sofa | N | {(PPTHEME)} |
Verbs
While subcategorization is a concept that can apply to almost any type of lexical item, it is usually discussed with respect to verbs. Verbs that take just one argument are classified as intransitive, while verbs with two and three arguments are classified as transitive and ditransitive, respectively.[4] The following sentences are employed to illustrate the concept of subcategorization:
- Luke worked.
- Indiana Jones ate chilled monkey brain.
- Tom waited for us.
The verb worked/work is intransitive and thus subcategorizes for a single argument (here Luke), which is the subject; therefore its subcategorization frame contains just a subject argument. The verb ate/eat is transitive, so it subcategorizes for two arguments (here Indiana Jones and chilled monkey brain), a subject and an optional object, which means that its subcategorization frame contains two arguments. And the verb waited/wait subcategorizes for two arguments as well, although the second of these is an optional prepositional argument associated with the preposition for. In this regard, we see that the subcategorization frame of verbs can contain specific words. Subcategorization frames are sometimes schematized in the following manner:
- work [NP __ ]
- eat [NP __ (NP)]
- wait [NP __ (for NP)]
These examples demonstrate that subcategorization frames are specifications of the number and types of arguments of a word (usually a verb), and they are believed to be listed as lexical information (that is, they are thought of as part of a speaker's knowledge of the word in the vocabulary of the language). Dozens of distinct subcategorization frames are needed to accommodate the full combinatory potential of the verbs of any given language. Finally, subcategorization frames are associated most closely with verbs, although the concept can also be applied to other word categories.
Subcategorization frames are essential parts of a number of phrase structure grammars, e.g. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, and Minimalism.
Non-verbs
Occurrences
Subcategorization can be observed in many languages, included but not limited to:
Valency
The subcategorization notion is similar to the notion of valency, although subcategorization originates with phrase structure grammars in the Chomskyan tradition,[5] whereas valency originates with Lucien Tesnière of the dependency grammar tradition.[6] The primary difference between the two concepts concerns the status of the subject. As it was originally conceived of, subcategorization did not include the subject, that is, a verb subcategorized for its complement(s) (=object and oblique arguments) but not for its subject.[7] Many modern theories now include the subject in the subcategorization frame, however.[8] Valency, in contrast, included the subject from the start.[9] In this regard, subcategorization is moving in the direction of valency, since many phrase structure grammars now see verbs subcategorizing for their subject as well as for their object(s).
See also
Notes
- ^ Chomsky (1965) is a prominent early source on the concept of subcategorization.
- ^ a b Grimshaw, J. (2003). Subcategorization and Selection. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2 Apr. 2020
- ^ The valency concept in linguistics is originally from Tesnière (1959).
- ^ See Tallerman (2011:39-41) for a discussion of subcategorization in terms of intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive verbs.
- ^ See Chomsky (1965).
- ^ See Tesnière (1959).
- ^ For examples of theories that exclude the subject from subcategorization frames, see Burton-Roberts (1886:73ff.), Horrocks (1986:34f.), Haegeman (1994:40-42, 45 note 10), Bennet (1995:43ff.), Green and Morgan (1996:68 note 6), Fromkin et al. (2000:230).
- ^ For examples of theories that include the subject in the subcategorization frame, see Kaplan and Bresnan (1982:210-212), Cattell (198428ff.), Pollard and Sag (1994:23), Culicover (1997:17), Carnie (2007:50ff.).
- ^ Tesnière (1959/69:109, chapter 51, paragraph 13) emphasized that from a syntactic point of view, the subject is a complement just like the object.
References
- Bennet, P. 1995. A course in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. London: UCL Press Limited.
- Burton-Robers, 1986. Analysing sentences: An introduction to English grammar. London: Longman.
- Cattell, R. 1984. Composite predicates in English. Syntax and Semantics 17. Sydney: Academic Press.
- Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Fromkin, V. et al. 2000. Linguistics: An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
- Green, G. and J. Morgan. 1996. Practical guide to syntactic analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
- Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Horrocks, G. 1986. Generative Grammar. Longman:London.
- Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan. 1982. Lexical Functional Grammar: A formal system of grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173-281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: The University Press of Chicago.
- Tallerman, M. 2011. Understanding Syntax. Oxford: Hodder Education.
- Tesnière, L. 1959. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
- Tesnière, L. 1969. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale, 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck.