DOCSLIB.ORG

1 the Ergative Analysis and the Unaccusative Hypothesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 the Ergative Analysis and the Unaccusative Hypothesis Notes 1 The Ergative Analysis and the Unaccusative Hypothesis 1. I coin this label deliberately in order to distinguish the approach in question from the Unaccusative Hypothesis (see 1.2 below), which strictly speaking can only be expressed within the framework of Relational Grammar. 2. The term ‘ergative’ in this sense is due to Burzio (1981, 1986), while ‘unac- cusative’ fi gures prominently after the publication of Perlmutter 1978, but is apparently due to Geoffrey Pullum (exact source unknown). Burzio’s use of the term ‘ergative’ represents a continuation and extension of the common 1960s and 1970s usage to denote intransitive occurrences of verbs like roll or sink (The boulder rolled down the hill; The ship sank) as opposed to their transitive occurrences (We rolled the boulder down the hill; They sank the ship). For this more specifi c sense, see Lyons (1968). In typological studies, ‘ergative’ denotes the case assigned to transitive subjects in mor- phologically ergative languages. The latter use will not fi gure in this book. 3. Unlike Belletti, Burzio (1986) drew no distinction between indefi nite and defi nite postverbal unaccusative subjects, both of which he assumed to remain in situ. 4. Another means of capturing syntactically the unaccusative–unergative dis- tinction is inspired by a line of research stemming from Larson (1988). Within that approach, it is assumed that VP is subdivided into an inner VP and an outer ‘shell’, denoted by ‘vp’. Unergative subjects are then regarded as originating or (externally) ‘merging’ in spec-vp, while unaccusative sub- jects are analysed as originating either as the complement of V (as under the original theory) or in spec-VP. For the fi rst of these latter suppositions, see Bennis (2004), and for the second, Radford (1997:399). Compare also the framework devised by Bowers (2001:309), who argues that unergative subjects originate in the specifi er position of a predicate constituent (labelled ‘Pr’), which is superordinate to VP, while unaccusative subjects originate in the specifi er of VP. 5. In fact, as will be pointed out in 3.2.6, the c-command analysis of ne is empirically inadequate. This was noted long ago by Belletti and Rizzi (1981:127). 6. It is commonly supposed, however, that this does not apply when the par- ticiple is embedded under a perfect auxiliary. 7. An additional approach, which appears to have been advanced primarily for Germanic languages, involves the stipulation that ‘have’ and ‘be’ select vp complements that respectively have and do not have a thematic argu- ment in their specifi er (see, for example, Radford 1997:399). Given the usual assumption (within the vp shell framework) that unergative subjects, but not unaccusative subjects, are (externally) merged in spec-vp, this stipula- 187 188 Notes tion guarantees that unergatives will be associated with auxiliary ‘have’ and unaccusatives with auxiliary ‘be’. 8. Within this framework, unaccusative verbs are verbs that ‘determine’ (Perlmutter 1978:162) an initially unaccusative stratum. 9. The 2hood analysis also enables passive subjects and subjects of raising predicates to be brought under the same descriptive generalization as unac- cusative subjects. 10. The ‘tail b’ terminology simply indicates that the classifi cation of the nominal applies to its occurrence in clause b. 11. This latter condition is designed to reserve ne-cliticization to postverbal indefi nite subjects, which are analysed by Perlmutter as chomeurs rather than 1s (see example (4) in the text above). 12. ‘Object arc’ is a portmanteau term equivalent to ‘either a 2-arc or a 3-arc’, where 3s are indirect objects. 13. The qualifi cation ‘P-initial’ (suggesting ‘Predicate-initial’) rules out the pos- sibility that the nominal is an initial 2 in relation to a construction involv- ing an auxiliary, as in the ungrammatical example below: *State cadute le arance dall’albero, nessuno le raccolse. (Loporcaro 2003, p. 223) ‘The oranges having been fallen from the tree, nobody picked them up.’ 14. The brother-in-law is the postverbal indefi nite nominal in the ‘impersonal’ construction illustrated by example (4). 15. Spanish pasar is standardly classifi ed as unaccusative (see, for example, Torrego 1989, Garrido 1996). Note in particular that (i) it is routinely cited as the type of verb that has bare subject capability (the main Spanish-internal diagnostic for unaccusativity), (ii) it occurs in participial absolutes (Pasados los botes a la otra ribera . ‘With the boats having passed to the other bank . .’), (iii) it falls within the unaccusative semantic spectrum on Sorace’s cross-linguistic Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (see Sorace 2000), and (iv) its Italian equivalent is assigned perfect auxiliary ‘be’. 