DOCSLIB.ORG

Transitive and Intransitive Constructions in Japanese and English: a Psycholinguistic Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transitive and Intransitive Constructions in Japanese and English: a Psycholinguistic Study TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN JAPANESE AND ENGLISH: A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC STUDY by Zoe Pei-sui Luk BA, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2006 MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2009 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2012 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Zoe Pei-sui Luk It was defended on April 24, 2012 and approved by Alan Juffs, Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics Charles Perfetti, University Professor, Department of Psychology Paul Hopper, Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, Department of English, Carnegie Mellon University Dissertation Advisor: Yasuhiro Shirai, Professor, Department of Linguistics ii Copyright © by Pei-sui Luk 2012 iii TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN JAPANESE AND ENGLISH: A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC STUDY Zoe Pei-sui Luk, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Transitivity has been extensively researched from a semantic point of view (e.g., Hopper & Thompson, 1980). Although little has been said about a prototypical intransitive construction, it has been suggested that verbs that denote actions with an agent and a patient/theme cannot be intransitive (e.g., Guerssel, 1985). However, it has been observed that some languages, including Japanese, have intransitive verbs for actions that clearly involve an animate agent and a patient/theme, such as ‘arresting’ (e.g., Pardeshi, 2008). This dissertation thus attempts to understand how causality is differentially interpreted from transitive and intransitive constructions, including non-prototypical intransitive verbs, by rating and priming experiments conducted in both English and Japanese. In Experiment 1, participants (native English and Japanese speakers, 20 each) were asked to read sentence pairs with transitive and intransitive verbs in their native language and rate how likely they thought it was that the animate entity mentioned in the sentence pair was responsible for the event. The results show that in Japanese, the sentences with agent-implying intransitive verbs were rated closer to those with transitive verbs and significantly higher than non-agent-implying intransitive verbs. In Experiment 2, participants (42 native English speakers and 46 native Japanese speakers) read the equivalent sentence pairs and answered a question that asked whether the instrument mentioned in the sentences could cause the event to happen. It was hypothesized that participants would respond iv faster to the transitive sentence than the intransitive sentences, because it was assumed that the transitive sentences would lead the participants to evoke an agent and thus an instrument whereas the intransitive sentences would not. The results, however, were not consistent with the hypotheses in that the agent-implying verb pairs (both transitive and intransitive) were responded to significantly slower than the non-agent-implying verb pairs. The results are explained through (1) the preference to focus on sub-event (change of state) rather than the super-event (causation) in Japanese, and (2) the telicity and punctuality of the agent-implying verbs. v TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. XII PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIII 1.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... XIII 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 6 2.1 FORMAL APPROACH TO TRANSITIVITY ................................................. 6 2.1.1 Decomposition of verb meanings.................................................................... 9 2.2 FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO TRANSITIVITY ................................. 12 2.2.1 Transitivity from a semantic perspective .................................................... 12 2.2.2 Construction Grammar ................................................................................ 13 2.2.3 Cognitive Grammar ...................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 What is the prototypical intransitive construction? ................................... 19 2.3 TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE ................................................................................................................ 21 2.3.1 The Japanese verb system ............................................................................. 22 2.3.1.1 Lexical versus morphological transitivity ......................................... 22 2.3.1.2 Morphological and semantic markedness......................................... 24 2.3.2 Cross-linguistic differences in lexical transitivity ....................................... 25 vi 2.4 CROSS-LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES IN THE PREFERENCE FOR THE TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS ......................................... 30 2.4.1 A note on ergative and active languages ...................................................... 34 2.5 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE CROSS-LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES ON THE ATTENTION TO AGENT .................................................. 36 2.6 A MODEL OF DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION: A SITUATION MODEL ............................................................................................................................. 39 2.7 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 43 3.0 THE STUDY ............................................................................................................... 47 3.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................... 47 3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 47 3.3 SINGER ET AL. (1992) .................................................................................... 48 3.4 EXPERIMENT 1 ............................................................................................... 51 3.4.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 51 3.4.2 Method ............................................................................................................ 52 3.4.3 Materials ......................................................................................................... 53 3.4.3.1 English version .................................................................................... 53 3.4.3.2 Japanese version .................................................................................. 53 3.4.4 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 54 3.4.5 Results ............................................................................................................. 55 3.4.5.1 The English version ............................................................................. 