This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
113P Beth Levin
Stanford University July 1-3, 2007
The Lexical Semantics of Verbs III: Semantic Determinants of Argument Realization
Background: How aspect has been said to ﬁgure in argument realization
Starting with Hopper & Thompson’s (1980) work on transitivity, aspectual notions have increasingly been included among semantic determinants of argument realization, even if different researchers cite different, though overlapping, aspectual notions, including measure, delimiter, incremental theme, telicity, and accomplishment. 1.1 The basic claim: Aspect is what matters
• “Aspect, or event structure, is that part of a verb’s meaning which is relevant for its interface with the syntax.” (Arad 1998:59) • Tenny (1987, 1994) proposes a strong and explicit role for aspect in argument realization. (1) T HE A SPECTUAL I NTERFACE H YPOTHESIS : The universal principles of mapping between thematic structure and syntactic argument structure are governed by aspectual properties. Constraints on the aspectual properties associated with direct internal arguments [=underlying objects], indirect internal arguments [=other arguments within VP], and external arguments [=underlying subjects] in syntactic structure constrain the kinds of event participants that can occupy these positions. Only the aspectual part of thematic structure is visible to the universal linking principles. (Tenny 1994:2) Phenomena supporting the claim that aspect matters
• Hopper & Thompson (1980) list “telicity” and “punctuality” as transitivity components. • Aspectual notions, particularly telicity, are implicated in unaccusative diagnostics (e.g., Centineo 1986; Dowty 1991; Van Valin 1990; Zaenen 1993), passive nominals (e.g., Fellbaum 1987; Tenny 1987, 1994), middle formation (e.g., Tenny 1987, 1994). • van Hout (1996) proposes that many argument realization alternations are instances of event type-shifting—i.e., aspectual reclassiﬁcation. — Alternations between direct object and oblique realizations reﬂect alternations between telic and atelic uses of verbs (conative and accusative/partitive alternations); — Alternate choices of direct object reﬂect alternate choices of argument which determines a sentence’s telicity, i.e., incremental theme or measure (locative alternation). (2) (3) Conative alternation: Taylor ate the apricot/Taylor ate at the apricot. Locative alternation: Sam loaded the hay on the truck/loaded the truck with hay. 1
. McClure 1993. T HE CRUCIAL PROPERTY: The patient—the entity undergoing the change of state—MUST be realized and CAN ONLY be realized as a direct object.g. a range of studies propose that direct object position is tied to a range of related aspectual notions.. Travis 1991. • A line of recent work even syntacticizes event structure (e. • More generally. Ritter & Rosen 1998.. Sanz 1999. in turn. 1. determine the most likely object.g.. See Rosen (1999) for discussion. 1977. T HE BOTTOM LINE : Verbs lexicalizing a change of state show uniform argument realization options. 2001. subject of result (Borer 1998).g. T HE NEXT STEP : Assessing the merits of claims that aspectual notions are determinants of argument realization and show they are problematic. van Hout 1996). 2005. Arad 1998) associate telicity with accusative case.3 Proposals about how aspect matters • Verkuyl (1993) proposes a compositionality principle. COS verbs show a distinct argument realization pattern (Fillmore 1970. Ritter & Rosen 1998. Ackerman & Moore 1999.. but do not show uniform aspectual properties. 1994). incremental theme (Rothstein 2000). The INCREMENTAL THEME is the element involved in deﬁning a homomorphism from properties of an argument to properties of the event it participates in. citing accusative/partitive alternations associated with telicity shifts in Finnish and Estonian. 2 . which has the effect of requiring objects to contribute to bounding an event. break) or either telic or atelic (e. as well as unaccusative behavior. the Plus Principle. Van Hout 1996). Borer 1998. motivating syntactic structure based on aspectual considerations: the inclusion of explicit Aspect or Event Phrases among functional realizations (e.. or subject of quantity (Borer 2005). dim). it holds whether they are necessarily telic (e. including telicity (Ritter & Rosen 1998.• Some studies (e. measure (Tenny 1992. 2 Uniformity in argument realization is not aspectual uniformity: Evidence from change of state verbs The types of phenomena reviewed in section 1 have prompted theories of argument realization that incorporate the assumption that argument realization is aspectually driven. Levin 1993). Slabakova 1998. as a result. Borer 1998. basically atelic transitive verbs such as push must be analyzed as not being true transitives. 2001. 1999) or the association of AgrO with delimitation or telicity (e.g. as well as the use in some languages of oblique rather than accusative case for the second argument of atelic verbs.g. Ramchand 1997. these. Slabakova 1997). A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THIS ASSUMPTION: The argument realization properties of change of state (COS) verbs. • Dowty (1991) includes “incremental theme” among his Proto-Patient entailments. ErteschikShir & Rapoport 1997. especially when compared with those of aspectually-related verbs.g. Arad 1998.
nor with direct objects that are not patients—e. in nonsubcategorized NP resultatives or with out-preﬁxation. b. (13) a. ∗ The two-year old outbroke the three-year old. 3 . (7) (8) (9) (10) a. (fence breaks. widen P UNCTUAL COS VERBS: break.g. a.. widen C ONCLUSION : COS verbs share a constrained set of argument realization possibilities. singular object. Kelly broke my arm ∗ Kelly broke me on my arm. shatter D URATIVE COS VERBS: cool. N ECESSARILY TELIC COS VERBS: break. a. darken. nor do these verbs participate in object alternations. dim. b. b. traditional lexical aspectual classiﬁcation alone does not determine argument realization. When they take a deﬁnite. Sam broke the stick against the fence. Alex broke the vase ∗ Alex broke at the vase. but aren’t uniform aspectually. ripen. (11) (12) a. explode. ∗ The stagehand outdimmed the director. a. Sam hit a stick against the fence. change of location) often associated with direct objecthood.• The patient must be realized: COS verbs aren’t found with unspeciﬁed objects. as well as telic and either punctual or durative.g. even when having an entailment (e. b. (4) (5) (6) ∗ Pat broke/dimmed. (stick breaks. b. melt. Kelly hit me on the arm) Sam broke the fence with the stick. Therefore. (cf. (not a paraphrase of (a)) • No other argument can be direct object. a. crack. a. b. explode. a. shatter ATELIC / TELIC COS VERBS: cool. (Fillmore 1977:75) A SPECTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COS VERBS : COS verbs lack a uniform aspectual characterization in terms of the traditional aspectual notions of telicity and punctuality. ∗ My kids broke me into the poorhouse. Sam dimmed the lights ∗ Sam dimmed at/from the lights. they can be necessarily telic or atelic. Sam broke the fence with the stick. • The patient must be realized as the direct object: It cannot be realized as an oblique.. stick moves) Sam hit the fence with a stick. dry. darken. ∗ The stagehand dimmed the scene dark. b. b. ﬂatten. stick moves) Sam broke the stick against the fence. b.
build. P ROBLEMS WITH THE INCREMENTAL THEME HYPOTHESIS : The patient of a COS verb can be viewed as “incremental theme”. copy. b.. b.g. scratch. eat. 1991. measure./Chris ate from/of the apple. sweep.1 (14) Comparison with traditional incremental theme verbs T RADITIONAL INCREMENTAL THEME VERBS : read. c. eat... The teacher read us into a stupor. I wrote myself out of a job. in resultative constructions or via out-preﬁxation. a comparison of COS verbs with other incremental theme verbs suggests it is not the patient in its aspectual role which determines the characteristic argument realization proﬁle of these verbs.g.g.3 Further investigation of the contribution of aspect to argument realization: Verbs with incremental themes aren’t uniform in argument realization A COMMON CURRENT PROPOSAL : The aspectual notion relevant to argument realization is “incremental theme” (Dowty 1991) or one of its relatives (e. — Verbs of consumption (e. rub. e. a. drink. subject of quantity). even when quantized. (N OTE : Potential—or latent (Tenny 1992)—incremental theme verbs ﬁt this pattern (RH&L 2005)./I wrote at my book. (18) a./Dana read from the book. . build. c. . their “normal” object is a “location” (Fillmore 1970) or “force recipient” (Croft 1991. (15) (16) Dana read/ate/wrote. (17) Pat outread/outate/outwrote Chris.. This class is exempliﬁed by surface contact verbs (e. Dana read the book. 3.. • Their incremental theme need not be realized. wipe. I wrote my book.) 4 . they permit unspeciﬁed objects and allow nonsubcategorized NPs as direct objects.g. write. T HE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE : Traditional incremental theme verbs systematically lack the argument realization properties characteristic of COS verbs: They are more ﬂexible in the options they allow. RH&L 2001): Their object may be analyzed as an incremental theme or not.g. comb. My kids ate me into the poorhouse. draw. recite). drink) — Verbs of creation (e. . memorize. • The argument normally considered the incremental theme need not be realized as direct object. write) — Representation-source theme verbs (Dowty 1979. however. shovel). though it is then no longer an incremental theme. Chris ate the apple.