16. Note, though, that in Lasnik’s view (1999:186), accusative objects acquire the necessary ‘height’ to c-command into an adjunct by raising overtly to an object agreement projection for case-checking purposes. However, Lasnik then acknowledges that the failure of a transitive direct object to control into an adjunct (as in my example (12)) is ‘mysterious’ (1999:189). 17. Notice that, unlike accusative direct objects (see note 16), postverbal unac- cusative subjects are not widely assumed to have to raise out of their base position for case-checking purposes (not when they are indefi nite, at least). For example, in Belletti’s partitive/inherent case framework, it is assumed that indefi nite postverbal unaccusative subjects have their case licensed in their base position (see Belletti 1999: 34). The same applies if postverbal unaccusative subjects are assumed to have nominative case, because they then naturally fall within the scope of the ‘long-distance agreement’ ana- Notes 189 lytical paradigm associated prototypically with expletive associates in English. Within Chomsky’s probe-goal theory, an expletive associate (hence, by implication, a postverbal unaccusative subject also) is licensed in its base position, through agreement with the abstract T(ense) constituent, which c-commands it (see Chomsky 1998: 123). 18. On the other hand, Chomsky cites the possibility of ne-cliticization from the postverbal subject in this type of sentence as evidence that it occupies complement (direct object) position. 19. Curiously, Perlmutter (1983:150) denies the possibility in Italian of exam- ples such as this one. He basis this generalization on the apparent deviancy of the following example: (i) Sono rimasti nel paese dei profughi ungheresi senza ottenere permessi di lavoro. ‘Some Hungarian refugees remained in the country without obtaining work permits.’ Presumably the deviancy here results from something specifi c to this par- ticular example, rather than from a general prohibition on the confi gura- tion in question. Possibly the problem stems from the information structure implied by the placement of dei profughi ungheresi after the prepositional complement nel paese. Belletti (1999:37) analyses ‘reordered’ structures of this sort as having a topicalized VP and a focalized subject. Conceivably the relevant adjunct control is degraded under a marked information struc- ture of this kind. 20. Marandin (2001) observes a parallel control disparity, internal to French, between the il construction and certain ‘stylistic’ inversion constructions not involving il: (i) *Il est entré deux hommes avinés sans frapper/en riant. ‘Two drunk men entered without knocking/while laughing.’ (ii) *Il est entré sans frapper/en riant deux hommes avinés. ‘Two drunk men entered without knocking/while laughing.’ (iii) Alors sont entrés sans frapper/en riant deux hommes avinés. ‘Then two drunk men entered without knocking/while laughing.’ Marandin’s conclusions are rather different from those drawn here. In addi- tion, he assumes (erroneously) that the ‘stylistic’ inversion illustrated by (iii) is limited to unaccusative verbs. (See Legendre and Sorace 2003 for a demonstration of this error.) 21. This example is cited by Martin and Wilmet (1980: 201). 22. Burzio 1986 (152–3) attempted to account for the French–Italian disparity in terms of his binding-related analysis of perfect auxiliary selection (see 1.1 above). He argued that the relevant binding relation was weaker in the case of passives than in that of unaccusatives, because with passives it had to cross a small-clause boundary (assuming a small-clause analysis of passives). Accordingly, some degree of variation might be expected. However, it will be shown in 5.2 that Burzio’s attribution of ‘be’-selection to the existence of a determinate binding relation cannot be accepted, for 190 Notes important theoretical and empirical reasons. Thus his proposed ex - planation for the French–Italian disparity in this regard ceases to be motivated. 23. In fact, assuming the now widely accepted small clause analysis of ‘be’ (both qua passive auxiliary and qua copula), the structure of (26) is essen- tially analogous to that of (23). 