DOCSLIB.ORG

Extraction from Gerunds and the Internal Syntax of Verbs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extraction from Gerunds and the Internal Syntax of Verbs Linguistics 2016; 54(6): 1307–1354 Antonio Fábregas and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández* Extraction from gerunds and the internal syntax of verbs DOI 10.1515/ling-2016-0029 Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of transparent gerunds in Spanish, as in ¿Qué llegó [silbando qué] Juan? ‘What arrived [whistling what] Juan?’, using a decomposition of Aktionsart in a series of syntactic heads. A traditional analysis of these secondary predicates as adjuncts would undermine well-established syntactic principles restricting movement and extraction. We argue that these transparent gerunds should be analyzed as syntactic constituents merged as part of the syntactic projections associated with Aktionsart. More precisely, they qualify as RhemePs – assuming Ramchand’s First Phase Syntax system – thus allowing their arguments to be extracted. Well-attested differences between Spanish and English gerunds will be explained in our analysis by proposing that the Spanish gerund projects as PathP (given it carries a path preposition), whereas English gerunds are simply RhemeP (lacking any sort of preposition). Keywords: Aktionsart, extraction, complex predicates, gerunds, process, Spanish 1 The decomposition of Aktionsart Aktionsart is one of the main criteria to classify lexical verbs in linguistic analysis. Throughout the years, it has become clear that rather than atomic notions, labels such as activity, accomplishment or achievement have to be decomposed at some level and treated as complex structures built with primi- tives like causation, become, etc. In Pustejovsky (1991), notions such as causa- tion and result are independent primitives in the lexical semantics of predicates (cf. Jackendoff 1983; Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995). Harley (1995) proposes different flavors of heads, differentiated by the semantic contribution of the events they express. Other authors equally decompose Aktionsart, but do it syntactically: Pesetsky (1995), Kempchinsky (2000) and Ramchand (2008), among others. Beyond the disagreement, however, we find the common *Corresponding author: Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Departamento de Filología Inglesa (Lengua Inglesa), C/ Palos de la Frontera s/n, 41004 Sevilla, Spain, E-mail: [email protected] Antonio Fábregas, Institute of Language and Culture, University of Tromsø-Norway’s Arctic University, 9037 Tromsø, Norway, E-mail: [email protected] 1308 Antonio Fábregas and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández proposal that what we interpret as an event is in fact a structure with internal complexity. This article uses event-decomposition to analyze a pattern of data that presents difficulties for standard approaches to how movement is restricted: cases where gerunds in Spanish, such as the underlined constituents in (1), allow extraction of one of their constituents (Borgonovo and Neeleman 2000).1 (1) a. ¿Qué llegó [silbando qué] María? what arrived-3SG Whistling María? ‘What did María arrive whistling?’ b. ¿Qué entró [diciendo qué] Juan? what entered-3SG saying Juan? ‘What did John came in saying?’ These gerunds do not have an argumental nature, nor are they analyzable as forming periphrases with the main predicate. Analyzing them as adjuncts would seriously undermine well-established syntactic principles: at least since Huang’s (1982) Condition on Extraction Domains it has been established that adjuncts are islands, and the generalization seems to be robust in Spanish for true adjuncts (adverbial subordinate clauses):2 (2) *¿Qué entró Juan [para que María nos dijera qué]? what entered-3SG Juan so that María us told-3SG ‘What did John came in to say?’ 1 As Liliane Haegeman (p.c.) points out, infinitival clauses can also show the same properties of extraction as gerunds: What did you come back to do? We are not dealing with infinitive clauses in this work. However, our intuition is that this type of clauses with a preposition to and an infinitive is also integrated in one single structural space with the finite verb (presumably as an argument of the head denoting the process of the event), thereby allowing extraction. 2 The validity of CED has been called into question since it was proposed in the 80’s. See Haegeman et al. (2014) for an overview of the problems that the CED has to face and for a proposal based on the decomposition of the island constraint into different rules. Also, Ignacio Bosque (p.c.) points out to us that there are sentences like el juguetei que tu hija se pondrá muy contenta [si le compras ti] ‘the toyi that your daughter will be very happy [if you buy her ti]’, which are apparent extractions from a conditional clause. However, we disagree with this claim. Such constructions are ungrammatical if the alleged extraction involved a prepositionally marked constituent *el chico al que tu hija se pondrá muy contenta si le presentas ti, ‘the boy a-that your daughter will be very happy if you introduce her