1

WorkshoponArgumentStructure,LexicalSemanticsandMorphologyUNAM,June24‐July1,2009

HeidiHarley,UniversityofArizonahharley@email.arizona.edu

OverviewInthisworkshop,wewillreviewthechangesinthegenerativetheoryofargumentstructureoverthelastcoupleofdecades,movingfromtheLexicalistviewpointofGBtoapurelysyntacticocentricapproach,asviewedthroughaveryparticularwindowofresearchonargumentstructurealternationsinarangeoflanguages.Firstwewillreviewtheta‐theory,andthenlookatanoverviewofthegenesisofthemoderncomplexVP,involvingavPandpossiblymoreprojections.Wewillthenconsiderargument‐structureanalysesfromseveraldistinctlanguages,includingEnglish,ItalianandJapanese,andwindupwithanoverviewofthemorphosyntaxofargumentstructureintheUto‐AztecanlanguageYaqui(Jiaki,Hiaki).Webpagewithclassreadings:http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/courses/MexicoCity2009/HarleyWorkshop.htmTopicschedule:Day1:Thetaroles,argumentsforcomplexVPsyntaxDay2:ThelexicalsemanticsofverbaldecompositionDay3:Acasestudy:Causativescross‐linguisticallyDay4:EventstructureandsyntacticstructureDay5:HiakiargumentstructureParticipantPresentations:Anyparticipantwhowishestopresentontheiroriginalresearchiswelcometo,timepermitting!Discussitwithmeafterourfirstclasstoday.Ifyou'reinterestedinpresentingIsuggestthinkingalongthelinesofa20minutesession,likeashortconferencepresentation(10‐15minutes)withaquestionperiod(5‐10minutes),butwecanalsogoforamorefreewheelingformatifthatispreferred.OneortwooftheseperdaywouldIthinkbeverymanageable.Classroomdiscussion:Iwouldverymuchliketoencourageinterruptionsforquestionsanddiscussionatanytime!Thisisintendedtobeaworkshop,notalectureseries,whichmeansparticipationfromallsidesisessential–ifyouwouldliketorequestclarificationonanypoint,providefurtherdiscussion,suggestaconnectiontoanothertopicorpieceofdata,orwhatever,pleasedon'thesitatetodoso.AlthoughIamafraidmyspokenSpanishisutterlyminimal,andIwilllectureanddiscussinEnglish(myapologies!),youshouldfeelfreetoaskquestionsandprovidecommentsinSpanish–Esthelaandotherscanprovidetranslationsforme,andIcanunderstandalittlebit.Itismoreimportanttounderstandanddebatethelinguisticcontent.

2

1. ThematicRolesReading:Harley,H.(2009)ThematicRoles,InTheCambridgeEncyclopediaofthe

LanguageSciences,PatrickHogan,ed.,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.ModelofthegrammaticalsysteminGovernment‐Bindingtheory(1) GovernmentandBindingmodel PhraseStructureRules Lexicon (X‐bartheory) (Words:Category,pronunciation,θ‐grid) DeepStructure DSConstraints: representation ProjectionPrinciple θ‐Criterion Syntactictransformations HeadednessParameters (Move­alpha,coindexation) SurfaceStructure SSConstraints: representation CaseLicensing,Subjacency ECP,BindingConditions EPP,Wh‐parameters PF­specific LF­specific transformations: transformations Intonationcontours Covertmovement (e.g.quantifiers) PF LF representation representationTheconstraintswereconceivedofas'modules'whichappliedindependentlyofeachothertofilteroutill‐formedrepresentationsAlltheconstraintsmadereferencetocertainstructuralrelations—eithergovernmentorbinding,hencethenameofthetheory.Areaofrelevancehere:Whatwereθ‐grids?Howdidtheθ‐criterionapply?Andwhatgeneralizationsremainunaddressedbythisapproach?

1.1 LexicalitemsinGBAlexicalitemhadapronunciation,asyntacticcategory,andaθ‐grid:

"The Base"

3

(2) AlexicaliteminGB: PHON: kiss

SYN:VSEM:[Agent,Patient] (or:[1,2],or[kisser,kissee])+somenotionofwhat‘kiss’means

Whatareθ‐roles?

Grammaticizedrepresentationsofthelexicalsemanticsofthepredicate—theencyclopedia/syntaxinterface,essentially.

Basicfunction:Constrainthenumberofargumentsthatappearwithaverb

Verbs,astheyarepredicates,describesituationswhichnecessarilyinvolveoneormoreentities,i.e.theyrequirearguments

Therunsituationrequiresoneentity Thekisssituationrequirestwoentities Thegivesituationrequiresthreeentities Thetradesituationrequiresfourentities

Thematicrolesgrammaticizetheencyclopedicsemanticsoftheverb,andinGBtheory,

interactedwiththeThetaCriteriontoensurethattheverbwilloccurinasentenceinwhichitcanbeadequatelyinterpreted

Couldjustleaveitat"Numberofarguments"Butwouldmissgeneralizationthatthereseemtobetypesofθ‐roles

1.2 Familiesofθ­roles

Differenttypesofθ‐rolesseemtoberelevantforsyntacticbehaviorHencenormalusagecategorizesθ‐rolesintobroadsemanticcategories;herearea

sample:(3) Somethematicroles: Agent:Initiatesandcontrolstheexecutionoftheverbalaction Example:MariainMariakissedPedro Theme:Movesorchangesstateasaresultoftheverbalaction Example:ThedoorinGuillermoopenedthedoor

Patient:LikeTheme,butneednotmoveorchangestate—undergoessomethingastheresultofatheverbalaction

Example:PedroinMariakissedPedro

4

Experiencer:Anargumentwhosementalstateisdescribedoraffectedbytheverbalaction.

Example:MercedesinMercedeslikesicecreamGoal:Anargumentexpressingtheendpointofsomemotiondescribedbytheverbal

action Example:ThehouseinAnnaenteredthehouseIncrementaltheme:Anargumentconsumedorcreatedbytheverbalaction,or

whosephysicalextentdelimitstheverbalaction Example:AnappleinFernandoateanapple.Beneficiary/Maleficiary:Anargumentwhichbenefitsfromorisadverselyaffected

bytheverbalaction Example:JoseinSelmabakedJoseacake.Source:Anargumentexpressingtheoriginofsomemotiondescribedbytheverbal

action Example:ThehouseinAnnaleftthehouse.Measure:Anargumentwhichexpressestheextentofanotherverbalargument Example:0.5kginThisbookweighs0.5kg.

Thevariouscategoriesoftheta‐rolesseemtobeimplicatedinseveralgrammaticalprocesses,especiallyinderivaitonalmorphology,butalsoinsyntax

(4) Grammaticalprocessesandtheta‐rolesa. English­eraffixationaffectsAgent‐assigningverbsonly; ProducesnominalsreferringtoAgentsorInstruments writer,teacher,sniper,driver,seller,buyer,user filler,chipper,wrapper,dryer,washer,computerb. Tagalogpag­prefixationappearstoaddanAgentargumenttoanagentless

verb(DatafromTravis2000,inturnfromMaclauchlan1989): Intransitive Transitive t‐um‐umba Xfalldown m‐pag‐tumba YknockXdown s‐um‐abog Xexplode m‐pag‐sabog YscatterX. l‐um‐uwas Xgotothecity m‐pag‐luwas YtakeXtothecity s‐um‐abit Xhang m‐pag‐sabit YhangX s‐um‐ali Xjoin m‐pag‐sali YincludeX (Note:­um­isaninfixthatappearsaftertheonsetofthefirstsyllableofthe

stem)

5

Amoreinvolvedexample:DifferencesinGoalvs.Beneficiaryθ‐rolesinItalian:FolliandHarley(2006):

(5) a. Beneficiaryargument Ibambinihannomangiatotuttalatortaallamamma thechildrenhaveeatenallthecaketomother

b. Goalargument GiannihadatounlibroaMaria JohnhasgivenabooktoMary

(6) a. Beneficiarydativebadinnominalization: *ilmangiaretuttalatortaallamamma (èstataunabuonaidea) theeatingthewholecaketomom (isbeenagoodidea)

b. Goaldativeokinnominalization

IldonareunlibroaMaria (èstataunabuonaidea) thedonatingabooktoMary (isbeenagoodidea)

(7) BeneficiarydativecliticbadwithA‐movementofobject a. Leèstatamangiatatuttalatorta.

to.herisbeenmadeeatenallthecake

b. *Tuttalatortaleèstatamangiata(daMarco). all the cake to.her is been eaten (by Marc)

(8) GoaldativecliticfinewithA‐movementofobject a. Leèstatodatoillibro(daMarco). to.herisbeengiventhebook(byMarc).

b. Illibroleèstatodato(daMarco). thebookto.herisbeengiven(byMarc).

1.3 θ­role/syntaxmapping

InGBtheory,sinceverbswithsimilarsemanticshadsimilartheta‐grids,lexical

operationslikenominalization,couldselectivelyapplytocertainclassesofverbstoadjusttheirtheta‐grids(andsimultaneouslychangetheirmorphology)—themodelincludedagenerativelexicon,inwhichoperationscouldapplytoexpandtheBasepriortosyntacticcomputation.(See,e.g,.Chomsky's1970Remarksonnominalization).

6

Thereareothergeneralizationsconcerningthematicroles,however,whichneededadditionalprinciples/stipulationstocapture,particularlytodowiththelinkingproblem—howtorelatethematicrolestosyntacticpositions

Thereisatightbutnotperfectcorrespondencebetweenthethematicroleandthe

grammaticalfunctionofanargumentE.g.ifanactiveverbhasanAgent,thatargumentwillbethesubjectIfanactiveverbhasaTheme,thatargumentwillbetheobject,etc.Thegeneralinvestigationoftherelationshipbetweenlexicalsemantcisandsyntactic

structureis"LinkingTheory"SpecificLinkingproposalswithinGBincludeBakers(1986)UniformityofTheta

AssignmentHypothesis(UTAH),itselfareworkingofPermutterandPostal'sRelationalGrammarproposalofaUniversalAlignmentHypothesis(UAH).

TheUAHproposedthatthereisaconnectionbetweenahierarchyofthetaroles(Agent>

Patient>Goal…)andgrammaticalfunctions(Subject>Object>IndirectObject)suchthatthehighesttheta‐roleonthehierarchyofagivenverbappearedwiththehighestgrammaticalfunctionavailableintheclause;thenexthighestwiththenexthighest,etc.

TheUTAHmadeasimilarclaim,exceptthatinsteadofassumingthatGFsareprimitives

ofthetheory,Bakerproposedthattheta‐roleswereassignedtosyntacticargumentpositionssothatthethematichierarchycorrespondedwiththec‐commandhierarchyoftheargumentpositions.

1.4 ProblemswithrigidmappinghypothesesThemostrigidversionoftheproposalsrunintotwoproblems:(9) ProblemI:Sametheta‐role,sameverb,butdifferentGFs/syntacticpositions a. JosefinagaveMariathebook. b. JosefinagavethebooktoMaria c. Marcelosprayedthewallwithpaint d. Marcelosprayedpaintonthewall.(10) ProblemII:"Mirror‐Image"verbs—samesituation,samethetaroles,butinverseGFs a. Thecatchasedtherat. b. Theratfledthecat.

7

c. Theratfearsthecat. d. Thecatscarestherat. f. MarcoboughtacarfromPancho. g. PanchosoldacartoMarco.Twokindsofsolutions.Solution1:Dowty(1991)

EachargumentisevaluatedwithrespecttoasetofProto‐Agentcritera(motion,intentionality,animacy,control)andasetofProto‐Patientcriteria(affectedness,inanimacy,lackofcontrol)

ThosescoringhighonProto‐Agentcriterawillmaptosubjectposition;thosehighonProto‐Patientcriteriawillmaptoobjectcondition

Whenatsimilarpointsonthescale,flexibilityinmappingwillbeobserved,asinthesituationsin(9)and(10)above.

Solution2:Doawaywiththematicroles.Theverbisdecomposedintosub‐predicates,

andargumentsareintroducedbydifferentsub‐predicates,eachinitsownsyntacticpositionintheclause,suchasCAUSE,DO,BECOME,BE,GO,orHAVE.Theinterpretationoftheargumentdependsonwhichpredicateitcomposeswith,andsodoesitspositionintheclause.Theencyclopedicverbalsemanticsoftenendupjustfunctioningasamodifierofthebasiclexico‐syntacticstructurethatprovidesthescaffoldingfortheclause.Restrictionsonco‐occurrencewithcertainnumbersofargumentsandsoonbecomealmostepiphenomena…

Thisclass:IntroductiontoonemodernversionofSolution2.Othersomewhatdifferent

versionsavailableoutthere:Ramchand,Borer,Travis,Alexiadou,Pylkkanen,Embick,Marantz…mostlysharethesamecoresetofassumptions,however.

Theoverallapproachalsohasthetheoreticalbenefitofeliminatingawholeclassof

theoreticaldevices:Derivationallexicalmorphologicalprocesses,linkingrules,theta‐roles,theThetatCriterion,UTAH,etc,canallbeeliminatedasstatementsofthetheory—instead,theireffectsarederiveablefromthebasicassumptionsofthenewtheory.Henceit'smoreMinimalist…ournexttopic.

8

2. AMinimalistThetaTheoryReading:Harley,H.(forthcoming).AMinimalistApproachtoArgumentStructure.InC.

Boeckx,(ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofLinguisticMinimalism.Oxford:OUPPress.

2.1 Devicesinpre­Minimalismθ­theory

(11) AGenerativeLexicon:lexicalentriesarederivedfrom/relatedtoothersby

redundancyrules,e.g.‘passive’,whichcanhavemorphologicalandsemanticeffects a. PHON: kissed

SYN:V (noaccusativecase)SEM:[Patient] (or:[1],or[kissee])+somenotionofwhat‘kissed’means

b. Anotherone:an‘agentivenominalization’rulemightproducethis:

PHON: kisserSYN:NSEM:(indexedθ‐roleoftheV,say;either Agenti) Instrumenti

+somenotionofwhat‘kisser’means(noticethattherearetwopossibilities,bothavailableinEnglish;botharepossible‘causers’ofkissing.Exampleslike‘transmission’aresimilar,onlywithdifferentpossibilitiesfortheindexedθ‐role:Eventi,Themei,orInstrumenti.)

Wheretheactionis:

PrincipleslikeBaker’sUTAHorTenny’sAspectualMappingHypothesisorLevin&Rappoport’slinkingrulesensurethattheappropriateparticipantintheeventendsupintheappropriateplaceinthesyntactictree,accountingfortheta‐role/syntacticstructureregularities.

TheThetaCriterionensuresthatnopredicatecanendupwiththewrong

numberofarguments,andnoargumentcanendupwithoutaninterpretation.

(Some)concerns:

OnaFregeanviewofsyntacticosemanticcomposition,asnotedbyHeimandKratzer1998,theTheta‐Criterondoesn’tdomuchwork;notveryMinimalist.

9

Cross‐linguistically,thereislotsofduplicationofeffort.Englishcausativesare'syntactic';theirtranslationequivalentsinJapaneseandHiakiare'morphological',althoughwithrespecttomanykeysyntacticproperties,theEnglishandJapanese/Hiakicausativesareidentical.InMinimalistterms,it'sverypeculiartohavetwoseparategenerativemechanisms—syntaxandmorphology—eachcapableofgeneratingmuchthesamephenomena,andcompetingforcoveragebothbetweenandwithinlanguages(considerEnglishcomparativeconstructions,e.g.).

Solution:It'sallsyntax.Argumentone:Morphology/syntaxcorrelationscross‐linguistically

2.2 HaleandKeyserandthevPhypothesisAquestion:Nosyntacticprocessseemstorequirereferencetomorethan6‐8theta

roles,mostlyinAnimate/Inanimatepairs—Agent/Causer,Patient/ThemeBenefactee/Goal…

Anobservation:Crosslinguistically,themorphologicalexpressionofunergativeverbs

involvesnominals(12) Jemez:Nounssuffixedwith(incorporatedinto)averbalmorpheme

a. záae‐'a “sing”

song‐do b. hįįl‐'a "laugh" laugh‐do c. se‐'a "speak" speech‐do d. tų‐'a "whistle" whistle‐do e. shil‐'a "cry" cry‐do f. sae‐'a "work" work‐do (13) Basque:Nounsinsyntacticconstructionwithaverb'do'

a. lo egin "sleep"

sleep do b. barre egin "laugh" laugh do c. lan egin "work" work do

10

d. negar egin "cry" cry do e. eztul egin "cough" cough do f. jolas egin "play" play do g. zurrungaegin "snore" snore do(14) English:Asystematiccorrepsondencebetweenunergativeverbsandbareevent

nouns:tolaugh,alaugh;towalk,awalk;torun,arun;towork,work;toswim,aswim;todance,adance;towhistle,awhistle;tosneeze,asneeze;toscream,ascream;toshiver,ashiver…

Theirproposal:Unergativeverbsaresyntacticallycomplex,cross‐linguistically,

involvinga'light'verbheadingitsownprojection,andanominalcomplementcontributingtheencyclopedicsemanticcontent

Theobservedcross‐linguisticdifferencesresultfromdifferencesinthemorphological

realizationofthedifferentheads:incorporation(Jemez,English)vs.noincorporation(Basque,Persian);overtmorphology(Jemez)vs.noovertmorphology(English)

(15) a.UnergativeverbderivationinEnglish vP DPAgent v’ v N ∅ run

b.UnergativeverbderivationinJemez vP DPAgent v’ v N -'a záae DO laugh

11

c.UnergativeverbderivationinBasque(right‐headed) vP DPAgent v’ N v lo egin sleep DOOnlyoneAgentθ‐roleassigner,namely,vDO(Non‐light)verbsaremadeupoftwoprojections,av°andacontentfulelementwhich

incorporatesintoit.Theyproposedasimilarapproachtothepatternofinchoative‐causativealternations1

cross‐linguistically,whichalsoinvolve∅‐morphologyinEnglishbutovertmorphologyinotherlanguages,andevenperiphrasiticcounterparts(seeourdiscussionofPersianinacoupleofdays).

Inchoativeverbsareoftencomposedofanadjectivalpredicateandaverbalizing

morpheme,cross‐linguistically:(16) English Hiaki

Verb Adj Verb Adj toredden red sikisi siki tofatten fat awia awi tosoften soft bwalkote bwalko tosharpen sharp bwawite bwawi warm warm sukawe suka ….Bythesamechainofargumentasabove,wecanconcludethattheyarecomposedofav°

plusacontentfuladjectivalpredicateOneimportantdifference:InchoativeverbsdonothaveAgentarguments,butTheme

ones…Importantdifferencebetweenadjectivesandnouns:Adjectivesarenecessarily

predicative,nounsarenot

1An"inchoative"istheintransitivecounterparttoatransitivecausativeverb,whosesubjectgetsinterpretedliketheobjectofthecorrespondingcausative;theynearlyalwayspassunaccusativitydiagnostics,andhenceweassumetheirsingleargumentisbase‐generatedinobjectposition

12

Conclusion:Thev°involvedininchoativepredicatesisadifferentonefromthatinvolvedinunergativepredicates

TheargumentofaninchoativepredicateisselectedbytheAdjectivalroot,notbythev°Thev°inquestionistheequivalentof'become';itdoesn'tselectanAgent.(17) vP vBECOME AdjP =SC ‐en DP Adj Thesky redSo:Generalizationmaintained—specifierofvPisanAgentCanconcludethatsistertolexicalpredicateposition,belowvP,isPatient/ThemeDifferencebetweeninchoativesandtheircausativealternantsissimplythepresenceof

anAgentargumentSinceweknowthatacertainvarietyofvPselectsforAgents,wecaneasilyexpressthe

mechanismwhichdrivesthecausative/inchoativealternation:InsteadofcomposingwiththevBECOMEhead,theAdjPlexicalcomponentcomposeswiththeagentivev°head

(18) vP DP v'Thesun vDO AdjP =SC ‐en DP Adj thesky redTheAgentargumentisintroducedbythev°,aswithunergatives;thev°contributesthe

AgentivesemanticsSincethey'reboth∅morphemesinEnglish,wecan'tseethechange,but(aswewillsee

inJapaneseinafewdays)inmanylanguages,theinchoative/causativealternationisnecessarilyaccompaniedbyachangeinovertverbalizingmorphology.

13

WehaveseenverbswithNP(intransitive)andAdjP(transitive)downstairsphrases;Naturalextension:PPdownstairs.2Thisultimatelywillbethebasicacountofditransitivestructures,butH&Kcametoitthroughanotherclassofdenominalincorporatedverbs

HaleandKeyser'streatmentofagentiveEnglishLocation/Locatumverbs(19) a. bandage,bar,bell,blindfold,bread,butter,clothe,curtain,dress,fund,gas,

grease,harness,hook,house,ink,oil,paint,pepper,powder,saddle,salt,seed,shoe,spice,water,word.

b.Structure: Thecowboysaddledthehorse=fitthehorsewithasaddle Thecowboybutteredthebread=smearthebreadwithbutter vP DP v Thecowboyv PP =SC Agent ∅ DP P' thehorse P N Location ∅ saddle LocatumWhenP(andv°)areovert:(20) vP DP v Theteacher v PP =SC Agent ‐ate DP P' theconceptP N Locatum en‐ capsule LocationStatusof"Location"and"Locatum"rolesdependsonP°headinvolved.H&KglosstheP

involvedinsaddleas'with'(fitthehorsewithasaddle),whilethePinvolvedine.g.2SeeJaumeMateu'swork,fromBarcelona,forfurtherdiscussionofthisextension

14

boxismorelikeinorat:(puttheshoesinabox).Inbothcases,thesententialobjectisthesubjectofthelowerpredicate('withasaddle'/'inabox'),whilethelower('Goal')Nisincorporated.

So,webegintoseeapattern:(21) θ‐role PositionofDP Agent ≈ Spec‐vP Theme ≈ Spec‐SC("InnerSubject") Goal ≈ Comp‐SCAquestion:Withadjectivalsmallclauses,wecancombineeitherthenon‐Agent‐selecting

v°ortheAgent‐selectingone(givingthecausative/inchoativealternation).CanwedothiswiththePPsmallclauses?orwithincorporatedNs?

Notveryfrequently—butitispossible:(22) a. Manuelalandedtheplane ([vPManuela[v'vCAUS[PPtheplane[P'∅land]]]]) b. Theplanelanded (=[vPvBECOME[PPtheplane[P'∅land]]])Alsogive/getalternationsarelikethisaswell,withoutincorporationofthecomplement

ofP:(23) a. ManuelagaveAnnaabook. (=[vPManuela[v'vCAUS[PPAnna[P'∅abook]]]]) b. Annagotabook (=[vPvBECOME[PPAnna[P'∅abook]]])EvenwithincorporatedNs,whenthesemanticsoftheconstructionareright,wesee

occasionalcompositionwithvBECOME—this,Ithink,isthestructureofEnglishdenominalweatherverbswithexpletivesubjects—thenominalincorporatesintothev°:

(24) a. Itrained (=[vPvBECOME[Nrain]]) b. Itsnowed (=[vPvBECOME[Nsnow]]Nonetheless,itisclearthatamajorityofverbsdonotalternateproductively:*itjumped

(withexpletive'it'),*Thecitydestroyed,*Thehorsesaddled.Inthecurrentframework,thisbecomessomethingofatheoreticalconundrum.There

aretwoapproachestothisproblem:

o Associateverbrootswithlicensingconditions,sothatcertainverbrootscanonlyappearinthecontextofoneortheotherv°(Ramchand2008,Siddiqi2006areexamplesofthisapproach)

o Ascribetherestrictiontothesemantics,notthesyntax:Theproblemwiththehorsesaddledisnotungrammaticality,butuninterpretability,

15

givenwhatweknowaboutsaddling.SeeMarantz1997,HarleyandNoyer2000,Borer2005forvariationsonthisapproach.

2.3 Syntacticmotivationsforthesplit­vPapproach:Larson1988Ditransitiveverbsareproblematicforabinary‐branchingsyntax:(25) VP

DP V’AgentJohn V° DP PP gave Theme Goal

abook toBillFirstinternalargumentDPc‐commandssecondone(BarssandLasnik1986)(26) a. MariashowedBillhimself(inthemirror).

a'. *MariashowedhimselfBill.b. MariashowedBilltohimself(inthemirror).b'. *MariashowedhimselftoBill.

Larson1988:SolutionistosplitthevPintotwoprojections,anupper,semantically

emptyAgent‐assigningoneandalowercontentfuloneselectingtheinternalargumentsoftheverb

(27) VP1

DP V’AgentMaria V1 VP2 ∅ DP V’ Theme Bill V2 PP

Goal show tohimselfIfVP1isreallyvP,andVP2isareallyavarietyofPPheadedbyastativeroot√show,this

structureisisomorphictoHaleandKeyser's.

2.4 Advantagesofthesplit­vPapproachwithinMinimalism:DistinguishingunaccusativeandunergativeVsinBarePhraseStructure

16

InMinimalism,X‐bartheoryhasbeeneliminated(Chomsky1995,Ch.4)Instead,wehavethesimpleoperationMerge,whichsimplytakestwoelementsand

combinesthemtoproduceevermorecomplexbinarybranchingstructures:(28) <eat> <the> <eat> <the><boy><eat> <it>

“Theboyateit.”(vPportiononly—noTPrepresented)Crucially,therearenononbranchingprojectionspossibleinthissystem,sinceevery

projectionistheresultofaMergeoperation,involvingatleasttwoelements!However,withtheVP‐internalsubjecthypothesis,GBtheoryreliedcruciallyon

nonbranchingprojectionstomakethespecifier/complementdistinctionthatwascentraltodistinguishingunergativeandunaccusativeverbs.

