Existing approaches to the representation of argument structure in grammar tend to focus either on semantics or on syntax. Our goal in this paper is to strike the right balance between the two levels by proposing an analysis that maintains the independence of the syntactic and semantic aspects of argument structure, and, at the same time, captures the interplay between the two levels. Our proposal is set in the context of the development of a large-scale grammar of Modern Hebrew within the framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Consequently, an additional challenge it faces is to reconcile two conflicting desiderata: to be both linguistically coherent and realistic in terms of the grammar engineering effort. We present a novel representation of argument structure that is fully implemented in HPSG, and demonstrate its many benefits to the coherence of our Hebrew grammar. We also highlight the additional dimensions of linguistic generalization that our proposal provides, which we believe are also applicable to grammars of other languages.

Causative and applicative morphemes have been central in work on the morphosyntax of argument structure. However, several genetically unrelated languages use a single, syncretic form for both functions, which complicates the traditional view that a causative adds a new subject and an applicative adds a new object. In this paper, I propose an analysis of a morphological syncretism found in the Bantu language Kinyarwanda where the morphological causative and instrumental applicative are both realized by the morpheme –ish. I argue for Kinyarwanda that both causation and the introduction of an instrument are analyzable as two outgrowths of the same semantic notion of introducing a new link into the causal chain described by the verb. The different causative and instrumental readings derive from underspecification of the position of the new link in the causal chain, although its placement is restricted via general constraints on possible event types as well as constraints on verb meaning and argument realization. This analysis provides an explanation for the presence of the causative–instrumental syncretism as well as provides insight into the interface between verb meaning and valency-changing morphology.

In this paper, we tackle the twin issues of obligatoriness of semantic arguments and variation in their expression through a study of Estonian constructions denoting need. The variation under investigation consists in the choice of case-marking, between adessive and allative case, as well as the option to omit the oblique argument. We extracted and coded ‘need’-constructions from spoken and written corpora and used non-parametric classification methods for analysis. We found high rates of oblique experiencer omission in these constructions (nearly 60% across corpora). The most important predictors of overt expression of the experiencer in our models were participant-internal modality and the presence of nominal complements, meaning that both semantic and syntactic factors are relevant. The choice between two overt cases is affected by person, complement type, and referential distance. Topical experiencer arguments do not show the subject-like tendency to be omitted more often, but they are more likely to be marked with adessive case, suggesting that adessive is more grammaticalised as a structural, non-nominative, argument-marking case than the more semantic allative case. Our findings show that oblique, semantic arguments may be frequently omitted, and both semantic and syntactic factors may affect variation in case-marking.

This paper investigates the properties of plural agreement that is triggered by collective nouns in British English. Both singular and plural agreement are able to appear with these collective nouns, which are shown to be morphologically singular but semantically plural. Plural agreement, however, is systematically more restricted than singular agreement, appearing in a subset of the environments where singular agreement is allowed. Restrictions on plural come from the nature of agreement; semantic agreement features can only enter into agreement when the controller of agreement c-commands the target of agreement, whereas morphologically motivated agreement is not subject to the same structural restriction. This asymmetry between the two types of agreement is shown to arise from the proposal that Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001) is distributed over the syntactic and post-syntactic components (Arregi & Nevins 2012).

This article reviews some of the main theoretical claims made in Jonathan David Bobaljik’s 2012 book, which deals with root suppletion in adjectival degree expressions. My first goal is to make the reader familiar with a coherent fragment of the overall system and the data that motivate it. The second goal is to discuss one specific part of the account, namely that words, understood as complex heads, are special for suppletion in the sense that suppletion is impossible beyond this domain. I argue that it is possible to abandon this assumption with no loss of descriptive coverage, and argue that in doing so, we can formulate a unified theory which covers both suppletion and morpheme order.