Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages

290 Pages·2011·1.05 MB·English

by  Víctor Acedo Matellán

Argument structure and the
syntax-morphology interface.
A case study in Latin and other languages
Víctor Acedo Matellán
ADVERTIMENT. La consulta d’aquesta tesi queda condicionada a l’acceptació de les següents condicions d'ús: La difusió
d’aquesta tesi per mitjà del servei TDX (www.tdx.cat) ha estat autoritzada pels titulars dels drets de propietat intel·lectual
únicament per a usos privats emmarcats en activitats d’investigació i docència. No s’autoritza la seva reproducció amb
finalitats de lucre ni la seva difusió i posada a disposició des d’un lloc aliè al servei TDX. No s’autoritza la presentació del
seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant al resum de presentació
de la tesi com als seus continguts. En la utilització o cita de parts de la tesi és obligat indicar el nom de la persona autora.
ADVERTENCIA. La consulta de esta tesis queda condicionada a la aceptación de las siguientes condiciones de uso: La
difusión de esta tesis por medio del servicio TDR (www.tdx.cat) ha sido autorizada por los titulares de los derechos de
propiedad intelectual únicamente para usos privados enmarcados en actividades de investigación y docencia. No se
autoriza su reproducción con finalidades de lucro ni su difusión y puesta a disposición desde un sitio ajeno al servicio
TDR. No se autoriza la presentación de su contenido en una ventana o marco ajeno a TDR (framing). Esta reserva de
derechos afecta tanto al resumen de presentación de la tesis como a sus contenidos. En la utilización o cita de partes de
la tesis es obligado indicar el nombre de la persona autora.
WARNING. On having consulted this thesis you’re accepting the following use conditions: Spreading this thesis by the
TDX (www.tdx.cat) service has been authorized by the titular of the intellectual property rights only for private uses placed
in investigation and teaching activities. Reproduction with lucrative aims is not authorized neither its spreading and
availability from a site foreign to the TDX service. Introducing its content in a window or frame foreign to the TDX service is
not authorized (framing). This rights affect to the presentation summary of the thesis as well as to its contents. In the using
or citation of parts of the thesis it’s obliged to indicate the name of the author.
Argument structure and the syntax-morphology
interface.
A case study in Latin and other languages

Víctor Acedo Matellán

PhD thesis

Supervisor: Dr Jaume Mateu Fontanals
Tutor: Dr Joana Rosselló Ximenes

Doctorat en Lingüística i Comunicació, bienni 2000-2002
Departament de Lingüística General
Facultat de Filologia
Universitat de Barcelona

December 2010
2
Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................7
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LAYOUT......................................................13
1 Aim and proposal...................................................................................................13
2 Methodology...........................................................................................................14
2.1 The advantages of a theoretical approach to the grammar of unspoken languages
14
2.2 Data and corpus...........................................................................................................15
3 Layout of the dissertation......................................................................................16

CHAPTER 2 A NEO-CONSTRUCTIONIST PERSPECTIVE ON ARGUMENT
STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................19
1 Endo-skeletal versus exo-skeletal approaches to the lexicon-syntax interface.19
1.1 Properties of the lexical item vs. properties of the structure...................................19
1.2 A fuzzy frontier: Hale and Keyser, Levin and Rappaport Hovav..........................24
1.2.1 Hale & Keyser’s theory of lexical syntax...............................................................25
1.2.2 Levin and Rappaport Hovav’s Event Structure Templates....................................31
1.3 Constructionism and neo-constructionism................................................................32
1.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................37
2 Three neo-constructionist frameworks................................................................37
2.1 Mateu 2002...................................................................................................................38
2.1.1 Semantic construal and conceptual content............................................................38
2.1.2 Argument structure configurations.........................................................................38
2.1.3 Adjectives as non-basic categories.........................................................................39
2.2 Borer 2005b..................................................................................................................43
2.2.1 Listemes and functional structure. Coercion..........................................................43
2.2.2 Range assignment to functional categories.............................................................44
2.2.3 Event structure with arguments: range assignment through specifier-head relations
45
2.2.4 Event structure without arguments.........................................................................47
2.3 Distributed Morphology..............................................................................................49
2.3.1 A single generative engine. The Narrow Lexicon..................................................49
2.3.2 The Vocabulary.......................................................................................................50
2.3.3 Semantic interpretation. The Encyclopaedia..........................................................51
2.3.4 Operations along the PF-branch.............................................................................52
2.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................53
3 The present framework.........................................................................................53
3.1 Argument structure is syntax.....................................................................................54
3.1.1 No l-/s-syntax distinction........................................................................................54
3.1.2 Relational and non-relational elements...................................................................54
3
3.1.3 Argument structure configurations.........................................................................55
3.1.4 Adjunction of roots to functional heads..................................................................57
3.1.5 A small note on case...............................................................................................59
3.2 The semantics of argument structure: a localist-aspectual approach....................60
3.2.1 Structural and encyclopaedic semantics.................................................................60
3.2.2 Interpretation of functional heads and arguments...................................................60
3.2.3 Against root ontologies...........................................................................................64
3.2.4 Aspect and argument structure...............................................................................64
3.2.4.1 Two-component theory of aspect..................................................................................64
3.2.4.2 The computation of situation aspect.............................................................................66
3.2.5 Phase theory and semantic interpretation: locality domains for special meaning..69
3.3 The syntax-morphophonology interface....................................................................70
3.3.1 Words and structure. Cross-linguistic variation.....................................................70
3.3.2 Vocabulary insertion. Non-uniform insertion.........................................................72
3.3.3 Conflation...............................................................................................................73
3.3.4 Affixation................................................................................................................77
3.3.5 Operations affecting nodes before Vocabulary Insertion: Lowering and Fusion...78
3.3.6 A cartography of the PF-branch: the timing of morphophonological operations...79
3.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................82
4 Overall summary....................................................................................................82

