scholarly journals Zu der Ereignis- und Argumentstruktur der ein- und dreistelligen Verben in polnischen Präteritum-Formen vs. „neueren“ Formen mit mieć

2018 ◽  
Vol 143 ◽  
pp. 103-118
Author(s):  
Piotr Bartelik
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Event Structure ◽  
Semantic Roles ◽  
Grammatical Analysis

Der Beitrag fokussiert auf die Ereignis- und Argument-Struktur in polnischen Formen mit mieć und Partizipien der ein- und dreistelligen Verben. In der bisherigen Forschung wurde die Herausbildung derartiger „neuer“ Tempus- und ggf. Diathese-Formen im Kontext diverser grammatischer Parameter entweder postuliert oder entscheidend in Frage gestellt. Die hier vorgeschlagene Herangehensweise baut zum einen auf rollensemantischen und ereignisstrukturellen Theorien der Dekomposition auf, zum anderen werden anschließend die anscheinend konstruktionstypischen Ambiguitäten erwogen. On the event and argument structure of one- and three-place verbs in Polish preterite tense forms vs. “new” periphrastic forms with miećThis paper aims at analyzing the argument and event structure of the constructions with the verb mieć and partially reanalyzed participles, which are described as the “new perfect” in contemporary Polish. These forms are most frequently analyzed in terms of transitivity, aspect and other overt grammatical criteria so that the limits of their grammatical analysis seem to be reached. This paper offers a model that is oriented on the decomposition concepts event and argument structure, concepts of generalized semantic roles and that accordingly allows to evaluate the elaborated limits of grammatical analysis.

On the Event Structural Properties of the English Get-Passive

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-74
Author(s):  
Alison Biggs ◽  
David Embick
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Structural Properties ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Event Structure ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Event Structures ◽  
Structural Differences ◽  
Responsible Party

An important ongoing discussion in theories of argument structure concerns the explanatory division of labor between thematic properties and event structure. In this context, the English get-passive provides an interesting test case. Much previous work has analyzed get-passives as differing thematically from be-passives. Yet many get-passive properties remain poorly understood. We present an analysis of the get-passive centered on the proposal that it contains additional event structure (realized as get) relative to its be counterpart. We employ by-adjuncts to identify the event structures in passive types, and demonstrate that the behavior of this and other diagnostics support the conclusion that get- and be-passives differ systematically in ways that accord with our analysis. Further discussion considers the prominent proposal from previous studies that get-passives differ thematically from be-passives in (sometimes) assigning an Agent role to their surface subjects. We show that there is no evidence for such an analysis. Instead, intuitions about the interpretation of the get-passive surface subject arise from how an event’s Responsible Party is identified: contrasts between get and be on this dimension are a consequence of event structural differences between the two. The overall result is a unified analysis of the get-passive, one that has implications for the role of event structure in understanding the syntax and interpretation of arguments.

Changes in the argument and event structure of psych verbs in the history of Spanish

2019 ◽  
pp. 249-270
Author(s):  
Montserrat Batllori ◽  
Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo ◽  
Isabel Pujol
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Event Structure ◽  
Psych Verbs ◽  
History Of

This chapter offers a detailed study of changes affecting the argument structure of Spanish psych verbs that appear with a dative experiencer (EXP). After proposing a three-way classification of these verbs based on their etymological origin, the chapter traces two parallel, but interconnected, diachronic paths: the first one involves the development from transitive (or pronominal) to unaccusative constructions with a dative EXP, whereas the second one concerns the evolution from dynamic to stative events. The use and decrease of the passive in Classical Spanish is also shown to play a role in this change: to wit, passive and unaccusative structures with a dative EXP are structurally similar, as the prepositional agent phrase and the dative EXP originate in the same position.

scholarly journals Argument Structure of the Verb in Albanian Linguistic

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Pranvera Osmani
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Semantic Roles ◽  
Generative Linguistics ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
Common Opinion ◽  
Argumentative Structure ◽  
The Way