55 3.4.5.2 The Japanese version .......................................................................... 56 3.4.5.3 Between-language comparisons ......................................................... 57 vii 3.4.6 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 58 3.5 EXPERIMENT 2 ............................................................................................... 60 3.5.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 61 3.5.2 Materials ......................................................................................................... 62 3.5.2.1 The English version ............................................................................. 62 3.5.2.2 The Japanese version .......................................................................... 66 3.5.3 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 67 3.5.4 Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 68 3.5.5 Results ............................................................................................................. 70 3.5.5.1 English version .................................................................................... 70 3.5.5.2 Japanese version .................................................................................. 71 3.5.6 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 72 3.6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 75 4.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 78 4.1 FOCUSING ON SUB-EVENT IN JAPANESE .............................................. 79 4.2 TELICITY AND PUNCTUALITY OF AGENT-IMPLYING INTRANSITIVE VERBS .................................................................................................. 85 4.3 TOWARDS A PROTOTYPICAL INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTION.... 87 4.4 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Dependent Case Is Not Enough
    When dependent case is not enough András Bárány, [email protected] SOAS University of London Michelle Sheehan, [email protected] Anglia Ruskin University 9 May 2019, GLOW 42, University of Oslo Our claims • Even if dependent case exists, we need case-assignment via Agree • CPs can be case competitors, but do not get case-marking • Agreement-based case splits in Romance, Kashmiri and elsewhere suggests a closer link between φ-features and case than in dependent case theory • It is possible to adapt both Agree and dependent case to these patterns but we argue that Agree is often more parsimonious 1 The dependent case approach (1) Dependent case theory Morphologically marked cases (acc/erg/dat) result from a relationship between two DPs rather than from a relationship between a head and a DP. There are many different versions of this general approach, e.g. Anderson (1976), Yip, Maling & Jackendoff (1987), Marantz (1991), Bittner & Hale (1996), McFadden (2004), Baker & Vinokurova (2010), M. C. Baker (2015), Levin & Preminger (2015), Nash (2017). • M. C. Baker (2015) argues that dependent cases are determined at the phase level and as- signed at the transfer to spell-out bárány & sheehan — dep. case — GLOW 42 (2) Dependent case by c-command (M. C. Baker 2015: 48–49, our emphasis) a. If there are two distinct NPs in the same spell out domain such that NP1 c-commands NP2, then value the case feature of NP2 as accusative unless NP1 has already been marked for case. b. If there are two distinct NPs in the same spell out domain such that NP1 c-commands NP2, then value the case feature of NP1 as ergative unless NP2 has already been marked for case.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Intentional Action in the Grammar of Kathmandu Newari
    THE CONCEPT OF INTENTIONAL ACTION IN THE GRAMMAR OF KATHMANDU NEWARI by DAVID J. HARGREAVES A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Linguistics and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 1991 ii APPROVED: Dr. Scott DeLancey iii An Abstract of the Dissertation of David J. Hargreaves for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Linguistics to be taken August 1991 Title: THE CONCEPT OF INTENTIONAL ACTION IN THE GRAMMAR OF KATHMANDU NEWARI Approved: Dr. Scott DeLancey This study describes the relationship between the concept of intentional action and the grammatical organization of the clause in Kathmandu Newari, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken primarily in the Kathmandu valley of Nepal. In particular, the study focuses on the conceptual structure of "intentional action" along with the lexical, morphological, and syntactic reflexes of this notion in situated speech. The construal of intentional action consists of two distinct notions: one involving the concept of self-initiated force and the other involving mental representation or awareness. The distribution of finite inflectional forms for verbs results from the interaction of these two notions with a set of evidential/discourse principles which constrain the attribution of intentional action to certain discourse roles in situated interaction. iv VITA NAME OF AUTHOR: David J. Hargreaves PLACE OF BIRTH: Detroit, Michigan DATE OF BIRTH: March 10, 1955 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Argument Structure and Argument Structure Alternations Gillian Ramchand
    9 Argument structure and argument structure alternations Gillian Ramchand 9.1 Introduction One of the major scientific results of Chomskian syntactic theory is the understanding that the symbolic representations of natural language are structured, by which I mean that symbols are organized in hierarchical constituent data structures, and are not simply linearly ordered strings or lists of memorized items. The semantic ‘arguments’ of predicates are expressed within natural language data structures, and therefore also form part of structured representations. This chapter is devoted to exam- ining the major theoretical results pertaining to the semantics of verbal predicate argument relations and their systematic patterning in lan- guage. However, we will see that even isolating the logical domain of inquiry will involve certain deep questions about the architecture of grammar, and the relationship between listedness and compositional semantics. Historically, the most important results in argument structure have come from those studying the properties of the Lexicon as a module of grammar, for a number of rather natural reasons as we will see. While this chapter will aim to give the reader a clear historical and ideological con- text for the subject matter and will document major influential strands of research, it will primarily concentrate on extracting the generalizations that I judge to be the lasting results of the past fifty years, and then secondarily, draw attention to the (still unresolved) architectural and theoretical issues that are specific to this domain. Section 9.2 gives the perspective on the issues from the vantage point of the Lexicon, i.e. the practical problem of deciding how much and what kind of information is necessary for the listing of verbal lexical entries.
