Argument structure licensing and Englishhave

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
KYUMIN KIM
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Causative Constructions ◽  
Theoretical Claim ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Typological Classification

This paper provides a unified syntactic account of the distribution of Englishhavein causative constructions (e.g.John had Mary read a book) and experiencer constructions (e.g.John had the student walk out of his classroom). It is argued thathaveis realized in the context of anapplicative head(Appl) and an event-introducer v, regardless of the type of v.Haveis spelled out in the causative when Appl merges under vCAUSE, and in the experiencer construction when Appl merges under vBE. This proposal is extended tohavein possessive constructions (e.g.John has a hat/a brother):haveis realized in the context of vBEand Appl. The proposed account provides empirical evidence for expanding the distribution of Appl: (i) a causative can take ApplP as a complement, which was absent in Pylkkänen's (2008) typological classification, and (ii) Appl can merge above Voice, contrary to Pylkkänen's analysis in which Appl is argued to always merge below VoiceP, never above. Moreover, the proposed account supports the theoretical claim that argument structure is licensed by functional syntactic structure; in particular, it shows that the relevant functional heads are not aspectual heads, but Appl and v.

scholarly journals Licensing of argument structures by functional heads: evidence from English have

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Kyumin Kim
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Theoretical Claim

This paper provides a unified syntactic account for the distribution of English have in causative and experiencer constructions. I argue that have is realized in the context of an applicative head (Appl) and an event introducer v, regardless of the type of v. In causative, have is spelled out when Appl merges under vCAUSE, and in experiencer when Appl merges under vBE. The proposed account supports a theoretical claim that argument structure is licensed by functional syntactic structure (Borer 2005); unlike this study, however, it shows that the relevant functional heads are not aspectual heads, but Appl and v.

Blackfoot causative formation between lexicon and grammar

Linguistics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge Genee
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Morphological Type ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
States Of Affairs ◽  
Lexical Unit ◽  
Causative Constructions ◽  
Discourse Grammar ◽  
Synthetic Construction ◽  
Causative Construction ◽  
Semantic Properties

AbstractThis article considers the treatment of causatives in Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) in relation to questions regarding the division of labor between the Grammar and the Lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). The focus is on causative constructions in which the causativizer affixes to the verb in so-called polysynthetic languages. In this respect the article also contributes to the treatment of polysynthesis in FDG. The central question is whether the causative construction is a derived lexeme created in the lexicon and inserted into the grammatical structure as a single lexical unit, or whether it is created in the grammar as a synthetic construction involving two lexical units. The article describes the pertinent morphosyntactic and semantic properties of causative constructions in Blackfoot, a polysynthetic language belonging to the Algonquian language family. I show that such constructions contain two events, each with their own semantic properties including argument structure and modifiability. In FDG this is accounted for by analyzing the semantic configuration at the Representational Level of analysis as a complex Episode consisting of two States-of-Affairs, while analyzing the morphosyntactic configuration at the Morphosyntactic Level as a complex verbal Word containing two verbal Roots, one of which is the causativizer. The causativizer is analyzed as an independent verbal lexeme stored in the lexicon rather than as derivational morpheme. This analysis follows logically from the way in which FDG conceptualizes polysynthesis, namely as a morphological type which allows the presence of more than one lexical element within a single word.

scholarly journals German participle II constructions as adjuncts

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 309-321
Author(s):  
Ilse Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Syntactic Position ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Adverbial Clauses ◽  
Propositional Operator ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Interpretative Flexibility

The present investigation is concerned with German participles II (past participles) as lexical heads of adjuncts. Within a minimalist framework of sound-meaning correlation, the analysis presupposes a lexicalist conception of morphology and the differentiation of Semantic Form and Conceptual Structure. It is argued that participles II have the same argument structure as the underlying verbs and can undergo passivization, perfectivization and conversion to adjectives. As for the potential of participles to function as modifiers, it is shown that attributive and adverbial participle constructions involve further operations of conversion. Participle constructions are considered as reduced sentences. They do not have a syntactic position for the subject, for an operator (comparable to the relative pronoun in relative clauses) or for an adverbial relator (as in adverbial clauses). The pertinent components are present only in the semantic structure. Two templates serve the composition of modifiers - including participle constructions - with the modificandum. It is necessary to differentiate between modification which unifies two predicates relating to participants or to situations and frame setting modification where the modifier is given the status of a propositional operator. The proposed analysis shows that the high degree of semantic underspecification and interpretative flexibility of German participle II constructions resides in the indeterminacy of participles II with respect to voice and perfect, in the absence of certain constituents in the syntactic structure and in the presence of corresponding parameters in the Semantic Form of the participle phrases.  