24. The rationale was that the postverbal subject position (unlike the preverbal position) was properly governed by the verb, thus legitimizing the trace resulting from wh-extraction (assuming traces required proper govern- ment). The relevance of the presence versus absence of an intervening overt complementizer is that the presence of such an item was assumed to block proper government of the trace by its antecedent. 2 Expletive Inversion 1. Where exactly depends on the structure envisaged for VP. Typically the VP of earlier accounts is now assumed to have at least two layers of structure, for example, a low VP and higher ‘shell’ VP, designated as ‘vp’. The subject (i.e. of unergatives and transitives) is then assumed to be base-generated or ‘merged’ in spec-vp. 2. Note that the very same linear sequence ‘expletive + unergative verb + argument’ is routinely countenanced under the supposition that postverbal subjects in general (regardless of whether the verb is unergative or unaccu- sative) co-occur with a null expletive fi lling the preverbal subject position. This assumption was once widespread in Romance linguistics and remains popular (see, for example, Belletti 1999: 11).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 6 Morphological Split
    Chapter 6 Morphological Split Chapter 6 Morphological Split: Accusative Behaviour of Pronouns As mentioned in the previous chapters, Tongan shows a morphological split based on types of nouns. Specifically, full NP’s are divided into ERG and ABS, while pronouns show an accusative pattern: S and A appear as a subject pronoun, while O is realised in a distinct form. We will argue, however, that the accusative pattern does not mean that the pronouns receive NOM in the subject position and ACC in the object position. Rather, it is due to the fact that pronominal subjects are realised as clitics in Tongan. We will argue that the form of a subject clitic reflects the theta-role it bears and not the case. In particular, we will argue that despite the identical phonological form, a subject clitic receives ERG when it refers to A, and ABS when it refers to S. In §6.1, we will look at the data that demonstrate the apparent accusative pattern, which Tongan pronouns show. Our data demonstrate another peculiar property of the Tongan pronouns, namely, the compulsory word order alternation. In §6.2, we will argue that the SVO order results from the fact that the subject pronouns are clitics attached to T. We will also argue that object pronouns are full pronouns. Object clitics are not part of the lexical inventory of Tongan. In §6.3, we will develop the hypothesis that the subject clitics in Tongan are theta-role absorbers in the sense of Aoun (1985) and therefore, are arguments. This hypothesis explains why the pronouns in Tongan show an accusative pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • Universals of Causative and Anticausative Verb Formation and the Spontaneity Scale
    2016 LINGUA POSNANIENSIS LVIII (2) DoI 10.1515/linpo-2016-0009 Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale Martin Haspelmath Department of Linguistic and Cultural evolution, Max planck Institute for the Science of human history Institut für anglistik, Leipzig University e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Martin haspelmath. Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale. the poznań Society for the advancement of arts and Sciences, pL ISSn 0079-4740, pp. 33-63 In this paper, I formulate and explain a number of universal generalizations about the formation of causative verbs (overtly marked verbs with causal meaning) and anticausative verbs (overtly marked verbs with non- causal meaning). Given the “spontaneity scale” of basic verb meanings (transitive > unergative > automatic unaccusative > costly unaccusative > agentful), we can say that verb pairs with a noncausal verb higher on the scale tend to be causative pairs, and verb pairs with a noncausal verb lower on the scale tend to be an- ticausative pairs. I propose that these generalizations can be subsumed under form-frequency correspondence: that transitive base verbs tend to form causatives (often analytic causatives) is because they rarely occur in causal contexts, and the fact that unaccusative verbs tend to be coded as anticausatives is because they frequ- ently occur in causal contexts, and special marking is required for the rarer and less expected situation. Keywords: causative verb, linguistic universal, spontaneity scale, transitivity, form-frequency correspondence 1. Introduction In this paper, I propose a unification of a number of cross-linguistic generalizations about the distribution of causative, anticausative and basic verb forms, as well as an explanation of the universals as an instance of the extremely widespread phenomenon of form-frequency correspondence (haspelmath 2018a).