4 Towards a comparative assessment of the causal and aspectual approaches: Dowty’s (1991) proto-role entailments Dowty’s proto-roles provide a good domain for assessing the relative contribution of aspectual and causal approaches to argument realization.3. (28)): — undergoes change of state — incremental theme — causally affected by another participant — stationary relative to movement of another participant — (does not exist independently of the event. (27)): — volitional involvement in the event or state — sentience (and/or perception) — causing an event or change of state in another participant — movement (relative to the position of another participant) — (exists independently of the event named by the verb) Contributing properties for the Patient Proto-Role (Dowty 1991:572. they include many commonly posited semantic determinants. Building on this idea.1 Basic properties of proto-roles These sets of entailments “unpackage” the content of the traditional notions “agent” and “patient” into more basic components. They contribute to the degree to which an argument can be understood as an agent or a patient without being jointly necessary and sufﬁcient in deﬁning either of these notions or in determining their syntactic realization as subject or object. 5 . The Agent proto-role—or Proto-Agent—includes properties that ﬁgure in typical descriptions of the traditional “agent” role. 4. Proto-roles avoid many of the problems that plague semantic roles as they are prototype notions. there must be more than the patient of a COS verb’s aspectual role as “incremental theme” which determines the characteristic argument realization proﬁle of these verbs. he posits two proto-roles. or not at all) (20) Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient ﬁgure in subject and object selection. respectively. as both types of notions ﬁgure in their characterization. with the exception of the aspectual notion “incremental theme”. furthermore. each associated with its own set of lexical entailments. The contributing properties of each one can be seen as semantic determinants of subjecthood and objecthood. (19) Contributing properties for the Agent Proto-Role (Dowty 1991:572. Dowty characterizes the semantic determinants as lexical entailments that a verb imposes on its arguments by virtue of the part they play in the event the verb describes. • Speciﬁcally. the Patient proto-role—or Proto-Patient—includes properties that ﬁgure in descriptions of the “patient” role. The entailments making up the proto-roles are among the best known sets of semantic determinants of argument realization.2 The upshot of the COS/traditional incremental theme verb comparison • The distinctive argument realization proﬁle of COS verbs is speciﬁc to this verb class and does not generalize to other classes which are given parallel aspectual semantic analyses.
(Dowty 1991:576. (Dowty 1991:576. stationary. the subject of John sees/fears Mary only possesses the sentience Proto-Agent entailment (Dowty 1991: 572. (29b)) the object of John erased the error only possesses the change of state Proto-Patient entailment (Dowty 1991: 572. if not all. incremental theme. proto-roles overcome problem of unclear boundaries facing traditional semantic roles. Chris is subject: volition. causation. b. (30a)) • Some pairs of subject NPs or object NPs have no shared proto-role entailments at all. a house is object: Proto-Patient entailments of change. (32)) C OROLLARY 2: With a three-place predicate. • Examples satisfying only one entailment of each proto-role to the exclusion of the others: (21) a. • An NP that meets most. sentience. then either or both may be lexicalized as the subject (and similarly for objects).Thus. 4. • An argument of a verb need not be associated with any of these entailments (though presumably every argument is associated with some entailment by its verb). but no Proto-Agent entailments. b. but no Proto-Patient entailments. (33)) (23) (24) • A N EXAMPLE : Subject/object selection in Chris built a house (Dowty 1991: 577) (25) a. causally affected. • A single NP may have some Proto-Agent and some Proto-Patient entailments. (Dowty 1991:576. • An explanation for the existence of psych-verb doublets such as fear and frighten 6 .2 (22) Proto-role entailments in argument realization A RGUMENT S ELECTION P RINCIPLE : In predicates with grammatical subject and object. independent existence Proto-Agent entailments. dependent existence. the argument having the greatest number of Proto-Patient entailments will be lexicalized as the direct object. the criteria for either Proto-Agent or Proto-Patient corresponds to a “good” example of the relevant role. as in Brutus assassinated Caesar. movement. (31)) C OROLLARY 1: If two arguments of a relation have (approximately) equal numbers of entailed Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient properties. A N EXAMPLE : the object of frighten psych-verbs with a change of state interpretation has the Proto-Agent entailment of sentience and the Proto-Patient entailment of undergoing a change of state (Dowty 1991: 579–80). the argument for which the predicate entails the greatest number of Proto-Agent properties will be lexicalized as the subject of the predicate. the nonsubject argument having the greater number of entailed Proto-patient properties will be lexicalized as the direct object and the nonsubject argument having fewer entailed Proto-Patient properties will be lexicalized as an oblique or prepositional object (and if two nonsubject arguments have approximately equal numbers of entailed P-Patient properties. either or both may be lexicalized as direct object).
b. As no other proto-role entailments distinguish between the arguments of these verbs. In fact. Stative reading: Ghosts frighten me. the argument selection principle doesn’t unambiguously determine subject and object.4 Causers have priority in subject selection There is evidence that one Proto-Agent entailment is more important than the others in subject selection: causation outranks the other Proto-Agent entailments (Davis & Koenig 2000:75-76): if an argument has the causer entailment. . (28) “.” (Koenig & Davis 2001:82-83) 7 . the NP denoting the moving object is mapped onto subject position. for all verbs that denote causal events. Volitional involvement in the event is also sufﬁcient to ensure mapping to subject position in non-causative verbs. Similarly. On their stative use. 4. language-by-language. 4. Dowty himself acknowledges that perhaps not all proto-role entailments contribute equally to subject and object selection. it is simply the number of entailments that counts. Experiencer-subject fear verbs: My cousin fears spiders. . Finally.(26) Two classes of psych-verbs: a. which forces the experiencer to be selected as object. When the experiencer is entailed to undergo a change of state. The priorities that emerge illuminate the respective contribution of the causal and aspectual approaches to argument realization. (27) a. Experiencer-object frighten verbs: Spiders frighten my cousin. . it is associated with a ProtoPatient entailment. verbs of both types have a Proto-Agent entailment associated with both their stimulus and experiencer arguments: sentience/experiencer and causation/stimulus. among non-causative verbs. (Dowty 1991:579-580. Nonstative change of state reading: The loud noise frightened me. 586-587) Another property of psych-verbs also follows on Dowty’s approach: Most frighten verbs show a nonstative change of state reading. possibly. . . creating an asymmetry between the experiencer and stimulus. Yet. it is subject. b. . as well as the stative meaning.3 Do all proto-role entailments contribute equally? Dowty’s proposal assumes no priorities among proto-role entailments in argument realization. the only proto-agent entailment that we need to consider is whether the participant causally affects another participant in the event. there is empirical evidence that this is so. Two pairings are compatible with these rules: (i) experiencer/subject and stimulus/object and (ii) stimulus/subject and experiencer/object Appropriate pairing is determined verb-by-verb or. sentience is sufﬁcient to ensure mapping to subject . for all verbs for which being in motion counts as a proto-agent entailment. .
“changes state” outranks the others in determining objecthood. • And causation again takes priority over the Proto-Agent entailment. also syntactically.’ (Finnish. (29) a. Morgan 1969. kill) have been attributed a complex event structure (Dowty 1979.item talk-CAUS-PAST woman-PL-PART ‘The news made the women talk for a long time. thus.5 Entities that change state have priority in object selection • The same idea could be carried over to Dowty’s Proto-Patient entailments and object selection: Among these entailments. 1996).’ (Hebrew) Uutinen puhu-tt-i nais-i-a news. sentience: a sentient participant is subject only when there is no causer (Dowty 1991). regardless of the causee’s Proto-Agent entailments (e. von Stechow 1995.E VIDENCE SUPPORTING DAVIS & KOENIG ’ S PROPOSAL • In languages with productive morphological causatives. motion: a moving participant is subject only when there is no causer (Dowty 1991).CAUS I. Ha-b’dixa hicxika oti. McCawley 1971. (31) a. the-joke laugh. volition). b.. (32) [ [ x ACT ] CAUSE [ BECOME [ y <STATE> ] ] ] When a two-argument verb has a complex event structure.. (30) a. 4. W HY SHOULD CAUSATION OUTRANK OTHER P ROTO -AGENT ENTAILMENTS ? Causative verbs (e. an argument of the higher event is less embedded than an argument of the lower event and should be more prominent semantically and. the introduced causer is invariably the causative subject. • Also relevant is Tsunoda’s (1985) observation that accidental killing is as effective as intentional killing: the killer is the causer whether or not the killing is volitional. break. 8 . The toddler (*deliberately) feared the lion.g. The wind blew the napkin off the table. Causers have priority as subjects due to the structure of event structure. a¨ long-ILL b. Davis & Koenig 2000:75. The lion (deliberately) frightened the toddler. comprised of one event embedded in a second. sentience. The train passed/crossed the border. b. • Causation also takes priority over the Proto-Agent entailment.g. (26)) pitk¨ an.ACC ‘The joke made me laugh.
— A stationary entity cannot be the object in the presence of an entity that changes state. (bat moves and changes state. (35) Pat broke the bat against the window. (Dowty 1991:574. Primus 1999:52-53): 9 . while an entity lexically entailed to undergo movement CAN be an object.6 Identifying asymmetric relations between arguments Subject and object selection implicitly involves imposing (semantic) prominence relations on pairs of arguments and the contributing properties of Dowty’s proto-roles implicitly point to a way of doing this. • Localist theories conceptualize changes of state as changes of location (Gruber 1965. but does change state) The parade passed the queen’s window. window changes state) Pat broke the bat against the window. PAIRING OF ENTAILMENTS: Some Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient properties come in pairs. presumably. 4. (window is stationary. window may or may not change state) Pat hit the window with a bat. (bat moves. but may or may not change state. but does not necessarily change state. b. (36) a. but does not change state. (33) a. (bat moves. (37) a. window may or may not change state) The waiter ﬁlled the glass with water. E VIDENCE: A moving entity can’t be object in the presence of an entity that changes state. 1983). but need not be. window may or may not change state) Pat hit the bat against the window./*The waiter ﬁlled water into the glass. but an entity lexically entailed to undergo a change of state MUST be the direct object. Jackendoff 1976. (glass changes state. (window is causally affected. another reﬂection of the necessary association of entities that change state with objecthood. (38) Pat broke the window with a bat. b. b. bat changes state) Pat broke the window with a bat. no argument changes state) — An entity that changes state has priority in object selection over an entity that is simply affected. (window is stationary and does not change state. Croft 1998:37. water moves) • Object alternations are only found with means/manner verbs. bat changes state) — Hard to evaluate the place of “incremental theme” as it is hard to separate from a change of state. Koenig & Davis 2001:83. (bat moves. (34) Pat broke the bat against the window. (window is stationary.
