What Role and Reference Grammar Can Do for Functional Grammar

El objetivo de este artículo es establecer una comparación preliminar entre dos modelos funcionales como son la Gramática Funcional (GF) y la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia (GPR). Ambos modelos son compatibles en varios aspectos, como es el hecho de que ambos adoptan un modelo de la organización de la cláusula muy similar, es decir, un modelo multicapas. Asimismo, creemos que algunos aspectos, tales como el diseño de las representaciones léxicas, pueden ser enriquecidos si se combinan algunos principios metodológicos procedentes de estos dos modelos. En este sentido, se ofrece, en primer lugar, una descripción de cómo las representaciones léxicas de la GF pueden enriquecerse mediante la incorporación de las estructuras lógicas de la GPR. Nuestro principal objetivo es demostrar cómo las entradas léxicas de la GF podrían reducirse considerablemente si se adoptaran mecanismos más abstractos (Ej. El uso de metalenguaje, macro roles, plantillas léxicas, etc.).The aim of this paper is to establish a preliminary comparison between two functionallyoriented models such as Functional Grammar (FG) and Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). Both models are compatible in many respects, as is clear from the fact that both adopt a very similar model of clause organization, e.g. a multilayered model. Furthermore we believe that some aspects such as the design of lexical representations can be enriched if a conflation of some methodological principles stemming out from these two models is established. In this regard, we firstly give an outline of how FG lexical representations could be further enriched by looking at RRG logical structures. Our major concern is to show how FG lexical entries could be extremely reduced if more abstract mechanisms are adopted (e.g. the use of a metalanguage, macroroles, lexical templates, etc.)

1 Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics

Abstract. The modern computational lexical semantics reached a point in its development when it has become necessary to define the premises and goals of each of its several current trends. This paper proposes ten choices in terms of which these premises and goals can be discussed. It argues that the central questions include the use of lexical rules for generating word senses; the role of syntax, pragmatics, and formal semantics in the specification of lexical meaning; the use of a world model, or ontology, as the organizing principle for lexical-semantic descriptions; the use of rules with limited scope; the relation between static and dynamic resources; the commitment to descriptive coverage; the trade-off between generalization and idiosyncracy; and, finally, the adherence to the “supply-side ” (methodoriented) or “demand-side ” (task-oriented) ideology of research. The discussion is inspired by, but not limited to, the comparison between the generative lexicon approach and the ontological semantic approach to lexical semantics. It is fair to say that lexical semantics, the study of word meaning and of its representation in the lexicon, experienced a powerful resurgence within the last decade. 2 Traditionally, linguistic semantic