A Theory of Lexical Functors: Light Heads in the Lexicon and the Syntax
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A THEORY OF LEXICAL FUNCTORS: LIGHT HEADS IN THE LEXICON AND THE SYNTAX by TAKERU SUZUKI B.Ed., Tokyo Gakugei University, 1984 M.Ed., Tokyo Gakugei University, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Linguistics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1997 © Takeru Suzuki, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This thesis advances a specific model of 1-syntax, based on Hale and Keyser (1993, 1994) and Dechaine (1996) as a point of departure, and also proposes a general theory of the relation between the lexicon and the syntax. One of the essential proposals that I make is the F\mctionalization Principle, which permits a lexical head to project a functional projection if and only if the meaning of the head is represented by 1-syntactic structure without any extra semantic features. I refer to this type of head as a light head. The Functionalization Principle leads us to a principled account of various lexical and functional uses of lexical items such as a passive morpheme -en and have. Examples that support my analysis range from adjectival and verbal passives (e.g. Mary is very pleased and The glass was broken by BUI), to constructions of alienable and inalienable possession (e.g. John has Jive bucks and John has blue eyes), to causative/experiential constructions (e.g. John had his students walk out of class), and to perfect constructions (e.g. Lucie has advised the prime minister). Furthermore, the analysis of possessive have is extended to possessive nominals (e.g. John's cat and John's eyes). I also examine the implications of the theories of 1-syntax and 1- functors for Case. I propose that 1-syntactic structure partly determines inherent Case whereas the 1-functor checks what I call l-Junctor Case through the Spec-head relation. Furthermore, I show that these analyses ii of inherent Case and 1-functors account for essential properties of possessive D (a genitive marker -*s), some Hindi marked subject constructions and Japanese experiential transitive constructions. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Light Heads 1 1.2 An Approach to Light Heads: Pure Structurality 4 1.3 Cases Determined by Lexical Heads and L-functors 5 1.4 Organization of the Thesis 8 CHAPTER 2 L-SYNTAX AND L-FUNCTORS 9 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 Development of Argument Structure 10 2.2.1 Generative Semantics 10 2.2.2 Argument Structure and 0-roles 13 2.2.3 Argument Structure and Aspect 20 2.2.4 0-roles and Aspect 28 2.2.5 Arguments and Functional Projection 30 2.3 The Projection Principle 34 2.4 Syntactic Morphology: Parallel Morphology 36 2.5 Lexical Syntax 39 2.5.1 Hale and Keyser (1993) 41 2.5.2 Hale and Keyser (1994): Lexical Categories 47 2.5.3 Dechaine (1996) 52 2.6 The Framework of L-syntax 55 2.6.1 General Organization of Grammar 56 2.6.2 L-syntactic Structure Formation 59 2.6.3 Constraining Recursion: Properties of Words' 65 2.6.4 Mapping Principles 67 2.6.4.1 L-syntactic Projection Principles 69 2.6.4.2 Canonical Morphosyntactic Realization of L- syntactic Heads 76 2.6.5 Overgeneration 81 2.6.6 'Eventivization' 83 2.6.6.1 Simple Event 84 2.6.6.2 Recursive Structure: Causative 86 2.6.6.2.1 Event over State 86 2.6.6.2.2 Event over Event 90 2.6.7 Stativization 90 2.6.7.1 Simple State 91 2.6.7.2 Stative Recursion and the Specifier Binding Condition 97 2.6.7.2.1 State over Event 97 2.6.7.2.2 Empty Arguments in L-syntax ... 