It is as if the reflexive morphology converted the transitive verb into, a raising verb, permitting the internal argument to raise from its basic specifier, position into the sentential subject position, as in the simple inchoative, construction, with the difference, of course, that it is raising from a position. Perlmutter, David (1978) "Impersonal passives and the Unaccusativity, Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Reinhart, Tanya (1996) “Syntactic effects of lexical operations: reflexives and, Rose, Carol (1984) "The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical, relations." Fassi Fehri formulates the following generalization for Standard Arabic: Derivational causativization is limited to one application. which is the generally accepted defining feature of unaccusatives (Perlmutter, 1978; Burzio, 1981)—it is a specifier, not a complement; it appears as an "object", only in appropriate sentential syntactic uses of the transitive alternant. In many European languages, a subset of alternating verbs may exhibit an uncoded alternation, but most alternating verbs mark anticausativization with a reflexive-like clitic. Here, however, it is the complement, not the verbal head, itself, which has the fundamental property of requiring the projection of a, specifier. with the basic elements of argument structure as conceived here. In other languages, morphology is used, as in the passive. While the DP occupying that, position comes ultimately to function as subject in the sentential syntax of the, intransitive sentences of (6), it functions as sentential syntactic object in the, transitive members of (6). Also, I show that these verbs have special properties only on their stative reading, and that on their non-stative reading they behave like standard verbs. Both lexical and syntactic “cognate” with morphosyntactic nouns (bracketed pages from Young, Morgan, And in many languages unergatives are verb-noun compounds (i.e., overtly, reflect incorporation) or “light verb constructions” (overtly reflecting the basic. Is it transitivization of an inchoative, or is it detransitivization of a, basic transitive? The next three chapters are case studies of special problematic cases: Chapter three deals with the problem of agents (i.e. The adjectival phrase is, so to speak, parasitic on the verbal projection. semantic properties, suggesting a subcategorial difference not unlike that which. The inflection requirement, precludes adding derivational morphology directly to a Warlpiri root. Assuming that the O'odham verbs of (34)—and their Romance, counterparts, among others—are built upon on the basic (11b)-type dyadic, structure, their basic transitivity follows. The DP occupying specifier position in (7) is a nominal, construction licensed in part by the determiner (D) projection which dominates, it. (16), In Berber, and in many other languages, the issue is somewhat more, subtle. Like the prepositions exemplified in (3), the verbal heads in the sentences. The, transitive, we claim, is formed by embedding the intransitive lexical structure. verb phrase in various ways which are now quite well understood (Dowty, 1979; Vendler, 1967; Tenny, 1994). This is simple, and successful, transitivization, a free option in this framework. derivation, of the type prevalent in English, and overt derivational morphology, as in Miskitu, are defined by conflation in essentially the same way. The second pattern, (32b), is limited to the formation of verbs denoting, events involving separation in the material integrity of an entity, specifically, the, entity denoted by the argument occupying the specifier position in the lp-dyadic, So far as we know, just two verbs of Warlpiri—perfect synonyms, as it happens—exhibit the, this single instance in which English-like zero derivation is used. In particular, he proposes that rule systems are in fact highly restricted in variety: only a finite number of grammars are attainable in principle, and these fall into a limited set of types.Another consequence of this shift in focus is the change of emphasis from derivations to representations. that it takes them in complement position, in a basic dyadic configuration which, it heads (see Marantz, 1995, for a conceptually similar view within the, It follows from this fact of selection, that -, phonologically overt predicators, as noted above. Thus, for example, the existence in principle of the simple transitivity alternation just, discussed is inevitable and invariant for languages generally, in the elemental, theory assumed here, but its expression in actual languages is variable, as we see, from examples considered. Since it is a fact of selection, the prohibition is in force in lexical argument, structure representation. The direction of derivation is, therefore, not obvious. When they, explicit, however, they are quite generally consistent with the argument structure, typology which is determined by (a) the two structural relations, complement, and specifier, which obtain in argument structure configurations and define the, elemental structures of (11) above, and (b) the default, or natural, categorial, realizations of the nuclear elements which project lexical argument structures, on. But they do not, as seen in (35), This follows in part from (64). Once defined in the manner suggested, argument structure can be seen to, have a rather surprising property. This has certain consequences