Part II A global view on argument structure. An lsyntax for adjuncts. The derivation of dative alternations.
Basque ditransitives. Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives. Unintentionally out of control. Part IV Argument structure in language acquisition.
Zero timearguments in French child language. Reevaluating the role of innate linking rules in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Find it at other libraries via WorldCat Limited preview. Bibliography Includes bibliographical references p. Contents 1.
Acknowledgements-- 2. List of abbreviations-- 3. Introduction-- 4. Chapter 1.
The morphological patterns of anticausatives and their interpretation-- 5. Chapter 2.
Ayoub Loutfi. On this view, the present paper has a two-fold goal. The second objective purports to show that there is a symbiotic relationship between syntax and morphology, one that seems to be obscured in Lexicalist theories. The way these head interact and merge is what account for verbal argument structure and verbal alternations. Broadly speaking, there is a correlation between argument structure and morphology, i. This part also attempts to show that there are constraints that go beyond morphology. Questions to be addressed: a.
How is the structure of verb meaning determined? How syntactic structure affects the licensing of arguments? Are argument changing operations listed in the lexicon, or manipulated by syntax? What is the mechanism responsible for the derivation of words?
Is this generative mechanism syntactic or morphological, where morphology is lexically construed? What are the atoms of syntax? How the different verbs are structurally realized in a lexicon-free syntax? This lexical specification is what accounts for regular and systematic variability in the distribution and representation of verbs. Challenging Empirical Evidence: 1. John walks every day.
John walks his dog every day. John walked his way to slimmer self this year. John walked his shoes ragged. Harry kept the dog in the cage. Susan kept the money. Sam kept the crowd happy. Jackendoff, , cited in Siddiqi, 69 2. Jamal gave Sofia a present 2. Jamal gave a present to Sofia 3. Karim whispered a secret to Jamal 4. Classifying arguments as to the semantic role they play in a situation described by the predicate does not seem to a feasible program. There are a class of DPs that cannot readily fall into these defined theta-roles, hence hard to characterize semantically Levin, The Theoretical Framework The basic assumptions that this theory hinges on are: 1.
Syntax is the only generative mechanism; hence we are dealing with one set of primitives and operations. The generative lexicon, as is customary in lexicalist theories, does not exist as such; rather, it is supplanted with a passive lexicon, a list of roots- devoid of all grammatical categories- and functional heads. Argument-introducing heads such as Voice and light v license different arguments. Words of the traditional lexical categories such as N, V, and A are derivative concepts created in the syntax via the combination of category-defining functional heads such as little v, n and a with a root.
Roots are neither inherently specified for nor do they project argument structure. There are, however, idiosyncratic demands imposed on the structure contributing some aspect of meaning to the interpretation of the structures, hence their status as event modifiers. For this reason, roots are classified differently according to their encyclopedic semantics. Unergatives 1. This type of structures expresses volition. Unaccusatives 5.
Syntactic Structure and Morphological Correlates 1. The agent is, then, suppressed altogether.
ykoketomel.ml: Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today) ( ): Mercedes Tubino Blanco: Books. Buy Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today) by Mercedes Tubino Blanco (ISBN: ) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday.
See Baker, for a similar analysis for the participial ending as the incorporated external argument. These examples show cases where some verbs fail to undergo causativization 1-b, 2, 3 , passivization 1-b and semantic selection. A perplexing issue, in this regard, is how the accusative case on the second DP is assigned. Voice, light v, and Root.