Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:25:50.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modularity in Thematic versus Aspectual Licensing: Paths and Moved Objects in Motion Verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Carol L. Tenny
Carol L. Tenny*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the nature of argumenthood and adjuncthood, through an examination of the behaviour of the internal arguments of two classes of motion verbs in English. A highly modular view is put forth, in which three separate distinctions influencing argument-like or adjunct- like behaviour must be recognized: aspectual versus thematic licensing, structural versus inherent case assignment, and referentiality versus non-referentiality. Of these three, only referentiality is a graded rather than a binary distinction. The distinction between aspectual and thematic licensing is developed and elucidated. A picture emerges in which aspectual structure may itself be thematically licensed by a verb, and this aspectual structure may have its own arguments, which are then indirectly licensed by the verb. Cognate objects and Romance measure phrases are also discussed in light of these theoretical conclusions.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine la nature du statut d’argument et de celui d’adjoint à travers une étude du comportement des arguments internes de deux classes de verbes de déplacement de l’anglais. Une approche hautement modulaire est proposée, qui reconnaît trois distinctions indépendantes influençant le comportement de type argumentai ou d’adjoint: la légitimation aspectuelle versus thématique, l’assignation de cas structural versus inhérent, et la référentialité versus la non-référentialité. De ces trois distinctions, seule celle portant sur la référentialité est une distinction graduée plutôt que binaire. La distinction entre la légitimation aspectuelle et la légitimation thématique est développée et reçoit une explication. Un tableau émerge dans lequel la structure aspectuelle peut elle-même être légitimée thématiquementpar un verbe; et cette structure aspectuelle peut avoir ses propres arguments, qui sont alors indirectement légitimés par le verbe. Les objets internes (cognate objects) et les syntagmes de mesure de langues romanes comme le français sont également examinés à la lumière de ces conclusions théoriques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 201 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bach, Emmon. 1986. The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1990. Levels of Representation in Locative Inversion. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni M.. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20:1–50.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Carrier, Jill, and Randall, Janet H.. 1992. The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23:173–234.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard J. 1988a. Some Linking Regularities. In On Linking: Papers by Richard Carter, Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, ed. Levin, Beth and Tenny, Carol, 1–92. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard J. 1988b. Compositionality and Polysemy. In On Linking: Papers by Richard Carter, Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, ed. Levin, Beth and Tenny, Carol, 167–204. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard J. 1988c. On Movement. In On Linking: Papers by Richard Carter, Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, ed. Levin, Beth and Tenny, Carol, 231–252 Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, Aspect, and Mood. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and The Lexicon, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-Bar Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1991. Thematic Underspecification and Manner-of-Motion Verbs. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 11(2): 1–8.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67:547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William, and Valin, Robert van. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published as part of Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. 1976:1–210. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, S. Jay. 1987. A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W. 1985. A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference in English . Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, and Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication. The Linguistic Review 7:1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369–411.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1993. The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even Quantification in English. Ms., Brandéis University.Google Scholar
Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic Relations as Links Between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. In Lexical Matters ed. Sag, Ivan and Szabolsci, Anna, 29–53. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. On Generative Semantics. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, ed. Steinberg, Danny D. and Jacubovits, Leon A., 232–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1988. Case and Grammatical Relations in Cognitive Grammar (with special reference to Newari). Linguistic Notes from La folia 14:57–94.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1985. Bare-NP Adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 16:595–621.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Tova Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Macleod, Lynn, Larson, Gary, and Brentari, Diane, 275–289. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1992. The Lexical Semantics of Verbs of Motion: The Perspective from Unaccusativity. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, ed. Roca, Iggy, 247–269. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35:161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure. In Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Darden, B. Bailey, C.-J.N., and Davison, A., 71–80. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander. 1981. Events, Processes, and States. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 14: Tense and Aspect, ed. Tedesch, Philip and Kimball, John, 191–212. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1985. Underlying Events in the Logical Analysis of English. In Actions and Events. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed. LePore, Ernest and McLaughlin, Brian, 235–267. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1989. The Progressive in English: Events, States and Processes. Linguistics and Philosophy 12:213–241.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christen 1979. The Semantic Interpretation of Aspect and Aktionsarten: A Study of Internal Time Reference in Swedish. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition 41:47–81.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1993. Type Coercion and Lexical Selection. In Semantics and the Lexicon, ed. Pustejovsky, James, 73–94. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 1988. What to do with Theta-Roles. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic Relations, ed. Wilkins, Wendy, 7–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. In press. Classifying Single Argument Verbs. In Lexical Specification and Insertion, ed. Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin, and Grimshaw, Jane. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sarah. 1993. The Status of Causer Arguments. In Proceedings of 1993 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Dyck, Carrie, 557–572. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sarah Thomas. 1994. The Independence of External Arguments. In Proceedings of WCCFL XII, ed. Duncan, Erin, Farcas, Donka, and Spaelti, Philip, 591–606. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson’s University Library.Google Scholar
Smith, Cariota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 1992. Circumstantial Complements and Direct Objects in the Romance Languages: Configuration, Case and Thematic Structure. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, ed. Roca, Iggy, 293–316. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1995. How Motion Verbs are Special. The Interaction of Linguistic and Pragmatic Information in Aspectual Verb Meanings. Pragmatics and Cognition 3: 31—73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and Times. In Linguistics in Philosophy, ed. Vendler, Zeno, 97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voorst, Jan van. 1988. Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar