Editing Lexical semantics (section)

=== Micro-syntactic theories: 1990s to the present ===
By the early 1990s, Chomsky's [[Minimalist program|minimalist framework]] on language structure led to sophisticated probing techniques for investigating languages.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fodor|first1=Jerry|last2=Lepore|first2=Ernie|date=Aug 1999|journal=The Journal of Philosophy|volume=96|issue=8|pages=381–403|jstor=2564628|doi=10.5840/jphil199996818|title=All at Sea in Semantic Space|s2cid=14948287}}</ref> These probing techniques analyzed negative data over [[prescriptive grammar]]s, and because of Chomsky's proposed Extended Projection Principle in 1986, probing techniques showed where specifiers of a sentence had moved to in order to fulfill the EPP. This allowed syntacticians to hypothesize that lexical items with complex syntactic features (such as [[Ditransitive verb|ditransitive]], [[inchoative verb|inchoative]], and [[causative verb|causative]] verbs), could select their own specifier element within a [[Concrete syntax tree|syntax tree]] construction. (For more on probing techniques, see Suci, G., Gammon, P., & Gamlin, P. (1979)).

This brought the focus back on the [[syntax-lexical semantics interface]]; however, syntacticians still sought to understand the relationship between complex verbs and their related syntactic structure, and to what degree the syntax was projected from the lexicon, as the Lexicalist theories argued.

In the mid 1990s, linguists [[Heidi Harley]], [[Samuel Jay Keyser]], and [[Kenneth L. Hale|Kenneth Hale]] addressed some of the implications posed by complex verbs and a lexically-derived syntax. Their proposals indicated that the predicates CAUSE and BECOME, referred to as subunits within a Verb Phrase, acted as a lexical semantic template.<ref>Pinker, S. 1989. "Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure." Cambridge. MIT Press. pp 89</ref> ''Predicates'' are verbs and state or affirm something about the subject of the sentence or the argument of the sentence. For example, the predicates ''went'' and ''is here'' below affirm the argument of the subject and the state of the subject respectively.

{|
|-
| 
 ''Lucy went home.''
 ''The parcel is here.''
|}

The subunits of Verb Phrases led to the Argument Structure Hypothesis and Verb Phrase Hypothesis, both outlined below.<ref>Harley, Heidi. "Events, agents and the interpretation of VP-shells." (1996).</ref> The recursion found under the "umbrella" Verb Phrase, the VP Shell, accommodated binary-branching theory; another critical topic during the 1990s.<ref>Kayne, Richard S. The antisymmetry of syntax. No. 25. MIT Press, 1994.</ref> Current theory recognizes the predicate in Specifier position of a tree in inchoative/[[Anticausative verb|anticausative]] verbs (intransitive), or causative verbs (transitive) is what selects the [[theta role]] conjoined with a particular verb.<ref name="WILEY Blackwell"/>

==== Hale & Keyser 1990 ====
[[File:SyntacticTreeputHaleandKeyser.png|thumb|Hale and Keyser 1990 structure]]
[[Kenneth L. Hale|Kenneth Hale]] and [[Samuel Jay Keyser]] introduced their thesis on lexical argument structure during the early 1990s.<ref name="Hale">{{cite journal|last1=Hale|first1=Kenneth|last2=Keyser|first2=Samuel Jay|title=On Argument Structures and the Lexical expression of syntactic relations|journal=Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger|date=1993}}</ref>
They argue that a predicate's argument structure is represented in the syntax, and that the syntactic representation of the predicate is a lexical projection of its arguments. Thus, the structure of a predicate is strictly a lexical representation, where each phrasal head projects its argument onto a phrasal level within the syntax tree. The selection of this phrasal head is based on Chomsky's Empty Category Principle. This lexical projection of the predicate's argument onto the syntactic structure is the foundation for the Argument Structure Hypothesis.<ref name="Hale" /> This idea coincides with Chomsky's [[Projection Principle]], because it forces a VP to be selected locally and be selected by a Tense Phrase (TP).

Based on the interaction between lexical properties, locality, and the properties of the EPP (where a phrasal head selects another phrasal element locally), Hale and Keyser make the claim that the Specifier position or a complement are the only two semantic relations that project a predicate's argument. In 2003, Hale and Keyser put forward this hypothesis and argued that a lexical unit must have one or the other, Specifier or Complement, but cannot have both.<ref>Paul Bennett, 2003. Review of Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser, ''Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.'' Machine Translation. Vol 18. Issue 1</ref>

==== Halle & Marantz 1993 ====
{{main article|Distributed morphology}}
[[File:Distributedmorphtree.png|thumbnail|Halle & Marantz 1993 structure]]
[[Morris Halle]] and [[Alec Marantz]] introduced the notion of [[distributed morphology]] in 1993.<ref>Halle, Morris; Marantz, Alec (1993), Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, The View from Building 20 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 111–176</ref> This theory views the syntactic structure of words as a result of morphology and semantics, instead of the morpho-semantic interface being predicted by the syntax. Essentially, the idea that under the Extended Projection Principle there is a local boundary under which a special meaning occurs. This meaning can only occur if a head-projecting morpheme is present within the local domain of the syntactic structure.<ref name="Marantz">Marantz, Alec. 1997.  '[https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1795&context=pwpl No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon].' Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium:  Penn Working Papers in Linguistics</ref> The following is an example of the tree structure proposed by distributed morphology for the sentence ''"John's destroying the city"''. ''Destroy'' is the root, V-1 represents verbalization, and D represents nominalization.<ref name="Marantz" />

==== Ramchand 2008 ====
In her 2008 book, ''Verb Meaning and The Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax'', linguist [[Gillian Ramchand]] acknowledges the roles of lexical entries in the selection of complex verbs and their arguments.<ref name="Ramchand" /> 'First-Phase' syntax proposes that event structure and event participants are directly represented in the syntax by means of [[Branching (linguistics)|binary branching]]. This branching ensures that the Specifier is the consistently subject, even when investigating the projection of a complex verb's lexical entry and its corresponding syntactic construction. This generalization is also present in Ramchand's theory that the complement of a head for a complex verb phrase must co-describe the verb's event.

Ramchand also introduced the concept of Homomorphic Unity, which refers to the structural synchronization between the head of a complex verb phrase and its complement. According to Ramchand, Homomorphic Unity is "when two event descriptors are syntactically Merged, the structure of the complement must unify with the structure of the head."<ref name=Ramchand>{{cite book|last1=Ramchand|first1=Gillian|title=Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax|date=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780511486319}}</ref>