Lexical Semantic Representation , and Argument Expression

Over the last twenty years aspectual notions have been increasingly appealed to in structuring verbal lexical semantic representations and, concomitantly, in formulating principles of argument expression. This move has been further fueled by the significant insights that have emerged from this line of research. Yet, despite the enthusiasm for aspectual notions that their proliferation demonstrates, I propose that such notions are not the panacea that their considerable use would suggest. Although I also have adopted them in my work, my continuing research into lexical semantic representation and argument expression has suggested to me that the links between aspect, lexical semantic representation, and argument expression are not so simple and transparent as they are made out to be. I use this study to reassess the contributions of aspect to lexical semantic representation and argument expression. The striking acceptance of aspectual notions as a means of structuring lexical semantic representations may have its roots in some well-known drawbacks of lexical semantic representations that take the form of semantic role lists. As often pointed out, semantic role lists are not grounded in a theory of events, leaving them unconstrained and vulnerable to criticism. Aspectual classifications, proposed at least as early as Aristotle and taken up more recently by Vendler (1957), Kenny (1963), and many others, offer a ready-made theory of the ontological types of events, which grounds them in their temporal contours. Furthermore, aspectual classifications have proved their usefulness in accounts of temporal entailments and temporal adverbial distribution. With this incentive, aspectual classes have been increasingly adopted as the appropriate event types for the twin purposes of structuring lexical semantic representations and formulating a theory of argument expression, as I now review. I then consider how well such attempts succeed. I suggest that it is right to