To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this chapter, we examine the layer that represents argument and event structure. The central question is how to map the arguments onto the syntactic structure. When thematic structure is first introduced into generative syntax in the late 1970s, it is projectionist: the lexical item (usually the verb) determines the argument structure of the clause. This is also known as a lexicalist approach. In the early 1990s, the verb is seen as composed of smaller events, and the structure around the verb comes to be seen as playing a major role in thematic/argument structure. This approach is known as constructionist. Structurally, the information on the aspect and the definiteness of the arguments is represented by a double VP, known as the VP-shell.
At the moment, both projectionist and constructionist views are important in the literature. The position argued for in this chapter is that both the information about the verb in the lexicon and structure added from the outside play a role. The crucial problem for both approaches is how we derive the hierarchical order of arguments.
Section 3.1 reviews some of the developments in representing argument structure from the early 1980s to the present. Unergative, unaccusative, and transitive verbs are discussed in Section 3.2. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 discuss alternations, the inchoative/causative alternation and “double object” one, respectively. Section 3.5 looks at aspect and the event structure. Section 3.6 includes some remarks on cross-linguistic variation and on acquisition. In Section 3.7, I end by comparing the lexicalist and constructionist approaches and also by tying argument structure to the main topic of the book, namely how a feature-based approach and constructionist approach work together.
State immunity — Jurisdiction — Functional nature of immunity — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Immunity confined to acta jure imperii — Failure of lower courts to take this limitation into account — The law of the Czech Republic
Beginning with early work such as Ross (1967) and Sag (1976), the interpretation of ellipsis has been an enduring preoccupation of linguistics research. Many researchers have attempted to use ellipsis as a tool to gain insight into otherwise hidden structures and mechanisms underlying interpretation. According to Sag's account of VP Ellipsis (VPE), the facts of ellipsis reflect logical aspects of the representation of pronouns, which are ambiguous between a lambda-bound and referential reading. On this influential view, ellipsis reveals an intricate machinery of lambda binding, pronoun indexing, and scope relations.
Subsequent research has shed doubt on this pleasing picture – it has been shown that ellipsis interpretation is more flexible than Sag's theory permits, and this has lead to the proposal of numerous alternative theories. In Hardt (1993), I proposed that VPE resolution be completely free, at least with respect to pronoun interpretation. This makes it possible to represent pronouns in a uniform way, without indexing or ambiguity. If VPE resolution is indeed free in this sense, then any constraints that appear to arise in ellipsis must instead be imposed by more general mechanisms.
Perhaps ellipsis is revealing in a rather different sense than suggested by Sag: instead of providing insight into the intricacies of the logical form of sentences, ellipsis emerges as a window onto the general mechanisms governing the interpretation of multi-sentence discourse.
In this squib, I discuss the iterative marker in Cayuga (Northern Iroquoian) and how it helps us to understand VP structure and unaccusativity in that language. This discussion bears directly on the issue of configurationality and clausal structure (Hale 1983, Jelinek 1984, Baker 1996, Legate 2002). A fundamental question about discourse-configurational languages is whether they have a distinct VP node or a flat structure. I show that the iterative marker takes scope over objects but not over subjects, supporting the notion that a distinct VP node is present in this language. Furthermore, I show that the iterative marker also takes scope over the subjects of unaccusatives, thus distinguishing unaccusatives from unergatives.
A major controversy in syntactic theory concerns the nature of control verbs, verbs like try, which govern equi-NP-deletion in classical transformational grammar. For recent versions of the extended standard theory and, in particular, the government-binding theory, such verbs take a sentential complement with a PRO subject. (Cf. Chomsky 1980, 1981, 1982 and Koster & May 1982.) On an alternative analysis, originating in Bresnan (1971) and Brame (1975, 1976), and developed by Bresnan (1978, 1982), Gazdar (1982) and others, they take VP complements. A similar dispute arises over raising verbs, verbs like seem, which govern subject raising in classical transformational grammar.
In this paper, we consider two kinds of vP-fronting constructions in English and argue that they receive quite different analyses. First, we show that English vP-preposing does not have the properties that would be expected of a movement-derived dependency. Evidence for this conclusion is adduced from the licensing conditions on its occurrence, from the availability of morphological mismatches, and from reconstruction facts. By contrast, we show that English participle preposing is a well-behaved case of vP-movement, contrasting with vP-preposing with respect to reconstruction properties in particular. We propose that the differences between the two constructions follow from the interaction of two constraints: the excluded middle constraint (EMC), which rules out derivations involving spellout of linearly intermediate copies only, and the N-only constraint, which restricts movement to occurring where the trace position would license a nominal. The EMC rules out deriving vP-fronting by true movement and instead necessitates a base-generation analysis, while the N-only constraint ensures that participle preposing is only possible in limited circumstances.
Previous functional analyses of American English inversion constructions (for example, Hartvigson & Jakobsen, 1974; Gary, 1976; Green, 1980, 1982) have recognized – either implicitly or explicitly – that inverted sentences and their canonical-word-order counterparts are semantically equivalent. None the less, in Ward & Birner (to appear), we describe a non-truth-conditional asymmetry between the interpretation of certain VP inversions and that of their canonical-word-order counterparts.2 Consider (1a) and (2b) in the following context:(1) Free elections were held yesterday in Czechoslovakia for the first time since the war.(a) The main opposition party was losing the election.(b) Losing the election was the main opposition party.(c) The main opposition party lost the election.
This paper argues that Danish verb-second clauses have two structural instantiations and that each structure is associated with distinct information-structural properties. Information-structurally undifferentiated V2 clauses are realized as TPs, whereas information-structurally differentiated V2 clauses are CPs. The evidence for this correlation comes from the behavior of the overt VP anaphor det, which exhibits a complex, but principled, positioning pattern in V2 clauses. I develop a feature-driven analysis of V2 clauses that accounts for previously unnoticed restrictions on the initial position in declarative V2 clauses.
In this paper, we consider Swedish Finite VP-Topicalization and Yiddish Finite-Verb Topicalization, which share certain interesting features that have implications for Germanic syntax and for syntactic theory in general. Although neither construction contains a gap, we argue that both are products of Movement, but with a lexically realized trace, and that this phenomenon is crucially related to Movement of finite verbs. The arguments are based on the distribution of aspectual types, lexical and phonological phenomena, the V/2 Constraint, Subjacency, and discourse phenomena.
The article discusses the placement of the VP anaphor det ‘it’ as a complement of verbs selecting VP complements in Danish. With verbs that only allow a VP complement, the VP anaphor must be in SpecCP regardless of its information structure properties. If SpecCP is occupied by an operator, the anaphor can be in situ, but it cannot shift. With verbs that allow its VP complement to alternate with an NP complement, the VP anaphor can be in SpecCP, shifted or in situ according to the information structural properties of the anaphor. Only if SpecCP is occupied by an operator, must a topical anaphor be in situ. The article argues that a shifted pronominal in Danish must be categorially licensed by the verb and extends this analysis to shifting locatives. An Optimality Theory analysis is proposed that accounts for the observed facts.