a similar idea is introduced by Davis & Koenig (2000:73): “Finally. . implicitly deﬁne a ranking of arguments (Primus 1999). c. the one that outranks the other on the Saliency Hierarchy wins out. Other researchers tend to state semantic determinants in terms of a series of oppositions that can be used in subject and object assignment (Mohanan 1994:28. the scene entity that has the highest rank will be realized as the subject . A complete or individuated element outranks a part of an element. Proto-Agent “causing an event or change of state in another participant” and Proto-Patient “undergoes change of state” Proto-Agent “movement (relative to the position of another participant)” and Proto-Patient “stationary relative to movement of another participant”. e. A ‘ﬁgure’ outranks a ‘ground’. Fillmore 1977:102). . thus.(39) a. (Fillmore 1977:102) 10 . b. note that although it is difﬁcult to provide a unifying characterization for each set of entailments. An active element outranks an inactive element. . What is particularly interesting is that the semantic notions they make reference to overlap considerably with Dowty’s proto-role entailments. and. A causal element outranks a noncausal element. they reﬂect an asymmetric relation between event participants. In each pair the Proto-Patient entailment is dependent on the Proto-Agent entailment. g. f. A relation of control could help impose a ranking on pairs of arguments and thus determine subject vs. (Fillmore 1977:102) (41) a. while the UNDERGOER entailments typify affected participants. since every sentence has to have a subject. A ‘deﬁnite’ element outranks an ‘indeﬁnite’ element. d. What is the nature of the semantic relation deﬁning the pairings? Primus (1999:36-37) sees the pairings as entailments of a more general “control” relation. with incremental theme being the major omission. (40) F ILLMORE ’ S S ALIENCY H IERARCHY: a. The entailments characteristic of the ACTOR attribute might then reduce to a general entailment roughly paraphrasable as ‘has control over the unfolding of the situation’” This notion is reminiscent of “asymmetric force transmission”. . Proto-Agent “exists independently of the event named by the verb” and Proto-Patient “does not exist independently of the event. b. the ACTOR entailments relate to initiating an event and affecting other participants. Paired entailments identify participants in a semantic relation. If it is a verb that can take either of two things as direct object. object realization where event structure alone is insufﬁcient. A human (or animate) experiencer outranks other elements. c. b. Thus. . or not at all”. A changed element outranks a nonchanged element.
in P. Farrell. Bertinetto. Bach. result verb dichotomy is important for understanding the organization of the verb inventories of languages. but their contribution is in — the computation of entailments. (1981) “On Time.G. 60-99. (1990) “The Development of Verb Concepts: Children’s Use of Verbs to Label Familiar and Novel Events”. 11–26. OTS Yearbook 2003.A. CSLI Publications. in W. Ackerman. and possible argument realization options. (1998) VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. and — the assignment in some languages of morphological case to arguments (accusative/oblique). Stanford. 9-16. UK. consisting of an event structure. D. Research Institute for Language and Speech. Papangeli. CSLI Publications. (1998) “Passive without Theta Grids”. Torino. Morphological Interfaces. Causation. and P. • The means/manner vs. are still important. E. Stanford. Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. and Time”. F. Stanford. 11 . such as telicity. eds. a causal element outranks everything but an active element. Vlachou. University College London. Bertinetto. 1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Temporal Reference Aspect and Actionality.. 681–96. Rosenberg and Sellier. H.. Utrecht. • Traditional aspectual notions. • Traditional aspectual classes of verbs do not constitute natural classes from the perspective of argument realization. H. Stanford. London. Oxford University Press.K. Linguistics and Philosophy 9.M. Tense. in turn. CA. and these two.(42) The intention is that this hierarchy is to be consulted in the order in which these statements are listed. Bach. constrain argument realization. The Netherlands. D. eds. but not necessarily their grammatical function. Child Development 61. (1986) “Verbs of Change. M. UK. Bianchi. D. and M. Moore (1999) “‘Telic Entity’ as a Proto-Property of Lexical Predicates”. F. CA. Borer. CA. and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics”. CA. New York. in P. (Fillmore 1977:102) 5 Conclusion • Verb meanings are bipartite. Report CSLI-86-50. and so on. “externally caused event” and “force recipient”. Radical Pragmatics. and J. and M. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Cole. eds. 5–16. V. Heeren. Behrend.. Doctoral dissertation. P. associated with a root typed by ontological category. in S. Moore (2001) Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Thus.M. Italy.. and J. an active element outranks everything else. (2005) Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Squartini. D. E. (1986) “The Algebra of Events”. 63–81. constraints on possible verb meanings. References for all three lectures Abusch.g. Utrecht University. Higginbotham.M. E. deﬁning event type. Lapointe. Borer. Academic Press. those ﬁguring in aspectual class diagnostics. Botwinik-Rotem. Squartini (1995) “An Attempt at Deﬁning the Class of ‘Gradual Completion’ Verbs”. J. Oxford. e. Ackerman.. including “causative”. • Certain causal notions ﬁgure in argument realization. Arad. ed. (2003) “PP-Verbs: The Phenomenon of Obligatory Ps”. I. Stanford University. Brentari. CSLI Publications.
Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics.V. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. and H. S. W. Waltham. Cole and J. Croft. Kennedy. Interfaces in Linguistic Theory. CA. Koenig (2000) “Linking as Constraints on Word Classes in a Hierarchical Lexicon”. Croft. Amherst. Holisky. MA. J. in J. A. Eugene. New York. NY. 59-81. Lisbon. D. Rosenbaum. 767–811. and Event Structure. in M. D. IN. (1977) Reference to Kinds in English. Studies in Language 8. Gentner. 21–63.) Gruber. Chicago. Keyser (2002) Prelogemenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.. Bloomington. (1994) “The Semantics of Subjecthood”. W. Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory. Gruber. in S. Doctoral dissertation. (2000) “The Universal Basis of Case”. C. Routledge. Hay. S. eds. in P.A. Carter. IL. Logos and Language 1:2. DeLancey. MIT.J.W. W.H.J. G. p. K.L. ed. 245-259. J. Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations. 27–66. 129-148. Doctoral dissertation. BLS 25. Language 55. (1998) “Event Structure in Argument Linking”. Rapoport (1997) “A Theory of Verbal Projection”. (1978) “Conversational Implicature and the Lexicon”. and B. J.J. (1987) “On Nominals with Preposed Themes”.. Child Development 49. Dowty. IL. Davis. eds. (1977b) “Topics in Lexical Semantics”. New York. McCawley. N. Stanford. Matos et al. DeLancey. in G. Butt and W. 76–138. Croft. Northwestern University. in R.J. 1-15. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. (1986) “A Lexical Theory of Auxiliary Selection in Italian”. in R. MIT Press.. R.R. (1976) “Some Constraints on Possible Words”. London. (Available on DeLancey’s web site. in M. Academic Press. Words and Structure. 75-89. S. (1984) “Notes on Agentivity and Causation”. DiDesidero. Cambridge. Yaguello. Tsohatzidis. Cambridge. Clark. (1995) “Verbal Case Frames in English and Tibetan”. S. Ithaca. ed. Croft. Geuder. University of Chicago Press. 48–73. N.A. and T. (1970) “The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking”. Dordrecht. and S. (1965) “Studies in Lexical Relations”. C. CLS 23. (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.D. D. 181–213.. Grimshaw. (1977) “The Case for Case Reopened”. Cole. Semantikos 1. Cambridge. Reidel.R. (2000) “The Magic of the Moment: What It Means to Be a Punctual Verb”. (1999) Psych Verbs: Acquisition. W. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1. (1984) Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.. Lexical Semantics. Academic Press. Ginn. C. Foley. Indiana University Press. in P. 12 . Jacobs and P. 547-619. University of Massachusetts. G. Doctoral dissertation. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. and J. W. 103– 32. (1978) “On Relational Meaning: The Acquisition of Verb Meaning”. 79-92. Amsterdam. 56–91. MA. 109-121. ed. (Reprinted in Gruber (1976). Fillmore. Clark (1979) “When Nouns Surface as Verbs”. University of Oregon.D. 988–98. and R. (1991) “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection”. C.S.) DeLancey. MA. Fillmore. E. Cole. Van Valin. Cambridge University Press.M. C. J.R. North-Holland. Cornell University. University of California.. Lingua 71.. (1987) “The Case of the Intransitive Subject in Tsova-Tush (Bats)”. Paris. 127– 44. Language 76. Levin (1999) “Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in ‘Degree Achievements’”. APL/Edicoes Colibri. ¸˜ Fellbaum. unpublished ms.-P. (eds. 29–75. Language 67. Sadock. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. (1998). CSLI Publications. 1–210. eds.). 1-35. Davis. Dowty. Centineo. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. L.S. Erteschik-Shir.J. Fillmore. (2005)  “Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Representation”. Grimshaw.Carlson. Engelberg. CA. (1990) “Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events”. SALT 9. J. Ophrys. MA. ed. D. Jr. Evanston. Hale.