    [Show full text]
  • Ditransitive Constructions Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig (Germany) 23-25 November 2007
    Conference on Ditransitive Constructions Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig (Germany) 23-25 November 2007 Abstracts On “Dimonotransitive” Structures in English Carmen Aguilera Carnerero University of Granada Ditransitive structures have been prototypically defined as those combinations of a ditransitive verb with an indirect object and a direct object. However, although in the prototypical ditransitive construction in English, both objects are present, there is often omission of one of the constituentes, usually the indirect object. The absence of the indirect object has been justified on the basis of the irrelevance of its specification or the possibility of recovering it from the context. The absence of the direct object, on the other hand, is not so common and only occur with a restricted number of verbs (e.g. pay, show or tell).This type of sentences have been called “dimonotransitives” by Nelson, Wallis and Aarts (2002) and the sole presence in the syntactic structure arises some interesting questions we want to clarify in this article, such as: (a) the degree of syntactic and semantic obligatoriness of indirect objects and certain ditransitive verbs (b) the syntactic behaviour of indirect objects in absence of the direct object, in other words, does the Oi take over some of the properties of typical direct objects as Huddleston and Pullum suggest? (c) The semantic and pragmatic interpretations of the missing element. To carry out our analysis, we will adopt a corpus –based approach and especifically we will use the International Corpus of English (ICE) for the most frequent ditransitive verbs (Mukherjee 2005) and the British National Corpus (BNC) for the not so frequent verbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntax Case Theory
    Syntax Case Theory Modul 04-006-2002 Phonology – Morphology – Syntax Institut für Linguistik Universität Leipzig home.uni-leipzig.de/heck Morphological case Point of departure: Many languages involve morphological case marking on noun phrases (and its dependents, such as determiners and adjectives). How many different morphological cases there are depends on the language. German, for instance, distinguishes nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative (1-a-d). (1) a. Die blaue Elise schlä. the.nom blue.nom Elise.nom sleeps b. Die blaue Elise bedarf der Hilfe (der Ameise). the blue Elise needs the.gen help.gen the.gen ant.gen c. Die Ameise entkommt der blauen Elise. the ant escapes the.dat blue.dat Elise.dat d. Die blaue Elise hat einen Plan. the blue Elise has a.acc plan.acc Structural and abstract case The syntactic dependency of case: (Morphological) case is syntactically dependent. The case on an NP depends on the abstract syntactic structure the NP shows up in. In German, for instance, the object of a verb generally bears accusative, the subject generally bears nominative. Such cases do not depend on the concrete predicate that is involved (2): structural case. Even if a case is not always morphologically visible (cf. no morphological marking on the noun Elise itself in (2-a-c)), it is assumed to be abstractly present. (2) a. Die blaue Elise hat einen Plan. the.nom blue.nom Elise.nom has a.acc plan.acc b. Die blaue Elise hasst die Ameise. the.nom blue.nom Elise.nom hates the.acc ant.acc c. Die Ameise überlisted die blaue Elise.