(29) BeforetheadventofthevPhypothesis:

UnergativeverbsinGBtheory UnaccusativeverbsinGBtheory

VP VP

DP V’ V’ V° V° DP The man laugh arrive the man WithinBPS,thesimplemergerofaverbanditsargumentproducesidenticalstructures,

nomatterwhatlinearorderyouassume:(30) Unergative Unaccusative a. VP<dance> b. VP<fall> DP V<dance> V<fall> DP Jose dance fall JoseUndertheH&Kproposal,thedifferencesbetweentheverbtypesareconsiderablymore

profound;unergativeverbsgeneratetheirexternalargumentinspec‐vP,whileunaccusativeargumentsarebase‐generatedinsistertotheV/Adjprojection,belowtheunaccusativevP.

17

(31) a. vPDO vPBECOME DP vDO' vBECOME VP<fall> Jose vDO N<dance> V<fall> DP dance fall JoseThisprovidedChomskywithasolutionbeforeheevenneededitforhisBPSproposal's

problemwiththeunaccusative/unergativedistinction.

2.5 Wrap­upSo:Wehaveseenaproposalfordoingwithouttheta‐roles;thestructuralpositionsin

whichDPsaremergedandthecompositionalsemanticsoftheprimitivelexical‐semanticpredicatesassociatedwiththemdetermineDPinterpretation;similarinterpretationsareseeninsimilarstructuralpositions.

Next:Thesemanticmotivationfordecomposingverbs.First:DealingwithFodor's

(1970)argumentsagainstdecomposition,thenKratzer'streatmentofMarantz'sidiomgeneralization.

18

3. Fodor(1970):Threereasonsfornotderiving'kill'from'causetodie'Harley,H.(forthcoming).Lexicaldeompositioninmoderngenerativegrammar.In

HandbookofCompositionality,editedbyWolframHinzen,MarkusWerningandEdouardMachery.Oxford:OUP.

3.1 Fodor'sbasiccontentionArguingagainsttheLexicalSemanticsproposalsofthe1970s,Fodorcameupwiththree

waysinwhichthemonomorphemicchange‐of‐stateverbkilldifferedfromitsmulticlausalparaphrasecausetodie

(32) Paraphraseallowsindependenttemporalmodification(a);verbdoesnot(b) a.JohncausedtheautomaticdoortoopenonSundaybyprogrammingitonSaturday b.#JohnopenedtheautomaticdooronSundaybyprogrammingitonSaturday.(33) ParaphrasehastwopossiblecontrollersforadjunctPRO(b);verbdoesnot(c) a. Billidied[byPROiswallowinghistongue]. b. JohnicausedBilljtodie[byPRO#i/jswallowinghistongue] c. JohnikilledBillj[byPRO#i/*jswallowinghistongue](34) ParaphraseallowstwoantecedentsforVP­ellipsis(a),verbonlyone(b) a. JohncausedMarytodie,anditsurprisedmethatshedidso[=DIED]. b. *JohnkilledMary,anditsurprisedmethatshedidso[=DIED].Sincethesyntacticpropertiesoftheparaphrasearesodifferentfromthepropertiesof

thesimpleverb,Fodorconcludedthatthesimpleverbshouldnotbederivedby'collapsing'(incorporating)abiclausalstructure—'kill'shouldnotbedecomposedintoCAUSEtoDIE.

3.2 Review:Whydecomposeatall?Wesawpreviouslythattherearemorphosyntacticargumentsfordecomposingtheverb

phraseintoavPandacontentfulpredicativephrase.Therearealsosemanticreasons;theseweretheoriginalgenerativesemanticarguments

infavoroftheproposalConsidertheambiguitypresentinastringsuchasConsuelamadeMarcelohappyagain.

It'sasyntax101exercisetoshowhowthisambiguityisstructural:

19

(35) a. VP b. VP DP V' DP V' V° SC V' Adv° DP AdjP V° SC Adj' Adv° DP AdjP Adj° Adj° ConsuelamadeMarcelohappy againConsuelamadeMarcelo happy againThescopeofmodificationofagaincorrespondsexactlytoitsattachmentsite;because

thetwoattachmentsitesdonotinvolveachangeinlinearorder,thestringisstructurallyambiguous.

Keything:Thesameambiguityispresentwithmonomorphemicchange‐of‐stateverbs

likeopen(36) a. vP b. vP DP v' DP v' v° SC v' Adv DP AdjP v° SC Adj Adv DP Adj° Consuela CAUS thedooropen againConsuelaCAUSthedooropen againVonStechow(1995)arguedthatitwouldbetheheightoftheoreticalprofligacyto

assumethattheambiguityin(35)issyntacticwhilethatin(36)islexical;thetype‐shiftingoperationsneededtoderivetwoscopesforagaininthepurelysemanticdomainwouldascribeanexceptionaldegreeofpowertothesemanticcomponentwhenthenecessarytoolsarealreadybepresentinthesyntax.

SimilarscopalambiguitiesareevidentwithrespecttoothertemporalmodifierssuchasdurativePPslikeforfiveminutes:

20

(37) a. vP DP v' vCAUSE VP DP V' V° AdvP John ∅ thedoor open forfiveminutes b. vP DP v' v' AdvP vCAUSE VP DP V° John ∅ thedoor open forfiveminutes Also:CompositionargumentofKratzer'swhichwe'reabouttoconsidernext.

3.3 Therightwaytoanalyze'kill'as'causetodie'KeytounderstandingtheresponsetoFodor'sobjections:

o Fodor'scounterexamplesinvolveanembeddedinfinitiveTP,completewithto‐marker,itsowntemporallocation,andanembeddedeventiveVP

o Theproposedstructureforchange‐of‐stateverbsinvolveanembeddedstativesmallclause,notanembeddedTP

o AmoreappropriateperiphrasticcomparisontothemodernproposalfordecompositionintoCAUSEandstativesmallclausewouldbeaperiphrasiticcausativeheadedbymakeandtakingastativesmallclausecomplement,likeMarymade[Johnsick].

o Infact,whentestedwithFodor'sowntests,MarymadeJohnsickbehaveslikethemonomorphemicverbs,notlikeMarycausedJohntogetsick

21

o Conclusion:Theparallelbetweentheappropriateperiphrasticconstructionandtheproposedmoderndecompositionisactuallyveryclose

o Fodor'soriginalcomparisonpointsarenotrelevanttothemodernproposal.

First,akeydistinction:eventivevs.stativeEventivepredicatesare[+dynamic]—somethinghappensStativepredicatesare[‐dynanmic]—justanexpressionofthewaythingsare.InEnglish,onegoodtestforstativevs.eventivestatusofagivenpredicateistheir

behaviorinthetruepresenttense,asadescriptionofthewaythingsarerightatthemomentofspeech

Stativesaregrammaticalinthepresenttense;eventivepredicatesrequirethe

progressive.Onegoodwaytoavoidtheconfoundofahabitualinterpretationistoprefacetheexamplewithsomethinglike"Look!"

(38) a. Look!Mariaisswimming!/*swims! eventive b. Look!Mariaissick!/*isbeingsick! stative c. Look!MariaknowsFrench!/*isknowingFrench! stative d. Look!MariatalkingtoJohn!/*talkstoJohn! eventiveEventivepredicates,esp.ifagentive,aregenerallygoodwithimperativemood;Stative

predicatesarenot:(39) a. Swim! b. #KnowFrench! c. LearnFrench! d. #Besick! e. Getsick! f. Die! g. #Bedead!SowhenItalkabouteventivevs.stativepredicatesbelowthesmallclause,that'swhatI

mean.Fodor'sexamplescauseXtodieinvolveaTPwithaneventivepredicatedie.MyparaphrasesmakeXsickinvolveasmallclausewithastativepredicatesick–butthey'restillindubitablysyntactic.

SoifthemonomorphemicchangeofstateverbsbehavelikemakeXsickwithrespectto

Fodor'stests,wecanconcludethatthereisnoreasonnottodecomposethem,aslongastheproposalinvolvesastructuralparalleltomakeXsick—whichitdoes,ofcourse.

22

3.3.1 ControltestSubjectsofstativepredicatescannotcontrolPROinanadjoinedbyphrase(40) a. *MariaiwashappybyPROisinging. b. *MarcelowassickbyPROieatingtoomuch.Comparethesewiththeireventiveinchoativecounterparts:(41) a. MariaibecamehappybyPROisinging. b. MarcelogotsickbyPROieatingtoomuch.Whenmaketakesaneventiveverbalcomplement,theembeddedsubjectcancontrol

PRO,asweexpectfrom(41)(thematrixsubjectcanalsocontrolPRO,whichisexpectedgiventhatmakeiseventive):

(42) JosejmadeMariaidiebyPROi/jswallowingheritongueHowever,whenthecomplementtomakeisstative,theembeddedsubjectcannotcontrol

PRO,onlythesubjectofmakecan:(43) a. JosejmadeMariaisickbyPROj/*ieatingtoomuch b. JosejgotMariaiawakebyPROj/*isettingthealarmclock.Consequently,thefactthatasinglechange‐of‐stateverbbehaveslike(43)isexpectedif

thecomplementtoCAUSEisastativesmalclause,ratherthananeventiveverblikedie:

(44) a. JoseisickenedMariajbyPROi/*jeatingtoomuch b. JoseiwokeMariajbyPROi/*jsettingthealarmclock.Theparallelbetween(43)and(44)suggestthata[CAUSE[Mariasick]SC]v'structurefor

theverbsin(44)isnottoofaroffhere.

3.3.2 VPellipsistestSameremarksapplyhere:Itturnsoutthatstativepredicatesingeneralcannotbe

antecedentsforVP‐ellipsisinEnglish,whilealleventivepredicatescan.(45) a. Mariawassick,*andConsueladidsotoo. b. Pepewasawake,*andMarcelodidsotoo.(46) a. Mariagotsick,andConsueladidsotoo. b. Pepewokeup,andMarcelodidsotoo.

23

SothisagainpredictsacontrastbetweenamakeXgetsick(orcausetodie)periphrasisandamakesickperiphrasis,withmakesickbehavingthesamewayasthecausativeverbsicken.

(47) a. MariamadeConsuelasick,andAnnadidsotoo.(doso=makeXsick) b. Pepegotsomeoneawake,andJosedidsotoo.(doso=getXawake)(48) a. MariasickenedConsuela,andAnnadidsotoo.(doso=sickenX) b. Pepewokesomeoneup,andJosedidsotoo.(doso=wakeXup)(49) a. MariamadeConsuelagetsick,andAnnadidsotoo.(doso=makeorgetsick) b. Pepemadesomeonewakeup,andJosedidsotoo.(doso=makeorwakeup).Sameconclusion:causativeverbsbehavethesameasperiphrasticequivalentswith

stativeembeddedclauseswithrespecttodosoellipsis,withtheresultthatthefailureofparallelismwitheventiveembeddedclausesisnotanargumentagainstdecomposingthecausativeverbintoacausativepredicateandastativeresult.

3.3.3 IndependenttemporallocationsFinally,whatabouttheindependenttemporallocationtest?Judgmentscanbeabitfuzzy,butingeneral,theintuitionisthatwithasingleverb,there

isonlyoneevent,andwhichcanonlyoccupyonetemporallocation.Withtwoverbs,therearetwoevents,whichcanoccupytwotemporallocationswithout

contradiction.Withacausativeverbandastativecomplement,weagaingettheeffectofonlyone

event—the'becoming'partiscocercedbyworldknowledge,notpresentinthesyntacticstructure

(50) a. ConsuelacausedMariatogetsickonTuesdaybypoisoningheronSunday. b. ?ConsuelamadeMariasickonTuesdaybypoisoningheronSunday. c. ?ConsuelasickenedMariaonTuesdaybypoisoningheronSunday.Infact,theeffectismuchstrongerwithkill,whichisperhapsrelatedtothefactthatitis

adenominalevent‐namingverb(akill),ratherthanadeadjectivalchange‐of‐statepredicate,properlyspeaking.

Inanycase,Ithinkthere'sacontrastbetween(50a)and(50b,c)thatsupportsthe

directionofargumentationproposedhere.

24

3.4 Casestudiesindecomposition:have,give,get,wantWe'veseeninchoativevBECOMEandcausativevCAUSE,bothofwhichformeventiveverbs.WealsohavestativevBEinstativeverbsKayne,Freezeonhave:composedofbeplusanincorporatedpreposition(orinKayne's

case,possessivedeterminer):(51) vP vBE PP DP P' PHAVE DP have John abookNote:behasnoexternalargumentinthisformulation—there'snoAgentinthe

structure.InanapproachlikeBaker'sorBower's,bewouldbeaPredheadanditssubjectwouldbeinitsspecifier,notinasmallclausecomplement.

Ifweswapv°relations,changingvBEtovCAUSE,wehavethenucleusofadouble‐object

giveverb:(52) vP DP v' vCAUSE° SC DP PP PHAVE DP Mary give John ∅ abookIfgiveandhavebothcontainthesamesubconstituent,asmallclauseheadedbyPHAVE,

theyshouldbehavesimilarlyinanumberofways,andtheydo:AlienabilityrestrictiononthesubjectofhaveandtheGoalargumentofdouble‐object

give:(53) a. Johnhasabook. (alienablepossession,animatesubject)

25

b. Johnhasabignose. (inalienablepossession,animatesubject) c. *Thebookcasehasabook. (alienablepossession,inanimatesubject) d. Thebookcasehasfiveshelves (inalienablepossession,inanimatesubject)

(54) a. *Marygavethebookcaseabook. b. Marygavethebookcasefiveshelves(e.g.whilebuildingorrepairingit)Ifhaveispresentindoubleobjectgive,itshouldhaveapossessionentailment,andit

seemsto:(55) a. MarytaughtthestudentsFrench. (ThestudentsknowsomeFrench) b. MarytaughtFrenchtothestudents. (Thestudentsmayormaynot)Whataboutthefailureofpossessioninthesedoubleobjectstructures?(56) a. MarysentJohnaletter,butheneverreceivedit.(#Johnhadaletter) b. MarybakedJohnacake,butitburned,soheneversawit.(#Johnhadacake).Possessionwaspresent—itwasJohn'sletterandJohn'scake,thoughhenever'had'

them—vBEaddsdurativityrequirementnotimposedbythesimplepredicationofapossessionrelationintroducedbyPHAVE

NormaladverbialadjunctiontestsrevealpresenceofPHAVEsmallclauseindoubleobject

give:(57) a. MarygaveJohnthecaragain Restitutive:Johnhadhadthecarbefore,andMarycausedhimtohaveitagain. Repetitive:MaryhadgivenJohnthecarbefore,andshedidsoagain b. MarygaveJohnthecarforaweek. =>JohnhadthecarforaweekCertainidiomscarryoverfromdoubleobjectgivetohavesentencestoo(Richards

2001):(58) a. Marygavemethecreeps/willies. b. (It'ssospookyinhere,)Ihavethecreeps/thewillies. c. #Ipossess/own/amexperiencing/feelthecreeps/thewillies.CanalsocomposePHAVEwiththeinchoativev°,givingget:

26

(59) vP vBECOME PP DP P' PHAVE DP get John abookAlltheeffectsabovecarryover—animacyeffects,temporalmodificationofresulthavingstate,idioms:(60) a. Animacy/alienabilityeffects: (i) Johngotthebook. (ii) #Philadelphiagotthebook.3 (iii) Philadelphiagotanewfreeway. b. ScopeofadverbialsonlyoverPHAVEstate,notovergettingevent: (i) Johngothisbalanceagain

Restitutivereading:(i)canbetrueinacasewhereJohnneverlosthisbalancebeforeinhislife,sohehadnevergottenhisbalancebefore,sincehe'dneverlostit.Insuchasituation,(i)expressesthenotionthatwhatishappeningagainisthestateofJohnhavinghisbalance,notthatheisundergoingasecondeventofgettinghisbalance.

(ii) Johngotthecarforaweek Low­scopereading:WhatlastsaweekisthestateofJohnhavingthecar,

nottheeventofhimgettingit. c. Igotthecreeps/willies

3.5 Intermediatesummary:WehaveseenthreekindsofargumentsfordecompositionoftheVPintovPandalowercontentfulpredicativephrase:

Morphological(Basque,Jemez) Syntactic(Larsononditransitiveverbs) Semantic(scopeofagainandindependentmodificaitonof

result)

3TheintendedcontextisoneinwhichthebookwassentinthemailtoPhiladelphia,wherePhiladelphiajustreferstothecityasalocation.Famously,thisimprovesif'Philadelphia'isunderstoodtorefertosomeanimate/intentionalcollectiveentity,likethePhiladelphiaofficeofacorporation;thesameeffectisseenin#JohnsentPhiladelphiathebookvs.JohnsentthebooktoPhiladelphia.Sincefreewaysareinalienablesubconstituentsofacity,(iii)isfine.

27

Themorphologicalrelatednessofcausativeandinchoativepairsistoopervasive,cross‐

linguistically,tobeacoincidence.HerearemoreexamplesoftheJemez/HiakitypefromJapanesechange‐of‐stateverbs:(61) Japaneseinchoative/causativealternatingmorphology Inchoativevariant Causativevariant ag‐ar‐u 'rise' ag‐e‐ru ‘raise' ag‐ aratam‐ar‐u 'improve' aratam‐e‐ru ‘improve’ aratam‐ ama‐r‐u 'remain' ama‐s‐u ‘remain ama‐ hita‐r‐u 'soak' hita‐s‐u ‘soak’ hita ‐ arawa‐re‐ru 'show' arawa‐s‐u ‘show' arawa‐ hana‐re‐ru 'separate' hana‐s‐u ‘separatefrom' hana‐ ka‐ri‐ru 'borrow' ka‐s‐u ‘lend’ ka‐ ta‐ri‐ru 'suffice' ta‐s‐u ‘supplement’ ta‐ bak‐e‐ru 'turninto' bak‐as‐u ‘turninto/bewitch’bak ‐ bar‐e‐ru 'cometolight' bar‐as‐u 'bringtolight’ bar‐ ak‐i‐ru 'tire' ak‐as‐u ‘tire’ ak dek‐i‐ru 'comeintobeing dek‐as‐u 'bringintobeing' dek‐ horob‐i‐ru 'falltoruin' horob‐os‐u ‘ruin’ horob‐ ok‐i‐ru 'getup' ok‐os‐u ‘getup’ ok‐Itisimportant,however,tokeepinmindthepointfromBasque,namely,thatwecansee

thesekindofdual‐projectioneffectsinsyntacticallyindependentwords,notjustinmorphologicallyfusedcaseslikeJemezorinmonomorphemiccaseslikeEnglish.

Hereareexamplesofinchoative/causativepairsfromPersian,which,likeBasque,

realizesthev°headandthedownstairspredicatesasindependentwords,inavisiblysyntacticallycomplexway:

(62) a. sabokshodan sabokkardan lightbecoming lightmaking 'degrade(intr)' 'degrade(tr)' b. pahnshodan pahnkardan widebecoming widemaking 'spread(intr)' 'spread(tr) c. kotakxordan zadan kotak beatingcolliding beatinghitting 'togetbeaten' 'tobeat' d. xarshodan xarkardan donkeybecoming donkeydoing 'togetfooled' 'tofool'

28

TheadvantageofthevPapproachisthatitallowsustotreatthePersianandBasque

casesinauniformwaywiththeEnglish,Jemez,Japanese,andHiakicasesTheywouldotherwisebeapeculiarexceptiontothepatternofmorphologicalverb

formationcross‐linguisticallyAnalyzedthisway,however,theyaresimplyapredictedparametrictype,drivenby

incorporation/non‐incorporationofthelowerelementintothehigherv°.Beforemovingontootherquestionsaboutthisdecompositionalscenario,let'sjust

consideronemoreargumentforit:Kratzer'streatmentofMarantz'sgeneralizationconcerningidiomaticinterpretationsofverbs.

29

4. KratzeronSeveringtheExternalArgumentfromitsVerbReading:Kratzer,Angelika.1996.Severingtheexternalargumentfromitsverb.InJ.

RooryckandL.Zaringeds.,PhraseStructureandtheLexicon,109‐137.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

4.1 Aquickprimerincompositionalsemantics:(63) Marysleeps. S DP V Mary sleeps What'stheessentialmeaningofthetwoelementsofthesentence? (64) a. "Mary"=thepersonnamedMary

b. "sleeps"=afunctionwhichtakesanindividualasanargumentandreturnsthevalue"true"iftheindividualissleeping.

Individualsareentitiesintherealworld:wecancallthemthingsoftype<e>.Sentencesarestatementsaboutsituationsintherealworld,whichareeithertrueorfalse:theyareoftype<t>.Verbsarefunctions.Intransitiveverbstakeanentityasanargumentandreturnatruthvaluewhichdependsonwhatconditionsarelikeintherealworld.Theyareoftype<e,t>,wheretheleftmostmemberofthepairistheinputtothefunction,andtherightmostmemberistheoutput.Wecannowlabelournodes,above,withtheirtypes:(65) S<t>DP<e> V<e,t> Mary sleeps Whatabouttransitiveverbs?

30

(66) S<t> DP<e> VP<e,t> Mary V<?> DP<e> likes Sue Well,lookingatthenodesinthetree,wecanseethatatransitiveverbhastobesomethingthattakesanentityasinputandgivesbackanotherfunction,equivalenttoanintransitiveverb,thattakesanentityasinputandgivesatruthvalue.So,atransitiveverbisoftype<e,<e,t>>.Thelexicalentryforanintransitiveverbwillbesomethinglikethis:(67) sleep(x)=trueiffxisasleepThelexicalentryforatransitiveverbwillbesomethinglikethis:(68) like(y)(x)=trueiffxlikesy.Then,thewayyouinterpretasentenceisyoujustputtheargumentstogetherwiththeverb,oneatatime,andseewhatthetruthvalueisattheend.So,tointerpret"MarylikesSue":(69) a. put"Sue"togetherwith"likes" b. getafunctionthattakeanentityxandgives"true"iffxlikesSue. c. Put"Mary"togetherwiththatfunction("likesSue")andget"true"iff MarylikesSue.

4.2 Davidsonianeventsemantics:(70) “WeboughtyourslippersinMarrakesh ∃e[buy(yourslippers)(we)(e)&inMarrakesh(e)] =”TherewasaneventofusbuyingyourslippersandthateventwasinMarrakesh”Syntacticarguments(subjectsandobjects)aredirectargumentsoftheverb—compose

directlywiththeverb.Adjunctsarenot.(71) Neo‐Davidsonian “WeboughtyourslippersinMarrakesh ∃e[buy(e)&Agent(we)(e)&Theme(yourslippers)(e)&inMarrakesh(e)] =“TherewasaneventofbuyingandtheagentoftheeventwasusandthepatientoftheeventwasyourslippersandtheeventwasinMarrakesh.

31

Nothing(excepttheeventargument)isanargumentoftheverb.Eachargumentisintroducedbyitsownseparatepredicate.

EitherapproachcouldbecapturedinatheoryofLCSwitharuleabout‘ordered

argumentassociation’inthesyntax:(72) a. BUY PHON:'buy' SYN:V SEM:λxλyλe[buy(x)(y)(e)] b. BUY PHON:'buy' SYN:V SEM: λxλyλe[buy(e)&Agent(y)(e)&Patient(x)(e)]eitherlexicalentrygivesthesameresult buyisa3‐placefunction(λxλyλe) buycombinesfirstwithitsPatient(λx),thenitsAgent(λy),thenitseventarg(λe)Kratzer:goingtoarguethatsomeofthisdecompositionactuallyhappensinthesyntax.infact,goingtoarguethatbuy(andalltransitiveverbswithexternalarguments)arenot

three‐placepredicates(Agent,Patient&Event),buttwo‐placepreds(PatientandEvent)

Agentsareaddedbyaseparatepredicate,withitsownlexicalentry,whichprojectsits

ownphraseinthesyntax(avP!)