    [Show full text]
  • The Unergative-Unaccusative Split: a Study of the Verb DIE 1
    The Unergative-Unaccusative Split: A Study of the Verb DIE 1 Nabhidh Kijparnich 2 ABSTRACT This article aims to diagnose the unergative-unaccusative distinction with reference to the verb die which often displays differing behaviours because it can appear in many different syntactic constructions. Particularly, the study seeks to establish whether die is an unergative or an unaccusative verb, using eight diagnostics for unaccusativity (e.g. the one’s way construction, the pseudo-passive construction, the cognate object construction) Results of the study have shown that the verb die stands astride the border between an unergative verb and an unaccusative verb. There is no single reliable diagnostic test for the unergative/unaccusative contrast, which can dictate whether die is either unergative or unaccusative. It is more likely to depend on which diagnostic test is adopted. บทคัดย่อ บทความวิจัยนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อหาสาเหตุความบกพร่องในการแบ่งกริยาอกรรมออกเป็น 2 ประเภท (unergative และ unaccusative) โดยอ้างอิงจากค�าอกรรมกริยา “ตาย” ซึ่งมีลักษณะการ ปรากฏในหน่วยสร้างต่างกัน บทความนี้ยังมุ่งพิสูจน์ว่า “ตาย” เป็นกริยาอกรรมแบบมีผู้กระท�าเป็นประธาน (unergative) หรือแบบมีผู้รับการกระท�าหรืออรรถบทเป็นประธาน (unaccusative) โดยอาศัยแบบทดสอบ วินิจฉัย 8 แบบ (อาทิ หน่วยสร้าง one’s way หน่วยสร้างกรรมวาจกเทียม หน่วยสร้างแบบกรรมที่มีรูป แสดงเหมือนกับค�ากริยา เป็นต้น) ผลการศึกษาพบว่า “ตาย” เป็นได้ทั้งกริยาอกรรมแบบมีผู้กระท�าเป็น ประธานและแบบมีผู้รับการกระท�าหรืออรรถบทเป็นประธาน ฉะนั้นจึงยังไม่ปรากฏว่ามีแบบทดสอบวินิจฉัย ที่ใช้แยกกริยาอกรรมออกเป็น 2 ประเภทอย่างชัดเจน
    [Show full text]
  • Unaccusatives, Resultatives, and the Richness of Lexical Representations
    Introduction to Syntax, 24.951, MIT, Fall 2003 Unaccusatives, Resultatives, and the Richness of Lexical Representations Idan Landau (1) Definition “A resultative phrase is an XP that denotes the state achieved by the referent of the NP it is predicated of as a result of the action denoted by the verb in the resultative construction”. (2) The Direct Object Restriction (DOR) A resultative phrase may be predicated of the immediately postverbal NP, but may not be predicated of a subject or of an oblique complement. Distribution (3) Selected object of transitive a. It soaks all your fine washables clean. b. He kissed them alive. (4) *Subject of unergative a. * Dora shouted hoarse. b. * The officers laughed helpless. (5) *Oblique object a. * John loaded the hay into the wagon full. b. The silver smith pounded (*on) the metal flat. (6) Nonthematic object of unergatives a. Dora shouted herself hoarse. fake reflexive b. The officers laughed themselves helpless. fake reflexive c. The dog barked him awake. d. Sleep your wrinkles away. inalienable possession (7) Unselected object of a transitive a. She cooked them into premature death. unspecified object b. He drank himself silly. unspecified object 1 Introduction to Syntax, 24.951, MIT, Fall 2003 Note: These “fake objects” can’t appear on their own (*Dora shouted herself, *The dog barked him, *He drank himself). (8) Subject of passive a. The floor has been swept clean. b. She was shaken awake by the earthquake. (9) Subject of unaccusative a. The river froze solid. b. The curtain rolled open on the court. (10) Subject of middle a.