ti’. This suggests that here we have no movement and that the analysis should involve base-generation of the putative antecedent in a peripheral position. Extraction from gerunds 1309 Borgonovo and Neeleman (2000) treat cases like (1), and argue for an analysis where the gerund – which, following Borgonovo (1994), is always an adjunct in Spanish – is L-marked; this L-marking makes extraction possible. Other accounts, such as Demonte (1987), posit an operation of reanalysis (Zwart 1993; Stowell 1995) and use a modified definition of c-command to account for similar cases. Finally, Truswell (2007) has proposed that the pattern should receive a purely semantic analysis. Our account takes seriously the notion of event-decomposition and applies it to these cases to show that the gerund constituent is projected as one of the subevents in the verbal domain. In implementing this idea, we follow Ramchand’s (2008) syntactic account of event structure, where each subevent corresponds to one head. We argue that this treatment accounts for cases like (1) without operations like reanalysis, and captures the Aktionsart restrictions and the argument restrictions of these constructions without the need to postu- late independent (and additional) operations. This is the core of our proposal. Assume that the maximal amount of aspectual material that can be syntactically projected inside the verbal domain is [Init [Proc [Rheme [Res]]]] (as in John ran into the water), as Ramchand (2008) proposes. We will argue that the Spanish transparent gerunds in (1) project as Path Phrases in the rheme position of that syntactic sequence. In (3) the gerund occupies the position of Rheme Object – an entity whose internal parts are identified with those of the main predicate. (3) InitP DP Init Init ProcP DP Proc Proc RhemeP finite verb DP Rheme Rheme ... Gerund structure Morphophonologically, the gerund and the main verb look like two distinct verbs because there are two distinct lexical exponents, but as far as syntax is concerned, there is only one verbal structure. Thus, the gerund is not an adjunct 1310 Antonio Fábregas and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández and it is not an auxiliary verb – because it is not lexicalizing functional structure above the lexical verb –.3 Extraction of a constituent out of the gerund structure is allowed because it is movement of a constituent contained inside the struc- tural space of the only verbal structure in the clause. This is, in our account, the reason that there are transparent gerunds: the gerund can project as one of the members in the verbal sequence [Init [Proc [Rheme [Res]]]]. Language-specific differences depend on the nature of the gerund in each language. The Spanish gerund always involves a Path preposition, which only allows it to project as Rheme when integrated with the verb; the English gerund does not involve such preposition, so its distribution is more flexible. The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, we describe transparent gerunds in Spanish in more detail, and highlight their differences with English. In Section 3, we review a purely semantic analysis of the phenomenon and point out the problems that it faces in Spanish. In Section 4, we start with the analysis, identifying the syntactic heads that are necessary to define lexical verbs and gerunds in the syntax; we also present the differences between the Spanish and the English gerund in Subsection 4.4. In Section 5, we put the pieces together and in Section 6 we show how the resulting configurations can explain, without further assumptions, the constraints noted in Section 2. 2 Empirical data: Extraction from gerunds and its restrictions in Spanish Let us concentrate on the structures in (1). In this section we show that the gerunds cannot be analyzed as part of a periphrasis or as arguments of the main verb. These gerunds do not behave in the expected way if they formed a peri- phrasis with the main verb. The gerund is not selected by the main predicate, since its absence does not trigger any change in meaning or ungrammaticality (compare 4 with 5). 3 Another potential option would be that the gerund is treated as a Cinquean verbal head allowing restructuring (Rizzi 1982). There are two reasons why we do not find this approach plausible for our data. The first one is that given the hierarchical ordering (Cinque 1999), the gerund would precede the main predicate; however, the order between main verb and gerund is rigidly Verb-Gerund. The second is that, from what we know from bona fide restructuring cases, this would force at least one of the two predicates to acquire a semi-auxiliary flavour, aspectual or modal; this is not the case in our examples, where both verbs keep their conceptual meaning and cannot be reanalysed as modal or aspectual heads. Extraction from gerunds 1311 (4) Juan está *(fregando los platos). Juan is-3SG washing the dishes ‘Juan is washing the dishes.’ (5) María llegó (silbando una canción). María arrived-3SG whistling a song ‘María arrived whistling a song.’ Note also that if the main verb was selecting the gerund as an argument, its optionality would come as a surprise.