CHAPTER 3 LATIN AS A SATELLITE-FRAMED LANGUAGE........................85
1 Talmy’s (2000) theory of change events and its adaptation to the present
framework.....................................................................................................................86
1.1 Talmy’s theory of (motion) events..............................................................................86
1.2 Beyond events of motion..............................................................................................88
1.3 An asymmetric difference...........................................................................................88
1.4 Non-dynamic events and the s-/v-framed distinction...............................................89
1.5 A syntactic interpretation of Talmy’s theory............................................................89
1.5.1 Syntactic structuring of change events...................................................................89
1.5.2 A morphophonological account of the s-/v-framed difference...............................91
1.6 Summary.......................................................................................................................96
2 The surface shape of PathP in Latin....................................................................96
2.1 PathP as a verbal prefix..............................................................................................97
2.2 PathP as a PP................................................................................................................98
2.3 PathP as a combination of verbal prefix and PP......................................................99
2.4 PathP as a combination of verbal prefix and DP......................................................99
2.5 PathP as a DP.............................................................................................................100
2.6 PathP as an AP...........................................................................................................101
2.7 Case and directional PPs and DPs............................................................................102
2.7.1 Case and preposition/prefix. The accusative/ablative contrast.............................102
2.7.2 Directional datives................................................................................................105
2.8 Summary.....................................................................................................................108
3 S-framed constructions in Latin.........................................................................108
3.1 Complex Directed Motion Constructions................................................................108
3.1.1 CDMCs and situation aspect.................................................................................109
3.1.2 CDMCs and non-directed motion constructions in Latin.....................................110
3.1.3 The unaccusative nature of CDMCs.....................................................................112
3.1.3.1 Disallowance of cognate objects and measure phrases...............................................113
3.1.3.2 Failure to yield agent nouns........................................................................................115
3.1.3.3 Licensing of adjectival participles..............................................................................116
3.2 Unselected Object Constructions.............................................................................119
3.2.1 Figure UOCs.........................................................................................................121
4
3.2.1.1 The syntax and semantics of prefixed vs. unprefixed verbs.......................................121
3.2.1.2 Conditions on the licensing of null objects.................................................................134
3.2.1.3 Case alternations, situation aspect and the merging of roots......................................136
3.2.1.4 Scopal relations between prefix and verb...................................................................137
3.2.1.5 Deponency and the properties of roots.......................................................................139
3.2.2 Ground UOCs.......................................................................................................139
3.2.2.1 Case and situation aspect when the object is a Ground..............................................139
3.2.2.2 Transitive Ground UOCs in Latin...............................................................................142
3.2.2.3 The “Figure” expressed in the verbal root..................................................................146
3.2.2.4 Unaccusative Ground UOCs.......................................................................................147
3.3 Complex Effected Object Constructions.................................................................148
3.4 Locative Alternation..................................................................................................155
3.4.1 Approaches to the LA...........................................................................................155
3.4.2 The LA and the s-/v-framed distinction................................................................156
3.4.3 The LA and prefixation. The heterogeneity of the LA.........................................159
3.4.3.1 Prefixation in the COL alternant.................................................................................159
3.4.3.2 Spatial prefixation in the COS alternant.....................................................................159
3.4.3.3 Com-prefixation in the COS alternant........................................................................160
3.5 Pseudoreversatives.....................................................................................................164
3.6 Summary.....................................................................................................................166
4 Overall summary..................................................................................................168