4.3 Externalargumentsarespecial(73) Williams:buy(1,2) Rappaport&Levin:buy(<Agent>,Theme) Grimshaw: Thematic Aspectual (Agent,Theme) & (Initiator,Delimiter) ExternalArgument Marantz:buy(Theme)Kratzer'squestion:howdoyouimplementthisintuitioninacompositionalsemantics?Ifverbs&theirargumentscombinebyfunctionapplication,andifthelexicalentryfor

buylookedlikethis:

32

(74) buy λxλe[buy(x)(e)] thenyou’dhaveapropositionassoonasyoucombinedbuywithitspatient anditseventargument.Howdoestheagentgetinthere?couldjustadditbybruteforce,withspecialsemanticinterpretationruleforVPsick!But:AcluecomesfromMarantz's'idioms':manycasewhereyougetalotofmeaning

variationdependingonthetypeofobjectaverbtakes(75) killabug = causethebugtodie killaconversation = causetheconversationtoend killanevening = whileawaythetimespanoftheevening killabottle = emptythebottle killanaudience = entertaintheaudiencetoanextremedegree throwabaseball throwsupportbehindacandidate throwaboxingmatch throwaparty throwafit takeabookfromtheshelf takeabustoNewYork takeanaspirin takeanap takealetterinshorthand(76) Important!thesearen'texactly‘idioms’—they’renotfixed: killthebottle/thepeanuts/thecasserole/thewine killanhour/afewminutes/timeEvenmoreimportant:youseethiskindofvariationconditionedbyobjects‐‐not

subjects!Bresnan'sandGrimshaw'ssuggestion:theexternalargumentisstill anargumentoftheverb,it'sjustaspecialargument,inthat itcombineslast.Soyoucanhavespecialmeaningwiththeverb andtheobjectwithoutthesubject,butnotviceversa. (Theirprediction:noidiomsofe.g.verbs+adjunctsexcludingtheobject.) Kratzer'sargumentthatB&G'sreplyisinadequate:

33

a)Semanticinterpretationofanoderesultsfromcombiningthetwo daughternodes. b)Verbsarefunctions.Traditionally,hit,e.g.,isatwo‐placefunction: hit(x)(y),inthesystemwesawabove:(77) VP =hit(Agent)(Patient) 3 Agent V' =λx[hit(x)(Patient)] 3 λyλx[hit(x)(y)]Patient "Hit"isafunctionthattakesanargumentxandturnsout afunctionthattakesanotherargumentyandturnsout truthvalue=TRUEiffyhitsx. sotruthvalueoftreeabove=1iffAgenthitsPatientHowdoMarantz'sspecialinterpretationsworkinasystemlikethis?Coulddoitlikethis,positingazillionhomophonousverbskillwithdifferenttruthconditions:(78) kill1isafunctionthattakesanargumentxandturnsout afunctionthattakesanotherargumentyandturnsout: truthvalue=TRUEiffxisananimatebeingandykillsx. kill2isafunctionthattakesanargumentxandturnsout afunctionthattakesanotherargumentyandturnsout: truthvalue=TRUEiffxiscomestibleandyconsumesthelastofx. kill3isafunctionthattakesanargumentxandturnsout afunctionthattakesanotherargumentyandturnsout: truthvalue=TRUEiffxisatimeperiodandywastesx.Orlikethis,withoneverbkillwithseveralif‐thenstatementsabouttruthconditions (79) killisafunctionthattakesanargumentxandturnsout afunctionthattakesanotherargumentyandturnsout: truthvalue=TRUEiffxisananimatebeingandykillsx. truthvalue=TRUEiffxiscomestibleandyconsumesthelastofx. truthvalue=TRUEiffxisatimeperiodandywastesx.Butwhat'stopreventyoufromdoingthesametrickwiththe"y"argument?Neither

approachpredictsthatitshouldbeimpossible:(80) blickisafunctionthattakesanargumentxandturnsout afunctionthattakesanotherargumentyandturnsout:

34

truthvalue=TRUEiffyisananimatebeingandyblicksx. truthvalue=TRUEiffyisatimeperiodandxexistsduringy. truthvalue=TRUEiffyisafooditemandxismadesickbyy.so"XblickedY"haswhatevermeaning'blick'hasinthecontextofX "Todayblickedthemayfly"sayssomethinglike"Themayflyexistedtoday." "ThesausageblickedMary"sayssomethinglike"ThesausagemadeMarysick"Thisispossibleintheusualsystem,butifMarantz'sgeneralizationiscorrect,simply

doesnotoccur!Howtoruleitout?KratzersaysthattheonlywayshecanseetocaptureMarantz'sgeneralization isifexternalargumentsarenotargumentsoftheirverbsafterall,but argumentsofsomeotherverb—alightverb—thatselectsthem,and thencombineswiththemainverbbycoordinationtogivethewhole meaning:

4.4 Externalargumentsareargumentsofaseparatehead,Voice“Supposequitegenerallythatargumentsareintroducedbyheads”Aha!Hung(1988)reportsthatMalagasyhasexactlysuchahead,representedbyvisiblemorphology(81) Morphologicalevidence:Malagasy'active'prefix­an­ M+an+sasa nylamba (aminnysavony) Rasoa T+v+wash theclothes withthesoap Rasoa "Rasoawashestheclotheswiththesoap."Claim:Allverbswithexternalargumentshaveaseparatelittle"v"(Kratzer's"Voice")

thatselectstheexternalargument:(82) vP 3 Ext.Arg. v' 3 v VP 3 (Int.Arg.#2) V' 3 V Int.Arg#1Thenlongwaffleaboutwhethertheexternal‐argument‐introducingheadislexicalorfunctional

35

(thoughIconcurthatsplittingthevP“allowsustoharvestmanyofthepleasantsyntacticconsequencesof[previous]proposals”alongtheselines)HowdothedenotationsofVP&vPgetcombined?“EventIdentification”(83) vP = λe[Agent(Mittie)(e)&feed(thedog)(e)]byF.A. 3 DP v' =λxλe[Agent(y)(e)&feed(thedog)(e)]byE.I. Mittie v VP = λe[feed(thedog)(e)]byFA 3 Ø V DP λyλe[Agent(y)(e)] feed thedog λxλe[feed(x)(e)] “EventIdentificationisoneofseveraladmissibleconjunctionoperations”withthestipulationthattheeventsthatarebeingidentifiedhavetobecompatible.(Thenconfusingexcursusabouthowtoaddanexternalargumenttoastativeverb)Wheredoeseventargumentcomefromtosatisfytheopenargumentslot?Itdoesn’t;it

getsexistentiallyquantified(bound)byanappropriatequantificationalfunctionalheadhigherup(e.g.Tense)

Backtohowthishelpsuswithvariableinterpretationverbs:JohnkilledBill:

There'sa"causing"anda"killing";Johnistheagentofthecausing,Billisthepatientofthekilling,andthecausingandthekillingwerethesameevent‐‐soJohncausedthekillingofBill.

Johnkilledthewine

There'sacausingandakilling;Johnistheagentofthecausing,thewineisthepatientofthekilling,andwhenkill'spatientiscomestible,killmeans'finish',andthecausingandthekillingarethesameevent‐‐soJohncausedthefinishingofthewine.

But—sinceJohnistheargumentoftheCausingevent,notofthekillingevent,nospecial

truthconditionsspecifiedforthekillingeventcantakehisidentityintoaccount!Hence,nospecialmeaningsforverbsinthecontextoftheirexternalarguments.Shefinisheswithanexcursusaboutaccusativecase,Burzio’sgeneralization,andof‐ing

vs.acc‐inc&poss‐inggerunds—oneofthefirststatementsofthe"high/lowattachmenthypothesis",ofwhichmoreanon.

(84) a)Mary'sreadingofPrideandPrejudice b)MaryreadingPrideandPrejudice

36

5. ApplicationsI:SpecialinterpretationsandtheHigh/LowattachmenthypothesisReadings:Harley,H.(2008)Onthecausativeconstruction,HandbookofJapanese

Linguistics,editedbyShigeruMiyagawaandMamoruSaito.pp.20‐53,Oxford:OUP

5.1 Affixalcausativesandarchitecturesforlinguistictheories

5.1.1 TheEmpiricalBase:ThreekindsofV‐sasecombination:(85) (Asubsetof)Lexicalcausatives Miyagawa1980,1984 Taroo‐ga zisyoku‐o niow‐ase‐ta Jacobsen1981,1992 Taro‐N resignation‐Asmell‐ase‐PST Matsumoto2000 “Tarohintedatresigation.”(Lit:‘Taromaderesignationsmell.’)Specialproperties: monoclausalbyalltests(seebelow) canhaveidiomaticinterpretations exhibitallomorphywithotherlexicalcausativeaffixes strongspeakersenseof‘listedness’,non‐productivity mayfeed(non‐productive)nominalization(86) Productivecausatives

a. Make‐causatives Kuroda1965,Kuno1973 Hanako‐wa Yoshi‐o ik‐ase‐ta Hanako‐T Yoshi‐A go‐ase‐past “HanakomadeYoshigo.” b. Let­causatives Hanako‐wa Yoshi‐ni ik‐ase‐ta Hanako‐T Yoshi‐D go‐ase‐past “HanakoallowedYoshitogo/HanakohadYoshigo.”Specialproperties: Biclausalbytestsinvolvingscope,adverbialcontrol,binding,disjunction Monoclausalbytestsinvolvingnegativepolarity Make‐causativemonoclausalbytestsinvolvingcase. Causeemustbeanimate/Agentive ProductiveInmake‐causatives,theCaseontheCauseealternatesbetweenaccusativeanddative

dependingontransitivityofembeddedverb.Whenitisdative­ni,itisCase­ni,notP­ni(Sadakane&Koizumi1995).Inlet‐causatives,itseemstobeP‐ni

37

Propertiesofall­sase­causatives (manyfromManning,Sag&Iida1999)(87) a. V+sase=phonologicalwordforstress,otherword‐sizeprocesses

Kitagawa1986 b. V+sasesubjecttophonologicalallomorphydependingoncodaofV (ifit’savowel,then­sase­,ifit’saconsonant,then­ase) c. V+sasemayfeed(productive)nominalizationwith­kata,‘wayof’ d. ­sase­byitselfmaynotbehaveasalexicalverb(stem):4 i. maynotreduplicatedbyitselftoexpressrepetition ii. maynotbearfocusintonationbyitself iii. maynotbeinflectedforsubjecthonorificationbyitself. v. maynotstandaloneasananswertoayes‐noquestionAninterestingacquisitiondifferencebetweenlexicalandsyntactic­sase­:lexical­sase­

occursfirst—butnotasearlyaslexicalcausativeusesofverbsshowup(Murasugi2003)

Forausefulsummaryofmostoftheseproperties,seeKitagawa1994,Manning,Sagand

Iida1999.Forsurveysofmanypreviousanalyses,seeCipollone2001,Kuroda2002.Forusefuldiscussionofthe‘make/let’distinction,seeDubinsky1994andcitationstherein.

5.1.2 TheoreticalapproachesThisconstellationofpropertiesreallymakeonefaceone’stheoreticalpriorities.Some

architecturalissuesposedjustbytheproductive‘make’­sases:(88) a. Syntacticallymonoclausalintermsofcase,tense,andnegativepolarity

licensing. b. Syntacticallybiclausalintermsofbinding,scope,disjunction,control c. Morphologicallyandphonologicallyasingleword,intermsofaffixation

possibilitiesandprosody.Resolvingtheseissuesusuallyinvolvesradicalreplumbingofgrammaticalarchitectures:

theinfluenceofJapanesecausativesonlinguistictheorycouldn’tbebigger.

4Kuroda1981,1990(ascitedinKuroda2002)presentssomeexamplesfromnegationandinterveningparticlestosuggestthat­sase­doeshaveanindependentexistenceasaverbalmorpheme;Miyagawa1989:115f,andKitagawa1994:184f.,followedbyManning,SagandIida1999:47,arguesthatinfacttheseareexamplesofthe­ase­allomorphsuffixedtolightverbs­,‘do’.Kuroda(2002n.14)disagrees,ascribingKitagawa’spositiontogrammaticalityjudgmentdifferences.

38

Thelexicalist’spriorities:(89) a. Becauseallterminalnodesinthesyntaxmustcorrespondto

morphophonologicalwords,thencausativesmustbemonoclausal: oneverb,oneclause.

b. Multiclausalpropertiesofcausativesmustarisefromthe(productive) operationaffixingthecausativemorphemeinthelexicon,producinga complexsyntacticandsemanticword.

c. Conclusion:binding,scope,adjunctionandadverbialinterpretationand controlarerelationsthatdependonlexicaloperations,notsyntactic structure.

(ActualproposalofManning,SagandIida1999;thereplumbingpartistheinclusionof

adjunctionandquantifierscopeas(separate)lexicaloperations.)BiggestProblem:Disjunction(Kuroda2002)5(90) a.Hanako‐ga[[Masao‐niuti‐osoozisuru]‐ka[heya‐dai‐oharaw]]‐aserukotonisita Hanako‐N[[Masao‐Dhouse‐Aclean]‐OR[room‐rent‐Apay]]‐sasethattodo 'HanakodecidedtomakeMasaocleanthehouseorpayroomrent'. Interpretation:sasescopesoverOR;Masaohasachoice. b. Hanako‐ga[[Masao‐niuti‐osoozis‐aseru]‐ka[heya‐dai‐oharaw‐aseru]]kotonisita H.‐NomM.‐Dat house‐Aclean‐sase‐ORroom‐rent‐Apay‐sase thattodo "HanakodecidedtomakeMasaocleanthehouseorshedecidedtomakehim payroomrent" Interpretation:ORscopesoversase;Masaowon’thaveachoice.Also:Problemswithcapturingsyntacticadjunct/argumentasymmetries(Cipollone

2001)P&P’sLF‐as‐syntaxpriorities(91) a.Ifallscopeandcoindexationrelations(anddisjunction,ofcourse)mustbe

syntacticallyrepresented,thenthecausativemorphememusthead(andbeinterpretedin)aseparatesyntacticprojectionthantheverbstemtowhichitisaffixed

b.Syntacticallymonoclausalpropertiesofcausativesmustarisefrom(deficient)propertiesoftheembeddedclausalstructure.

c.Morphologicalandphonologicalwordsarenotinaone‐to‐onerelationshipwithsyntacticterminalnodes.

BiggestProblems:Wherearewordsmade,beforeoraftersyntax,orboth?Whatisthe

constituentstructureoftheembeddedphrase?5Watanabe(pc)saysthatthesameproblemarisesinthetrue'lightverb'constructionswithsuru.

39

ManyproposalswithinbroadlyP&Plines:(92) a. PredicateRaising(e.g.Kuno1973):BiclausalD‐structurecollapsesto

monoclausalS‐structure;Syntaxfeedsword‐formation. b. Parallelmonoclausalandbiclausaltrees.Word‐formationfeedssyntax(e.g.

Miyagawa1984). c. LF‐excorporationandprojection.Word‐formationfeedssyntax(Kitagawa

1986,1994)(ProposalcouldbeunderstoodasavariantofChomsky’s1993lexicalistchecking‐theory.)

d. Incorporation(Baker1988).Syntaxmanipulatesmorphemes,feedsword‐formation.

NecessaryingredientstomakeanIncorporationaccountwork:(93) a.TheVP‐internalsubjecthypothesis(sothatanembeddedsubjectargumentcanbe

introducedinVP,withoutTenseorwhatevertheNPI&Casefunctionalboundaryis.)

b. AtheoryofabstractCasecheckinginwhichaclausalCasedomainisboundedbyaTPprojection,toallowthetransitivityoftheembeddedVPtoaffectthecaseassignedinthewholeclause;similarlyforNPIlicensing(a‘DependentCase’account,oftheMarantz1991type;see,e.g.Miyagawa1999).

c. AtheoryofscopethatallowsquantifierstoscopeattheVPlevelaswellastheCPlevel.

d. ArejectionoftheLexicalistHypothesisatleastforproductivederivationalmorphology;i.e.havetoallowsyntaxtomanipulatemorphemes.(Note:havetoallowsyntaxtoderive­kata‘wayof’nominals,too.)

IntheIncorporationapproach,theNumerationisassumedtocontainactual

morphemes,i.e.Vsidentifiedwithphonologicalmaterial.Productiveinflectionalandderivationalaffixescanbeconsideredtobeinputtothesyntax,aswellasregularwords.

DerivationofHanako‐gaTaroo‐nipizza‐otabe‐sase‐tainsuchatheory:6

6(Note:sinceIhavesaidthatsuchanapproachshouldtreatallproductivemorphology(esp.inflectionalmorphology)assyntacticallyattached,Ihaveadopteda‘KaseP’hypothesisforJapanesecaseparticlesinthistree.Fordiscussionofhowthesecasemorphemescanbelicensedagainstcase‐markingheads,seeMiyagawa1999.)

40

(94) Numeration:{HanakoN,TarooN,pizzaN,‐gaK,‐niK,‐oK,tabeV,‐saseV,‐taI} IP KPi I’ NP K VP I Hanako ga ti V’ ta VP V KP V’ sase NP K KP V Taroo ni NP K tabe pizza oNonproductiveaffixes,however,arenotinputtothesyntaxinthisapproach;theycome

pre‐attachedtotheirstemsinapresyntacticmorphologicalcomponent.Thisexplainsa)theirnonproductivity,sincesyntaxissupposedtobethedomainofproductivity,andb)themonoclausalbehavioroflexicalcausatives;oneVinthenumeration,oneVPinthederivation.

Endresult:atypeofhybridaccount,whereproductivecausativesarecombinedwith

theirverbsinthesyntax,butlexicalcausativesaretreatedinaseparate,pre‐syntacticpartofthegrammar.7

Below:What’swrongwiththispicture,andwhattheimplicationsforlinguistictheory

are.

5.2 LexicalcausativesAsinmanylanguages,Japanesederivesmanysemanticallyrelatedinchoative/causative

pairsofverbswithovertmorphologyattachedtoacommonroot.(EvenEnglishdoesthis,forsomepairs).ThesepairshavebeenextensivelydocumentedbyJacobsen1992;thefirsttwoexamplesofeachclassofpairsheidentifiesaregivenbelow:

7Thisbasicpictureonceestablished,manyquestionsremaintobesolved,concerningthemake/letdistinction,theroleofunergativity,unaccusativityandagentivity,psych‐predicatecausatives,restructuringeffects,andmore.Forsomediscussionofrelevantquestions,see,amongmanymanyothers,Dubinsky1994,Terada1992.

Domainforcase‐marking,negativepolaritylicensing.OnlyoneIP,henceonlyonesuchdomain

Domainforsubject‐orientedreflexivebinding,conditionB,adverbialcontrol,quantifierscope.TwoVPs,hencetwosuchdomains.NoteVP‐internalsubjects.

41

(95) Class/# √ Intr Tr Rough√gloss I:e/Ø hag hag‐e‐ru hag‐ø‐u ‘peeloff’ 30pairs hirak hirak‐e‐ru hirak‐ø‐u ‘open’

II:Ø/e ak ak‐ø‐u ak‐e‐ru ‘open’ 44pairs hikkom hikkom‐ø‐u hikkom‐e‐ru ‘drawback’

III:ar/e ag ag‐ar‐u ag‐e‐ru ‘rise’ 71pairs aratam aratam‐ar‐u aratam‐e‐ru ‘improve’

IV:ar/Ø hasam hasam‐ar‐u hasam‐u ‘catchbetween’ 8pairs husag husag­ar­u husag­u ‘obstruct(clog,jam?)’

V:r/s ama ama‐r‐u ama‐s‐u ‘remain’ 27pairs hita hita‐r‐u hita‐s‐u ‘soak’

VI:re/s arawa arawa‐re‐ru arawa‐s‐u ‘show(up)’ 18pairs hana hana‐re‐ru hana‐s‐u ‘separatefrom’

VII:ri/s ka ka‐ri‐ru ka‐s‐u ‘borrow/(lend)’ 2pairs ta ta‐ri‐ru ta‐s‐u ‘suffice/(supplement)’

VIII:ø/as hekom hekom‐ø‐u hekom‐as‐u ‘dent’ 38pairs her her‐ø‐u her‐as‐u ‘decrease’

IX:e/as bak bak‐e‐ru bak‐as‐u ‘turninto/bewitch’ 45pairs bar bar‐e‐ru bar‐as‐u ‘come/bringtolight’

X:i/as ak ak‐i‐ru ak‐as‐u ‘tire’8pairs dek dek‐i‐ru dek‐as‐u ‘come/bringinto existence’

XI:i/os horob horob‐i‐ru horob‐os‐u ‘(fallto)ruin’ 6pairs ok ok‐i‐ru ok‐os‐u ‘getup’

XII:Ø/se abi abi‐ru abi‐se‐ru ‘pourover(self/other)’ 6pairs ki ki‐ru kise‐ru ‘puton(self/other)’

XIII:e/akas obi obi‐e‐ru obi‐(y)akas‐u‘(take)fright(en)’ 4pairs hagur hagur‐e‐ru hagur‐akas‐u ‘stray/evade’

XIV:or/e kom kom‐or‐u kom‐e‐ru ‘befullypresent/fill’ 2pairs nukum nukum‐or‐u nukum‐e‐ru ‘warm’

XV:are/e sut sut‐are‐ru sut‐e‐ru ‘fallintodisuse/discard’

3pairs wak wak‐are‐ru wak‐e‐ru ‘divide’

XVI:Misc nigiwa nigiwa‐ø‐u nigiwa‐s‐u ‘(make)prosper’ 25pairs nob nob‐i‐ru nob‐e‐ru ‘extend’

5.2.1 SyntacticandsemanticpropertiesoflexicalcausativesThecausativememberofsuchpairshasonemoreargumentthanitsintransitive

counterpart,andbearsaroughlycausativereadingwithrespecttoit(sometimes

42

oneortheothermemberofthepairhavingundergonesomesemanticdrift),butshowsnoobvioussymptomsofamulticlausalsyntacticstructure,asnotedabove.

Compare,e.g.,theavailablecontrollersfora­te­phraseinasyntacticvs.lexicalcausative

(Dubinsky1994):(96) Basicintransitiveverbanditssyntacticcausative: a. Taroo‐wa arui‐te it‐ta Taro‐T walk‐te go‐PST “Taro,walking,went.” b. Taroo‐wa arui‐te Hanako‐o ik‐ase‐ta Taroo‐T walk‐te Hanako‐A walk‐sase‐PST "TaromadeHanakogo,walking" “Taro,walking,madeHanakogo” (97) Inchoativeintransitiveanditslexicalcausative: a. Hanako‐wanure‐tehi‐e‐ta Hanako‐Twet‐tecool‐inch‐PST “Hanako(‘sbody),gettingwet,cooled. b. Taroo‐wanure‐teHanako‐ohi‐(y)as‐ita Taro‐Twet‐teHanako‐Acool‐caus‐PST “Taroo,gettingwet,cooledHanako.” Impossible:“TaroocooledHanako,(Hanako)gettingwet.”AsshownbyMiyagawa(1980,1984,1989,1994,1998),Zenno(1985),lexicalcausatives

shareanotherpropertywithunderivedtransitiveverbs:theymayappearaspartofanidiom.Sometimestheirinchoativecounterpartalsoparticipates(i.e.theidiomalternates),sometimesnot.(ExamplesbelowarefromMiyagawa1989:126‐127)

(98) Lexicalcausativesinidiomsbythemselves: a. kama‐o kake‐ (intr.kak­arnotinthisidiom) sickle‐A splashon ‘trickintoconfessing’ b. zibara‐o kir‐ (intr.kirenotinthisidiom) my.stomach‐A cut ‘payoutofone’sownpocket’ c. tenoura‐o kaes‐ (intr.kaernotinthisidiom) palm‐A return ‘doallatonce’

43

(99) Lexicalcausativesinalternatingidioms: a. te‐ga kuwawar‐ te‐o kuwae‐ hand‐N join hand‐Aadd ‘bealtered’ ‘alter’ b. hone‐ga ore‐ hone‐o or‐ bone‐N breakintr bone‐A breaktr ‘requirehardwork’ ‘exertoneself’ c. mune‐ga itam‐ mune‐o itame‐ heart‐N ache heart‐A hurt ‘beworried’ ‘worry(oneself)’OerhleandNishio(1981)showthatlexicalcausativescanparticipatein‘adversity’

readings,likesimpletransitiveverbs(examplestakenfromMiyagawa1989:130).(100) a. Simpletransitivewith‘adversity’reading: Taroo‐ga ie‐o yai‐ta. Taro‐N house‐A burn‐PST ‘Taroburnedhishouse.’ ‘Taro’shouseburned,andhewasadverselyaffected(hedidn’tcauseit.)’ b. Lexicalcausativewithadversityreading: Boku‐wa kodomo‐o gakekara ot‐os‐ita I‐T child‐A clifffrom drop‐caus­PST “Idroppedthechildfromthecliff.” “Thechilddroppedfromthecliff,andIwasadverselyaffected.”

5.2.2 V+sase:Thesamepropertiesaslexicalcausatives?ornot?SomeV+sasepairsbehavelikethelexicalcausativesabove.Theyparticipateinidioms,

sometimeswithandsometimeswithouttheirintransitivecounterpart:(101) LexicalV+sasecausativesinidioms: a. tikara‐o aw‐ase‐ power together‐sase‐ ‘pulltogether’ b. mimi‐o sum‐ase‐ ear‐A clear‐sase ‘listencarefully’ c. hana‐ga saku‐ hana‐o sak‐ase‐ flower‐N bloom flower‐A bloom‐sase ‘bedoneheatedly’ ‘engageinheatedly’

44

d. hara‐ga her‐ hara‐o her‐ase‐ stomach‐N lessen stomach‐A lessen‐sase ‘gethungry’ ‘fast/waitforameal’TheseV+saseformsalsoallowadversitycausativeinterpretations:V+saseformsinadversitycausatives(examplesfromMiyagawa1989:129)(102) a. Taroo‐ga yasai‐o kusar‐ase‐ta Taroo‐N vegetable‐A rot‐sase‐PST “Taroospoiledthevegetables.” “Thevegetablesrotted,andTarowasadverselyaffected.” b. Taroo‐ga kaisya‐o toosans‐ase‐ta Taro‐N company‐A bankrupt‐sase‐PST “Tarobankruptedthecompany.” “Thecompanywentbankrupt,andTarowasadverselyaffected.”Butmany(probablymost)V+sasecombinationsdonotexhibittheseproperties.For

instance,thereisnoadversitycausativeinterpretationavailablefortheV+saseformsbelow(Miyagawa1989:130):

(103) a. Boku‐wakodomo‐o gakekara oti‐sase‐ta I‐T child‐A clifffrom drop‐sase‐PST ‘Icausedthechildtodropfromthecliff.’ Impossible:“Thechilddroppedfromthecliff,andIwasadverselyaffected.” b. Kotosi‐wa dekinaigakusei‐o hue‐sase‐ta This.year‐T poorstudents‐o increase‐sase‐PST “Thisyear,wecaused(thenumberof)poorstudentstoincrease.” Impossible:“Thisyear,thenumberofpoorstudentsincreased,andwe wereadverselyaffected.” c. Taroo‐wa niku‐o koge‐sase‐ta Taro‐T meat‐A scorch‐sase‐PST “Tarocausedthemeattoscorch” Pylkkanen2002 Impossible:“Themeatscorched,andTarowasadverselyaffected.”Similarly,givenanintransitiveverbthatparticipatesinanidiom,aV+sasecombination

formedontheintransitiveisnotguaranteedtoalsoparticipateintheidiom(Miyagawa1989:126):

(104) a. kiai‐ga hair‐ *kiai‐o hair‐ase‐

spirit‐N enter spirit‐A enter‐sase ‘befullofspirit’ *‘inspire/putspiritinto’

45

b. hakusya‐ga kakar‐ *hakusya‐o kakar‐ase‐ spur‐N splash.on spur‐A splash.on.sase ‘spuronintr’ ‘spurontr’

5.3 TheblockingeffectandparadigmaticstructureMiyagawa(1980etseq)andZenno(1985)showthatthereisasimplewaytopredict

whenaV+sasecombinationcanbehavelikeotherlexicalcausativesandwhenitmayonlybehaveasananlalyticcausative,withnononcompositionalinterpretationandnoadversitycausative:Onlyintransitiverootswithnoothertransitiveformcanbehavelexicallywith­sase.