    [Show full text]
  • Atypology of Marked-S Languages
    A typology of marked-S languages Corinna Handschuh language Studies in Diversity Linguistics, No 1 science press Studies in Diversity Linguistics Chief Editor: Martin Haspelmath Consulting Editors: Fernando Zúñiga, Peter Arkadiev, Ruth Singer, Pilar Valen zuela In this series: 1. Handschuh, Corinna. A typology of marked-S languages 2. Rießler, Michael. Adjective attribution 3. Klamer, Marian (ed.). The Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology 4. Berghäll, Liisa. A grammar of Mauwake (Papua New Guinea) A typology of marked-S languages Corinna Handschuh language science press Language Science Press Berlin Language Science Press Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14195 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/18 © 2014, Corinna Handschuh Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-944675-19-0 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Corinna Handschuh Proofreading: Eitan Grossman, Daniel W. Hieber, Aaron Sonnenschein Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Language Science Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, ac- curate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables and other factual information given in this work are correct at the time of first publication but Language Science Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter. Für Tommeck Contents Acknowledgments ix List of abbreviations xi I Preliminaries 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Marked-S coding ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Ergativity: Analysis • Explore Related Articles • Search Keywords and Identification
    LI02CH09-Deal ARI 5 December 2015 12:3 ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: • Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations Syntactic Ergativity: Analysis • Explore related articles • Search keywords and Identification Amy Rose Deal Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2016. 2:165–85 Keywords The Annual Review of Linguistics is online at ergativity, A¯ movement, inherent case, dependent case, case discrimination, linguist.annualreviews.org agent focus, wh-agreement, antiagreement, typology, morphology, syntax This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040642 Abstract Copyright c 2016 by Annual Reviews. Some languages showing morphological ergativity in case and/or agreement All rights reserved also show ergative patterns in core syntactic domains—syntactic ergativity. The most-studied type of syntactic ergativity is a ban on the A¯ movement of ergative subjects; an additional type concerns the distribution of abso- lutives in nonfinite clauses. This article first presents the standard view of syntactic ergativity, which is closely connected to the treatment of ergative as an inherent case. Evidence from Shipibo suggests that a ban on erga- ¯ Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2016.2:165-185. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org tive A extraction does not require inherent ergative. This points to a view of syntactic ergativity centered around morphological case discrimination. Access provided by University of California - Berkeley on 01/25/16. For personal use only. One consequence is that pure head-marking languages cannot feature a true ban on ergative extraction, because ergative morphological case is not in use.
    [Show full text]
  • Sketch of the Grammar of Kubachi the Simple Sentence
    Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics 221 Working Papers 38 (1991), 221-36 Sketch of the Grammar of Kubachi The simple sentence Karina Yamling and Revaz Tchantouria In this paper we present a sketch of Kubachi, a language spoken in the mountainous Dagestan in the Eastern part of the Caucasus. We focus on the major nominal and verbal categories and the structure of the simple sentence. A specific feature of Kubachi is its mixed system of noun class and person marking, which is shown to correlate with a split ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative alignment of the marking of grammatical relations. Kubachi has also a rich system of non-finite verb forms, including participles, gerunds, verbal nouns and infinitives. 1. Introduction In this paper we describe major nominal and verbal categories in Kubachi and give a characterisation of the marking of grammatical relations in the simple sentence. A substantial part of the paper is also devoted to non-finite verb forms and the marking of grammatical relations in non-finite clauses. Our goal is to provide a grammar of the simple sentence, which may serve as the necessary background to a forthcoming paper on the complement structures of Kubachi. We are most grateful to professor Aleksandr Magometov of the Georgian Academy of Sciences for helping us with material about Kubachi and acting as our informant. His monograph about the grammar of Kubachi (Magometov 1963 (=M.)) has been our main source about the language. Where not otherwise noted, the examples given in the paper have been elicited during field work. The representation of the Kubachi examples is given in IPA symbols, but otherwise follows the system used in Magometov 1963 (see Appendix).
    [Show full text]
  • The Basque Auxiliary Verb: Morphosyntactic Analysis and Implications for Second Language Acquisition
    THE BASQUE AUXILIARY VERB: MORPHOSYNTACTIC ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics By Laura Siebecker, M.S. Washington, DC March 25, 2015 Copyright 2015 by Laura Siebecker All Rights Reserved ii THE BASQUE AUXILIARY VERB: MORPHOSYNTACTIC ANALYSIS AND IMPLCATIONS FOR SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Laura Siebecker, M.S. Thesis Advisor: Ruth T. Kramer, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This dissertation presents a morphosyntactic analysis of the Basque auxiliary verb (AUX) and Case system. Based on this analysis, predictions for the trajectory of acquisition of AUX and Case marking by Spanish-speaking adult learners were generated and tested in a pilot study. Findings provide a solid foundation for future research, particularly into the impact of age of initial exposure to Basque. AUX is a highly complex, multi-morphemic structure that includes clitics doubling the subject, direct object, and indirect object arguments. The distribution of these clitics is claimed to be further restricted by their featural content and the arguments with which they co-occur (Arregi & Nevins, 2012). The patterning of doubled clitics in Basque proves a challenge to many analyses of this phenomenon (e.g., Jaeggli, 1992; Roberts, 2010; Sportiche, 1996; Suñer, 1988; Uriagereka, 1995). Further, current analyses of clitic doubling in Basque (Arregi & Nevins, 2012) are predicated on questionable assumptions about underlying syntactic structure. The analysis here extends the M-merger approach to clitic doubling (Harizanov, 2014; Kramer, 2014) to the Basque data, suggesting further restrictions and modifications to this operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitivity and Intransitivity in English and Arabic: a Comparative Study
