Split intransitivity Thematic roles, case and agreement James Samuel Baker Trinity Hall September 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract Split intransitivity: Thematic roles, case and agreement James Baker This dissertation is an extended argument for the syntactic structure proposed in (1), re- ferred to as the VICTR Hierarchy after the initials of the ve functional heads it comprises: (1) VolitionP Volition InitiationP Initiation ConsecutionP Consecution TransitionP Transition ResultP Result VP The VICTR Hierarchy is a hierarchy of functional heads corresponding to the part of the clause generally known in the minimalist literature as ‘vP’ or the ‘thematic domain’. Nominal argumentsaremergedin thespeciersofone ormore oftheseheads and receive their thematic interpretations on the basis of their merged positions. Evidence for a model of thematic roles and syntactic argument structure based in the VICTR Hierarchy is presented for a range of domains, with a focus on split intransitivity. Split intransitivity is explored initially in regard to English, with close consideration of a range of split intransitive diagnostics (e.g. out-prexation, the resultative construction); a VICTR account of these patterns is presented. A VICTR account of auxiliary selection patterns in Western European languages is also given. This is followed by analysis of split intransitive case and agreement systems. A formal account of the case and agreement patterns in these languages based in the VICTR hierarchy is presented, derived in part from the inherent case theory of ergativity (Legate 2002, Aldridge 2004 and others) and drawing on a detailed typology. The dissertation then proceeds to de- tailed analysis of the semantic basis of split intransitive alignment in two languages, Basque iii and Georgian. Other split intransitive behaviours in these languages are also considered in VICTR terms. Throughout, the VICTR approach is compared to other approaches to split intransitivity following Perlmutter’s (1978) Unaccusative Hypothesis. The VICTR Hierarchy is also com- pared to the similar proposal of Ramchand (2008). It is argued that the VICTR Hierarchy accounts more readily than these other approaches for the particular classes of verbs identi- ed by split intransitivity diagnostics in the languages considered, and also for cross-linguistic variation in split intransitive behaviours. Much support, with some caveats, is also found in the data considered for the applicability of Sorace’s (2000) Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (ASH) to a range of split intransitive phe- nomena cross-linguistically. Together with acquisitional considerations, the VICTR features are argued to allow for a formalisation of the patterns described by the ASH. iv To my parents for their support and to Abisola v vi Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specied in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualication at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specied in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualication at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specied in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. James Baker September 2018 vii viii Contents Abstract iii Preface vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aimsandoverview ................................. 1 1.1.1 TheVICTRHierarchy ........................... 1 1.1.2 ComparisonwithRamchand(2008) . 4 1.1.3 ThesemanticsoftheVICTRHierarchy . 6 1.1.4 Aims: split intransitivity, case and agreement . 12 1.2 The VICTR Hierarchy in the wider theoretical context . ...... 17 1.2.1 Thecartographicenterprise . 17 1.2.2 Approachestothematicroles . 20 1.2.3 Event-structurebasedapproaches. 22 1.2.4 Syntacticapproachestoargumentstructure . 22 1.3 The loci and limits of variation . 26 1.3.1 UTAH and a Generalised Linking Rule . 27 1.3.2 The Borer-Chomsky Conjecture and variation in formal features . 28 1.3.3 Summaryandoutlook ........................... 31 2 English (and other Western European languages) 33 2.1 Introduction ..................................... 33 2.2 Split intransitivity diagnostics in English . 33 2.2.1 Methodology ................................ 34 2.2.2 Thecausativealternation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 38 2.2.3 Theresultativeconstruction . 41 2.2.4 Attributivepastparticiples. 44 2.2.5 Inherenttelicity............................... 46 2.2.6 Diagnostics of consecution verbs . 47 2.2.7 Verbs of non-agentive internal causation . 56 2.2.8 Two non-diagnostics: locative inversion and there-insertion . 