Thatis,lexicalinterpretationsof­sasearepossibleonlyiftheroottowhichitisattached

doesnothaveatransitiveformderivedinanotherway.Thisisaclassicexampleofmorphologicalblocking,seeninbothderivationaland

inflectionalmorphologycross‐linguistically.AsimplecaseistheEnglishpasttense.Someverbsdonothaveapasttenseformedwith­ed:*runned,*writed,*feeled,*hitted.Thereasonisthattheyhaveanindependentlyformed,irregularpasttense,whichblockstheregularform:ran,wrote,felt,hit.

Similarly,inderivationalmorphology,thesamephenomenonisarguedtooccur.Many

Englishadjectiveshaveanegativeforminun‐,butsomedonot:*unpossible,*unconsiderate,*uncoherent.Theseareblockedbytheindependentirregularnegativeforms,impossible,inconsiderate,incoherent.

Thegrammaticalmechanismthatisresponsibleforblockingeffects,inmanytheoriesof

morphology(forinstance,Paradigm‐FunctionMorphology,mostrecentlydiscussedinStump2001),isthatn‐dimensionalgrammaticalspace:aparadigm.TheideawouldbethateveryEnglishverbalformisunderstoodtobeattachedtoaparadigmspace,definedbytheinflectionalfeaturesofEnglishverbs:past,presentparticiple,1,2,3,sg,pl.Someverbscomewiththeirparadigmspacepartiallyfilledin—forinstance,thepasttensespaceforwrite,theformwroteisalreadyentered—butemptyslots,suchasfortheprogressiveparticiple,arefilledinbyadefaultaffixforthatslot:write+ing.

(105) Paradigminthelexiconforwrite

V:WRITE writeinfinitive presentppl pastppl written

Beforelexicalitemstothesyntax,emptyparadigmspacesarefilledinbydefault

morphology(underlinedinthetablesbelow).

46

(106) Paradigminthelexiconforwrite

V:WRITE writeinfinitive writepresentppl writingpastppl written

Toapplysuchananalysistoderivationalmorphology,onehastohavethenotionofa

multidimensionalgrammaticalspaceforcertainderivationalfeatures,suchasnegative,fortheimpossible/*unpossiblepairs.Wordswithspecialnegativeformswillhavealreadyfilledintheirrelevantparadigmslots,blockingtheinsertionofthedefaultformun‐.

(107)

A:POSSIBLE possiblenegative impossiblenominal possibility

(108) A:LIKELY likelynegative unlikelynominal likelihood

(109) A:HAPPY happynegative unhappynominal happiness

Miyagawa(1980,1984,1989)arguedthattheblockingeffectinJapanesecausatives

showedthataparadigmaticlevelofstructurewasnecessary;withoutit,theblockingeffectcouldn’tbecaptured.Initsessentialpositionandfunctioninthegrammar,Miyagawa’sParadigmaticStructureisthesamelevelofstructurethatparadigm‐functionmorphologistsworkwith,(althoughitseemsMiyagawacameupwithitindependently).

Hedefinedaparadigmspacemadeupofintransitive,transitive,andditransitiveverbs.

Formanyverbstems,anirregularformalreadyoccupiedthe‘transitive’or‘ditransitive’slotintheparadigm;onlyifonedidnotcouldadefault­sase­formfillupthegap.

(110)

V:AG agar‘rise’Intr agar­Tr age­Ditr

47

(111) V:AG sak­‘bloom’Intr sak­Tr sak‐aseDitr

Thisisallverywell,excepttheextralevelofpre‐syntacticlexicalstructureseemed

perhapsexcessive.Notonlythat,MiyagawasawitcannotbeacoincidencethattheseV‐sasecombinations

aremorphophonologicallyindistinguishablefromsyntacticcausatives.Thatis,surely,thereasonthatsyntacticcausativesarespelledoutas­sase­isjustbecause­sase­istheelsewhere,defaultformforacausativemeaning.Iflexicalcausativeshadnothingtodowithsyntacticcausatives,therewouldbenoreasonforthesamemorphemetobeinvolvedinspellingoutboth.

Consequently,hewasledtotheconclusionthatsyntacticcausativeshadtobecreatedin

thelexiconaswell.Butthenalltheproblemswiththelexicalistanalysesofsyntacticcausativescameupalloveragain,leadingtohisproposalthatcausativesareassociatedwithparallelmonoclausalandbiclausalstructures.Thetheorybecameevermorecomplex.

Possibletheoreticalchoices: A:Treatthelexicalandsyntacticcausativescompletelyseparately.Relegate theV+saselexicalcausativestothelexiconwiththerestofthem.Ignore themorphologicalidentitybetweenthedefaultlexicalcausativemorpheme andthesyntacticcausativemorpheme.Thatis:Jacobsenjustmissedclass XVI:Ø/­sase. B:Unifythelexicalandsyntacticcausativesbytreatingthembothinthelexicon.

Somethingotherthan‘inthelexicon’hastodistinguishthesyntacticand lexicalcausatives.Parallelstructuresmaydoit,butit’snotclear(howdoes oneallowtheprojectionofaparallelstructureformostditransitiveV+sase combinationsbutnotforalexical‐causativetransitiveone,e.g.?)C:Unifythelexicalandsyntacticcausativesbytreatingthembothinthesyntax. Needed:atheoryofpost‐syntacticmorphology.Againsomethingotherthan ‘inthesyntax’hastodistinguishthetwotypes.

EnterDistributedMorphology,Hale&Keyserv°,andMinimalism.

5.4 LateInsertion,theElsewherecondition,vPsandphases(MostofthefollowingisamildlyrevisedversionofMiyagawa’s1994,1998analysis,

whichappearedinmythesisin1995.)

48

5.4.1 DistributedMorphologyandLateInsertionInDistributedMorphology,thesyntaxmanipulatesabstractfeaturebundles,selectedby

thegrammarofthelanguagefromaninventoryprovidedbyUG,onthebasisofpositiveinfluence.

Thesefeaturebundlesaretheterminalnodesofasyntacticderivation.Afterthesyntaxhasmerged,copied,remerged,probed,Agreed,etc.,andSpell‐Outis

reached,thebundlesaresentofftoPF/LFforinterpretation.AnearlysteponthePF‐sideisLexicalInsertion.VocabularyItems(VIs),specifiedfor

certainfeatures,racetorealizetheterminalnodesthatthesyntacticderivationhasmadeavailable.

Theonewiththemostcompatiblefeatures,andnoincompatibleones,foragiven

terminalnode,realizesthatnode.Forexample,imagineaNumerationsomethinglikethefollowing(imaginetheta‐

featuresontheappropriateitemsifyoulike):(112) {[D+1,+pl,+NOM],[T+past,+NOM],[D+pl,+ACC],[VKEEP,+ACC]}Afterthe(simplified)syntaxisdonewithit,thefollowingtreeishandedofftoSpell‐Out(113) TP Di T’ +1 +pl T° VP +NOM [+past] [+NOM] Di V’ V° D KEEP +pl +ACC +ACC _ we ­ed kep them I keep it it+Adjacency: Wekep‐ed them+morphophonologyWekep‐t ‘em

WinningVIs

CompetingbutlosingVIs—eligibleforinsertionbutnotmosthighlyspecified

Spell‐outslotsforterminalnodes

49

Benefits:Mirrorprincipleeffects,comprehensiblerelationshipbetweensyntaxand

morphology,singlegenerativeengine(nogenerativelexicon:noparadigmaticstructure,noword‐formationrules,norulesofreferral…)

5.4.2 (Modified)HaleandKeyser(1993,2002)‐typevPsforcausative/inchoativealternations

(114) a. Unaccusativeverbs b. Causativeverbs. vP vP v° √P DPAgent v’ BECOME DP √ John v° √P CAUS thedoor open DP √ thedoor open c. Anotherpossibilityforcausativeverbs:Inchoativecontainedwithinthem? (Miyagawa1994,1998) vP DPAgent v’ John v° vP (I’llargueagainstthisextralayerofstructure CAUS incausatives) v° √P BECOME DP √ thedoor open(115) Hypotheses: a. Externalargumentsarealwaysintroducedbyseparatev°head

(H&K1993,Kratzer1996) b. Differentvarietiesofv°:minimumunaccusativev°andagentive/causativev°. c. Inlanguageswhichshowcausativizing/inchoativizingmorphology,like Japanese,thatmorphologyisarealizationofav°head.

5.4.3 LateinsertionandlexicalcausativesMorphemescompetingtorealizevCAUSinJapanese

50

(116) ‐Ø‐ ↔ CAUS /[√I+IV___v] (38Jacobsenrootsonthelistfor‐Ø‐) ‐e‐ ↔ CAUS /[√II+III+XIV+XV____v](120rootsonlist) ‐s‐ ↔ CAUS /[√V+VI+VII____v] (47rootsonlist) ‐as‐ ↔ CAUS /[√VII+IX+X____v] (91rootsonlist) ‐os‐ ↔ CAUS /[√XI____v] (6rootsonlist) ‐se‐ ↔ CAUS /[√XII____v] (6rootsonlist) ‐akas‐↔ CAUS /[√XIII____v] (4rootsonlist) ‐sase‐↔ CAUS /Elsewhere (norootsonlist) Blockingeffect!

(117) MorphemescompetingtorealizevBECOMEinJapanese: ‐e‐ ↔ BECOME/[√I+IX+XII___v] (79Jacobsenrootsonthelist) ‐ar‐ ↔ BECOME/[√III+IV___v] (79rootsonlist) ‐r‐ ↔ BECOME/[√V___v] (27rootsonlist)

‐re‐ ↔ BECOME/[√VI___v] (18rootsonlist) ‐ri‐ ↔ BECOME/[√VII___v] (2rootsonlist) ‐i‐ ↔ BECOME/[√X+XI___v] (14rootsonlist) ‐or‐ ↔ BECOME/[√XIV___v] (2rootsonlist) ‐are‐ ↔ BECOME/[√XV___v] (3rootsonlist)Elsewhere(similarto­sase?) ‐Ø‐ ↔ BECOME/[√II+VII+XII____v] (88rootsonlist)Elsewhere?

5.4.4 ImplicationsforsyntacticcausativesIf­sase­issimplyanElsewhereformoftheAgent‐introducingvCAUS,andifallsyntactic

causativesarerealizedwith­sase­,thensyntacticcausativesaretheAgent‐introducingvCAUS,addedontoaphrasebiggerthanaroot—addedon,infact,toanothervPshell:

(118) vP2 … DP v’ Taroo vP1 v° DP v’ sase Hanako √P v° DP √ Ø pizza tabe (Taroo‐gaHanako‐nipizza‐otabe‐sase‐ta)Withasyntacticcausative,head‐to‐headmovementoftherootupthroughitsownv°

andintothematrix­sase­v°willcreateacomplexstructureinwhichthematrixCAUS

51

v°willnotmeetthestructuraldescriptionforanyspecialroot‐conditionedallomorphsofCAUS:ThematrixCAUSwillbeinsulatedfromtherootbyonelayerofbracketing,theembeddedv°.(Ifthere’snoHM,butit’sjustadjacencyinJapanese,thesameremarksobtain:a‘syntactic’CAUSv°willneverbeadjacenttoaroot.)

(119) (matrixv°afterhead‐to‐headmovement):[[√TABE____v]_____v]

Definitionof‘lexical’causative:aCAUSv°thatisadjacenttoaroot. Definitionofa‘syntactic’causative:aCAUSv°thatisnotadjacenttoaroot

(embedsavP).Comparethelexicalandsyntacticcausativestructuresbelow:(120) a. vP b. vP DP v’ DP v’ Taro‐ga Taro‐ga √P v° vP v° ‐s ‐ase DP √ DP v’ tenoura‐o kae Hanako‐ni √P v° Ø DP √ hansai‐o tutae (121) a.Taro‐gatenoura‐okae‐s… b. Taroo‐waHanako‐nihanasi‐otutae‐sase‐ta Taro‐Npalm‐Areturn‐CAUS Taro‐THanako‐Dstory‐A convey‐CAUS‐PST “Tarodiditallatonce”(?) "TaromadeHanakoconveyastory"Inthelexicalcausative,there’s1vP,1phase,onedomainforQ‐scope,adverbialcontrol,

binding,andtherest.Inthesyntacticcausative,there’s2vPs,hence2domainsforscope,binding,adverbial

control…NotethateveninthesyntacticcausativetherewillstillonlybeoneTP,soonecase

domain,oneNPIdomain

5.4.5 WhynotvBECOMElayerinlexicalcausatives(114cabove)?Becauseitwouldmakeitimpossibletodistinguishbetweenlexicalcausativesand

syntacticcausativesofinchoatives.Comparethestructures,undertheinchoative‐inside‐lexical‐causativeshypothesis,forthefollowingtwosentences,fromMiyagawa1989:130,ex.43a/b:

52

(122) a. Boku‐wa kodomo‐o gakekara ot‐os‐ita I‐Top child‐A cliff‐from drop‐CAUS‐PST “Idroppedthechildfromthecliff." “Thechilddroppedfromthecliff,andIwasadverselyaffected."

Lexical b. Boku‐wa kodomo‐o gake‐kara ot‐i‐sase‐ta I‐Top child‐A clifffrom drop‐BECOME‐CAUS‐PST “Icausedthechildtodropfromthecliff.” #“Thechilddroppedfromthecliff,andIwasadverselyaffected” Syntactic(123) a. vP b. vP DP v’ DP v’ Boku‐wa Boku‐wa vP vCAUS vP vCAUS ‐sase √P vBECOME ‐os‐ √P vBECOME ‐i‐ DP √’ DP √’ kodomo‐o kodomo‐o PP √ PP √ gakekara ot‐ gakekara ot‐Ifthelexicalcausativeot­osincludesavBECOMEinitsstructure,thentheonlydifference

betweenthelexicalcausativeandthesyntacticcausativeiswhetherornotFusion(apost‐syntacticoperation)hasappliedtothevBECOMEandvCAUSrootstoensurethattheyarespelledoutbythesingle­os­morpheme.Thelexical/syntacticdistinctionshouldbemorecategoricalthanameremorphologicaldiacritic,sinceithassuchstrongconsequencesformeaning.

BetterifthelexicalcausativehasthestructurewithouttheinterveningvPBECOME.(124) Observations: (Agentive)vPdomainforspecialmeaning(Kratzer1996,Marantz1997) LF Immediatecontextof√isthedomainforroot‐conditionedallomorphy PF (seealsoArad2002forsimilarclaimsinHebrew)EvenunaccusativevBECOMElookslikeaphaseedge…(Problem:­gar­morphemeinlexicalcausativeslikeiya­gar­ase,‘bother‐BECOME??‐CAUS’(Problem:lexicalcausativev°morphemesinsideidiomaticnominalizations?seeVolpe

2005)

53

(Problem:whydoes­sase­alwaysalternatewithØ?inprinciple,arootcouldbeonaspeciallistforanunaccusativemorphemelike­r­or­e­,butnotforacausativemorpheme,andhencealternatewith­sase­;seeMiyagawa1998foraproposal.)

5.4.6 ThebeginningoftheHigh/LowAttachmentAnalysisThiswasoneofthefirsthigh/lowattachmentanalyses.Attachmentofamorphemetoa

higherfunctionalprojectionresultsinregularmorphologyandcompositionalmeaning,whileattachmentofthesamemorphemetoalowerprojection(oftenthe√),resultsinsomeallomorphyandpotentialmeaningdrift.

OtherearlyexamplesofsuchananalysisistheapproachtoEnglishof­ingandacc‐ing

gerundspresentedinKratzer1996,andtheapproachtoChichewastativesandpassivessketchedinMarantz1997.

Since,suchapproacheshavebeenextremelyfruitfulinlookingatallkindsof

morphologyonthederivational/inflectional,unproductive/productivecusp,inallkindsoflanguages:

(125) High/lowanalysesfromvariouslanguages Travis2000onMalagasylexicalandsyntacticcausatives. Embick2004onstative,resultative,andpassiveparticiplesinEnglish Fortin2004onMinnangkabucausatives Jackson2005onstativesandresultativesinPima AlexiadouandAnagnostopoulou2005onadjectivalparticiplesinGreek Svenonius2005oncausativesinseverallanguages

5.5 ConclusionsJapanesecausatives—evenomittingthelexicalones—eitherforceonetodomoresyntax

inthelexicon(Manning,Sag&Iida),ormoremorphologyinthesyntax(Baker).Acarefulexaminationoflexicalcausativesforcesonetofigureoutawaytounify

traditionalidiosyncratic,irregularword‐formationwithregular,compositionalsyntax,andyetmaintainaprincipleddistinctionbetweenthetwo.

Apost‐syntacticmorphology—thelateinsertionapproach—withrecursivevPs,allowsa

simple,unifiedtreatmentofallthreetypesoflexicalcausatives,withaprincipledunderstandingofthenatureofthedistinctionbetweenlexicalandsyntacticcausatives.

AdditionalevidenceforthephasalstatusofvP,andsuccessive‐cyclicQRthroughvP.Next:ItaliancausativesandthevPhypothesis!

54

6. ApplicationsII:Capturingthefairepar/faireinfinitifcausativedistinctionReadings:Folli,R.andH.Harley(2007)Causation,obligationandargumentstructure:On

thenatureoflittlev,LinguisticInquiry38.2,197‐238

6.1 Background:TheFI/FPdistinction(Kayne1975)InFrenchcausatives,therearetwopossiblecase‐markersfortheembeddedCauseeinacausativeofatransitiveverb:theprepositionpar‘by’(FP),ortheprepositionà,‘to’(FI)(126) a. MarieafaitnettoyerlarobeàJean MariehasmadecleanthedresstoJean. "MariemadeJeancleanthedress." b. MarieafaitnettoyerlarobeparJeanlenettoyeur. MariehasmadecleanthedressbyJeanthecleaner. "MariegotthedresscleanedbyJeanthecleaner."NonpassivizableidiomsarenotcompatibleundertheFPconstruction(127) a. Safamille acassé lacroûte.

Hisfamily hasbroken thecrust ‘Hisfamilyhadasnack.’

b. #Lacroûte aétécassé parsafamille Thecrust hasbeenbroken byhisfamily(128) Il a fait casser lacroûte àsafamille

He had made break thecrust tohisfamily‘Hehadhisfamilyhaveasnack.’

(129) #Il afaitcasser lacroûte parsafamille. He hadmadebreak thecrust byhisfamily ‘Hehadhisfamilyhaveasnack.’FrenchinalienablepossessionbetweentheCauseeandtheembeddedobjectisokinFI

butnotFP:(130) a. Elle fera lever lamain àJean.

She will.makeraise thehand toJean ‘ShewillhaveJeanraisehishand.’

b. # Elle fera lever lamain par Jean. She will.makeraise thehand by Jean ‘ShewillhavehishandraisedbyJean.’

55

BindingintotheembeddedobjectispossiblefromtheFIà­Causee,butnotfromtheFPpar‐Causee(Burzio,inItalian):(131) a. Giannijhafattotemperare lasuai/jmatita aogniragazzoi.

Giannihasmadesharpen thehispencil toeveryboy. ‘Giannijhadeveryboyisharpenhisi/jpencil.’

b. Gianniihafattotemperare lasua*i/jmatita daogniragazzoi. Giannihasmadesharpen thehispencil byeveryboy ‘Giannijhadhis*i/jpencilsharpenedbyeveryboyi.’IntheFP,theda‐phraseisoptional.BurzioandGuastiarguethatintheFI,theà­Causeeisnotoptional.HereisanidiominItalianthatisnotcompatiblewiththeFP:(132) Marcononhafattofare untubo aMaria/*daMaria Marc nothasmademake atube toMaria/byMaria ‘Marcdidn'tletMariaachieveanything.’(Lit:‘..didn’tmakeMariamakeatube.’)IfyouomittheCausee,theidiomaticinterpretationisnotpossible:(133) Marconon hafattofare untubo. Marc not hasmademake atube ‘Marcdidn’thaveatubemade.’ ‘#Marcdidn'tletMariaachieveanything.’IftheembeddedclausecontainsnoCausee,then,itmustbeacaseofFP.Lastly,theFIhasamuchmore'direct'causativefeelthantheFP:(134) Marie feraboire cetteeau parsonchien/àsonchien.

Marie will.makedrink thiswater byherdog/toherdog‘Mariewillhavethiswaterdrunkbyherdog/herdogdrinkthiswater.’

ThisisespeciallyobviousiftheCauseeissomeonewhonormallydoesthecausedjob—it'sveryoddtousetheFIinthatcase,sinceyouwouldn'tnormallyhavetoforcethemtodoit:(135) a.Gianni hafattoriparare lamacchina aMario/daMario.

Gianni hasmaderepair thecar toMario/byMario‘GiannigotMariotorepairthecar.’/‘GiannigotthecarrepairedbyMario.’

b. ??Gianni hafattoriparare lamacchina almeccanico diviaFiume. Gianni hasmaderepair thecar to.themechanicofstreetFiume ‘GiannihadthemechanicinFiumeSt.repairthecar.’ c. Gianni hafattoriparare lamacchina dalmeccanicodiviaFiume. Gianni hasmaderepair thecar by.themechanicofstreetFiume GiannihadthecarrepairedbythemechanicinFiumeSt.’

56

SummaryofkeydifferencesbetweenFIandFP:(136) A.TheCauseeofatransitiveembeddedverbismarkedwithdativecaseintheFI,

andbyaprepositiondainFP(inItalian).B. Non‐passivizableidiomsareavailableintheFIbutnotintheFP.C. Thea‐phraseintheFIcanbindtheembeddedobject,whiletheFPda‐phrase

cannot.D. TheCauseemaybeomittedintheFPbutnottheFI.E. Non‐passivizableverbsareacceptableintheFIbutnottheFP.F. ThereisasenseofobligationontheCauseeintheFIbutnotintheFP.

Generalideaofallapproachestothisphenomenon:ThefullargumentstructureofthecausedpredicateispresentintheFI,includingtheexternalargument;intheFP,thereissomereductionintheargumentstructuresuchthattheexternalargumentisnotpresent.Previousapproacheshadtoappealtoalexicalarity‐reductionoperationtogeneratetheexternal‐argumentlessinfinitiveintheFPTheadvantageofthevPapproach:ThedifferencebetweentheFIandtheFPcanjustfollowfromadifferentsizeofembeddedclauseinthetwo:theFIembedsavPandhenceanexternalargument;theFPembedsavP‐lessprojection,andhencelacksanexternalargument.Theexternalargumentcanthenoptionallybespecifiedbyaby‐phrase,asitcaninotherexternal‐argumentlessconstructionslikethepassive.

6.2 ThevP­basedanalysis(buildingonIppolito2002)(137) a.FI b.FP vP vPGianni v′ Gianni v′ vCAUS vP vDO VPNom fare v' DPDAT fare VPNom PP v VPaMario V DPdaMario Ø V DP ripararelamacchina ripararelamacchinaNoterightwardspecifiersofvPintheembeddedclause.Notethatfareisinthistreatmentalightverb,av°itself,justlikeJapanese–sase,butnotaffixal.WhyassumetheinfinitiveintheFPisanominalization?First,infinitivescanbenominalincharacterinItalian:

57

(138) a. [Questocontinuoparlaredell’‐aviaria]DP infastidisce Marco.

[Thiscontinuoustalkingof.the‐bird.flu]DP bothers Marcob. [TuttoquelleggereDostojevsky]DPharovinato Marco. [AllthatreadingDostojevsky]DP haswrecked Marco

Second,wehaveindependentevidencethatonlycertainkindsofv°allownominalcomplements;ifwecanshowthatFPfareisthatkindofv°,thenthatwilcorroboratethenotionthattheFPinfinitiveisnominalincharacter.Toestablishthis,though,weneedsomebackground.

6.3 Theselectionalpropertiesofdifferentv°flavors:FolliandHarley(2005)HaleandKeyser:UnergativeverbsaremadeupoflightverbvDOandanominalcomplementChange‐of‐stateverbslikereddenseemlikethelightverbmustmean'cause'—vCAUSE,andapredicativeSCcomplement.ArethereotherdifferencesbetweenvDOandvCAUSEthatwecandetect?Considerthefollowingeffectofanimacy:(139) a. Johnatetheapple(up).

b. Theseaatethebeach*(away).c. Gianniha/ si=é mangiato unamela. G. has/ REFL=is eaten anapple. ‘Giannihaseaten/haseatenupanapple.’

d. Il mare *ha/si=è mangiatola spiaggia. Thesea has/REFL=is eaten thebeach. ‘Theseaatethebeach.’InanimatesubjectsofconsumptionverbsrequireapredicativeSCcomplement(133b,d),wherethereisaclearresultstatespecified.Animatesubjectscanhaveoneortheother—anominalcomplement(theapple)orapredicativeone([theappleup]).ThisisbecauseinanimatesubjectscanonlybeCAUSERs,notagentsofvDO—onlytrulyintentionalentities(or'teleologicallycapable'entites)canbesubjectsofvDO.vDO,thenrequiresananimateexternalargumentandcantakeanominalcomplementvCAUSEcanhaveaninanimateexternalargumentandrequiresapredicativecomplementclause.

