This paper addresses the problem of the Role-Argument Uniqueness. More specifically, it is concerned with the way this constraint (hereafter RAUP) might be expressed within HPSG. Its starting point represents Davis’ pioneering work. In section 2, I describe Davis’ solution to the problem of the Role-Argument Uniqueness and I show that his proposal has a certain empirical drawback: the filter devised to do the job of the RAUP is not able to rule out some classes of ill-formed constructions which appear to be RAUP violations. I put forward the hypothesis that this happens because the real locus of the RAUP violations is elsewhere, presumably at the level of the representation of semantic roles. In order to check out this hypothesis, I examine two classes of lexical semantic representations which might be held responsible for RAUP violations. One of these classes involves certain cases of concatenations, while the other exhibits instances of failed unifications. I conclude that the latter one may be invoked to explain ill-formed constructions considered RAUP violations. This leads to the last (and the central) claim of the paper: unlike the GB theory, no specific principle ruling the role-argument uniqueness is needed in HPSG.
Lista citărilor/referințelor nu cuprinde decît texte prezente în baza de date, nefiind deci exhaustivă. Pentru trimiterea de texte, semnalarea oricăror greșeli, și eventualul refuz ca „Diacronia” să facă publice textele, vă rugăm să folosiți adresa de email [Please enable javascript to view.].
pdf 
html 