Report NSF-17. Semantics and Contextual Expression. MIT Press.S. in M. P. (1963) Action. and the Monotonicity Hypothesis. (1989) “Nominal Reference. and B. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. Alsina. Doctoral dissertation. Linguistics and Philosophy 24. B.D. and Perhaps Even Quantiﬁcation in English”. Thompson (1980) “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”. McCawley. Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions.S. Oettinger. (1976) “Remarks on What Can Cause What”. Kiparsky. Language 56.S. 117–29. C. B. Levin. 201–25. 123-151. Bartsch. R. Cambridge. J. J. 75th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. G. Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface.. A. Levin (2001) “Telicity Corresponds to Degree of Change”. Levin.-P. and S. Jackendoff. (1997) “Remarks on Denominal Verbs”. 75–115. 369–411. and P van Emde Boas. Stanford.D.. R. (1966) “Stative Adjectives and Verbs in English”. Dordrecht. (1996a) “Conceptual Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics”. CLS 35. McCawley. 71–124. Lakoff. B. and Argument Expression”. DC. Washington DC. Academic Press. Linguistic Inquiry 18. Davis (2001) “Sublexical Modality and The Structure of Lexical Semantic Representations”. Jackendoff. 13 . Levin. in I. van Benthem. K. Stanford. Stanford University. University of Pennsylvania. Krifka. ed. Bresnan.R. McCawley. Szabolcsi. R.S. 89–150. and A. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Emotion. 473–99. BLS 26: General Session and Parasession on Aspect. MIT Press. Stanford University. Marantz. Martin’s.S. CA. ed. (1976) “Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation”. J. 245-259. Part 1: Papers from the Main Session. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation. Levin. Jackendoff. (2000) Semantics. Cambridge. A. St. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). New York. Telicity. London. Sells. Koenig. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Levin. Sag and A. p. MIT Press. Cambridge. Academic Press. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.A. Washington. J.D. 413-429. B. B. in P. UK. and Will. (1987) “The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory”. Jackendoff. J. Chicago Linguistic Society. and M. Kennedy. Shibatani. Changes of State. eds. Lexical Semantic Representation.J. (1996b) “The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out. (1983) Semantics and Cognition. Kearns. 305–54. Complex Predicates. and M. 19–33.. A. handout. 251–95. Harvard University. MA.Hopper.. Jackendoff. eds. R. 93–129. Report of the 22nd Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. in R. and M. IL. Linguistic Inquiry 7.S. Cambridge. (2007) States. MA.A. PA. MA. The Computation Laboratory. MA. Foris. New York. J. IL. (1992). Routledge and Kegan Paul. (1999) “Objecthood: An Event Structure Perspective”. ed. Cognition 41. Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. Temporal Constitution and Quantiﬁcation in Event Semantics”. in A. I-1–I-16. (1992) “Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution”. CA. M. M. Jackendoff. 223–47. in A. New York. eds. Cognitive Linguistics 7. Philadelphia. Rappaport Hovav (2005) Argument Realization. Chicago. Cole.G. Georgetown University Press. P. Chicago. (1978) “Conversational Implicature and the Lexicon”.. B. (2000) “Aspect. University of Chicago Press. Department of Linguistics. Rappaport Hovav (1991) “Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical Semantic Exploration”. Kenny. (1971) “Prelexical Syntax”. (1997) “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon”. CSLI Publications. 29–54. R. Levin. Krifka. Koontz-Garboden. and P. R. (1990) Semantic Structures.
GLOT International 4 (2). Mohanan. 47–81. McClure. in T. R. Niemeyer. Grammatical Semantics: Evidence for Structure in Meaning.. M. Rappaport Hovav. eds. (2001) Telicity in the Second Language. 3-11. Geuder. Wee. Mohanan and L.P. Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perı spective. Accusative and Active.C. J. A. (1997) “Achievements in an Events Semantics”. C. 241-264. Rapoport.. New York. H. Nichols. Center for the Study of Language and Information.L. Lema. Harman. (1989) Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Rosen. Language 77. Morgan. u Pustejovsky. UK. Farrell and E. (1969) “On Arguing About Semantics”. and B. W. Berkeley Linguistics Society. W. Rappaport Hovav. Slabakova. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17. Processes and States”.T. 415–34. ed. Benjamins. Rosen (1998) “Delimiting Events in Syntax”. Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Pi˜ on. Olsen. (1994) “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Lexical Aspect Features”. eds. Stanford University. and B. eds. M. Stanford. 2002. 673-704.McClure. Berkeley. Ramchand. CSLI Publications. CA.B. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Syntactic Constraints. eds. (1990) “A Lexical Semantic Explanation for Unaccusative Mismatches”. MIT Press. 227-246. Center for the Study of Language and Information. (1999) “The Syntactic Representation of Linguistic Events”. (2000) “Secondary Predication and Aspectual Structure”. Mohanan. 14 . S. in D. 71-105. 269-280. 361–75. J. Benjamins. Academic Press. Cognition 41. T. Davidson and G. 247-261. 