58

(140)

Flavorofv0 Specifier ComplementvDO Agent Nominal

orSmallClausevCAUSE Causer

orAgentSmallClause

Prediction,then:IfFPtakesanominalizedinfinitiveasitscomplement,itshouldrequireananimatesubjectoffare,whilesinceFItakesasubject+predicatevPcomplement,itshouldbeokwithaninanimatesubject.Seemstobetrue:(141) a. Larabbia fecerompere iltavolo a/*daGianni.

Therage madebreak thetable to/byGianni ‘RagemadeGiannibreakthetable.’

b. Lagenerosità fecedonare lacasa a/*daGianni Thegenerosity madegive thehouse to/byGianni ‘GenerositymadeGiannidonatethehouse.’(142) Lafamine afaitmanger desrats aux/*parleshabitantsdelaville.

Thefamine hasmadeeat of.therats to.the/bytheinhabitantsofthecity.‘Thefaminemadetheinhabitantsofthecityeatrats.’

Somuchfortheanalysisoffareitself—intheFIit'svCAUSEandintheFPit'svDOWhatabouttheembeddedvPintheFI?Isthereanythingspecialaboutit,thatcouldhelpusexplainthe'obligationeffect'?Hypothesis:IfthevPembeddedunderfareintheFIisheadedbyvDO,thatwillmeanthatitssubject(theà‐Causee)mustbeananimateAgent.Theobligationeffect,then,couldarisebecausetheonlywaytogetanAgenttodosomethingistoobligehimto—youcan'tphysicallyforcesomeonetodoatrulyagentiveaction;ifyou'rephysicallyforcingthem,they'renotanAgentatall.IftheFIfareembedsavDO,theselectionalpropertiesofvDOpredictthatitshouldbeimpossibletomakeaFIwithaninanimateCausee,sincetheembeddedvDOwillalwaysselectforananimateCausee…Thisseemstobecorrectaswell:(143) a. Maria/Ilramo harotto lafinestra.

Maria/Thebranch hasbroken thewindow.

59

b. Gianni hafattorompere lafinestra aMaria/*alramo. Gianni hasmadebreak thewindow toMaria/to.thebranch ‘GiannimadeMaria/*thebranchbreakthewindow.’ c. Iltecnico/Ilprogramma hadisinfettato ilcomputer. Thetechnician/Theprogram hasdisinfected thecomputer. d. Gianni hafattodisinfettare ilcomputer altecnico/*alprogramma. Gianni hasmadedisinfect thecomputerto.thetechnician/to.theprogram ‘Giannimadethetechnician/*theprogramdisinfectthecomputer.’CertainverbswhicharepurelycausativecanneveroccurunderaFI—object‐experiencerpsychverbs,forexample:(144) a.La discussione/Giannihaassorbito Maria. The discussion/ GiannihasabsorbedMaria. b. *Lalezione/*Lamaestrahafattoassorbire Maria alladiscussione/aGianni.

Thelesson/Theteacherhasmadeabsorb Maria to.thediscussion/toGianni ‘Thelesson/Theteacherhasmadethediscussion/GianniabsorbMaria.’ c. Laguerra/Gianni hadisturbatoMaria. Thewar/Gianni hasdisturbedMaria. d. *Ilprogrammatelevisivo/*MarcohafattodisturbareMariaallaguerra/aGianni.

Theprogramtelevised /Marcohasmadedisturb Maria to.the war/toGianni ‘Thetelevisionprogram/Marcohasmadethewar/GiannidisturbMaria.’So,weconcludethefollowing:

o FIembedsavPo FPembedsanominalizedVPo Embeddedv°inFIisvDO,whichiswhyCauseemustbeanimate,and

whyembeddedcausativeverbsarebadintheFI.o Matrixv°inFPisvDO,whichiswhyCausermustbeanimateo da­phraseisoptionaladjuncttonominalcomplementinFP,justasit

isinapassive.There'sasectiononcaseassignmenttodealwiththedative/accusativealternationwhichwecandiscussifyoulike—thefactsareinterestinglysimilarinJapaneseandItalian,withonekeydifferencetodowiththepassive.ThatdifferenceledtoadiscoveryconcerningtheItalianpassivesofcausatives,whichIwillbrieflyoutline:

6.4 InteractionofpassivewithfarecausativeBasiccaseassumptions:FIconstructionsareECMstructures,wherematrixv°fareischeckingcaseontheCausee,andtheembeddedv°oftheverbischeckingcaseontheembeddedobject(ifany).FPconstructionsarecomplexpredicates,withmatrixv°farecheckingcaseontheembeddedobject.

60

Prediction:IffarelosesitsexternalargumentandcannotassigninternalcasetoitsCausee,becausefarehasbeenpassivized,thentheCauseeshouldbecomethenewderivedsubject,andcheckNominativecase.Infact,thisiswhathappensinJapanese:(145) a. Hanako‐ga Tanako‐ni piza‐o tabe‐sase‐ta

Hanako‐NOM Tanako‐DAT pizza‐ACC eat‐CAUS‐ "HanakomadeTanakoeatpizza."b. Tanako‐ga piza‐o tabe‐sase‐rare‐ta Tanako‐NOM pizza‐ACC eat‐CAUS‐PASS‐PAST “Tanakowasmadetoeatpizza”

…butitdoesnothappeninItalian;passivewhichpromotesthedativeCauseetonominativecaseiscompletelyimpossible;theonlytypeofpassivepossiblepromotestheaccusativeembeddedobjecttonominativeposition:(146) a. embeddedaccusativeobjectsoftransitiveverbspassivize:

Illibro fufattoleggere aMario (daGianni). Thebook wasmaderead toMario (byGianni) ‘Mariowasmadetoreadthebook(byGianni).’ b. embeddedaccusativesubjectsofintransitiveverbspassivize: Ilpacchetto fufattoarrivare (daGianni). Thepacket wasmadearrive (byGianni). ‘Thepacketwasmadetoarrive(byGianni).’ c. embeddeddativesubjectsoftransitivesdonotpassive: *Maria fufattamandare unpacchetto (daGianni). Maria wasmadesend apacket (byGianni). ‘Mariawasmadetosendapacket(byGianni).’But!ThereareinterestingconditionsonthepassivizationofcausativesinItalian,whichanyaccountfocussingpurelyon'accusative'vs'dative'casecannotexplain!CausativesofintransitiveverbsassignaccusativecasetotheirCausee,nomatterwhethertheverbisunergativeorunaccusative:(147) a. Giannihafattotelefonare Marco. GiannihasmadetelephoneMarco "GiannimadeMarcotelephone. b. GiannihafattopartireMarco. GiannihasmadeleaveMarco. "GiannihasmadeMarcoleave."

61

Buttheonlycausativesofintransitiveverbswhichcanbepassivizedarecausativesofunaccusatives—causativesofunergativescannotpassivize!(148) a. *Marco èstatofattotelefonare (da Gianni) Marco isbeenmadetelephone (by Gianni) b. *Marco èstatofattoridere (da Gianni). Marco isbeenmadelaugh (by Gianni) c. ??Marco èstatofattopiangere (da Gianni). Marco isbeenmadecry (by Gianni)(149) a. Marcoèstatofattopartire. Marcoisbeenmadeleave ‘Marcowasgottentoleave.’ b. Marcoèstatofattocadere (da Gianni). Marcoisbeenmadefall (by Gianni) ‘Marcowasgottentofall(byGianni).’ c. Ilpacchetto fufattoarrivare (daGianni). Thepackage wasmadearrive (byGianni) ‘Thepackagewasgottentoarrive(byGianni).’ (English??)Alternatingunergative/unaccusativeverbslikesaltareareparticularlyrevealing;whiletheactivecausativeisgoodwithbothinterpretations,thepassivecausativeonlyallowstheunaccusativereadiing:(150) a. GiannihafattosaltareilponteVecchio. GiannihasmadeexplodethebridgeVecchio "GiannimadetheVecchiobridgeexplode." b. GiannihafattosaltareMarco. GiannihasmadejumpMarco. "GiannimadeMarcojump."(151) a. IlponteVecchio fufattosaltare.

ThebridgeVecchio wasmadeexplode. b. ??Marco fufattosaltare. Marco wasmadejump.OurexplanationisthattheItalianpassive,whichisformeddifferentlythantheJapanesepassive,requiresamainverbtooperateon,andonlyFPfarecanbeamainverb—FIfareisonlyav°.WeclaimtherearenopassivesofFIfare.Thisprovidesanexplanationforthefactsin(143‐146)inthefollowingway:FPfareembedsanominalizedVPwithoutavPattached.Unergativeverbs'agentsareintroducedbythevP,whileunaccusativeverbs'singleargumentsareintroducedbythemainverb,theV.

62

SinceFPfaredoesnotembedavP,weconcludethatitcannotembedanunergativeverbwithitsagentargument.Allcasesoffare+unergativeVmustbeFIfare.PassivesoffareareincompatiblewithembeddedunergativeVTherefore,passivesoffarearepassivesofFPfare,notFIfare(iftheywereFIfare,wewouldexpecttoseethemwithembeddedunergativeV).Threequestions:a)WhydoesItalianpassiveneedamainverbtooperateon?b)Whataboutallthosepassivesoftransitiveverbswithana­Causee,asinin(141a)above?Ifthey'renotpassivesofFI,whereisthea‐Causeecomingfrom?c)HowcanwejustifysayingthatFPfareisa'mainverb'?Answertoa):Becauseitinvolvesalteringv°toeliminatetheexternalargumentandleavingaparticiplebehind.(Illustrate).Answertob):Italianallowsdativeapplicativeargumentstobeintroducedquitefreelyintotransitivestructures;theseareapplicativesofFPstructures.InsupportofclaimthatpassivesoffareareFP,notFI—recallwediscoveredarestrictiononthesubjectsofFPfaretotheeffectthattheymustbeanimate?Thatrestrictioncarriesovertotheby‐phrasesinpassivesofcausatives:(152) Èstatofattorompere iltavolo (aMarco) daMaria/*dallarabbia. Isbeenmadebreak thetable (toMarco) byMaria/by.therage. ‘Atablewasmadetobreak(onMarco)byMaria/byrage.’Thisrestrictionreallycomesfromthefarehere,notfromtheby‐phrase;inanimateCausersareperfectlygoodby‐phrasesinpassiveslikeGiannifuportatoalsuicidiodallarabbia,‘Gianniwasdriventosuicidebyrage’,correspondingtotheactiveLarabbiahaportatoGianniasuicidio,‘RagedroveGiannitosuicide.’Answertoc):Well,onits'mainverb'interpretation,'create',faretakesanominalcomplement(makeacake,etc.);theonlyrealdifferencebetweenFPfareand'mainverb'fareisjustthatthenominalcomplementdenotesanevent,ratherthanathing.

6.5 SummarySowehaveseenthefollowinghere:

o ThevPgivesusanewinsightintotheFP/FIdistinctionintermsofselectionoromissionofCauseearguments

o Therearedifferenttypesofexternal‐argument‐selectingv°,whichhavetheirownselectionaleffectsontheirspecifierandcomplement

Next:EventstructureandthevP

63

7. EventstructureandroottypeinEnglishdenominalverbsReading:Harley,H.(2005)Howdoverbsgettheirnames?Denominalverbs,Manner

IncorporationandtheontologyofverbrootsinEnglish,inNomiErteschik‐ShirandTovaRapoport,eds.,TheSyntaxofAspect,42‐64.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

7.1 Introduction:Adifferentsubdivisionofaspectualclasses(153) Discussionsofaktionsartandverbclassgenerallydivideeventiveverbsintothree

kinds:A incrementalthemeverbs(verbsofcreationandconsumption,ormakingand

unmaking)B change‐of‐stateverbs(bothtransitiveandunaccusative)C otherunergativeandtransitiveverbs,ofalltypes:activities,semelfactives,

andsomeaccomplishments Inmostoftheliterature,AandBhavebeentreatedasanaturalclass.BothAandB

verbsareusuallyAccomplishments,andbothmayhavethemesthatMeasure‐Out,inthesenseofTenny1992.Theyhaveusuallybeentreatedtogetherindiscussionsoftherobustconnectionbetweenobjectboundedness,objectcaseandmeasuring‐out(e.g.Tenny2000;VanHout2000).

Claim:adifferenttypologyofverbclassesisneeded Wecanaccountfortheaktionsartpropertiesofmorepredicatesifweunderstandthe

waysinwhichgroupsAandCformanaturalclass,distinctfromB. Hard­to­swallowdistinction:Wemustdistinguishbetweenverbswhosenamesare

derivedviaincorporationofaRootfromwithintheargumentstructureandverbswhosenamesarederivedsomeotherway,let'ssaybyamysterious,parametricallyvarying,magicalprocesswhichI'llcallMannerIncorporation

7.2 Background(154) Objectsandmeasuring‐out a. Suedrank/wrote forhours/#in5minutes. b. Suedrankapintofbeer/wroteastory #forhours/in5minutes c. Suedrankbeer/wrotestories forhours/#in5minutes. d. Suewroteatastory forhours/#in5minutes Muchrecentworkontelicityhasturnedontheimportantconnectionbetweenthe

directobjectpositionandthetelicityoftheVP,showninTenny1992andalsoDowty1991.ThecentralobservationisthatinmanyVPs,theboundednessofthedirectobjectdeterminesthetelicityoftheeventdenotedbythewholeVPcomplex.Aproposalthat

64

hasgainedsubstantialcurrencyisthatthereisafunctionalprojectionwhichchecksthefeaturesofthedirectobjecttoprovideanaspectualinterpretation,e.g.Borer1993;Borer1996;vanHoutandRoeper1998,amongmanyothers.Thisprojectionissometimesconflatedwiththeaccusativecase‐checkingprojection,sometimesindependentofit.

Otherauthorshavecalledtheimportanceofthedirectobjectasadetermineroftelicity

intoquestion,notablyJackendoff1991;Jackendoff1996andalsoLevin2000.Thereareverbswhichtakeanovert,bounded,definitedirectobjectandareyetinherentlyatelic(5a,c);theybecometelicwhenagoalargumentisprovided(5b,d).

(155) Objectswithoutmeasuring‐out: a. Suepushedthecart foranhour/#inanhour. b. Suepushedthecarttothefield #foranhour/inanhour. c. Suekickedtheball foranhour/#inanhour d. Suekickedtheballtothecenter #forasecond/inasecond Thereisasimilarsetofunergativeverbsofmotion:theyareessentiallyatelic,asis

expectedsincetheydon'thaveadirectobject,but,theymaybecometelicwiththeadditionofagoalPP(stillwithoutadirectobject)illustratedin(2).

(156) Measuring‐outwithoutobjects a. Suedanced foranhour/#inanhour. b. Suedancedacrossthestage #forfiveminutes/infiveminutes. c. Suehopped foranhour/#inanhour d. Suehoppedacrossthestage #forfiveminute/infiveminutes Anessentiallysimilarclassofverbsofmotionmaybetransitiveaswellasintransitive,

butdonotbecometelicuntilagoalPPisadded:(157) Objectswithoutmeasuring‐outandmeasuring‐outwithoutobjects: a. Suewalked foranhour/#inanhour. b. Suewalkedthedog foranhour/#inanhour. c. Suewalked(thedog)tothepark #for5minutes/in5minutes. Withrespecttotheseverbsofmotion,whenmotionappearstobespontaneousor

internallycaused,thereisawell‐knownconnectionbetweentestsforunaccusativityandthepresenceofagoalPP:

(158) BuygoalPP,getobjectforfree: a. There‐insertion: Thebulletwhistledasitpassedmyear. *Therewhistledabullet(asitpassedmyear). Therewhistledabulletpastmyear. b. AuxiliaryselectioninDutchBorer1996

65

Janheeft/*isgesprongen Janhasjumped. Janisindeslootgesprongen Janisin(to)theditchjumped. Janheeftindeslootgesprongen Janhasintheditchjumped Athirdclassofatelicactivity/semelfactiveverbswithobjectsbecometeliconlywith

theadditionofaresultphraseRappaportHovavandLevin1998:(159) Buyresultativephrase,getmeasuring‐outforfree a. Suehammeredthemetal for5minutes/#in5minutes. b. Suehammeredthemetalflat #for5minutes/in5minutes. c. #Thismetalhammerseasily. d. Thismetalhammersflateasily. Whyaretheseverbsdifferent? fromVanHout2000:"FollowingDowty,TennyKrifkaandVerkuyl,Itakeitthatitisa

lexicalpropertyofverbsthatdistinguishesthepush‐classfromverbslikedrinkandwrite."

7.3 Apurelysyntacticapproach Syntacticvs.semanticbootstrapping Inthispaper,Iproposetoidentifywhatthatlexicalpropertyis.Iclaimthatitisan

intersectionofvariousindependentpropertiesoftheverbroot:itsstructuralposition,itsontologicalclassanditsinherent(un)boundedness.

Weneedawaytomotivatethesuddenacquisitionofmeasuring‐outabilityincases5‐9,

andexplaintheabsenceofmeasuring‐outabilitywhereit'sabsent.ThedominanttypeofexplanationforthesephenomenahasbeenthatasemanticalterationtotheLCSoftheseverbs(e.g.viatheadditionofaPathargumentoraresultativestate),hastheeffectthatthemappingrulesproducedifferentresultsinthesyntax.I'llcallthisasemanticbootstrappingapproach.Iwishtoargue,withMateuFontanals2000,thatinfact,theadditionofPPorresultativestatematerialin5‐9directlyforcesasyntacticchangewhichgivesthecorrectresults.Ifit'snecessaryatall,theLCS‐typeinformationcanbereadoffthesyntax.I'llcallthisasyntacticbootstrappingapproach.

7.3.1 Anoverlookedclassoftelicverbs Tobegintomaketheargumentforsuchanapproach,let'sfirstconsideraclassof

unergativeverbsthat(unusually!)denoteAccomplishments,HaleandKeyser'sdenominalunergativeverbs.

66

(160) HaleandKeyser'sdenominalunergativeswithThingroots a. Themarefoaled #for2hours/in2hours b. Thedogwhelped #for2hours/in2hours c. Thecowcalved #for2hours/in2hours.(161) AnadaptationofH&K'sproposalforverbsofbirthing: vP 3 Themare v' 3 v √P | √ foal HaleandKeyserproposethatunergativeverbs(ingeneral)areessentiallytransitive,

derivedbyincorporatinganounrootinobjectpositionintothetransitiveverbthatselectsit;thatis,byconflatingatransitivestructure.

(162) Telicityofbothunergativeandtransitiveparaphrase a. Themarefoaled #for2hours/in2hours b. Themarehadafoal #for2hours/in2hours Theaktionsartpropertiesoftheseverbscorrespondtotheaktionsartpropertiesof

theirtransitiveparaphrases.Inbothcases,itshouldbeobviousthatthebabyanimal(s)thatarecontainedinthemother'swomb(hencenecessarilyfiniteinnumber)aretheincrementalthemethatdeterminesthetelicityofthepredicate.

(163) Thedifferencebetweenbabiesandotherbodilyemissions a. Thebabydrooled for2hours/#in2hours b. Theatheletesweated for2hours/#in2minutes c. Thewoundbled for2minutes/#in2minutes d. vP 3 Thebaby v' 3 v √P | √ drool Noticethatalltheseunergativeverbsofbodilyemissionareatelic,unbounded.

67

(164) Atelicparaphraseswithincrementalthemes a. Thebabymadedrool for2hours/#in2hours. b. Theathletemadesweat for2hours/#in2hours. c. Thewoundoozed/madeblood for2minutes/#in2minutes. Conclusion#1:intheparaphrasesin(13b)and(15)weattributetelicityorlackofitto

themassvs.countpropertiesoftheincrementalthemeincomplementposition.Inthecorrespondingunergativeverbs,theverbsarederivedviaincorporationofanominalrootfromcomplementposition—theincrementaltheme—whichhasinherentmassorcountproperties.Theparalleltelicitypropertiesoftheunergativeverbsandtheirtransitiveparaphrasesshouldbeattributedtothesamemechanism.Alexicalsyntacticaccountallowsustodothat.

Consequence#1:inatleastthesecases,theboundednesscannotbecheckedinSpec‐

AgrOPorsimilarfunctionalprojectionasacasefeatureorteliceventfeature(c.f.VanHout2000).Conceivablyit*could*bethecasethatfeaturecheckingintheseunergativeverbsisaccomplishedviaincorporationratherthanspec‐headagreement,ifwewishtomaintainafeature‐checkingaccount.

(165) Somebodilyemissionverbsthatneedextraexplanation a. Theboypeed for5minutes/in5minutes b. Johnspit #for5minutes/#in5minutes Thepeecase:peeisamassnoun,likesweatorblood,butinadditiontotheunbounded

reading,thereisaboundedreadingavailable.ThiscanbeexplainediftheUniversalPackagerhasapplied(thatallowsonetoorder"acoffee");notunreasonableinlightofthefactthatitisparticularlysalientthatpeecomesindiscretequantities,limitedbythesizeofthecontainer.Itdoes,however,entailthatthePackagercanbeapurelyinterpretive/pragmaticmechanism,notrequiringasyntacticreflex,asinterveningstructureorabstractmaterialwouldpresumablyblockincorporationoftheroot.

Thespitcase:spitisanapparentproblem.Initsnominalform,itisdefinitelyamass

noun.However,theverbseemstobeasemelfactiveunergativeinitsbehavior(seebelow).Iwillconsiderittobenaminganevent(theactofspitting)ratherthanathing,andtreatits"thing"meaningassecondary.

7.3.2 DenominalunergativeswithEventroots Sofar,wehaveinvestigatedtwotypesof√s:√sthatdenoteThingsthatareeither

boundedorunbounded.Thebounded√sincomplementpositiongiveustelicpredicates,measuredoutbythebounded√,whileunbounded√sincomplementpositiongiveusatelicpredicates.Wecansumupthetypologyofrootssofarasfollows:

68

(166) TwokindsofThingroots

bounded unbounded Thing foal drool

(167) TwokindsofunergativeverbswithEventroots Activities a. Suedanced for5minutes/#in5minutes b. Suewhistled for5minutes/#in5minutes c. Sueslept for5minutes/#in5minutes Semelfactives d. Suehopped #for5minutes/#in5minutes e. Suetripped #for5minutes/#in5minutes f. Thelightflashed #for5minutes/#in5minutes Notethatdenominalunergativeswithevent‐namingrootscannotbetelic,unlikethe

verbsofbirthingabove.Rather,theyareinstantaneousevents,whichmaybecoercedtoarepetitionreadingifcoocurringwithanatelicframeadverbial.FollowingSmith1991,I'llcallthesesemelfactives.

H&Kproposethesamestructurefortheseverbsasforthedenominalverbsabove:(168) Samestructure: a. vP b. vP 3 3 Sue v' Sue v' 3 3 v √P v √P | | √ √ dance hop(169) Sameaktionsartpossibilitieswithparaphraseandunergative a. Suedanced for5minutes/#in5minutes b. Suedidadance for5minutes/in5minutes c. Suehopped #for5minutes/#in5minutes d. Suedidahop #for5minutes/#in5minutes Notetheonedifferenceintheatelicparaphrase:"dance"initsnominalformisacount

noun,andameasured‐outtelicreadingisavailableforthetransitiveparaphrasein20(b).Aswithpeeabove,though,theimportantthingtonoticeisthatitdoesallowanatelicreading,indicatingthatitmaybeinterpretedunboundedly.

AspeculationaboutthenatureofrootsthatnameEvents:

69

TheboundedEventrootsabovedonot"measure‐out";rather,theynameaneventthatoccursatapointintime,notonethatevolvesovertime.ConsiderthatinthecaseoftheboundedThingroots,themeasuring‐outoccuredoverthephysicalquantityoftheboundedThing(s)inquestion.Ihypothesize,followingPustejovsky1991andJackendoff1991thatwhileboundedThingsmustnecessarilytakeupspace,linguisticEventsarefundamentallyeitherpointlike(instantaneous)orextendarbitrarilylong(activities).

Wherewe'regoing:Mosteventsthatevolveovertimetoaculminationpoint

(accomplishments)mustbeconstructedfromtwosub‐eventualities(againfollowingPustejovsky1991).Moreonthisanon.(Note:Incrementalthemeverbs(foaletc.)willconstitutetheexceptiontothisgeneralizationaboutaccomplishments.)

(170) Fourkindsof√s

bounded unbounded Thing foal drool Event hop dance

Thestorysofar:

o Unergativeverbsarecreatedbyincorporatinganominalrootintoalightverb.

o Thetelicityoftheresultingverbcanbepredictedonthebasisofthe

ontologicalcategoryoftheroot(EventorThing),andwhetherthatrootdenotesaboundedoranunboundedentity.

7.4 Transitiveatelicverbs Recallourclassofproblemverbs:theyhaveanon‐affectedobjectwhichcannot

measureout.Inthepast,thishasbeenattributedtotheAffectednessCondition,whichgovernstheapplicationofmappingrules.

(171) Pushing,hitting,kicking a. Johnpushedthecart for5minutes/#in5minutes b. Suedrovethecar for5minutes/#in5minutes c. Suekickedthewall #for5minutes/#in5minutes d. AbirdpeckedSue #for5minutes/#in5minutes IfEvent‐denotingroots(butnotThing‐denotingroots)canselectforacomplement,we

cangroupthesetogetherwiththeunergativeverbswithEvent‐denotingrootsin(18).Notethattheyhavethesameaktionsartpropertiesandtheyallhavecorrespondingevent‐denotingnominals(apush,apeck,etc.).Thiswouldthenentailthattheyhavethestructurebelow:

70

(172) Aproposal a. vP b. vP 3 3 Sue v' Sue v' 3 3 v √P v √P 3 3 √ DP √ DP push ! kick ! thecar thewall Whyisn'tthereacorrespondinggroupoftransitivedenominalverbswhoseroots

denoteThings,notEvents,andwhosetelicitydependsontheboundednessoftheincorporatedthing??LetussupposethatrootsdenotingThingscannotselectarguments8,whileEventscandoso.Ourinventoryofbasicrootpropertiesnowlookslikethis:

(173) Anotherspeculation

no complement complement bounded unbounded bounded unbounded

Event hop sleep kick push Thing foal drool N/A N/A

The$64,000question:Whycan'ttheseobjectsmeasure‐out? Beforeansweringthat,let'sfirsttakealookatthestructureoftheothermajorclassof

verbswhoseobjectsdomeasureout:notIncrementalThemepredicates,butChangeofStatepredicates.