    [Show full text]
  • Overpassivization of Unaccusative/Unergative Verbs in L2
    DISCOURSE PRAGMATICS AND VERB TYPE: OVERPASSIVIZATION OF UNACCUSATIVE/UNERGATIVE VERBS IN L2 Reza G. Samar, ([email protected]) N. Karimi-Alvar Tarbiat Modares University A topic which has received much attention in recent discussions in SLA research is the development of knowledge by L2 speakers of the relationship between argument structure of verbs and its morphosyntactic realizations (Kondo 2005). This paper is an attempt to investigate this issue as applied to unaccuasative and unergative verbs. 1. Introduction, Background and Purpose Perlmutter's (1978) and Burzio's (1986, cited in Sorace & Shomura 2001 ) Untransitivity Theory argues that there are two major subclasses of intransitive verbs: unaccusatives and unergatives. Linguists have assigned verbs to either one of the classes based on varying principles of classification like semantic grounds (Dowty 1991, Seibert 1993), syntactic grounds (e.g. Baker 1988), and a hybrid approach of syntactic/semantic grounds (Levine and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Montrul 2001). As shown in one in the handout, the semantic approach to unergative/unaccusative distinction considers agentivity and telicity as determining factors for distinction. Unergative verbs usually involve an agent and are often described to be atelic i.e. without an inherent endpoint, e.g. jump, walk, run, laugh. In contrast, unaccusatives are nonagentive in that they do not have an agent in the sense of the doer of the action and are telic which means they do have an inherent endpoint (e.g. change, melt, freeze, emerge). The syntactic approach states that “the principles of UG correlate thematic structures with syntactic structures in a uniform fashion” (Radford 1997:342).
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Verbs in Italian
    Particle Verbs in Italian Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors der Philosophie an der Universit¨at Konstanz Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft vorgelegt von Quaglia, Stefano Tag der m ¨undlichen Pr ¨ufung: 23 Juni 2015 Referent: Professor Christoph Schwarze Referentin: Professorin Miriam Butt Referent: Professor Nigel Vincent Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-376213 3 Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Dissertation befasst sich mit italienischen Partikelverben (PV), d.h. Kon- struktionen die aus einem Verb und einer (meist r¨aumlicher) Partikel, wie andare fuori ‘hinaus-gehen’ oder buttare via ‘weg-schmeißen’. Solche komplexe Ausdr¨ucke sind in manchen Hinsichten interessant, erstmal sprachvergleichend, denn sie instantiieren eine morpho-syntaktische Struktur, die in germanischen Sprachen (wie Deutsch, Englisch, Schwedisch und Holl¨andisch) pervasiv ist, aber in den romanischen Sprachen nicht der- maßen ausgebaut ist. Da germanische Partikelverben Eingenschaften aufweisen, die zum Teil f¨ur die Morphologie, zum teil f¨ur die Syntax typisch sind, ist ihr Status in formalen Grammatiktheorien bestritten: werden PV im Lexikon oder in der Syntax gebaut? Dieselbe Frage stellt sich nat¨urlich auch in Bezug auf die italienischen Partikelverben, und anhand der Ergebnisse meiner Forschung komme ich zum Schluss, dass sie syntaktisch, und nicht morphologisch, zusammengestellt werden. Die Forschungsfragen aber die in Bezug auf das grammatische Verhalten italienischer Partikelverben von besonderem Interesse sind, betreffen auch Probleme der italienischen Syntax. In meiner Arbeit habe ich folgende Forschungsfragen betrachtet: (i) Kategorie und Klassifikation Italienischer Partikeln, (ii) deren Interaktion mit Verben auf argument- struktureller Ebene, (iii) strukturelle Koh¨asion zwischen Verb und Partikel und deren Repr¨asentation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distinction Between Unaccusative and Unergative Verbs in Turkish: an Offline and an Eye Tracking Study of Split Intransitivity
    The Distinction Between Unaccusative and Unergative Verbs in Turkish: An Offline and an Eye Tracking Study of Split Intransitivity Deniz Zeyrek ([email protected]) Cengiz Acartürk ([email protected]) Cognitive Science, Informatics Institute Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey Abstract investigated, though for example, works on Japanese (e.g. Kishimoto 1996, Hirakawa 1999, Sorace & Shomura 2001) The Unaccusativity Hypothesis (UH) holds that intransitive verbs are divided into two broad classes, namely and Urdu (Ahmet 2010) exist. Therefore, the current paper unaccusatives and unergatives. While there is evidence that investigates yet another non-Indo-European language, the UH holds cross-linguistically, it is known that languages Turkish, which is understudied with respect to the SI both do not divide the intransitives into two uniform groups. We linguistically and from the processing side. We first investigate the unaccusative-unergative distinction in Turkish examine whether native speakers differentiate between by an offline grammaticality judgment task using a visual unaccusative and unergative verbs via an offline test of analog scale and by running an eye tracking experiment to tap on cognitive processing of split intransitivity. Cluster analyses grammaticality judgment. Then, to capture the real-time indicate that the results of two experiments are broadly processing problems of native speakers with unaccusative compatible, i.e., native speakers represent intransitive verbs in and unergative verbs, we run an eye-tracking experiment. two classes, as the UH predicts. However, the offline experiment results specify uncontrolled process verbs as Split Intransitivity and some diagnostics unaccusative, whereas the eye-gaze data characterize them as unergative. This result lends partial support for Auxiliary Ever since the seminal work of Perlmutter (1978), the Selection Hierarchy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Corpus-Based Study of Unaccusative Verbs and Auxiliary Selection