scholarly journals Central Taurus Sign Language: On the Edge of Conventionalization

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabia Ergin ◽  
Leyla Kürşat ◽  
Ethan Hartzell ◽  
Ray Jackendoff
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Structural Variation ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Morphological Markers ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Everyday Objects ◽  
Complex Study ◽  
Under Construction

We discuss the conventionalization process in Central Taurus Sign Language (CTSL), an emerging sign language in its initial stages, and present evidence from four studies for the amount of lexical and structural variation it harbors. The four studies together portray the architecture of a young system under construction. Study 1 looks at signs for everyday objects and finds considerable variation in their degree of conventionalization. Study 2 examines modifier-head and negation-head relationships, showing substantial conventionalization. Study 3 addresses the emergence and conventionalization of various word orders as argument structure markers. It shows that conventionalization increases over successive cohorts of signers, but it decreases as argument structure becomes more complex. Study 4 demonstrates the emergence and conventionalization of distinctive morphological markers to signal the subtle semantics of symmetry and reciprocity. Finally, we raise the issue of whether CTSL presents evidence of syntactic structure, or whether its properties can be characterized in terms of a simpler “linear grammar” that maps directly between phonology and semantics.

scholarly journals The interpretation of external arguments

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Wood ◽  
Alec Marantz
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Semantic Values

This chapter examines the syntactic and semantic properties of heads, e.g. Voice, Appl, and little p, that add participants to events. Instead of assuming that such heads exist as distinct primitives in the functional lexicon, it is proposed that there is one such head, which can get different interpretations depending on how it is merged into the structure. The chapter’s approach attributes the relative uniformity of the expression of argument structure to the principles that interpret syntactic structure semantically; thus, syntax is truly autonomous, with the atoms of syntactic representations carrying no inherent semantic values. Once syntactic heads are absolved from the necessity of explicitly carrying certain features relevant to their interpretation, a sparse inventory of functional heads can be developed. The system is applied to a set of constructions that present distinct challenges to theories that demand a kind of transparent reflection of argument structure in underlying syntactic representations.

Los verbos adimensionales

Revue Romane ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Antonio Fábregas
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Cognitive Domain ◽  
Conceptual Semantics ◽  
Change Of State

Abstract The goal of this article is the analysis of the empirical properties of change of state verbs which do not specifiy lexically the dimension where change operates – such as aumentar ‘increase’, reducir ‘reduce’, acrecentar ‘increase’ –, and also to examine the theoretical consequences that this class has for our understanding of argument structure, the distinction between light and non-light predicates and the interconnection of structural and conceptual semantics. We will show that these verbs, which we label ‘adimensional predicates’ are sharply different from prototypical change of state verbs, and we argue that their existence supports a distinction between the syntactic structure of a verb of change of state and the conceptual operation that anchors the change to a specific cognitive domain.

L2 LEARNERS’ ADAPTATION TO AN L2 STRUCTURE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM L1

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Heeju Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Learning Mechanism ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Matching Game ◽  
Causative Structure ◽  
Korean Learners ◽  
Korean Learners Of English ◽  
Cumulative Experience

Abstract The present study investigates how L2 learners adapt their production preferences following immediate and cumulative experience with a syntactic structure when an L2 structure differs from an L1 structure in terms of verb subcategorization frame and argument structure. Korean learners of English described causative events in English in a picture-matching game. The meaning of a causative sentence in English (e.g., Jen had her computer fixed) is expressed with an active transitive sentence in Korean (e.g., Jen-NOM computer-ACC fixed). The results demonstrated that both immediate and cumulative experience with a causative structure increased the likelihood of producing grammatical causative descriptions (e.g., Jen had her computer fixed), while decreasing the production of ungrammatical active transitive descriptions (e.g., Jen fixed her computer). The findings provide novel evidence that an implicit learning mechanism is involved in L2 learners’ processing and learning of an L2 structure that is different from L1.