7.5 Change­of­Stateverbs(174) Deadjectivalchange‐of‐stateverbs a. Sueclearedthetable #for5minutes/in5minutes. b. Thearchaeologistopenedthesarcophagus#for5minutes/in5minutes c. Suetamedthelion #for5minutes/in5minutes d. Sueroughenedthetiresurface #foraminute/inaminute Theseare,ofcourse,thecanonicalverbsthatappeartohaveaverystraightforward

semanticanalysisintermsofCAUSE+(BECOME)+STATE,whereSTATE=asmallclauseconsistingoftheadjectivalstatepredicatedoftheobject.Someundergotheinchoative/causativealternation,somedonot.

8Maybe.WhataboutBillfatheredason(?in2years/#for2years).

71

Essentiallypreservingtheanalysisofthegenerativesemanticists,H&K(andmany

others)proposethefollowinglight‐verbstructureforsuchverbs:(175) Thelexicalsyntaxofdeadjectivalchange‐of‐stateverbs vP 3 (agent) v' 3 v √P 3 DP √ ! clear thetable NotethattheincorporationofcleardoesnotviolatetheHMC,astheDPisinthe

specifierof√P,andincorporationishead‐to‐headmovement.TheobjectDPisinwhatH&Kcallthe"innersubject"position,asitisthesubjectofasmallclausepredicate,"thetable(is)clear".

Inthesecases,themeasuring‐outiswithrespecttotheentirestatedenotedbythe

smallclause—theendstate.Whenthatstateisacheived,theaccomplishmentdenotedbythewholeconstructionisover.Notethatthewholeisconstructedfromtwoeventualities:theCAUSEevent(littlev),andtheENDSTATEevent(thesmallclause).ThishasthenicepropertyofcorrespondingtothesemanticdecompositionofaccomplishmentsproposedbyPustejovskyandothers.

Finally,noticethatitmustbeinherenttothenatureoftheserootsthattheyare

predicative—theyselectforasubjectargument,notforanobject.Theyarethenfundamentallystative,andneitherboundednorunbounded,addingtoourinventoryofroots:

(30) Athirdkindofroot

no complement complement bounded unbounded bounded unbounded

Event hop sleep kick push Thing foal drool N/A N/A State clear TBA (prepositions)

72

7.6 DenominalLocation/Locatumverbs(176) Thepiècederesistance:denominallocation/locatumverbs. Location:bag,bank,bottle,box,cage,can,corral,crate,floor(opponent),garage,

jail,kennel,package,pasture,pen,photograph,pocket,pot,shelve,ship(theoars),shoulder,tree.

Locatum:bandage,bar,bell,blindfold,bread,butter,clothe,curtain,dress,fund,gas,grease,harness,hook,house,ink,oil,paint,pepper,powder,saddle,salt,seed,shoe,spice,water,word.

Formoreverbsandsignificantdiscussion,seeKiparsky1997. Noticethattheobjectoftheseverbsmaymeasure‐out:(177) Measuring‐outwhilesaddling: a. Johnsaddledthehorse #for5minutes/in5minutes b. Sueboxedthecomputer #for5minutes/in5minutes c. Momblindfoldeda6‐year‐old #foraminute/inaminute. d. Johnsaddledhorses for5minutes/#in5minutes e. Sueboxedcomputers for5minutes/#in5minutes f. Momblindfoldedchildren for5minutes/#in5minutes.(178) Paraphrasehassameaktionsartproperties: a. Momfitthesix‐yearoldwithablindfold #for5minutes/in5minutes. b. Momfitchildrenwithablindfold for3hours/#in3hours.(179) AHale‐and‐Keyser‐stylestructuralproposal: vP 3 (Agent) v' 3 v PP 5 DP P' ! 3 thehorse P √ saddle Essentially, the proposal is that this, too, is a change of state verb. The PP is a small clause,

predicating something like "WITH SADDLE" of the inner subject, the horse. Little v corresponds to CAUSE, as in the deadjectival case, above.

Thesamestructureisproposedforbothlocationandlocatumverbs—thatis,although

in"saddlethehorse",thesaddleisbeingputonthehorse,butin"boxthecomputer",thecomputerisbeingputinthebox,theincorporatedthing(saddle,box)isalwaysthe

73

sisterofPbelowP'.We'llseebelowthatwhatmattersistheboundednessoftheincorporatedthing,notwhetherit'sthelocationorlocatum.

(180) Anothermeasurer‐outerintheparaphrases: a. Sueputthecomputerinboxes for5minutes/#in5minutes b. Suefitthehorsewithsaddles foranhour/#inanhour. Notethat,althoughpragmaticallyodd,manipulatingtheboundednessofthe

prepositionalobjectaffectstheaktionsartofthepredicate.Selectinganunboundedrootforincorporation,then,oughtequallytoaffecttheaktionsartofthepredicate,inawayparalleltothefoal/droolcontrastabove.

(181) Anunbounded,incorporatedLocatum: a. Susanwateredthegarden foranhour/inanhour b. Billgreasedthechain for5minutes/in5minutes c. Jillpaintedthewall foranhour/inanhour d. Adelaidebutteredthebread for2minutes/in2minutes Whilethetelicreadingisavailable,asexpectedgiventhemeasuring‐outpotentialofthe

definite,singularobjects("innersubjects"ofthechangeofstate),anatelicreadingisalsoavailable!Thisisverysurprising.Contrasttheseexampleswiththenecessarytelicityofaverblikesaddle(cf.31aabove).

Conclusion#2:Again,weattributetheintroducedatelicreadingintheparaphrasesin

(33)totheintroducedunboundednessoftheprepositionalobject.Similarly,wecanexplaintheavailableatelicityoftopaintincontrasttothenecessarytelicityoftosaddlebyattributingittotheunboundednessoftheincorporatedprepositionalobjectinpaint,vs.theboundednessoftheincorporatedprepositionalobjectinsaddle.

7.7 Derivingtelicity(182) Thetypologyofargumentstructures,sofara. vPwithnon‐branchingcomplement vP 3 (Agent) v' 3 v X foal,run,drool,dance,calve....b. vPwithbranchingcomplementlackingaspecifier vP 3 (Agent) v' 3

74

v XP 3 X YP push,kick,hit,kiss,pull...c. vPwithbranchingcomplementlackingacomplement(smallclause) vP 3 (Agent) v' 3 v XP 3 YP X clear,redden,clean,weaken...d. vPwithbranchingcomplementwithbothspecifierandcomplement(smallclause) vP 3 (Agent) v' 3 v XP 3 YP X' 3 X ZP saddle,box,water,paint,butter...(Also,withoutincorporationofZP,thisistheLarsonianframeworkforditransitiveverbs:give,send,put....(see,e.g.Harley1996fordiscussion).) Notethatthedistincitonbetweentype(b)and(c)abovecanbemadeonthebasisofthe

ontologicaltype(Statevs.Event)ofX:ifXisanEvent,itcannotbepredicatedofsomething

Assumption#1:Theaboverepresentalltheargumentstructuresavailableinlanguage:

maximumofthree"direct"arguments.Note:nomultiplespecifiersallowed!(183) Adifferentkindofdenominalverb:instrumentalactivities a. Johnhammeredthemetal for5minutes/in5minutes b. Suebrushedthedog for5minutes/in5minutes c. Jillrakedtheleaves foranhour/inanhour Noticethattheboundednessofthenominalrootherehasnoeffectontheavailable

atelicity.Thisisexpectedifthestructuralsourceofthesenominalrootsisnotoneofthepossiblemeasuring‐outincorporatingpositions(i.e.complementtovorcomplementtoP).Consideringtheincorporatednominalinthematicroleterms,thismakessense:theseincorporatednounsareneitherThemesnorLocation/Locatums,butratherInstruments.

75

Assumption#2:TheseareverbscreatedbyMannerIncorporation:namingaverbof

oneofthefourclassesabove((36b),verbsofcontact—push,kick,kiss,etc.)afterasalientaspectoftheMannerinwhichitisaccomplished.Thisconflatestheseverbswithothermanner‐of‐contactverbssuchaswipe,etc.

(184) Whathappenswhenyoutrytoincludeanendstateintheargumentstructureof

push?a. Johnpushedthecart JohnDO(a)PUSH(of)thecartb. JohnpushedthecarttoNewYork JohnCAUSE[thecarttoNewYork]byPUSH Allofasudden,there'snoroomforthePUSHeventnominalintheargumentstructure,

whichisnowsaturatedwithaStatecomplementtovP,completewithaninternalsubject(thecart)andapredicate(PNewYork).PushingisnowrelegatedtoamereMannerelement,whichgetsintotheverbby(tada!)MannerIncorporationon‐the‐fly.

(185) Sameproblemwithmanner‐of‐motionverbsa. Sueran. SueDO(a)RUNb. SuerantoNewYork SueCAUSE[(self)toNewYork]byRUNc. Thebulletwhistled ThebulletDO(a)WHISTLEd. Thebulletwhistledpastmyear BECOME[thebulletpastmyear]whileWHISTLE Whathappensisthatthe(36d)verbframeisbeingused,buttheverbisnamedaftera

mannerelementthatcanalsooccurasitsownverbrootinthe(36aorb)frames.(186) TheargumentstructureofpushthecarttoNewYork. vP 3 John v' 3 v PP 5 DP P' ! 3 the cart P DP | ! to New York Anotherwayofthinkingaboutit:considerGleitman'sexampleoftheindependent

meaningsuppliedbytheditransitiveframe.Ifyoutakeaverblikethink,whichusuallytakesonlyaCPorDPcomplement,andforceitintoaditransitiveframe—SuethoughtthebooktoMary—whatresultsisnotungrammaticality.Rather,weinterpretthinkingasamannerelementdescribingthewayinwhichthebookwastransferredtoMary(telepathicallyortelekinetically,probably).Cf.alsotheinsightsofconstructiongrammar:Goldberg1995.

pushing v°√pushv° ∅

76

(187) Innersubjectsmeasure‐out9 a. Johnpushedcartstothecloakroom for3hours/#in3hours b. Susanhammeredmetalflat for3hours/#in3hours Also,ofcourse,theauxiliaryselectionchangeinDutchresultsfromtheappearanceof

aninnersubjectandresultingavailabilityofanunaccusativestructurefortheverbofmotionjumpwhentheendstateofthejumperisspecified;similarly,theavailabilityofthere‐insertionwithverbsofmotionresultsfromtheappearanceofaninnersubjectandresultingavailabilityofanunaccusativestructurewhentheendstateisrepresented.

7.7.1 TheproductivityofMannerIncorporationvariesparametrically AsdemonstratedbyTalmy1986,verbsofmannerofmotionarenotmuchavailablein

Romancelanguages:(188) LackoflexicalMannerelementsinRomance: a. Thebottlefloatedawayfromthebank. b. Labotella sefué delaorilla flotando. thebottle REFLmoved‐away fromthebankfloating Similarly,resultativeconstructionsareunavailableinRomancelanguages,andmost

verbsofmotiondonotpermittheadditionofgoalPPsorthecausativeaccompaniedmotionconstruction(seeHarley1999;MateuFontanals2000forfurtherdiscussion):

(189) a.Thehorsejumped/Kayjumpedthehorseoverthefence. b.Elcaballobrincó/*Juanbrincóelcaballosobreelcerco. thehorsejumped/*Johnjumpedthehorseoverthefence. Conclusion#3:Ifweunderstandthatresultativeconstructionsandmotion‐to‐a‐goal

constructionsinvolveareanalysisoftheverbrootasaMannerelement,wecanattributetheabsenceofsuchconstructionsinRomancetothelackofproductivityofMannerIncorporationinthoselanguages.

7.8 Reprise:IncrementalThemes Above,theonlyclassesofverbsthatmeasureoutwiththeirdirectobjectarechange‐of‐

stateverbs,withargumentstructures(36c)and(36d)above,whosedirectobjectisaninnersubject.Verbswhosedirectobjectdoesnotaffecttheirtelicityonewayoranotherhavenoinnersubject(frames36aand36babove),exceptinonecase:verbsofmakingorunmaking.Thiswastheoriginalparallelthatledustowardstheideathatdecomposingverbsinthesyntaxmightbeausefulidea.TheverbsthattheyparalleledweretheveryIncrementalThemeverbsthatgotTennyandDowtygoinginthefirstplace:

9Thisistheanswertothe$64,000question:theobjectsofpushverbsarenotinnersubjects.

77

(190) So:whataboutthetelicityofverbswithincrementalthemes? a. Sueatetheapple #for5minutes/in5minutes b. Billbuiltthehouse #forayear/inayear. Justasditransitiveverbsparallellocation/locatumverbswithoutalltheincorporation,

Iwishtoclaimthatverbsofmakingandunmakingparalleltheverbsofbirthingwithoutalltheincorporation.TheverbrootwillbeanincorporatedMannerelement.Thestructureof,e.g.,writewillthenbe:

(191) Astructureforincrementalthemeverbs vP 3 John v' 3 v DP ! the book JohnMAKEthebookbyWRITE Thereisthenasignificantstructuraldifferencebetweentheobjectsthatmeasure‐outin

change‐of‐stateverbs(includingditransitiveverbs),andtheincrementalthemeobjects.Theformerare"innersubjects"ofasmallclause,thelatteraredirectobjectsofalightverbofcreation(ornegativecreation).

Atestwhichmaydistinguishthetwokindsofdirectobjects(may!)isthemiddle

construction.Certainlylocation/locatumverbstakethemiddleeasily...(192) Middlesandmeasuring‐out a. Thesecomputersboxeasily. b. Shetlandponiessaddleeasily. Butitseemsthatverbsofmakingandunmakingresistthemiddle:(193) a. ??Powerbarseatquickly. b. ??FrankLloydWrighthousesdon'tbuildeasily Tenny2000 c. ??Rodinstatuessculpteasily. d. ??Oxfordshirtsdon'tseweasily. andcertainlyverbsofbirthingdo:(194) a. ***Foalsofthistypehaveeasily. b. ??Foalsofthistypebirtheasily.

writing

78

AsTenny(2000)notes,however,itseemsthatsomeclassmemberscanoccurinthemiddle:

(195) Maybemiddlesaren'tthebesttest.... a. ...thesoupthateatslikeameal b. ?Yourinitialsembroidereasilycomparedtomine. However,considerthedifferencebetweenamiddleformedfrom(a)below,agenuine

verbofcreation,andamiddleformedfromthesameverbin(b)below,inachangeofstatefrane:

(196) Butmaybetheyare a. Mariacarvedatoysoldier. a' ??Toysoldierscarveeasily. b. Mariacarvedthewood. b'. Woodcarveseasily. Conclusion#4:Middleformation(may)onlyapplytoverbswhoseargumentstructure

containsaninnersubject.HaleandKeyser1999cometothesameconclusionlookingataverydifferentsetofdatafrompsychverbs.

7.9 Sowhichlightverbisit? Inmyparaphrases,intendedtoelucidatethelexicalsemanticsandlexicalsyntaxof

thesedifferenttypesofverbs,I'veusedseveraldifferentlightverbstocorrespondtothecontributionoflittlev:

(197) DO,CAUSE,andMAKE a. SusanDO(a)DANCE b. BillDO(a)PUSH(of)thecart. c. ThemareMAKE(a)FOAL. d. JenniferMAKEabook(by)WRITING e. JillCAUSEthetableCLEAR f. MariaCAUSEthehorseWITHSADDLE g. PattyCAUSEthecarttoNewYork(by)PUSHING Infact,Ithinkit'sthesamelittlevinallcases:onethatdenotesthebeginningofan

event,anditsinitiator.It'sjustaweaknessofEnglishthatthebeginningsofdifferentkindsofeventsarereferredtobydifferentverbs.WeMAKEThings,weDOEvents,andweCAUSEstates;theinterpretationiswhollydependentontheontologicaltypeofthecomplementtolittlev.InFrench,allthreeEnglishverbstranslatethesameway:faire.

Ididn'taddressthequestionofwhetherthere'salightverbinunaccusativephrasesor

whatitis;Iassumethereis,thatitdenotesthebeginningofaspontaneouschange‐of‐

79

stateevent,andthatitdiffersfromtheFAIRElittlevonlyinthatitdoesnotselectanexternalargumentinitsspecifier.

(198) BECOME a. BECOME[thedoorOPEN] b. BECOME[thescreenCLEAR] c. BECOME[thebulletpastmyear](while)WHISTLING

7.10 SomeConcludingThoughts Take­homemessages

a)Evidencethatroottypeaffectstelicityofunergativeverbsanddenominallocation/locatumverbsarguesforalexical‐syntaxapproachtoargumentstructure

b)APustejovsky‐stylesemanticsforaccomplishments—CAUSE+ENDSTATE—isdirectlyrepresentedintheirlexicalsyntax10.

c)ThefactthatEnglishallowsproductiveMannerIncorporationaccountsforcertaintransitivityalternationsandthemeasuring‐outeffectsthatgowiththem;itcanalsoexplainwhyRomancedoesn'tshowsuchalternations

Next:TheargumentstructureandderivationalmorphologyofHiaki(I'mgoingtoskip

thePersianpaper;it'squitestraightforwardandyou'veseensomeofthedatabefore

10NotethatthisentailsthatnomonomorphemicrootcannameanAccomplishment.

80

8. YaquiargumentstructureandderivationalmorphologyReadings:Tubino‐Blanco,M.andH.Harley.(Toappear).SobrelaopcionalidaddelCausadoenlas

causativasindirectasenyaquiIntheProceedingsofthe2007FriendsofUto­AztecanMeeting/Tallerdelosamigosdelenguasyuto­aztecas,EditorialUnison,Hermosillo,Son.,Mexico

H.Harley.(Inprep).ApplicativesandVoicePinHiaki.Handoutfromtalkpresentedat2007

GLOWmeeting,Tromsø,Norway.Jelinek,E.andH.Harley(inprep)ImpersonalpassivesinYaqui.Ms.,UniversityofArizona.Harley,H.,M.Tubino‐BlancoandJ.Haugen.(2009).Applicativeconstructionsand

suppletiveverbsinHiaki(Yaqui).InL.Lanz,AFranklin,JHoecker,EGentryBrunner,MMorrison,andCPace,editors,RiceWorkingPapersinLinguisticsVolume1,pp.42‐51

M.Tubino‐Blanco,H.HarleyandJ.Haugen.(2009).Thesyntaxofhybridverb/affixlexemes

andclausefusioninHiaki(Yaqui)InL.Lanz,AFranklin,JHoecker,EGentryBrunner,MMorrison,andCPace,editors,RiceWorkingPapersinLinguisticsVolume1,pp.79‐91

8.1 AquickintroductiontoHiakimorphosyntax HiakiisanSOV,agglutinative,Uto‐AztecanlanguagespokeninSonoraandinArizona.It

isrobustlyhead‐final,exceptforitsrichdeterminersystem,whichishead‐initial.Ithastwostructuralcases—nominative(‐∅)andaccusative(‐ta)—andabevyof

postpositionsIthasaLOTofadicity‐affectingverbalsuffixes,includingapassive,twocausatives,two

desideratives,anapplicative,adirective,aquotative,participializers,andrelativizers

Thepassiveisanimpersonalpassive.Itcanapplytoanyverbwithahumansubject

argumenttoeliminatethatargument,providinginsteadanexistentiallyboundunderstood'someone'interpretationforthatrole.

Ifthereareanyaccusativecase‐markedargumentsinthecorrespondingactive,the

structurallyhighestonemovestosubjectpositionandbecomesnominative.

81

(199) a. Hose vachi‐ta bwasa’a Joe corn‐ACC cook.TRANS Joeiscookingcorn. b. Vachi bwasa’a‐wa Corn cook.TRANS‐EXST Thereiscornbeingcooked;(People,they)arecookingcorn.iftherearenosucharguments,theimpersonalpassiveissubjectless.(200) a. Ume yoemia aman yaha The.PLpeople there arrive.PL Thepeoplearearrivingthere. b. Amanyahi‐wa Therearrive.PL‐EXST (People,they)arearrivingthere;Arrivingthereisgoingon.HiakireflexivesarebeautifullyobedienttoConditionA.

8.2 Hiakicausatives:DirectandIndirect(WithMercedesTubino‐Blanco)

8.2.1 Introduction Inthispaper,wecontrastthebehaviorofthedirectcausativeaffix­tuawiththatofthe

indirectcausativeaffix­tevoinHiaki(Yaqui).Wefirstconsiderthestraightforwardcases,andproposeasyntacticanalysisbasedonthem.Wethengoontooutlinesomemorecomplexbehaviorwith­tevoincombinationwithparticularverbstems,whichouraccountdoesnotpredict.

8.2.2 TheFacts TwocausativemorphemesinHiaki(201) Directcausation:thecausativesuffix–tuaisaffixedtotheverbalstem(1). a. Mariahitevi‐tauusi‐tahitto‐tua‐k Mariadoctor‐ACCchild‐ACCtreat‐CAUS.DIR‐PERF ‘Mariamadethedoctortreatthechild’ (‘María(le)mandóalmédicotrataralniño’) b. Aaposiyeeva‐vamih‐tua 3SGverypeopleRED‐in.a.hurry‐CAUS.DIR ‘He’salwaysmakingpeoplerush’ (‘Siemprehacecorreralagente’)

82

c. HosePeo‐talautiyevih‐tua‐k HosePeo‐ACCearlyarrive(SG.SUBJ)‐CAUS.DIR‐PERF ‘HosemadePeoarriveearly’(‘HosehizoaPedrollegartemprano’)(202) Indirectcausation:themorpheme–tevoissuffixedtotheverb(2). a. Mariauusi‐tahitto‐tevo‐k Mariachild‐ACCtreat‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF ‘Mariahadthechildtreated’(‘Maríamandótrataralniño’) b. Aapohivava‐vamih‐tevo 3SGalwaysRED‐in.a.hurry‐CAUS.INDIR ‘He’salwayshaving(people)rush(‘Siemprehacecorrer’) c. Inepoamanyahi‐tevo‐k 1SGtherearrive(PL.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF ‘Ihadpeoplebroughtthere’(‘Hicetraeraunosahí,cf.hicequellegaranallí’) TheCauseeargument:In(1)and(2)acontrastisexhibitedbetweenthetwoaffixes

regardingthepresenceoftheCauseeargument,thesubjectoftheembeddedverb,e.g.hitevi­ta,'doctor'.

(203) Directcausation(­tua): TheCauseeargument,hitevi­ta‘thedoctor’(‘elmédico’),isobligatory: *Maria[uusi‐tahitto]‐tua‐k Maria[child‐ACCtreat]‐CAUS.DIR‐PERF ‘Mariamade[(someone)treatthechild] (‘Maríamandó[(a?)trataralniño]) Indirectcausation(­tevo):Dependingontheembeddedverb...(204) Causeeforbidden(moretypical): a.Santoh‐taachai[(*aayoemia­wa)vachi‐taet]‐tevo Santoh‐ACCfather[(*hischildren‐POSS)corn‐ACCplant]‐CAUS.IND ‘Santos’fatherhad[hischildrenplantthecorn]' (‘ElpadredeSantosmandó[asushijossembrarelelote]’) b.Aapohiva(*yee)va‐vamih‐tevo 3SGalwayspeopleRED‐in.a.hurry‐CAUS.INDIR ‘He’salwayshaving[(*people)rush](‘Siempremandaquelagentecorra’)

83

(205) Causeeoptional(lesstypical;withonlytheseverbsinourdatasofar)a.Maria[hitevi­tauusi‐tahitto]‐tevo‐k [compare(2b)]Maria[doctor‐ACCchild‐ACCtreat]‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF‘Mariahad[thechildtreatedbythedoctor]’ (‘Maríamandó[trataralniño]’(atravésdelmédico))b.Maalaaayevih‐tevo‐kukayoem­ta [compare(2c)]mother3SGarrive(SG.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERFDET.ACCman‐ACC‘Motherhadthemanbroughttoherhouse’(‘Mamámandótraeralhombre(alacasa)’)

8.2.3 TheSyntaxoftheCausee:isitreallyoptional? Weproposethat,despitethepuzzlingfactsabove,theCauseeisreallysyntactically

suppressedwiththeindirectcausative­tevo.Itsbehaviorinpassivesshowsit. Thesubjectofpassivizedcausatives:(206) Passiveofdirectcausation(­tua):theCauseeispromotedtosubject(LikeJapanese): Uuhiteviuusi‐tahitto‐tua‐wa‐k DETdoctorchild‐ACCtreat‐CAUS.DIR‐PASS‐PERF ‘Thedoctorwasmadetotreatthechild’(‘Almédicoselemandótrataralniño’) Passiveofindirectcausation(­tevo):theembeddedobjectispromotedtosubject,even

withverbswheretheCauseemayoptionallyappear(LikeItalianFP)(207) Uuuusihitto‐tevo‐wa‐k DETchildtreat‐CAUS.INDIR‐PASS‐PERF ‘Somebodyhadthechildtreated’(‘Sehamandadotrataralniño’)

8.2.4 SuppressionofCauseeswithembeddedintransitivenumber‐suppletivepredicates CertainintransitiveverbsexhibitnumbersuppletioninHiaki(8).(208) a. Uuuusiamanvuite DETchild(sg)thererun(SG.SUBJ) ‘Thechildisrunning’(‘Elniñocorre’)

PUZZLEN.1:Thefactsin3.1.showaclearcontrastinthebehaviorof–tuaand–tevocausatives:Onlyinthecaseof–tuadoestheCauseehitevi‘doctor’(médico)becomethesubjectofapassive.In–tevopassives,theembeddedobjectuusi‘child’(niño)istheargumentbecomingthesubject.Whycan–tevocausativesexhibitCauseesatallinsentenceslike(205)?