    International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2015, Vol. 7, No. 6 Transitivity and Intransitivity in English and Arabic: A Comparative Study Yasir Bdaiwi Jasim Al-Shujairi Faculty of Modern Language and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia E-mail: [email protected] Ahlam Muhammed Faculty of Modern Language and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia E-mail: [email protected] Yazan Shaker Okla Almahammed Faculty of major languages studies, Islamic Science University of Malaysia ‘USIM’, Malaysia E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 20, 2015 Accepted: October 31, 2015 Published: December xx, 2015 doi:10.5296/ijl.v7i6.8744 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v7i6.8744 Abstract English and Arabic are two major languages which have many differences and similarities in grammar. One of the issues which is of great importance in the two languages is transitivity and intransitivity. Therefore, this study compares and contrasts transitivity and intransitivity in English and Arabic. This study reports the results of the analysis of transitivity and intransitivity in the two respective languages. The current study is a qualitative one; in nature, a descriptive study. The findings showed that English and Arabic are similar in having 38 www.macrothink.org/ijl International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2015, Vol. 7, No. 6 transitive and intransitive verbs, and in having verbs which can go transitive or intransitive according to context. By contrast Arabic is different from English in its ability to change intransitive verbs into transitive ones by applying inflections on the main verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Verb Formation in Eskimo*
    JANE GRIMSHAW AND RALF-ARMIN MESTER COMPLEX VERB FORMATION IN ESKIMO* 0. INTRODUCTION Polysynthetic languages characteristically exhibit complex verb forms: single lexical items which correspond in meaning to entire clauses in languages like English. This paper presents an analysis of Labrador Inuttut (LI) derivational morphology in which passive, antipassive, and the complex verb formation rules themselves are all morphological opera- tions. General principles of well-formedness and the interaction among lexical rules then explain the fundamental characteristics of the complex verb system: the internal structure and general syntactic behavior of complex verbs, restrictions on the application of complex verb formation, and the appearance of recursion within complex verbs. We begin with a brief description of the grammatical system of LI. Then we give our analysis of complex verb formation and present the results which follow from our approach. Finally we argue that to obtain these results would require considerable stipulation in a non-lexical account. 1. GRAMMATICAL BACKGROUND Our data are drawn largely from Smith's studies of Labrador Inuttut (Smith, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982a, 1982b). LI is an Inuit Eskimo dialect which has an ergative case system (Comrie, 1973; Dixon, 1979; Plank, 1979; Levin, 1983). Both the subject of an intransitive verb and the direct object of a transitive verb receive absolutive case, and the subject of a transitive verb is marked with ergative case. 1 A transitive verb agrees in person and number with both its subject and its object, and an intransitive * This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants IST 81-20403 to Brandeis University and BNS 80-14730 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and by a fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies to the first author.
    [Show full text]
  • Split Intransitivity in Basque
    cambridge occasional papers in linguistics COP i L Volume 11, Article 1: 001–035, 2018 j ISSN 2050-5949 Split intransitivity in Basque J a m e s B a k e r University of Cambridge Abstract e split intransitive case system of Basque has been a topic of some interest in the literature; this article identies the semantic basis of this paern and also other split intransitive paerns in the language. It is shown that split intransitivity in Basque presents further support for Sorace’s (2000) Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy. However, it is also shown that dierent split intransitivity diagnostics identied dierent classes of verbs, and that this creates diculties for the traditional Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmuer 1978); an alternative account based in a more rened understanding of syntactic argument structure is sketched (cf. Baker 2017, Baker 2018). 1 Introduction is article contributes to the discussion of ‘split intransitivity’: phenomena whereby certain intransitive or monovalent predicates are observed to allow particular mor- phosyntactic behaviours where others are not. Specically, its purpose is to provide a descriptive account of various ‘split intransitive’ paerns in Basque. e best- known manifestation of this type of paern in the language comes in its system of case, agreement and auxiliary selection. Consider the examples in (1), both exempli- fying monovalent verbs. In (1a), the argument of the verb occurs with the ergative case ending -k, whereas in (1b) it occurs in the zero-marked absolutive: (1) a. Gizon-a-k ikasi du. man-def-erg studied has ‘e man has studied.’ b. Gizon-a-Ø etorri da.
    [Show full text]