5.1.2.1. Direct Mapping Rules

Levin and Rappaport’s (1996) taxonomy of the approaches that have been proposed to account for the mapping between lexical semantic representation and syntax distinguishes between Direct Mapping accounts and Mediated Mapping accounts. The mapping rules in Direct Mapping accounts make direct reference to specific semantic notions of the lexical semantic representation. A typical example of direct mapping rules are Anderson’s Agent and Theme Rules:

(5.42) S. R. Anderson’s (1977: 367) Agent and Theme Rules:

a . . . . the Agent of a (nonpassive) sentence is generally the Subject NP, regardless of transitivity of the verb or the presence of other oblique NP’s in the clause.
b. . . . the Theme is quite generally to be found in Subject position if the verb is intransitive, and in Direct Object position if the verb is transitive.

More elaborate semantic notions are used by Levin and Rappaport’s linking rules:

(5.43) Levin and Rappaport Hovav’s (1995) Linking Rules:

a. Immediate Cause Linking Rule: The argument of a verb that denotes the immediate cause of the eventuality described by that verb is its external argument (135).
b. Directed Change Linking Rule: The argument of a verb that corresponds to the entity undergoing the directed change described by the verb is its direct internal argument (146).
c. Existence Linking Rule: The argument of a verb whose existence is asserted is its direct internal argument (153).
d. Default Linking Rule: An argument of a verb that does not fall under the scope of any of the other linking rules is its direct internal argument (154).