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]
  • Verbals: Participle Or Gerund? | Verbals Worksheets
    Name: ___________________________Key VErbals: Participle or Gerund? A participle is a verb form that functions as an adjective in a sentence. A gerund is a verb form that functions as a noun in a sentence. Below are sentences using either a participle or a gerund. Read each sentence carefully. Write which verbal form appears in the sentence in the blank. 1. The jumping frog landed in her lap. _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Lucinda had a calling to help other people. _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. The mother barely caught the crawling baby before he went into the street. _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. The house was filled with a haunting spector. _______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Running in the halls is strictly forbidden. _______________________________________________________________________________ 6. They won the award for caring for sick animals. _______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Paul bought new climbing gear. _______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Escaping was the only thought he had. _______________________________________________________________________________ Copyright © 2014 K12reader.com. All Rights Reserved. Free for educational use at home or in classrooms. www.k12reader.com Name: ___________________________Key VErbals: Participle
    [Show full text]
  • TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR REVIEW I. Parts of Speech Traditional
    Traditional Grammar Review Page 1 of 15 TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR REVIEW I. Parts of Speech Traditional grammar recognizes eight parts of speech: Part of Definition Example Speech noun A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. John bought the book. verb A verb is a word which expresses action or state of being. Ralph hit the ball hard. Janice is pretty. adjective An adjective describes or modifies a noun. The big, red barn burned down yesterday. adverb An adverb describes or modifies a verb, adjective, or He quickly left the another adverb. room. She fell down hard. pronoun A pronoun takes the place of a noun. She picked someone up today conjunction A conjunction connects words or groups of words. Bob and Jerry are going. Either Sam or I will win. preposition A preposition is a word that introduces a phrase showing a The dog with the relation between the noun or pronoun in the phrase and shaggy coat some other word in the sentence. He went past the gate. He gave the book to her. interjection An interjection is a word that expresses strong feeling. Wow! Gee! Whew! (and other four letter words.) Traditional Grammar Review Page 2 of 15 II. Phrases A phrase is a group of related words that does not contain a subject and a verb in combination. Generally, a phrase is used in the sentence as a single part of speech. In this section we will be concerned with prepositional phrases, gerund phrases, participial phrases, and infinitive phrases. Prepositional Phrases The preposition is a single (usually small) word or a cluster of words that show relationship between the object of the preposition and some other word in the sentence.
    [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]
  • Complex Adpositions and Complex Nominal Relators Benjamin Fagard, José Pinto De Lima, Elena Smirnova, Dejan Stosic
    Introduction: Complex Adpositions and Complex Nominal Relators Benjamin Fagard, José Pinto de Lima, Elena Smirnova, Dejan Stosic To cite this version: Benjamin Fagard, José Pinto de Lima, Elena Smirnova, Dejan Stosic. Introduction: Complex Adpo- sitions and Complex Nominal Relators. Benjamin Fagard, José Pinto de Lima, Dejan Stosic, Elena Smirnova. Complex Adpositions in European Languages : A Micro-Typological Approach to Com- plex Nominal Relators, 65, De Gruyter Mouton, pp.1-30, 2020, Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 978-3-11-068664-7. 10.1515/9783110686647-001. halshs-03087872 HAL Id: halshs-03087872 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03087872 Submitted on 24 Dec 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Public Domain Benjamin Fagard, José Pinto de Lima, Elena Smirnova & Dejan Stosic Introduction: Complex Adpositions and Complex Nominal Relators Benjamin Fagard CNRS, ENS & Paris Sorbonne Nouvelle; PSL Lattice laboratory, Ecole Normale Supérieure, 1 rue Maurice Arnoux, 92120 Montrouge, France [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • What Does the Copula Do? Kunio Nishiyama Cornell University, [email protected]
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4 | Issue 2 Article 15 1-1-1997 What Does the Copula Do? Kunio Nishiyama Cornell University, [email protected] This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss2/15 For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Does the Copula Do? This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/ iss2/15 What Does the Copula Do?* Kunio Nishiyama 1. Introduction It is widely assumed in the literature on the copula that there are at least two kinds of copula (cf. Higgins 1973): (1) a. John is a boy. (predicative) b. Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde. (equative) It is controversial whether these different usages should be treated differently or can be given a unified account, and this is not my concern here. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the syntactic structure of predicative copular sentences like (1a) from a crosslinguistic perspective. Since Bach (1967), it has often been claimed that the copula is a tense-supporter.1 For example, Rapoport (1987: 152ff) notes the following contrast: (2) a. I consider [Xeli a nut]. b. Xeli *(is) a nut. In a small clause structure like (2a), no copula is necessary, even though there seems to be a predication relation between Xeli and a nut. In the matrix sentence, however, the copula is necessary (2b). Since (2a) shows that the copula is not necessary for predication, Rapoport (1987: 157) claims that “[b]e is inserted to support the feature of INFL, in the cases above [2b] the features of tense ([- past]) and agreement.” According to this hypothesis, (3) is analyzed as (4): (3) Sal was strong.
    [Show full text]