In this paper we attempt to address the argumentative structure of the verb in Albanian language. It is an almost common opinion that in the syntactic studies of Albanian language the way how they deal with phenomena, conceptions, ideas are logical. The verb forms the nucleus (core) of the sentence. It assigns to other components of the syntagm the semantic roles they will carry and their structure. In generative linguistics the necessary ingredients are called arguments, while the non-essentials are called adjuncts. As a corpus we will have the treatment of various authors on this issue, the most representative of Albanian language grammar. Different views of Albanian scholars are presented in this issue in the Albanian syntax.

scholarly journals Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes

Nordlyd ◽  
10.7557/12.72 ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Ramchand
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Temporal Structure ◽  
Event Structure ◽  
Temporal Domain ◽  
Structure Level ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
Basic Distinction ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One ◽  
Structure Domain

In this paper, I draw on data from prefixation in Russian to argue for a basic distinction between event structure and temporal struc- ture. I present a linguistic semantics of verb and argument structure interpretation on the one hand, and a formal semantic implementa- tion of 'telicity' on the other, which makes sense of the generalisations apparently common to both domains. I will claim that the temporal domain embeds the event structure domain, and that the latter con- strains the former. At the same time, the different formal primitives that operate at the levels proposed form the basis for a principled linguistic distinction between the two tiers of composition: the event structure level encodes subevental relations and predicational rela- tions within those subevents; the temporal structure level introduces a t variable explicitly and relates it to the structure built up by the event level. Whether the event structure is homogenous or not will have an impact on whether the temporal variable chosen will be 'def- inite' or 'indefinite.' This latter claim then forms the basis for a new conception of the difference between perfective and imperfective verb forms in Russian.

The Verbal Domain

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Event Structure ◽  
Cutting Edge ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Structural Units ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
The Third ◽  
Inner Aspect ◽  
One To One ◽  
The One

The structure of the VP, its complexity, its semantics, its function, and the universality of the heads that it contains are a fascinating puzzle. A lot of progress has been made: this volume features cutting-edge research on the verbal domain, while tackling the problem of the nature and structure of the vP-VP domain. It includes some chapters based on papers presented at the “Little v” workshop which was held at Leiden University on October 25–26, 2013. The volume is divided into three main sections, representing the areas in which contemporary debate on the verbal domain is most active. The first part, entitled Root and Verbalizer, includes four chapters discussing the setup of verbal roots, their syntax, and their combination with other functional heads like Voice and v. This part focuses on the V head. The second section, Voice, discusses the content and necessity of a Voice head in the structure of a clause, and whether Voice is different from v. Voice was originally intended as the head hosting the external argument in its specifier, as well as transitivity. This section explores its relationship with “syntactic” voice, intended as the alternation between actives and passives. The third section, Event and Argument Structure, is dedicated to event structure, inner aspect, and Aktionsart. The main issues it tackles are the one-to-one relation between argument structure and event structure, and whether there can be minimal structural units at the basis of the derivation of any sort of XP, including the VP.

Event Structure and Verbal Decomposition

2019 ◽  
pp. 313-341
Author(s):  
Gillian Ramchand
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Event Structure ◽  
Semantic Representations ◽  
Structural Interpretation ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores the relationship between constrained semantic representations of events, and structured syntactic representations that express them. I show that these representations track each other systematically, and that argument structure generalizations emerge in lock-step with these structures. I therefore propose a system in which those generalizations follow from the following general principles of structural interpretation: (i) embedding corresponds to the cause/leads to relation; (ii) each subevental structure is related potentially to a participant NP; (iii) event-recursion is limited to structures with at most one dynamic predication per event phase. The maximal subevental structure consists of a stative predication embedding a dynamic one, and the dynamic one in turn embedding a stative one. This structure and its proper subsets exhaust the event types built by the grammar. These principles ensure the relative prominence of the different argument positions as well as specific entailments for the different positions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document