84

b.Umeuusi­mamantenne/*vuiteDET.PLchild‐PLthererun(PL.SUBJ)/*run(SG.SUBJ)‘Thechildrenarerunning’(‘Losniñoscorren’) Hiakiallowsimpersonalpassivizationofintransitives11:(209) Pahko‐poyi’i‐wa‐k ceremony‐PPdance‐PASS‐PERF ‘Peopledanced/Therewasdancingattheceremony’ Jelinek1997:181[7b] Ifthepassivizedintransitiveverbexhibitsnumbersuppletion(eg.vuite(sg.)/tenne(pl.)

‘run’(‘correr’)),the‘default’agreementwiththesuppressedimplicitsubjectisALWAYSplural:

(210) a. Amantenni‐wa thererun(PL.SUBJ)‐PASS ‘Peoplearerunning/there’srunningthere’ (‘Allísecorre/Haygentecorriendoallí’)COMPARE: b.*Amanvuiti‐wathererun(SG.SUBJ)‐PASS‘Peoplearerunning/there’srunningthere’ (‘Allísecorre/haygentecorriendoallí’) Incausativeenvironments,thesingularformvuite‘run(sg.subj)’(‘correr(suj.sg)’)may

appearembeddedwiththedirectcausative–tuawhenevertheCauseeissingular:(211) Heidiamanaa=vui‐vuiti­tua Heidithere3SG=RED‐run(SG.SUBJ)‐CAUS.DIR 'Heidimakeshimdorunningthere’(‘Heidilehace(aél)correr/darcarrerasallí’) Incontrast,onlythepluralformtenne‘run(pl.subj)’(‘correr(suj.pl)’)isallowedas

embeddedtotheindirectcausative–tevo(withtheCauseeimplicit–i.e.thesubjectof'run'issuppressed,exactlyaswith­wain(10a)above):

(12)a.Heidiamante‐tenni­tevoheidithereRED‐run(PL.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‘Heidihaspeopledorunningthere’(‘Heidihacecorrer/darcarrerasallí’)b.*Heidiamanvuiti­tevoHeidithererun(SG.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‘Heidiishavingpeoplerunthere’(‘Heidiestáhaciendocorrerallí’)1211Itisimportanttonotethat,unlikeinEnglish,thepossibilityofspecifyingtheagentintheformofaby­phraseisnotanoptioninHiaki(Escalante1990)

85

Conclusion:ThesupressedCauseeargumentwith­tevoislikethesuppressed

Agent/Subjectargumentwith­wa:semanticallyunspecified,notsingular(likeanimpersonal),andgenuinelysyntacticallyabsent.

8.2.5 ProposalandAnalysis WeproposeananalysiswithinthevP/VoicePframework,proposedinJelinek(1998)

(seealsoPylkkänen2002,Harley2007).SuchananalysisisalsocomparabletotheanalysisofindirectanddirectcausationinHindiproposedinRamchand(2008).

OneobviousapproachistocarryovertheFI/FPdistinction:­tuacausativesbehavelike

FI,and–tevocausativesbehavelikeFP,withoutanembeddedsubject:(212) a.Mariahitevi‐tauusi‐tahitto‐tuaMariadoctor‐ACCchild‐ACCtreat‐CAUS.DIR‘Mariaismakingthedoctortreatthechild’ (‘Maríalehamandadoalmédicotrataralniño’)b.Mariauusi‐tahitto‐tevoMariachild‐ACCtreat‐CAUS.INDIR‘Mariaishavingthechildtreated’(‘Maríahamandadotrataralniño’)(213) a.Mariahitevi‐tauusi‐tahitto‐tuavP DP v' Maria vP vº -tua DP v caus.dir hitevi-ta ‘doctor’ VP vº Ø DP Vº uusi-ta hitto- ‘child’ ‘treat’

12Notethattheungrammaticalityofthissentenceisnotduetothelackofreduplicationoftheembeddedverb,as(i)shows:

(i) neeamantenni‐tevo1SGthererun(PL.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‘I’mhavingpeoplerun’(‘Estoyhaciendocorrer(aunos)’)

(18a):THECAUSATIVEHEAD–tuaTAKESAvPASITSCOMPLEMENT.THISHEADNTRODUCESTHECAUSEEINITSSPECPOSITION[Spec,vP].

MAINDIFFERENCEBETWEEN(18a)AND(18b):ABSENCEOFAvPINCOMPLEMENTOF­TEVO(18b).vPISTHEPROJECTIONTHATINTRODUCESTHEEMBEDDEDEXTERNALARGUMENT

86

b. Maria uusi-ta hitto-tevo vP DP v' Maria VP vº -tevo DP vº caus.indir uusi-ta hitto- ‘child’ ‘treat’

8.2.6 Summaryuptothispoint (214) Proposal:­tuaand–tevoarecausativelightverbswhichdifferregardingthetypeof

clauseeachembeds: a.­tevoselectsforasubjectless,VPcomplementclause. b.–tuaselectsforasubject‐fulvPcomplementclause. Thiscontrastisresponsibleforthe 1)obligatorypresenceoftheCauseein–tuacausatives,hitevi­ta‘doctor’in(3) 2)theobligatoryabsenceoftheCauseein–tevocausatives(4) TheCauseein–tevocausatives,althoughnotpresentsyntactically,issemantically

understoodtobepresent,itsexistencebeingimpliedbythecontext.Interestingly,theexamplesexhibitingnumbersuppletionin(12)suggestthatthisnotional/semanticCauseeinindirect–tevocausativesismorpho‐syntacticallysalientenoughtoforcenumbersuppletion.Thisisparalleledbythepassiveexamplesin(6)and(7),wherenumbersuppletionistriggeredbytheimpersonal,implicitAgentargument,whichissyntacticallyabsentinpassiveconstructions.

8.2.7 Addenda,counterexamplesandunsolvedquestions Problemsunsolved!Ourdatashowspuzzleswestilldon’thaveananswerfor. OptionalityofCauseewithhittoandyevih­(mentionedabove) Weclaimthatthesyntaxof–tevo(cf.itslackofVP)doesnot‘makeroom’foraCausee

argumentwithinitsdomain;hence,theabsenceofanovertCauseeinindirectcausatives.

However:Westillneedtoprovideanexplanationforsentenceslikethese(repeated

fromabove)

(18b):THECAUSATIVEVERB–tevoTAKESVPASITSCOMPLEMENT.THISVPDOESNOT‘MAKEROOM’FORACAUSEEARGUMENT,GIVENITSABSENCEOFASPEC‐VPPOSITION.

87

(215) Maria[hitevi­tauusi‐tahitto]‐tevo‐k Maria[doctor‐ACCchild‐ACCtreat]‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF ‘Mariahad[thechildtreatedbythedoctor]’ (‘Maríamandó[trataralniño]’(atravésdelmédico)) WhyistheCauseeabletoappearinthissentence? Indirectcausationandembeddedsubjectofyepsa/yevih­/yahi­,'arrive':apuzzle:A

similarbutmorecomplexproblemariseswithyepsa,'arrive',incombinationwith­tevo. Asnotedabove,incombinationwiththeunaccusativeverbyepsa‘arrive’(‘llegar’),­tevo

causativesmayretainthesoleargumentoftheembeddedverbasanobject(justaswith­tua).

(216) Maalaaayevih‐tevo‐kukayoem­ta mother3SGarrive(SG.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERFDET.ACCman‐ACC ‘Motherhadthemanbroughttoherhouse(eg.bysomebody)’ (‘Mamámandótraeralhombre(alacasa)’)(217) HosePeo‐talautiyevih‐tua‐k HosePeo‐ACCearlyarrive(SG.SUBJ)‐CAUS.DIR‐PERF‘HosemadePeoarriveearly’(‘HosehizoaPedrollegartemprano’) However,thereisasubtlesemanticdifferencebetweentheyevih­tevoandyevih­tua

combinations:Theformer,butnotthelater,impliestheexistenceofanunspecifiedargumentwhichcausedtheembedded'arriving'event(asreflectedinthegloss).

Thisislikeother–tevosentencesinthattheembedded,caused,eventisunderstoodto

involveanunspecifiedCausee Unlikeother­tevosentences,theunspecifiedCauseeisnotasuppressedpartofthe

argumentstructureoftheembeddedverb(ie.,it’smerelyimplicitfromthecontext). Theargumentstructureofthisembeddedverbmaybefullypresentwith­tevo. Itdoesn'thavetobepresent,however—itcanbehaveasexpected,wherethesingle

argumentoftheembeddedverbissuppressed(asalsoshownabovein(2c).(20)Inepoamanyahi‐tevo‐k1SGtherearrive(PL.SUBJ)‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF‘Ihadpeoplebroughtthere’(‘Hicetraeraunosahí,cf.hicequellegaranallí’) Whentheembeddedargumentisabsentwiththisverb(20),weseepluralagreement,

asexpected,cf.12aabove:

88

Thesingularagreementwiththeunusualsentencein(18)((5b)),withtheovertCausee,islikethesingularagreementinthecorresponding­tuaconstruction

Intermsofagreement,then(18)and(19)arebehavingexactlyalike:­tevoisactingjust

like­tua,morphosyntactically.Semantically,however,it'sdifferent—the­tevosentenceinvolvesanimplicitembeddedexternalargument

Justtocomplicatemattersfurther,inanotherexamplewithpeculiarcombinationof

yepsaand­tevo,theredoesn'tseemtobeanyimpliedargumentatall—inthiscase,itseemsthat­tevocanfunctionexactlylikethedirectcausative­tua:

(218) a.Kaaro‐mhivasivu‐vu’uria.Kiali’ikunvato’o­raa­takaalauticar‐PLalwaysveryRED‐multiplythat.is.whyin.baptism‐AVRZ‐ACCNEGearlyyahi‐tevo‐k/yahi­tua­k arrive(PL.SUBJ)CAUS.INDIR‐PERF/arrive(PL.SUBJ)‐CAUS.DIR‐PERF‘Thereisalwaysalotoftraffic.Thatcausedpeopletoarrivelate’(‘Comohabíamuchoscoches,sehizollegartarde(alagente)’) Passiveinterpretationwithne’e‘fly’(‘volar’):Someintransitiveswithinthescopeof

–tevo(eg.ne’e‘fly’)both(i)allowanovertCauseeand(ii)receiveapassiveinterpretation.Thefactsareshownin(22).

(219) a.Uuuusiam=ni’i‐tua‐kDETchild3PL=fly‐CAUS.DIR‐PERF‘Thechildmadethemfly’(‘Elniñoloshizovolar’)b.Uuuusiwikichi­mni’i‐tevo‐kDETchildbird‐PLfly‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF‘Thechildhadthebirdsfly?’(‘Elniñomandóquevolaraelpájaro’)c.Wikichi‐mni’i‐tevo‐kbird‐PLfly‐CAUS.INDIR‐PERF‘Thebirdswereallowedtofly’(‘Dejaronvolaralospájaros’) Tentativesolution?Theaccusativeargumentsappearingin–tevo+intransitive

sentencessuchas(22b,c)aregeneratedasinternalargumentswithinthedomainoftheintransitiveverb,ratherthanasrealCausees(i.e..,intheSpecpositionofvP,which,weclaim,isabsentwithinthedomainof–tevo).(Thiswouldunifythesene'ecasesandtheyepsa/yevih­/yaha­casesabove,assumingyepsa,'arrive',isunaccusative.)Findingsontheinteractionbetweenintransitivesuppletiveverbsandtheapplicativemorpheme–ria,inHarleyetal.(2006),providefurthersupportregardingthispossibility

Onwards!Totheinteractionofcausativesandapplicatives,andthemotivationofPylkkanen's(2002)VoiceP+vP+VParchitecture!

THEUSUALSTRUCTURE:­tua+intransitive+accusativeCausee

THEPUZZLINGSTRUCTURE:­tevo+intransitive+…accusativeCauseee?

PUZZLING!–tevo+passiveinterpretation(butnopassivemorpheme–wa)‐‐again,likethereisanimplicitCauseeargument

89

8.3 Applicatives,causativesandtheMirrorPrinciple:vP­externalsubjectsandVoice

8.3.1 IntroductionFollowingworkbyHaleandKeyser(1993),Chomsky(1995)andKratzer(1994,1996),andfollowinggroundworklaidbyLarson(1988),theVPcametohavetwoparts,anupperexternal‐argumentselectingpart,andalower,internal‐argumentselectingpart:vPandVP.(220) TP T' T° vP DP v' v° VP V DP ‐ed Mary ∅ open it IhavethoughtitwaspossibletogetawaywithjustthismuchVPdecomposition(assumingcertainmodificationstodowiththecategoryoftheVPconstituent)Inthistalk,however,Ipresentevidencethatmorestructureisneeded,namely,atleastaVoicePontopofanexternal‐argument‐lessvP: TP T' T° VoiceP DP Voice' Voice° vP v SC DP √ ‐ed Mary ∅ ∅ it open

90

Structureoftalk:ReviewMcGinnis'sandPylkkanen'sanalysisforapplicativestructureswithinthesplit‐vP,

showinghowitprovidesstrongevidenceforthesplit‐vPproposal.IntroduceHiakiverbalmorphologyandsyntax,includinglexicalcausatives,productive

causativesandapplicativesShowhowinteractionofproductivecausativesandapplicativesarguesforstructurein0,

includingVoiceP.ThekeyargumentfortheseparationofVoiceandvisaminorvariationontheargumentpresentedbyPylkkänen2002:122‐125.

Salientpoint:thecausativev°headdoesnotintroducetheovertexternalargumentinHiakicausatives.Rather,theexternalargumentmustbeintroducedbyaVoice°headwhichselectsforthecausativevP

IntroduceHiakiindirectcausativesandshowhowVoicePisniceforthemtoo.SkipoversimilarargumentfromEnglishnominalizationsduetoBorer(2005)Discussconsequencesforbase‐generationofexternalarguments,stackingpassive

morphology,unaccusatives,etc.

8.3.2 McGinnis(2001etseq,),Pylkkanen(2002):ApplicativesandthesplitVPOnemajorbenefitofthesplit‐vP,inamorphologicallydecompositionalsyntax,isanappropriatespottoputtheapplicativemorphemeanditsargument,inlanguageswhichhaveapplicatives(Pylkkanen2002).ApplicativesintroduceanadditionalbenefacteeormalefacteeargumenttoaclauseVeryproductive,morphologicallyovertinmanylanguages.CanonicalexamplesincludeChichewaandKinyarwanda;Hiaki(Yaqui)alsohasaproductiveapplicativemorpheme:13(221) Voocha‐m woita shoe‐pl untie "Untietheshoes"(222) Usi‐ta voocha‐m woita‐ria Child‐acc shoe‐pl untie‐appl "Untietheshoesforthechild!"(223) InepoHose‐ta livrom hinu‐ria‐k IJose‐accbook bought‐appl‐prf "IboughtJoseabook"13Asidefortheapplicativelyinclined:ThefactthattheHiakiapplicative­riacanattachtounergativeverbsasin(225)meansthatitisa'high'applicativeinPylkkanen(2002)'sterms.Indeed,Harley,HaugenandTubino(2006)showthatitcannotattachtounaccusativeverbs,suggestingitselecstsforanagentivevPcomplement.ThefactthattheHiakiapplicativeisstronglyasymmetricinitsinteractionwiththepassiveandtheotherargumentsoftheclause,however,isevidencethatitisnotaphasehead,inMcGinnis'(2001,2003)approachtosymmetricapplicatives.Thissuggeststhatthehigh/lowapplicativedistinctiondoesnotnecessarilycorrelatewiththesymmetric/asymmetricdistinction,contratheproposalofMcGinnis(2001).

91

(224) InepoHose‐tapueta‐ta eta‐ria‐k I Jose‐accdoor‐acc close‐appl‐prf "IclosedthedoorforJose"(225) U’umaaso uusi‐m yi’i‐ria‐k Thedeer.dancer thechildren‐pl dance‐appl‐prf “Thedeerdancerdancedforthechildren”SalientfeaturesoftheHiakiapplicative: (I) Introducesanewargumentintosentence (II) Newargumentisasyntacticobject(with­taaccusativesuffixine.g.(224)) (III) Newargumentisc‐commandedbysubject,c‐commandsallinternal

arguments(Rude1996)Proving(III):Whencoreferentialwiththematrixsubject,theappliedargumentmustbereflexive:(226) Aapo tu’i mo’ove‐ta au= hinu‐ria‐k He goodhat‐acc 3.refl=bought “Heboughthimselfagoodhat.” Dedrick&Casad1999:343[17]Whentheexternalargumentissuppressed(impersonal)passivesuffix,theapplied

argument,nottheinternalargument,becomesthenewnominativesubjectargument:

(227) Hose maso‐ta me'a‐k Jose deer‐acc kill‐prf "Josekilledthedeer"(228) Maasome'e‐wa‐k Deer kill‐pass‐prf "Thedeerwaskilled"(229) Hose Maria‐ta maso‐ta me’e‐ria‐k Jose Maria‐acc deer‐acc kill‐appl‐prf “JosekilledMaria'sdeeronher."("Maria"ismalefacteeargumentof­ria)(230) Mariamaso‐ta me’e‐ria‐wa‐k Mariadeer‐acc kill‐appl‐pass‐prf “Mariahadherdeerkilledonher”(231) *MasoMaria‐ta me’e‐ria‐wa‐k deer Maria‐acc kill‐appl‐pass‐prf

92

So:Appliedargumentappears(structurally)betweenexternalargumentandinternalargument.Itisintroducedbythe­ria­morphemeitself,presumablytheheadofanApplP.AppliedargumentinSpec‐ApplP.Split‐VPallowsustocomposetheVwiththeAppl°­riabelowthev°andabovetheVP,therebyintroducingtheappliedargumentbelowtheexternalargumentandabovetheinternalarguments,asrequired.(232) TP DP+nom T' vP T°+nom t v' ApplP v°+acc DP+acc ApplP' √P Appl°+acc √° Uumaaso uuuusi­m yi'i ‐ria ‐∅ ‐k Thedeer.dancer thechild­PL dance ‐APPL ‐v° ‐PRF

"Thedeerdancerdancedforthechildren."

93

(233) TP DP+nom T' vP T°+nom t v' ApplP v°+acc DP+acc ApplP' √P Appl°+acc DP+acc √° Inepo Jose­ta pueta‐ta eta ‐ria ‐∅ ‐k I Jose‐ACC door‐ACC open ‐APPL ‐v° ‐PRF

"IopenedthedoorforJose."ThisisPylkkänen'sargumentforasplit‐VP(fromapplicativeswiththesesame

propertiesinotherlanguages,notinHiaki.)

8.3.3 Hiakiandthesplit‐VPBipartiteverbmorphologyinHiaki:Hiakiexhibitsafairamountofmorphological

evidence,likethatofJapanese,thatsomeagentiveverbsaremadeupofarootandacausativeverbalizinghead.

(234) Change‐of‐statepredicates: Verb Adj Verb Adj toredden red sikisi siki tofatten fat awia awi tosoften soft bwalkote bwalko tosharpen sharp bwawite bwawi towarm warm sukawe sukaAgentivedenominalunergativepredicates:(235) Noun Verb cho'oko 'salt' cho'okote 'tosalt' heewi 'yes!' hewite 'toagree' hiosia 'paper' hiohte 'towrite' (sh/__C) haawa 'steam' hawassate 'tosteam'

94

hipetam 'mat,bed' hipette 'toweave,makeamat' kari 'house' karite 'buildahouse'Bipartiteverbstructurecopeswiththesemorphologicaldivisionsverynicely:the­tein

thingslikekari­te'house‐do',forexample,couldbeanalyzedasheadingtheexternal‐argument‐introducingv°,asinJapanese,above:

(236) vP Agent v' √P v° √ Santos kari‐ ‐te house‐ ‐do "Santosbuildsahouse" Now,considerthemorpheme‐orderpredictionmadebythesplit‐VPanalysisofapplicatives,above.Theapplicativehead­riaintroducesanappliedobjectbelowtheexternalAgentargument,betweenv°and√.If­riaobeystheMirrorPrincipleprediction,then,itshouldfitlinearlyinbetweenkari­and­te,asinthefollowingstructure:(237) vP Agent v' ApplP v° Benef. Appl' √P Appl° *Santos Maria­ta kari‐ ­ria ‐te house‐ Appl ‐do Thismorphemeorderisimpossible,though.Theapplicativemorphememustfollowthepurportedv°morpheme!

95

(238) SantosMaria‐ta kari‐te‐ria (> Santoskari‐te) SantosMaria‐acc house‐v°‐appl Santoshouse‐v° "SantosisbuildingahouseforMaria." "Santosisbuildingahouse"Hmm!Possibleconsclusion:apparentv°morphologylike­teisn'tactuallyv°,thoughit

mayhistoricallyhavebeen;hasbecomereanalyzedaspartofroot(hence'lexical').Actualv°ismorphologicallynull,andstill'follows'theAppl°head.

Notaviablesolutionforthenextsetofdata:theinteractionofproductivecausativesand

applicativesinHiaki.

8.3.4 SplittingthevP:Voice,causativesandapplicativesCausativesBesideshavingaproductiveapplicativeconstruction,Hiakihasabeautifullyproductiveaffixalcausativeforexpressinggarden‐varietycausation:(239) Art Heidi‐ta utte’a‐po hipaksia‐tua‐k “Art Heidi‐acc strength‐in do.laundry‐caus‐prf “ArtmadeHeididolaundryagainstherwill.”(240) SimonHose‐ta kari‐te‐tua SimonJose‐acc house‐vrb‐caus "SimonismakingJosebuildahouse."(241) Uumaroma umeyoeme‐m kari‐ta ho'o‐'oota‐ka‐m‐ta Theforeman theman‐pl house‐acc back‐bone‐ppl‐s.rel‐acc hoo‐tua‐taite make‐cause‐start "Theforemanismakingthemenstarttobuildahousewithapeakedroof" (Lit:"…ahousethathasabackbone.")Inlinewithagreatdealofresearchonaffixalcausativescross‐linguistically(Harley

1995,Kural1995,Travis2000,Svenonius2005,amongmanyothers),IanalyzetheaffixalcausativemorphemeasaniterationofvP

ThecausativevPaddsanexternalargument(theCauser)tothesyntaxandacausative

morphemetotheverb.Theformerexternalargument(theCausee)becomesthehighestinternalaccusativeargument,gettingaccusativecaseviaECMfromthecausativev°

96

(242) vP …T° DP v' √P v° √ Hose kari ‐te ‐k Jose house ‐make ‐prf "Hosebuiltahouse."(243) vP T° DP v' vP v° DP v' √P v° √ Simon Hose‐ta kari ‐te ‐tua ‐k Simon Jose‐acc house ‐make ‐cause ‐prf "SimonmadeHosebuildahouse."Categorizingthecausativemorphemeasanotherv°ismotivatedbybothsemanticandmorphologicalfactors: (i) Thecausativemorphememeanssomethinglike‘cause’,andforchange ofstatepredicates(Johnopenedthedooretc.)that’ssupposedtobe themeaningofthev°thatintroducestheexternalargument (ii) Forsomelanguages,certainregularexternal‐argument‐introducingv°sare actuallymorphologicallyrealizedas‘lexicalized’versionsofthe causativemorpheme:JapaneseandalsoHiakihavecertainverbslikethis:(244) Mala pale‐ta amanvittua‐la diachronically: vit‐tua Motheryoung.boy‐acctheresend‐compl see‐cause “Mothersenttheyoungboythere” (245) Itepo am hiapsi‐tua‐ne we them heart‐caus‐fut “Wewillfeedthem/careforthem/givethemstrength.” (lit:"causethemtohaveheart")

97

AlsoinMolinaetal.dictionary:alleatua,‘amuse’,asoatua,‘tobirth’,asukatua,‘sweeten’,chihtua,‘nurse(tr.),eetua,‘bother,annoy’,hioptua,‘confuse’,mahatua,‘frighten’,na’atua‘tellonsb.’,puhtua,‘givesb.theevileye’…

Inthesecases,­tuahasbeenlexicalizedastheexternal‐argument‐introducingmorphemeforaverblikesend(asforclar­ifyinEnglish)—thestructureisnodifferentfromthatofabasicverb.ThereareseveralsimilarexamplesinJapanese,wherealexicalcausativeisformedwiththedefault‘syntactic’causativemorpheme,­sase(Miyagawa1984,1998))ThisisjustmotivationforarguingthatthevPinaregularlexicalcausativeverbandthevPheadedbytheproductivecausativemorphemehavesomethingincommon,namelytheirdefaultrealizationas­tua;ergothey'rebothv°s…Crucially,though,theproductivecausativemorphemevPcanalsonotbepartoftheverb'slexicalentry—it'sproductive,applyingtoessentiallyanyverb,includingnovelandborrowedones…Nowaytoclaimthatit'slexicalized/reanalyzedaspartoftheverbstem!

8.3.5 CausativesWITHapplicativesSo:CausativemorphemesintroduceanewexternalargumentBenefactivemorphemesintroduceanewinternalargument,betweentheexternal

argumentandtheverb—crucially,c‐commandedbytheexternalargument.Howdotheyinteract?Exampleofacausativesentence:(246) a. Uuavion ne'e‐k Theplane fly‐prf "Theplaneflew" b. Nee ukaavion‐ta ni'i‐tua‐k I the.accplane‐acc fly‐caus‐prf "Imadethe(model)airplanefly."

