If we examine verbs conveying spatial information, we find
a consistent distinction between verbs conveying motion of something
along a path (e.g. ji12) and verbs specifying the location of
something (e.g. ji13). The prepositional phrases in ji12
contrast with those in ji13 in that the former are Paths while the
latter are Places. Additionally, while the verbs of motion can
appear with Place PPs (e.g. ji15),
the verbs of location are wholly incompatible with Path PPs
(e.g. ji14).
The fly flew around the room. The balloon floated out the window. John ran through the tunnel.
The book is in(side) the room. The statue stands on the floor. The picture hangs in(side) the tunnel.
The fly flew in(side) the room. The balloon floated outside the window. John ran in(side) the tunnel.
*The book is around the room. *The statue stands onto the floor. *The picture hangs through the tunnel.
These verbs must be differentiated lexically in order to account for
the distinction in the types of PP arguments each class takes as
arguments, as there is no way to distinguish them
syntactically.
Jackendoff proposes ji16a as the underlying representation for
the motion verbs and ji16b for the verbs of location. The
representations constrain the type of PP arguments each verb type can
have, and specify a relation between the two verbal arguments.
This example illustrates how identification of distinctions in function-argument structure can aid in the syntax/semantics mapping and the modeling of appropriate interaction between verbs and their arguments. A full presentation of Jackendoff's proposed function-argument structures is not necessary in this context; I simply wish to convey that the decomposition of lexical meanings in terms of such structures can be used to account for the potential range of grammatical and semantically felicitous sentences.