Adding semantic roles to the Chinese Treebank

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
NIANWEN XUE ◽  
MARTHA PALMER
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Parse Tree ◽  
Semantic Role ◽  
Lexical Database ◽  
Semantic Roles ◽  
Structure Annotation ◽  
Predicate Argument Structure ◽  
Event Result

AbstractWe report work on adding semantic role labels to the Chinese Treebank, a corpus already annotated with phrase structures. The work involves locating all verbs and their nominalizations in the corpus, and semi-automatically adding semantic role labels to their arguments, which are constituents in a parse tree. Although the same procedure is followed, different issues arise in the annotation of verbs and nominalized predicates. For verbs, identifying their arguments is generally straightforward given their syntactic structure in the Chinese Treebank as they tend to occupy well-defined syntactic positions. Our discussion focuses on the syntactic variations in the realization of the arguments as well as our approach to annotating dislocated and discontinuous arguments. In comparison, identifying the arguments for nominalized predicates is more challenging and we discuss criteria and procedures for distinguishing arguments from non-arguments. In particular we focus on the role of support verbs as well as the relevance of event/result distinctions in the annotation of the predicate-argument structure of nominalized predicates. We also present our approach to taking advantage of the syntactic structure in the Chinese Treebank to bootstrap the predicate-argument structure annotation of verbs. Finally, we discuss the creation of a lexical database of frame files and its role in guiding predicate-argument annotation. Procedures for ensuring annotation consistency and inter-annotator agreement evaluation results are also presented.

scholarly journals Grammatical Planning Units During Real-Time Sentence Production in Speakers With Agrammatic Aphasia and Healthy Speakers

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1182-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiyeon Lee ◽  
Masaya Yoshida ◽  
Cynthia K. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Advanced Planning ◽  
Agrammatic Aphasia ◽  
Competing Models ◽  
Simple Sentences

PurposeGrammatical encoding (GE) is impaired in agrammatic aphasia; however, the nature of such deficits remains unclear. We examined grammatical planning units during real-time sentence production in speakers with agrammatic aphasia and control speakers, testing two competing models of GE. We queried whether speakers with agrammatic aphasia produce sentences word by word without advanced planning or whether hierarchical syntactic structure (i.e., verb argument structure; VAS) is encoded as part of the advanced planning unit.MethodExperiment 1 examined production of sentences with a predefined structure (i.e., “The A and the B are above the C”) using eye tracking. Experiment 2 tested production of transitive and unaccusative sentences without a predefined sentence structure in a verb-priming study.ResultsIn Experiment 1, both speakers with agrammatic aphasia and young and age-matched control speakers used word-by-word strategies, selecting the first lemma (noun A) only prior to speech onset. However, in Experiment 2, unlike controls, speakers with agrammatic aphasia preplanned transitive and unaccusative sentences, encoding VAS before speech onset.ConclusionsSpeakers with agrammatic aphasia show incremental, word-by-word production for structurally simple sentences, requiring retrieval of multiple noun lemmas. However, when sentences involve functional (thematic to grammatical) structure building, advanced planning strategies (i.e., VAS encoding) are used. This early use of hierarchical syntactic information may provide a scaffold for impaired GE in agrammatism.

scholarly journals Going, going, gone: the acquisition of the verb ‘go’

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNA L. THEAKSTON ◽  
ELENA V. M. LIEVEN ◽  
JULIAN M. PINE ◽  
CAROLINE F. ROWLAND
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
Syntactic Category ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Early Argument ◽  
Abstract Rule ◽  
Category Formation ◽  
The Relationship

This study investigated different accounts of early argument structure acquisition and verb paradigm building through the detailed examination of the acquisition of the verb Go. Data from 11 children followed longitudinally between the ages of 2;0 and 3;0 were examined. Children's uses of the different forms of Go were compared with respect to syntactic structure and the semantics encoded. The data are compatible with the suggestion that the children were not operating with a single verb representation that differentiated between different forms of Go but rather that their knowledge of the relationship between the different forms of Go varied depending on the structure produced and the meaning encoded. However, a good predictor of the children's use of different forms of Go in particular structures and to express particular meanings was the frequency of use of those structures and meanings with particular forms of Go in the input. The implications of these findings for theories of syntactic category formation and abstract rule-based descriptions of grammar are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document