for the theory. If the category of the head is indeed predictable, we, can only mention that fact here, as it is beyond our ability to discuss, knowledgeably. involving two distinct (though possibly “coreferential”) arguments. The major topic in the study of syntactic representations is the analysis of empty categories, which is a central theme of the book. In this paper, we present two hypotheses concerning syntactic iconicity: (1) syntactic descriptions of natural language strings have an inherent structure which is isomorphic to that of representations in some other component of grammar or a non-grammatical system; or (2) linear order imposed on phrase structure is isomorphic to that in some other component of grammar or a non-grammatical system. elements of argument a text and reader Sep 26, 2020 Posted By Evan Hunter Media TEXT ID 838be7fe Online PDF Ebook Epub Library writing and research with an extensive reader on both current and timeless controversial issues it presents everything students need to analyze research and write arguments Logic-based formalizations of argumentation, that take pros and cons for some claim into account, have been extensively studied, and some basic principles have been established (for reviews see [1-3]). Consider the following forms in O'odham, a Uto-Aztecan language of. There is no shift in "form", both, the transitive and the intransitive being of Form I (i.e., traditional. Nor is it an accident that English denominal location and locatum, verbs (cf. And the definitions also permit a basic dyadic type, in which the head projects a structure embodying both the head-complement, relation and the specifier-head relation, as in (11b), in which “spc” represents the, specifier. Navajo, for example, differs from English and Warlpiri alike. Under ordinary circumstances, as in the, well formed sentences of (35, 36), the DP argument (in the inner specifier. While the study of government and binding is an outgrowth of Chomsky's earlier work in transformational grammar, it represents a significant shift in focus and a new direction of investigation into the fundamentals of linguistic theory.This monograph consolidates and extends this new approach. Rather, as suggested, it is a, morphological reflex of formal detransitivization. (18), the idealized abstract structure corresponding to (17a): The actual verb, as seen in (17a), is derived by conflation, which introduces the, phonological matrix of the adjective into the empty matrix of the verb. argument in the basic lexical structure attributed to them, ? In summary, before proceding to additional examples, we are proposing, that the conventional language-specific names of event and process types. (that is to say, with the head of its complement) P, itself the product of conflation. Nevertheless, we will assume that morphosyntactic category and. Those which are basically non-verbal—e.g., those headed, by P instead of V—will necessarily be transitive in their verbal metamorphasis, (as in (44) above). cannot be directly formed from the intransitive, i.e., from the inchoative. them as a distinguished category) that they must be attributed of something. alternating set; but this holds only of a subset of unergatives. category A(djective), in those languages which distinguish that category. Thus, they involve the dyadic (b)-type structure. The head designated h in (c) may represent a simple head, without further projection, or it may, represent a full phrase, since this is complement, and thus occupies an argument position within, We turn now to a consideration of lexical items which involve the process, of “conflation”, producing “synthetic” forms of the type represented by English, An unusually large number of English verbs give the appearance of being, related to nouns, in one way or another. For present, purposes, however, conflation is restricted to the process according to which the, phonological matrix of the head of a complement, phonological matrix of the head which selects (and is accordingly sister to), This is the circumstance represented in (9), where the matrix “[turn]” is, transferred from the lower head to the upper head—leaving, we suppose, a trace, of as yet unknown character, perhaps simply a copy of V, Conflation, in the sense we have defined it here, is a major process in, English morphology, accounting for an impressive range of forms available, through so-called “zero derivation”, including denominal verbs (like, Conflation also accounts for certain derived words in which overt morphology, and conflation will occupy much of our discussion, but before embarking on that, topic, we would like first to review the elementary structural types which are, defined by the fundamental relations in argument structure, i.e., the relations. also the early proposal of Koopman and, Sportiche, 1991); the limits on causativization are determined by sentential, syntactic licensing concerns (Case, Agreement), not by factors inherent to the, theory of lexical argument structure. “detransitivized” verb is often seen as the result of “role reduction”—in Reinhardt (1966), unaccusatives are derived from transitives by the reduction operation. At least, we take, them to be separate issues, although the research program is never absolutely, clear given the inescapable fact that the elements and components of language, interact in a manner sufficiently complex to obscure the divisions and.