58 2.2.9 Summary .................................. 59 2.3 FurtheradvantagesoftheVICTRapproach . ...... 59 ix 2.3.1 TheVICTRapproachandtheUnaccusativeHypothesis . 59 2.3.2 TheVICTRapproachincomparisonto Ramchand(2008) . 63 2.4 The VICTR Hierarchy and the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy . ...... 65 2.4.1 Introducing the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy . 65 2.4.2 TheASHandtheVICTRHierarchy. 68 2.4.3 ComparisonwithRamchand(2008) . 81 2.4.4 Explaining ASH eects in English . 82 2.5 Conclusion...................................... 83 3 The typology of split intransitive alignment 85 3.1 Introduction ..................................... 85 3.1.1 Alignmenttypology ............................ 86 3.1.2 Terminology ................................ 89 3.2 Theformalmodelofcaseandagreement . 90 3.2.1 Introduction................................. 90 3.2.2 The existing theoretical background . 91 3.2.3 Case/agreement and the features of functional heads . 93 3.3 The semantic basis of split intransitive alignment . 99 3.3.1 Introduction................................. 99 3.3.2 [ volition] ................................. 100 ± 3.3.3 [ initiation] . 101 ± 3.3.4 [ consecution]............................... 101 ± 3.3.5 Stativity ................................... 102 3.3.6 Otherfeatures................................ 103 3.3.7 Interactionoffeatures . 105 3.3.8 Theroleoflexicalidiosyncrasy . 106 3.3.9 Conclusion ................................. 108 3.4 The relation of split intransitive and other alignment types . 110 3.4.1 The relation of alignment and basic word order . 111 3.4.2 The relation of alignment and overt marking of arguments . 112 3.4.3 The relation of alignment and voice systems . 113 3.4.4 ‘Split split intransitive’ . 114 3.4.5 Split intransitive alignment and non-canonical subject marking . 118 3.4.6 Conclusion ................................. 118 3.5 Moreoncase/agreementmismatches . 119 3.6 Acquisitional limits on variation . 128 3.7 Comparisonwithotherapproaches . 133 3.7.1 Otherapproachestocase . 134 3.7.2 Other approaches to split intransitivity . 137 3.8 Conclusion...................................... 144 x 4 Basque 159 4.1 Introduction ..................................... 159 4.2 The semantic basis of the case split in Basque . 161 4.2.1 Sourcesofdata ............................... 161 4.2.2 Transition verbs and patientive . 164 4.2.3 Consecution verbs and agentive . 167 4.2.4 Stateverbs.................................. 173 4.2.5 Summary .................................. 173 4.3 Basque case assignment and the VICTR Hierarchy . 174 4.3.1 Introduction................................. 174 4.3.2 Basque’s ‘extended accusative’ split intransitive case system...... 175 4.3.3 Formalisationofcase............................ 177 4.4 Other split intransitive behaviours in Basque . 184 4.4.1 Introduction................................. 184 4.4.2 Partitivecase ................................ 186 4.4.3 Telicity.................................... 188 4.4.4 Thecausativealternation . 190 4.4.5 Cognateobjectsetc. ............................ 193 4.4.6 Sux -(tzai)le ................................ 195 4.4.7 Theimpersonalconstruction . 197 4.4.8 Postnominal past participles . 199 4.4.9 Summary .................................. 201 4.5 TheVICTRHierarchyandotherapproaches . 203 4.5.1 TheUnaccusativeHypothesis . 203 4.5.2 Ramchand(2008) .............................. 207 4.6 Basqueandotherlanguages . 208 4.6.1 BasqueandEnglish............................. 208 4.6.2 Basque and the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy . 209 4.6.3 Basque and split intransitive alignment . 211 4.7 Conclusion...................................... 212 5 Georgian 213 5.1 Introduction ..................................... 213 5.2 The semantic basis of the case split in Georgian . 216 5.2.1 Introduction................................. 216 5.2.2 Transition verbs and patientive . 216 5.2.3 Volitional consecution verbs and agentive . 217 5.2.4 Uncontrolled consecutions . 218 5.2.5 States .................................... 218 5.2.6 Non-agentive internally caused verbs . 218 5.2.7 Summary .................................. 219 xi 5.3 Georgian as an ‘extended ergative-type’ split intransitive language....... 220 5.3.1 Introduction................................. 220 5.3.2 Noargumentfromraising . 220 5.3.3 Argumentsfromthematicproperties . 221 5.3.4 The argument from split split intransitivity . 223 5.3.5 Overtnessofmorphology . 224 5.3.6 Evidence that patientive is from T . 225 5.3.7 Nash:agentiveasdependentcase