276-293. Oxford University Press. Semantics of Natural Language. M. Butt and W. Garland.. in K. Cambridge. Mej´as-Bikandi. (1999) “Aktionsart and Transitive Phrases”. 135-164. The Syntax of Aspect.. T¨ bingen. Center for the Study of Language and Information. MA. in F. 70–126. in E. (1982) “Ingush Transitivization and Detransitivization”. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford. (1997) A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Clarendon Press. Geuder. 305-318. S. MIT Press. Also in BLS 28: General Session and Parasession on Field Linguistics. Levin (2001) “An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives”. Pham. (1998) “L2 Acquisition of an Aspect Parameter”. 23–75. London. P. Cambridge. R. Dordrecht. (1978) “Events. Stanford University. D. Erteschik-Shir and T.D. BLS 8. Levin (1998a) “Building Verb Meanings”. (1991) “The Syntax of Event Structure”. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17. n´ Primus. S. Mourelatos. Plank. M. ed. 49–70.. WCCFL 11. (1999) Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative. Dziwirek. R. J. eds. 97–134.R. (1998). M. (1984) “Direct and Oblique Objects in Chechen-Ingush and Russian”.P. and B. SALT 7. (1999) “Cognate Objects in Vietnamese Transitive Verbs”. Oxford. 313-325.B. T. Mohanan (1999) “On Representations in Grammatical Semantics”. Reidel. CA. Rothstein. Pinker. Stanford. Ritter.. Slabakova. 766–97. in N. CA. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6. Stanford University. Papers in Linguistics 1. (1997) Aspect and Predication. and S. Linguistics 35. MA. CSLI Publications. Trevi˜ o and J. (1972) “Act”. (1995) Zero Syntax. in M. Amsterdam. Pesetsky. Semantic n Issues in Romance Syntax. J. (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. CA. Sanz. and K. CSLI Publications. Rappaport Hovav. 445–62. M. Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts. Amsterdam. Slabakova. (1993) “Unaccusativity and ‘Inner’ Aspect”. (1997) “Bulgarian Preverbs: Aspect in Phrase Structure”. E. 274-286. eds. Oxford. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24. Nichols. Ross. 183–209. Linguistics and Philosophy 2. Butt and W. B.. CA. in M. Levin (2005) “Change of State Verbs: Implications for Theories of Argument Projection”. Stanford. Olsen. J.T. Stanford University. G.
L. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of e Archibald A.. Thompson. H. Cambridge. Zaenen. Polom´ and W. L. (1994) Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. (1996) Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. Cornell University Press. Agents. Cambridge. J. (1992) Causatives and Accomplishments: The Case of Chinese ba. Van Valin. Vendler. Van Valin.A. in I. Syntax and Semantics 4. NY. Tenny. Sag and A. (1991) “Inner Aspect and the Structure of VP”. Dordrecht. 2. Paul. Cambridge University Press. (2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. MA. R. Cambridge. in M. C. in J. Travis. (1996) “On Running and Jogging”. Kluwer. V. Vendler. Semantics and the Lexicon. Vol. C. Ithaca. R. and R. Vendler (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 132-146. Reprinted in Z. 101–109. Lexical Matters. T. Cahiers de Linguistique de l’UQAM 1.P. Phillips and L. Wilkins (1996) “The Case for ‘Effector’: Case Roles. eds. (1992) “The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis”. Hill. Kluwer. Verkuyl.. 49–100.C.A. Travis. Meaning and Function. Verkuyl. and D. A. Doctoral dissertation. Vendler. LaPolla (1997) Syntax: Structure. Language 66. NY. (1993) “Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics”.P. Talmy. Tilburg. (1988) “Force Dynamics in Language and Thought”. Stanford University. H. (1985) “Remarks on Transitivity”. Tilburg Dissertation in Language Studies. 1–27. van Hout. 289–322.R. Vendler (1967). ed. (1993) A Theory of Aspectuality. Sybesma. Journal of Linguistics 21. Reprinted in Z.J. Clarendon Press. Cognitive Linguistics 7.. Pustejovsky. Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. (1970) “Jespersen’s ‘Move and Change’ Class and Causative Verbs in English”. Z. Kluwer. A. and Agency Revisited”. Oxford. R. 143–60. (1957) “Verbs and Times”.Smith. Mouton. CSLI Publications. Center for the Study of Language and Information. (1991) The Parameter of Aspect. Philosophical Review 56. L. 97–121. Academic Press.J. Jazayery. C. (Revision of Tenny (1987). Katholieke Universiteit Brabant. Ithaca. Van Valin. Cambridge. (1987) “Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness”. Taylor. Cambridge University Press. 221–60. in J. Dordrecht. Descriptive Linguistics. L. Philosophical Review 56. Tenny. 143–60. Tenny. in I. Stanford. Grammatical Constructions. Winter. E. Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics. Tsunoda. Dordrecht. Z. Cambridge. R.D. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press. Cognitive Science 12. ed. Jr. Dordrecht. in M. 15 . C.A. Z. CA. Szabolcsi. Kluwer. New York. Kimball. Smith. (1957) “Verbs and Times”. L.S.D.) Travis. 129-161. eds. eds.J.D.. (1999) “The L-syntax/S-Syntax Boundary: Evidence from Austronesian”.S. (1993) A Theory of Aspectuality. Talmy. C. MIT Press. 21–34. MIT.. Shibatani and S. Talmy. (1975) “Semantics and Syntax of Motion”. 181–238. The Hague. 385–96. A Case of Study of Dutch and Its Acquisition. eds. (1990) “Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity”. MA.. 97–121..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?