Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:29:47.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Split intransitivity in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2018

JAMES BAKER
JAMES BAKER*
Affiliation:
Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TJ, UKjb750@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes a hierarchy of functional heads encoding the features [±control], [±initiation], [±state], [±change] and [±telic] (see Ramchand 2008). It is argued that this allows for a superior analysis of split intransitivity in English than the traditional notion of ‘unaccusativity’ – the idea that there are two classes of intransitive verbs which differ in relation to the underlying status/positions of their arguments. Rather, it is shown – on the basis of a systematic consideration of a wide range of English verbs – that the proposed diagnostics for unaccusativity in English identify multiple classes, whose behaviour can be captured in terms of the proposed hierarchy. Good correlation is found between the classes identified by the English diagnostics and Sorace's (2000) Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (ASH), providing further support for the cross-linguistic applicability of the ASH to split intransitive patterns.

Keywords

syntaxsplit intransitivityunaccusativityargument structure
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 557 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.). 2004. The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2016. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2011. An unaccusativity diagnostic at the syntax–semantics interface: There-insertion, indefinites and restitutive again. In Reich, Ingo, Horch, Eva & Pauly, Dennis (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, James. 2017. Split intransitivity: Thematic roles, case and agreement. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Baker, James. In preparation. Speakers’ judgements on English unaccusativity diagnostics.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 2: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Boston: Ginn.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–25. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74 (1), 101–39.Google Scholar
Irube, Kaneharu. 1984. Argument structure and the out-prefixation. English Linguistics 1 (1), 105–12.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Roeper, Thomas. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15 (3), 381–416.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projection of arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33), 109–37. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 389–423. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2007a. Optimizing auxiliary selection in Romance. In Aranovich, Raúl (ed.), Split auxiliary systems: A cross-linguistic perspective, 145–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2007b. On the typology of auxiliary selection. Lingua 117 (9), 1522–40.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (4), 623–61.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1992. The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A reply to Jackendoff. In Stowell, Tim & Wehrli, Eric (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 26. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130, 152–68.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35 (2), 161–90.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Darden, B. (ed.), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
McKoon, Gail & Macfarland, Talke. 2000. Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76 (4), 833–58.Google Scholar
Montrul, Silvina. 2005. On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2 acquisition. Linguistics 43 (6), 1153–90.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–90.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1970. On the surface verb ‘remind’. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1), 37–120.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In Perlmutter, David & Rosen, Carol (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, 38–77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The causative alternation. Languages and Linguistics Compass 3 (2), 641–81.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 2004. Syntactic unaccusativity in Russian. In Alexiadou et al. (eds.), 207–42.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76 (4), 859–90.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon–syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In Alexiadou et al. (eds.), 243–68.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66 (2), 221–60.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1988. Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax–semantics interface (report no. 88–123). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jun. 2009. A review on the analyses of resultative constructions in English and Chinese. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies 13, 120–52.Google Scholar