CHAPTER 4 LATIN WITHIN THE CROSS-LINGUISTIC SCENARIO: A
REFINEMENT OF TALMY’S TYPOLOGY..........................................................169
1 The nonexistence of complex adjectival resultatives in Latin and Slavic.......169
1.1 (Complex) resultative constructions: initial clarifications.....................................169
1.1.1 Complex and simple resultative constructions.....................................................169
1.1.2 Strong and weak resultative constructions............................................................171
1.1.3 Situation aspect in complex resultative constructions. The AP as a result predicate
173
1.2 Latin does not feature complex AP resultatives......................................................179
1.3 Slavic does not feature complex AP resultatives.....................................................182
1.4 Neither Latin nor Slavic feature complex PP resultatives without a prefixed verb
184
1.5 Summary.....................................................................................................................185
2 Latin and Slavic complex resultatives always feature a prefixed verb...........185
2.1 Latin complex resultative constructions..................................................................185
2.2 Slavic complex resultative constructions.................................................................194
2.3 The unidirectional relation between telicity and (internal) prefixation...............200
2.3.1 Telicity without internal prefixation.....................................................................200
2.3.2 A contrast between Latin and Slavic. The role of viewpoint aspect.....................202
2.4 Summary.....................................................................................................................205
3 The role of morphophonology in the analysis of resultative constructions....205
3.1 The morphophonological properties of Path. The Split S-framedness Hypothesis
206
3.2 The lack of complex AP resultatives in Latin and Slavic.......................................207
3.3 Simple adjectival resultatives in Latin.....................................................................209
3.4 Atelic predicates and prefixation..............................................................................211
3.5 The role of PPs in prefixed predicates.....................................................................216
3.6 Summary.....................................................................................................................219
4 Typology and empirical coverage.......................................................................219
4.1 Weak s-framed languages: Ancient Greek..............................................................220
4.2 Strong s-framed languages........................................................................................224
5
4.2.1 German and Dutch................................................................................................224
4.2.2 English..................................................................................................................228
4.2.3 Icelandic................................................................................................................230
4.2.4 Finno-Ugric...........................................................................................................232
4.3 V-framed languages. V-framed constructions in s-framed languages..................236
4.4 Summary.....................................................................................................................237
5 Previous approaches and possible counterexamples........................................238
5.1 Snyder 1995, 2001, Beck & Snyder2001a................................................................238
5.2 Horrocks & Stavrou 2003, 2007 and Horrocks 2004..............................................239
5.3 Kratzer 2004...............................................................................................................240
5.4 Svenonius 2004b.........................................................................................................243
5.5 Son 2007 and Son & Svenonius 2008.......................................................................244
5.5.1 Korean: presence of complex adjectival resultatives, absence of CDMCs..........244
5.5.2 Hebrew and Javanese: presence of CDMCs, absence of complex adjectival
resultatives.........................................................................................................................245
5.6 Summary.....................................................................................................................248
6 Overall summary..................................................................................................249

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS................................................251
1 Proposals and findings.........................................................................................251
2 Challenges and prospects....................................................................................254
2.1 CEOCs, COL alternants and prefixation................................................................254
2.2 Atelicity and prefixation in Latin sum-predicates..................................................255
2.3 Facio-resultatives, light verbs and the prefixation requirement...........................257

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4: LATIN TELIC PREDICATES WITH PREFIXED
MANNER-OF-MOTION VERBS..............................................................................259

REFERENCES............................................................................................................271

6
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank

my supervisor, Jaume Mateu, for constant encouragement, for an enthusiasm and
optimism which has many times surpassed my own, for bringing out the best in
me and for being always available to me as a walking encyclopaedia of
argument structure and lexical semantics;

my tutor, Joana Rosselló, for her guidance, for setting an example of scientific
honesty, for incredible lectures on generative grammar and typology and for
initiating a weekly seminar at the Universitat de Barcelona where other friends
like Elena Castroviejo, Jordi Fortuny, Eva Monrós and Josep Quer and, later,
Bernat Corominas, Txuss Martín, Cristina Real and Jeroni Tutusaus took part,
and where we really learned Minimalism; it was one of the most intellectually
stimulating activities I have ever engaged in;

the other members of the mentioned seminar at the UB, in particular, Elena
Castroviejo, Jordi Fortuny, Eva Monrós and Josep Quer. Jordi Fortuny was a
great flatmate during our stay at MIT, and we had wonderful conversations on
syntax while he cooked Minorcan delicacies. Elena Castroviejo has been a sweet
and caring presence all these years, either here in Barcelona or by popping into
my mailbox every once in a while, from Frankfurt or Chicago, to send words of
encouragement;

the members of the linguistic community at the Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, where I discussed some of the contents of the dissertation; my friends
Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga and Cristina Real stand out, for so many
treasurable moments and for being there whenever I needed them;

Beatriz Antón, Cedric Boeckx, Hagit Borer, Gretel de Cuyper, David Embick,
Jordi Fortuny, Ángel Gallego, Benjamín García Hernández, Berit Gehrke,
Chiara Gianollo, Heidi Harley, Geoffrey Horrocks, Nikolaos Lavidas, Dimitra
Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Jonathan MacDonald, Louise McNally, Alec Marantz,
Angelina Markova, Txuss Martín, María Ortega, Daniele Portolan, Cristina
Real, Gemma Rigau, Melita Stavrou, Mina Sugimura and Rok (cid:2)aucer, for
helping me in some way or another with the ideas, the literature or the data in the
dissertation;

for language data, discussion thereof and/or grammaticality judgments, Beatriz
Antón (on Latin), Asaf Bachrach, Noam and Michael Faust and Adi Simchoni
(on Hebrew), Kerry Burke, Rachel Dudley, Daniel Erker, Timothy Leffel, Sean
Martin, Neil Myler, Gregory Guy and Kevin Roon (on English), Berit Gehrke
(on Russian; Berit deserves many thanks for her help and for organising a
seminar at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in which I presented the material of
Chapter 4), Nicola Lampitelli (on Italian), Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga (on
Modern Greek), Ivan Garcia and Wojciech Lewandowski (on Polish), Angelina
Markova (on Bulgarian; I explicitly thank Angelina for the huge amount of data
7
she has provided me with and for long discussions on prefixation and inner
aspect in Bulgarian) and Thomas Zannoni (on French);

my friends, for their care and love, without which no dissertation could ever be
brought to an end: Marcos Arratia, Laura Blas, Nicolás Fernández, Susana
Fernández, Antònia Ferrer, Giulio Figliolino, Luis Mª García, Marta García,
Sara García, Carlos García, Idoia Gómez, Carmen González, Pedro Gras,
Mirkka Hynninen, Mihalis Kyratsous, Débora Iglesias, Dimitra Lazaridou-
Chatzigoga, Dámaris Lobo, Vanessa Lobo, Paquita Marcos (in memoriam),
Txuss Martín, Josemi Martínez, Anna Mata, Pablo Morata, Albert Orejas, María
Ortega, Eduardo Peña, Ángel Pérez, Cristina Real, David del Río, Joaquín
Romero, Ángel Ruiz, Rosa San José, Sergio Sánchez, Jorge Zapico, and maybe I
am missing someone; I would like to single out María Ortega, one of the most
intelligent, creative and cultivated persons on the planet and with whom I enjoy
talking about language and languages the most, and David del Río, for his
concern and friendship and for allowing me to share my fears and doubts with
him at any time;

the people at the Institut d’Estudis Catalans, particulary at the Oficina de
Gramàtica, for creating such a friendly environment: Manel Pérez Saldanya,
Ester Prat, Jaume Salvanyà, Gemma Rigau and Xavier Rofes;

again, my dear friends Txuss Martín and Cristina Real, for not leaving me alone
with my low self-esteem during the last months, and for being my own little
family in Barcelona during the summer of 2010;

my beautiful and loyal MacBook, for enduring hours of frantic, rough keyboard
banging and angry complaints, even if the blame was really on the Microsoft
program, and for standing my compulsive, repetitive listening to Das Rheingold
(which Txuss Martín had to suffer also, some time);

Thomas Zannoni, for coping everyday with an almost bipolar Víctor during the
last months and still managing to smile my days into happy days;

and, finally, my family, specially my mother, Conchita Matellán Fidalgo, my
father, Herminio Acedo Pérez, and my brother, Alfonso Acedo Matellán, for
giving me the best gift. This dissertation is dedicated to them.
8
List of abbreviations

N. B.: The abbreviations used in glosses are primarily those proposed by The Leipzig
Glossing Rules of the Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology, available at
http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php (20 September 2010).

1/2/3: first/second/third person
ABL: ablative
ACC: accusative
ALL: allative
AOR: aorist
APC: Absolute Participial Construction
Asp P: Aspect Quantity Phrase
Q
AUX: auxiliary
BTL2: second edition of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina (Tombeur 2002)
CDMC: Complex Directed Motion Construction
CEOC: Complex Effected Object Construction
COL: Change-of-Location (alternant)
COMPAR: comparative
CONJ: conjunction
COS: Change-of-State (alternant)
DAT: dative
DECL: declarative
DEF: definite
DIM: diminutive
DM: Distributed Morphology
DOC: Double Object Construction
EA: external argument
ECP: Empty Category Principle
ELA: elative
EP: Event Phrase
EPP: Extended Projection Principle
ESS: essive
EST: Event Structure Template
9