102 iv 2.6.7.2.3 State over State 104 2.6.8 Agent/Causer Argument and v 105 2.6.9 L-syntax and S-syntax 107 2.7 Theory of L-functors 109 2.7.1 Questions 109 2.7.2 The Functionalization Principle Ill 2.7.3 L-functor and the Condition of Inclusiveness ...116 2.7.4 General Consequences 117 2.8 Additional Basic Assumptions 120 2.8.1 Be 120 2.8.2 Feature Checking 124 2.8.3 Word Order 126 2.9 Architecture of Syntax 127 CHAPTER 3 PARADIGMATIC LIGHT HEADS: -EN AND HAVE... 128 3.1 Introduction 128 3.2 Previous Studies: Unifying Verbal Passive and Perfect Participles 130 3.2.1 Fabb (1984) 131 3.2.2 Hoekstra (1986) 133 3.2.3 Cowper (1989) 136 3.2.4 Noonan (1992) 141 3.2.5 Cowper (1995) 147 3.2.6 Summary and Preview of My Analysis 152 3.3 Passives 153 3.3.1 L-syntactlc Passives 153 3.3.1.1 Lack of Agentive Interpretation 155 3.3.1.2 Resultatlve State 162 3.3.1.3 Time-stability 166 3.3.2 S-syntactic Passives 166 3.3.2.1 Agency 170 3.3.2.2 Lack of ResultatMty 170 3.3.2.3 Strong Crossover 172 3.3.2.4 Non-agentlve Passives 177 3.3.2.5 Variation of Verbal Passive Morphemes ... 181 3.3.3 Summary: Passive/Adjectival Morpheme 182 3.4 Have 185 3.4.1 Possession in L-syntax 186 3.4.1.1 Alienable Have 186 3.4.1.2 Intrinsic Possession: Possessive Nominals 187 3.4.1.3 Inalienable Have 191 3.4.2 S-syntactic Have 198 3.4.2.1 Ritter and Rosen (1993) .202 3.4.2.2 Experiential Interpretation: S-syntactic Complex Relation 204 3.4.2.3 Causative Interpretation: S-syntactic Simplex Relation 209 3.4.2.3.1 Indirect Causation 210 v 3.4.2.3.2 vP and Simplex Have 212 3.4.2.3.3 Indirect Causation and Non- causative Verbs 216 3.4.3 Summary: Have 217 3.5 Further Interactions among v, Have, and -En 220 3.5.1 Haue+S-syntactic -En 221 3.5.1.1 Experiential Interpretation 222 3.5.1.2 Causative Interpretation 227 3.5.2 Perfect Constructions 231 3.5.2.1 Leading Ideas of the Previous Analyses ...231 3.5.2.2 L-functor-based Analysis of the Perfect Construction 233 3.5.2.2.1 Perfect Auxiliary Have and Its Structure 233 3.5.2.2.2 Interpretation of Perfect Constructions 239 3.5.2.2.2.1 Thematic Relations ...239 3.5.2.2.2.2 Parsons' Resultant State ...239 3.5.2.3 Accusative Case Checking in Perfects ...243 3.5.3 Summary: Interactions 248 CHAPTER 4 L-FUNCTOR CASE AND INHERENT CASE 251 4.1 Introduction 251 4.2 Possessive D 252 4.2.1 Barker (1995) 253 4.2.2 Parallelism between Possessive D and Have 255 4.2.3 Possessive D as a Relational L-functor 258 4.2.3.1 Intrinsic/Inalienable Possession 259 4.2.3.2 Extrinsic/Alienable Possession 261 4.3 L-functor Case 263 4.3.1 L-functor Case Checking 263 4.3.2 Genitive Case Checking by Possessive D 264 4.3.3 Inalienable Possession and Genitive Subject ...267 4.3.4 Null L-functor Licensing 271 4.4 Inherent Case 273 4.4.1 Inherent Case Based on L-syntactic Configuration 269 4.4.2 Endpoint Coincidence and Dative Subject in Hindi 276 4.5 Hindi Perfect Constructions 283 4.5.1 ErgatMty in the Perfect Construction 284 4.5.2 Structure of the Perfect Construction 288 4.5.2.1 Perfective Morpheme -aa as an L-functor ...288 4.5.2.2 Empty Relational L-functor 290 4.5.2.3 Reflexive Binding 294 4.5.2.4 Agreement and Nominative Case 298 4.5.3 Ergative Case Checking 303 4.5.4 Ergative Case and 0-Role 305 4.6 (Apparent) Thematic Relatedness of L-functor Cases ...307 vi 4.6.1 D and Genitive Case 308 4.6.2 Ergative Case 309 4.6.3 Interpretability of Case Features 315 4.6.4 NLLP 317 4.6.5 Inherent Case Generalization 319 4.7 Japanese Experiential Transitive Constructions 320 4.7.1 Data 321 4.7.2 Japanese Causative/transitive 325 4.7.3 Experiential Transitlves as Headed by L-functors ...327 4.7.4 Licensing of L-functors and Overt Structural Case 330 4.8 Conclusion 334 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 336 5.1 Introduction 336 5.2 Summary 336 5.2.1 L-syntax 336 5.2.2 L-functors 329 5.3 Implications of the Theory of L-functors: Residual Questions 338 REFERENCES 343 APPENDIX DERIVING HAVE 357 1 Freeze (1992) 357 2 Kayne (1993) 359 3 Mahajan (1994) 363 4 Discussion 365 4.1 Some Cases against Incorporation 365 4.2 Absence of HAVE and Ergative Case 368 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thesis life has been unusual.