    To be or not to be: A corpus-based study of unaccusative verbs and auxiliary selection Master's Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Department of Computer Science James Pustejovsky, Advisor In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master's Degree By Richard A. Brutti Jr. May 2012 c Copyright by Richard A. Brutti Jr. 2012 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT To be or not to be: A corpus-based study of unaccusative verbs and auxiliary selection A thesis presented to the Department of Computer Science Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts Richard A. Brutti Jr. Since the introduction of the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter, 1978), there have been many further attempts to explain the mechanisms behind the division in intransitive verbs. This paper aims to analyze and test some of theories of unac- cusativity using computational linguistic tools. Specifically, I focus on verbs that exhibit split intransitivity, that is, verbs that can appear in both unaccusative and unergative constructions, and in determining the distinguishing features that make this alternation possible. Many formal linguistic theories of unaccusativity involve the interplay of semantic roles and temporal event markers, both of which can be analyzed using statistical computational linguistic tools, including semantic role labelers, semantic parses, and automatic event classification. I use auxiliary verb selection as a surface-level indicator of unaccusativity in Italian and Dutch, and iii test various classes of verbs extracted from the Europarl corpus (Koehn, 2005). Additionally, I provide some historical background for the evolution of this dis- tinction, and analyze how my results fit into the larger theoretical framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing for Verb Types in Spanish: an Application of SAS to Corpus Linguistics Roberto Mayoral-Hernández & Lindsey Chen, University of Southern California
    Testing for Verb Types in Spanish: An Application of SAS to Corpus Linguistics Roberto Mayoral-Hernández & Lindsey Chen, University of Southern California ABSTRACT The last decade has seen an increase in the use of technologies in linguistics research. The availability of online corpora and powerful statistical software tools have made it possible to handle large amounts of textual information and crucially, to shed some light on certain linguistic theories. Within this paper, SAS was utilized to study the relation between verb types and subject position in Spanish. Applying SAS procedures to data obtained from CREA (Corpus de Referencia del Espanol Actual), we show that transitive, unergative and unaccusative verbs can be successfully differentiated by looking at the position of their subject. Furthermore, we conclude from our analysis that verbs of light and sound emission (VLSEs) should be, contra Mendikoetxea (1999), classified as unaccusative verbs rather than unergative verbs. INTRODUCTION The literature (Hale & Kaiser 2002, Levin 1993) recognize three basic types of verbs: transitive, unergative and unaccusative. Transitive verbs are those that take two arguments - a subject (S) and a direct object (DO); see (1a). Typically, the subject of transitive verbs has agentive properties. It is an agent because it functions as the initiator or causer of the action described by the verb. The direct object, on the other hand, has patient properties. It is the theme or causee that is affected by the main action described by the verb (see Dowty 1991 for further discussion on the properties of the agent and patient thematic-roles). The second type of verbs is the intransitive verb, which occurs only with a single argument- the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Intransitives in Basque
    a journal of Pineda, Anna and Ane Berro. 2020. Hybrid intransitives general linguistics Glossa in Basque. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): 22. 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.824 RESEARCH Hybrid intransitives in Basque Anna Pineda1 and Ane Berro2 1 Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Roc Boronat, Barcelona, ES 2 Deustuko Unibertsitatea/Universidad de Deusto, Unibertsitate Etorb, Bilbao, ES Corresponding author: Ane Berro ([email protected]) This paper deals with a group of agentive verbs in Eastern dialects of Basque that show mixed unergative and unaccusative properties. Although they pattern with unergatives in certain aspects, they combine with an absolutive subject and the auxiliary ‘be’, contrary to what one would expect for Basque unergative verbs. Additionally, they behave like unaccusatives in a num- ber of other tests, such as in their inability to take cognate objects and in allowing partitive subjects. The analysis put forward in this paper accounts for the hybrid nature of these verbs. In particular, we claim that their subject is introduced in the specifier of vP, and that it is co- indexed with a thematic but non-pronounced argument of Voice. As a consequence, the subject shows both external and internal properties. This paper thus challenges the mutually exclusive external/internal division of the subject in intransitive verbs and argues that intransitive verbs can be classified into more groups than just two, as also argued elsewhere. Additionally, it argues that the different types of intransitive verbs are grammatically encoded and shaped by different versions of Voice and v. Thus, this analysis assumes the typology of Voice proposed by Schäfer (2008) and developed by Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer (2015), and extends it to the functional head v.
    [Show full text]
  • Mandarin Intransitive Verbs and Their Objects at the Syntax-Information Structure Interface1
    Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). 2008. Volume 2. Edited by Marjorie K.M. Chan and Hana Kang. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. Pages 653-663. Mandarin Intransitive Verbs and Their Objects at the Syntax-Information Structure Interface1 Jianhua Hua and Haihua Panb aChinese Academy of Social Sciences bCity University of Hong Kong This paper proposes a syntax-information structure interface account to the object- taking intransitive constructions in Chinese. On the basis of an analysis assumed in Huang (1990) and Wang (1965), we propose that there is an abstract verb, represented as HAVE, in the relevant constructions. We argue that this abstract verb can be realized as either an inner vP aspectual head selecting a VP as its complement or a lexical verb selecting a TP as its complement. It is assumed that if the abstract verb is merged with a VP projected from an unergative verb, then the sole argument of VP is the underlying subject of VP, which must be raised in accordance with the relevant verb raising if it is definite. It is claimed that the move- ment of the definite VP-subject to the clausal subject position is motivated by the partitioning of information as required by the information structure. Under this analysis, if the sole argument of VP is an underlying indefinite subject (as in the case of unergativity), it may stay within its VP-subject position and ultimately function as the object of the sentence after the verb is raised to HAVE, as its movement is not required by the partitioning of information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unaccusative-Unergative Distinction in Resultatives: Evidence from Korean L2 Learners of English
    The Unaccusative-Unergative Distinction in Resultatives: Evidence from Korean L2 Learners of English Kyae-Sung Park and Usha Lakshmanan University of Hawai‘i at Manoa and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale 1. Introduction Recently, there has been a spate of L2 research on the learnability problems associated with the acquisition of unaccusative verbs, which along with unergative verbs, comprise the two sub-classes of intransitive verbs. Recent L2 research has also investigated the status of the unergative-unaccusative distinction in L2 grammars. A substantial body of previous L2 research in this area has focused on the acquisition of English unaccusatives by learners from different L1 backgrounds, such as Chinese (Balcom, 1997; Yip, 1995), Japanese (Hirakawa, 2003, 1995; Oshita, 2000, 1997), Italian (Oshita, 1997) or Spanish (Oshita, 1997). To our knowledge, however, there have been hardly any studies (except for J.-H. Song, 2000) on the L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs by native speakers of Korean. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there have been no studies on the unaccusative-unergative distinction in the English interlanguage of native speakers of Korean. This paper addresses the issue of how Korean L2 learners’ knowledge of unaccusativity is represented in their interlanguage grammars of English. Specifically, the study reported here investigates whether Korean L2 learners of English distinguish between the two subclasses of intransitive verbs, unergative verbs and unaccusative verbs, (specifically, alternating unaccusative verbs)1. To this end, the present study makes use of the English resultative phrase as the syntactic diagnostic for the unaccusative-unergative distinction in English. On the basis of our experimental results, we argue that Korean L2 learners of English make the unaccusative-unergative distinction in English resultatives.
    [Show full text]