98

(247) vP DP v' vP v° DP v' √P v° √ Nee avion‐ta ni’i ∅ ‐tua ‐k I plane‐acc fly v° ‐cause ‐prf "Imadetheplanefly."WhatifIwantedtosay,“Imadethemodelplaneflyforthechild”—makeabenefactiveoutofthiscausativesentence?Introducedapplicativeargument(‘thechild’)appearsbelowtheexternalargument—henceshouldbebelow‘I’Morphemeordershouldmirrorsyntacticstructure,soiftheapplicativeargumentisbelowthecauserargument,theapplicativemorphemeshoulddefinitelybeinsidethecausativemorpheme.Butit’snot:(248) Neeiliusi‐ta avion‐ta ni'i‐tua‐ria‐k Ilittlechild plane‐acc fly‐caus‐appl‐prf "Imadethe(model)planeflyforthechild."Morphemeorderistellingusthatthe­riaphraseisabovethe­tuaphraseArgumenthierarchytestsaretellingusthattheargumentof­tuaisabovetheargumentof­riaCauserc‐commandsbenefacteeNote:Thisisnotacausativeofabenefactiveoffly.Adirectbenefactiveoftheembeddedclausehere,"theplaneflew"isimpossible,becauseplanesarenotintentional—intentionalityisnecessarytolicensebenefactive:(249) #Uuavion iliusi‐ta ni'i‐ria‐k Theplane littlechild‐acc fly‐appl‐prf "Theplaneflewforthechild."

99

Crucially,causativesofbenefactivesarepossible,withtheoppositemorphemeorder,whenthesemanticsareright.Thisscopally‐motivatedreorderingisimpossibleinotherlanguageswithbothkindsofsuffixes(Hyman2003,BuellandSy2004)(250) Nee iliusi‐ta mala‐ta aa tu'ute‐ria‐tua‐k I littlechild‐acc mother‐acc it clean‐appl‐caus‐prf "Imadethechildcleanitformother."Herewehaveabenefactivesentence—'Thechildcleaneditformother'whichiscausativized(Imade[thechildcleanitformother]).Themorphemeorderreflectsthisderivationalhistory.Theargumentorderdoesnot.

8.3.6 AnalyticaloptionsA:Morphemeorder=syntacticstructure,syntaxmessyOptionA: Morphemeorderreflects‘true’syntacticstructure,BenefacteegeneratedaboveCauser,Causermovesaround/acrossbenefacteetoSpec‐TPsubjectpositionApplicativeofcausativeexampleagain:(251) Nee iliusi‐ta avion‐ta ni'i‐tua‐ria‐k I littlechild plane‐acc fly‐caus‐appl‐prf "Imadetheplaneflyforthechild."Ifexternalargumentisselectedby­tua,‘cause’,andbenefactiveargumentisselectedby­ria,‘appl’,thenunderlyingstructureislikethis:(252) ApplP DP Appl’ vP Appl° DP v’ vP v° DP v’ √P v° √ iliusi­ta nee avion‐ta ni’i ∅ ‐tua ­ria ‐k littlechild I plane‐acc fly‐ v°‐ caus‐appl ‐prf

100

Wouldhavetobetransformedintoactualclausestructurebymovementofnee,‘I’,tospec‐TP,acrosstheappliedargumentiliuusita,'littechid'. Problems: Minimalityviolation:WhyisCauserabletomoveacrossBenefactee? (can’tbebecauseBenefacteeisinert/hasinherentcase—inpassive, Benefacteegetsnominative) Actuallycancausativizeapplicativeclauseswithdifferentscope—inthat case,orderappl‐causegivesahigherCauseethanBenefactee.Analysis wouldrequireCauseetomovearoundBenefacteeforaccusativeECM fromthecausativemorpheme,ashereCausermovesaroundB.for nominative. Loseargumentfromapplicativesforseparatingexternalargumentfromverb (sinceapplicativeargumentwouldbebase‐generatedoutside externalargument.)Recall:inimpersonalpassiveofthissamesentence,theBenefacteegetsnominativecase,

andtheCausermaynotappear,showingthattheBenefacteeisnotinertforA‐mvtanddoesnotbearaninherentcase

(253) Iliuusi avion‐ta ni'i‐tua‐ria‐wa‐k littlechild plane‐acc fly‐caus‐appl‐imp‐prf "They/Someonemadetheplaneflyforthelittlechild." [Closesttranslation,structurallyspeaking: “Thelittlechildwasflowntheplane(bysomeone).”]B:Argumentc­commandstructure=syntacticstructure,morphologymessy.OptionB: Argumenthierarchyreflects‘true’syntacticstructure,BenefacteegeneratedbelowCauser,benefactivemorphemegeneratedinsidecausativemorpheme.Idiosyncratictemplaticrestrictionscausetheorder‐ria­tuatoberewrittenas­tua­ria. (cf.Hyman2003)

101

(254) vP DP v’ ApplP v° DP Appl’ vP Appl° DP v’ √P v° √ Nee iliusi‐ta avion‐ta ni’i‐ ‐∅‐ ‐ria‐ ‐tua I littlechild‐accplane‐acc fly v° Appl ‐cause +SomeMorphologicalMessiness (likeinHyman2003) Nee iliusi‐ta avion‐ta ni’i‐‐∅‐ ‐tua‐ ‐ria I littlechild‐acc plane‐acc fly v° cause appl Problems: Order­ria­tuaisfinewhen­riaisanapplicativeoftheembeddedverb— templaticrestrictionswouldhavetotakeintoaccountscopeof­ria Noevidenceforamorphemictemplatefromelsewhereinthelg—allthe

verbalderivationalaffixesarebeautifullyproductivew/rtoeachotherbasedonlyonsemanticandsyntacticrestrictions…

Morphologicalmessinesswouldhavetobesensitivetoscopeof­ria,since,asnoted

above,­ria­tuaisawell‐formedsequence—it'sfineasacausativeofanapplicative:(255) Nee iliusi‐ta mala‐ta aa tu'ute‐ria‐tua‐k I littlechild‐acc mother‐acc it clean‐appl‐caus‐prf "Imadethechildcleanitformother."Plusitjustseemswrong:thefirstisanapplicativeofacausative,thesecondacausative

ofanapplicative;surelyonewouldwantthefactthatthemorphemeorderreflectsthistofalloutoftheanalysis,notbeanuglykluge.

OptionC:LexicalismOptionC: Presyntacticwordformation.Theseformsarederivedinthelexicon.Applyingabenefactivetoacausativeaugmentsthetheta‐gridoftheverbinthelexiconwithaBenefactee/Goalargument;generallinkingruleprinciplespredictthatwhenthe

102

complexverbisprojectedtothesyntax,theCauserargumentwillbeprojectedtothehighestposition,theBenefacteetothenext‐highestposition. ‐‐Problems:

Theoretical:Buildingwordsinthesyntaxhasbeenanattractiveandusefulidea,I’mnotreadytogiveuponit.

Empirical:QuestionabouthowtocopewithrelativepositionofBenefacteeandembeddedCausee.LinkingrulesshouldpredicttheembeddedCauseeshouldbehigherthantheBenefacteetoo.Bracketsintheta‐grid?

OptionD:SplittingvP:Voiceforexternalargument,v°forCause,ApplPandBenefacteein

between:OptionD: Theexternalargumentisnotintroducedbythecausativemorphemeatall,

butbyahigherVoicemorpheme.Thecausativemorphemejustintroducestheideaofcausation—itdoesthesemanticandmorphologicaljob,butnotthesyntacticone

(256) VoiceP DP Voice’ ApplP Voice° DP Appl’ vP Appl° VoiceP v° DP Voice’ vP Voice° √ v° Nee iliusi‐ta avion‐ta ni’i∅ ∅ ‐tua ‐ria ‐∅ I littlechildplane‐acc fly‐vDOVoice caus ‐appl Voice Notetheextra'Voice'headintheembeddedvPaswell—giventhemorphemeorder

betweenapplicativesandlexicalcausativeslikekarite,'build.house'andvittua'send',embeddedexternalargumentsarealsointroducedbyVoice°ratherthanbyv°.

Problem:EmbeddedCausersbutnoembeddedpassiveVoicemorphologyallowed?.But:

­tevo!

103

VerymuchlikeHaleandKeyser’sdescriptionoftheirorginalidea:theexternal

argumentjustgetsinsertedfor‘free’,inawaycompletelythematicallyunrelatedtoembeddedargumentstructure(thoughnotwhattheywouldhavewantedmorphologically)

8.3.7 AnothermorphologicalreasonforsplittingvPandVoiceP:IndirectcausativesBesidesthe­tua'direct'causative,wheretheCauseemustbeexpressed(likeRomance

faireinfinitif),Hiakialsohasaproductive'indirect'causative,­tevo(likeRomancefairepar),wheretheCauseeisnecessariysurpressed;theembeddedverbgetsa'passive'or'impersonal'reading(withoutanypassiveorimpersonalvoicemorphology)

(257) InepoSantoh‐ta hitto‐tevo‐k I Santos‐acc medical.care‐caus.indir‐prf “IhadSantostreated(bysb.)”Inthese­tevocases,whenyoupassivize,theembeddedobjectbecomesthederivedsubject,showingthattheCauseristrulysyntacticallyabsent:(258) Santoshitto‐tevo‐wa‐k Santosmedical.care‐caus.indir‐pass‐prf"(Somebody)got(somebody)totreatSantos"(lit,"Santoswasgottentobetreated.")Thiscannaturallybeaccountedforif­tevoselectsaconstituentasacomplementwhich

doesnotcontaintheexternal‐argument‐selectinghead(see,e.g.FolliandHarley(2005)'streatmentoffaireparcausatives,orRamchand(2006)onHindiindirectcausatives).

However,­tevoisabletoattachtoaconstituentwhichcontainscausativev°

morphology,eventhoughtheCausee(associatedwiththatcausativemorphology)isnotpresent14

(259) 'Lexical'v°morphology

Nee Santoh‐ta‐u hiohteita vittua‐tevo‐k I Santos‐acc‐toletter‐acc send‐caus.indir‐prf “IhadalettersenttoSantos.”(implied:bysomebody)(260) Productivecausativemorphology,causativeargumentsuppressedbytevo Nee ukaavion‐ta ni'i‐tua‐tevo‐k I theplane‐acc fly‐caus‐caus.indir‐k "Ihad(somebody)flytheplane."14Recall,vit­tua,'send',ismadeupofrootvit‐'see'plus­tua'cause';weassumethe­tuaisarealizationofv°morphology.

104

CausativemorphologycanthusbepresentwithoutintroducingaCausee.ThisisnaturalifvPcanbepresentwithoutVoiceP.Thiswillresultinthedesired'passive'readingfortheembeddedclause,expressinganexternallycausedeventbutwithoutspecifyingwho/whatcausedit.Thestructureisgivenbelow:(261) VoiceP … T° DP Voice’ vPCaus.indir Voice° vPCaus v°Caus.indir VoiceP v°Caus DP vP √P v° √ Nee avion‐ta ni’i ∅ ‐tua ‐tevo ‐∅ ‐k I plane‐acc fly‐ v°‐ ‐caus ‐caus.indir Voice Sotheverbalmorphologyisbuiltup,withinternalargumentadditionsifnecessary,

beforeanyexternalargumentisintroduced.Notethatthisentailsthatthedifferencebetween'lexical'and'syntactic'affixal

causativesisactuallynotaboutpresenceorabsenceofanextravPbetweenthecausativev°andtherestoftheverb,butratherpresenceorabsenceofaninterveningVoicePbetweenthecausativev°andtherestoftheverb.

AnothermorphologicalreasonforsplittingvPandVoiceP: Englishnominalizations(Borer2003)Englisheventnominalizationsdonotcontainatrueexternalargument(Chomsky1970,Marantz1997,HarleyandNoyer2000):(262) a. Johngrewtomatoes b. #John'sgrowthoftomatoes c. Thetelevisionamusedthechildren. d. #Thetelevision'samusementofthechildren e. AdulteryseparatedJimandTammyFayeBakker. f. #Adultery'sseparationofJimandTammyFayeBakker

105

Marantz'sconclusion:Thenominalizingheadselectsforaverb‐phraseconstituentwhichdoesnothavetheexternal‐argument‐selectingheadpresent.In1997,heassumedthiswasvP.

However,morphemeswhichclearlyhaveaverbalizingandapparentlycausativizingeffectexistinEnglish:(263) a.horrify,gratify,justify,certify,specify,vilify,simplify,passify,objectify b.deafen,dishearten,dampen,sadden,neaten,coarsen, c.categorize,terrorize,alphabetize,categorize,customize,digitize,idolize d.complicate,calculate,commemorate,pollinate,decorate,regulate,disambiguateThesewouldbenaturalcandidatesforrealizationsofav°head(especiallyinDM,whererootsareacategorialandv°istheverbalizer).However,thesecanperfectlywellappearinsideaneventnominalization,ofcourse:(264) a. gratificationofdesire,justificationofactions,certificationofresults…. b. deafeningofachild,dishearteningoftheteam,dampeningofthecloth… c. categorizationofnames,alphabetizationofnames,customizationofwheels… d. complicationofmatters,calculationofsums,pollinationofflowers…Conclusion:v°presentwithinnominalizations,butexternal‐argument‐introducingheadisnotv°andexternal‐argument‐introducinghead(VoiceP)areseparate(seeBorer2003andHarley2006forfurtherdiscussionofthemorphologicalimplications.)

8.3.8 AnothermorphologicalreasonforsplittingVoicePandvP: Stackingpassivemorphologyontopofcausativemorphology

Voice°wouldbethelocusoftraditionalvoicemorphology—passivemorphemesandsuch.Allowsniceaccountof'stacking'passivemorphologyoutsidecausativemorphology.Ifexternalargumentsareintroducedbythesameheadthatintroducesthecausativemorphology,hardtoseehowtoimplementthesuppressionoftheexternalargumentwithoutsuppressingthecausativemorphology.Ifexternalargumentintroducedseparately,byVoice,however,thenpassiveVoicemorphologycanembedacausativev°withoutentailingthepresenceofanexternalargument(265) Hiroko pizza‐o tabe‐sase‐rare‐ta (Japanese) H. pizza‐acc eat‐cause‐pass‐past "Hirokowasmadetoeatpizza."(266) Aapo kaa yo'o‐taka kuna‐tua‐wa‐k (Hiaki) 3sg not old‐being marry.f‐caus‐pass‐prf "Shewasmadetomarry/marriedoffwhenshewasn'tveryold."

106

b. Ume yoeme(m) hi’ibwa‐tua‐wa The.plman‐(pl) eat‐caus‐pass “Themenarebeingfed”Noteaswellofcoursethatpassive­waor­rareappliesto'lexical'causativesinbothHiakiandJapanesewithoutaffectingtheirovertv°morphology:(267) Aman kari‐te‐wa (Hiaki) There house‐v°‐pass "Housesarebeingbuiltthere."Notealsothatonthisview,passivedoesn'thavetobeconnectedtoanyparticularsemanticsassociatedwithvarious'flavors'ofv°:ExternalargumentsneednotbeAgents;passivizedverbsneednotbeagentive(VoicecapturesWilliams'generalizationasdiscussedbyCollins2005).(268) a. Johnwasseen(byMary). b. Suewasloved(byJohn)Merchant(2007)comestoverysimilarconclusionsbasedongrammaticalityofVP‐

ellipsiswithVoicemismatchinantecedentandelidedVP;conclusionisthatVoicePisnotelided;ratheritscomplementis.Onthepresentaccount,thecomplementofVoicePisidenticalinactiveandpassive(atleastinJapaneseandHiaki),henceonecanbeagoodantecedentfortheother.

(269) a. Thejanitormustremovethetrashwheneveritisapparentthatitshouldbe. b. Thesystemcanbeusedbyanyonewhowantsto. (Merchant2007:3)NotethatonCollins(2005)andMerchant(2007)'svP+VoicePapproach,theexternal

argumentisgeneratedinspec‐vP,andmovesuptoanemptyspec‐VoiceP.Thiscan'tbethecase,giventheseHiakidata:Theexternalargumenthastobebase‐generatedhigherthanthebenefactee,which(accordingtothemorphemeorder)isbase‐generatedoutsidethevP.Pylkkanen'sapproach,wheretheheadintroducingcausationandtheoneintroducingexternalargumentsareindependent,hastobeclosertoright.

8.3.9 VoiceP,passivesandunaccusativesClear(becauseofapplicatives)thatovertexternalargumentcan'tbebase‐generatedinspec‐vP.Intransitives,however,vPintroducescausative/transitivesemantics,includingavariablefortheexternalargumentwhichisboundbytheDPintroducedinspec‐VoiceP

107

Thisvariable,Iassume,iscovert,notsyntacticallypresent,andisboundbytheDPinspec‐VoicePviawhatWurmbrand(2000)calls'semanticcontrol',sinceexhaustive.(SeeWurmbrandfortestsdistinguishingsyntacticcontrolofasyntacticallypresentnullelementlikePROandsemanticcontrol,establishedonlyatLFviavariablebinding.)This'semanticcontrol'approachtoactivetransitivesalsoavoidspotentiallocalityproblemsassociatedwithhavinganullDPpresentinspec‐vP.15ActiveVoicerequiresExternalMergeofaDP;assumingexternalMergeisafeature‐checkingoperation,alongthelinesofAdger(2003),activeVoicemusthaveanexternal‐Merge‐triggeringfeature.Non‐activeVoicewouldthenbecaseswheretheVoiceheadrefusesExternalMergeofanexternalargument—relevantfeaturesabsent.PassiveinterpretationfollowswhenthevariableintroducedbythevPisexistentiallybound—causative/transitivemeaningpresent(thankstovP)butnoDPtobindthevariable.InternalargumentmovesoutofVoicePtosubjectposition.IfVoicePisaphase,itmustdosoviaSpec‐VoiceP—passiveVoicePmusthaveanEPPfeaturetotriggerinternalMerge.ThedifferencebetweenactiveandpassiveVoicewouldthenbethedifferencebetweeninternalandexternalMergefeatures.Whathappensinanunaccusative?InHiakiandJapanese,(andEnglish)VoiceisActive,

yet(bytheusualhypothesis)noexternalargumentisMerged.(270) Yoemem aman koko‐k People there die.pl‐prf "Peoplediedthere"Theusualhypothesis,then,entailsthatinunaccusatives,theexternalMergefeaturesof

Voicemustbeabsent.Again,bytheusualhypothesis,theinternalargumentispromoted,sotheinternal‐MergetriggeringEPPfeaturemustbepresent.Thatis,ontheusualhypothesis,wecannotdistinguishbetweenunaccusativeVoiceandpassiveVoice.

Insomelanguages,orforsomesubsetofunaccusativesinsomelanguages,it'snot

desirabletodistinguish—bothunaccusativeandpassiveVoicearerealizedbythesame'non‐active'Voicemorphology(seeKallulionAlbanian,e.g.)

InHiakiandJapanese(andEnglish)however,unaccusativestakeaclearlyactiveVoice,notpassiveVoice

15Though:Howcanweensurethatthevariablemustbeboundbywhateverisinspec‐VoiceP,orgetexistentiallyboundifVoiceisPassive,evenwhenthere'sacloserpotentialbindersittinginSpec‐ApplPinanapplicative?

108

PossibilityA:PassiveVoicemorphologyintheselanguagesissensitivetothefeaturesof

v°aswellasofVoice—insertedonlywhenVoicehasinternalMergefeatureandv°hasthecausative/external‐argument‐takingsemantics.ActiveVoicemorphologyisthedefault,applyingelsewhere—whenVoicehasanexternalMergefeatureandalsowhenithastheEPPfeaturebutthev°isinchoativev°BECOME.

PossibilityB:VoicePisabsentinunaccusativesintheselanguages.(Thiswillposeno

morphologicalproblems,sincevPwillstillbethere).PossibilityC,maybethemostinterestingone:VoicePisthere,buttheusualhypothesisaboutunaccusativityiswrong.Unaccusativeargumentsarebase‐generatedinspec‐VoicePlikeactivetransitivearguments.NotethatinHiaki,thereissuchathingasapassiveofanunaccusative:(271) Amankoko‐wa‐k Theredie.pl‐pass‐prf “Peoplediedthere/Itwasdiedthere(bypeople)” ThiswouldseemtosuggestthatinactiveunaccusativesinHiaki,theusualprocessof

externalMergeofaDPargumentinspec‐VoicePoccurs,whichcanbepreventedintheusualwaybyanimpersonalpassiveVoice.

Whatabouttheinternalargument,theargumentofthedownstairs√?PerhapsthistakesusbacktoanaccountofunaccusativityinwhichanullDP(behaving

likeaboundvariable)ismergedinobjectpositionandboundbytheexternally‐MergedDPinspec‐VoicePinactiveunaccusatives—thatis,backtoatreatmentinwhichactiveunaccusativesarereflexive.

Thedifferencebetweenthiskindofactive‐voicereflexiveunaccusativeandregular

transitivereflexivesinthiscasewouldresideindifferencesinv°semantics—thedifferencebetween(272)aandbwouldsimplybethatin(a),v°isinchoativeandin(b),v°iscausative.Inthelatter,theexternalargumentinVoicePsemanticallycontrolstheAgentvariableintroducedbyvCAUSaswellasbindingtheobjectDP,whileintheformer,theexternalargumentinVoicePsimplybindstheobjectDP;nosemanticcontrolisestablishedbecausethev°doesn'tintroduceavariable.

(272) a. Jean s'‐est evanoui. John SE‐is fainted "Johnfainted." b. Jean s'‐est tué. John SE‐is killed. "Johnkilledhimself."

109

IfpossibilityCiscorrectforsomecases,suggeststhattherearedifferentkindsof

unaccusativitycross‐lingustically—possibilityAforsome.Alsodifferentkindsofpassives—stackingvs.participle‐forming,e.g.

Voice v° √Transitives Active,Spec

filledbyexternalMerge

introducesvariableboundviasemanticcontrolfromspec‐VoiceP

selectsobjectDP

UnaccusativeA1('externalreflexive'‐Romance;McGinnis1997)

Active,SpecfilledbyexternalMerge

novariable selectsobjectDPcoindexedwithDPinspec‐Voice.Oneoftheseisrealizedasreflexive(external);objDPbecomessubject.

UnaccusativeA2(active‐English,Hiaki)

Active,Specfilledbyexternalmerge

novariable selectsnullobjectDP,coindexedwithspec‐VoiceP

UnaccusativeB(Albanian,Greek)

Nonactive,spec‐VoicePempty

novariable objectDPultimatelybecomessubject

Passive Nonactive,spec‐VoicePempty

variableboundbyexistentialclosure

objectDPundergoesinternalMerge,ultimatelybecomessubject

ConsistentwithprimingdatafromEnglishandSpanishthatsuggeststhatEnglish

passivesbutnotunaccusativesprimeatrace‐typerepresentationinobjectposition,whileSpanishpassivesand(reflexive)unaccusativesbothprimesucharepresentation(SanzandBever1997).

ConclusionsHeadcontainingcausativemorphologyandsemantics(vP)isindependentofexternal‐

argument‐introducinghead(VoiceP).******Repriseofearlierpaperoncausativemorphology:Thecorrectstructures!***** Theinteractionbetween­tuaand–tevoItispossibleinHiakiforbothcausative

verbs–tuaand–tevotoappeartogetherinthesamesentence.Ifthisisthecase,thesyntaxoftheindirectcausative–tevosuppressestheCauserargumentof–tua.Thecontrastisshownin(19)andtheanalysisisshownin(20).

(273) a. Neeukaavion‐tani’i‐tua 1SG DET plane-ACC fly-CAUS.DIR ‘I’m making the plane fly’ (‘Estoy haciendo volar al avión’)

110

COMPARE WITH: b. Nee uka avion-ta ni’i-tua-tevo 1SG DET plane-ACC fly-CAUS.DIR-CAUS.INDIR ‘I’m having (somebody) make the plane fly’ (‘He mandado hacer que el avión vuele16) [Adapted from Harley (2007)] (274) a. Neeukaavion‐tani’i‐tua VoiceP DP Voice’ Nee vP Voiceº Ø VoiceP vº Voice -tua DP Voice’ caus.dir uka avion-ta ‘the plane’ vP Voiceº Ø vº Voice ni’i- ‘fly’ (275) Neeukaavion‐tani’i‐tua‐tevo VoiceP DP Voice’ Nee vPcaus.indir Voiceº Ø vPCaus.dir vº Voice -tevo VoiceP vº caus.indir -tua DP Voice’ avion-ta vP Voiceº Ø vº Voice ni’i ‘fly’

16TheinfinitivalversionofthisindirectcausativeisnotpossibletoproduceinMT'sSpanish.

(20a):–tuaTAKESAVoicePASITSCOMPLEMENT,WHICH,INTURN,INTRODUCESTHECAUSEEukaavion­ta‘theplane’.INADDITION,THEEXTERNALARGUMENTOF­tuaISINTRODUCEDBYASEPARATE,MATRIXVOICEP.

(20b):–tuaTAKESVoicePASITSCOMPLEMENT,WHICH,INTURN,INTRODUCESTHEEMBEDDEDEXTERNALARGUMENTukaavion­ta‘theplane’.HOWEVER,–tevoTAKESONLYAVPASITSCOMPLEMENT.HENCE,THEEXTERNALARGUMENTOF­TUAISABSENTFROMTHECOMPLEXCLAUSE

111

9. Take­HomeMessages Significanttheoreticalimprovementoverbaggageoflexicon,linkingoperations,theta

roles,lexicalconceptualstructures,etc. LexicalsemanticprimitiveslikeCAUSE,DO,Appl,etc.arecomposedwitheachotherin

thesyntax Theyareresponsiblefortheapearanceorabsenceofexternalargumentsand

applicativearguments Givesgoodinsightintothesyntacticbehaviorofarangeofphenomenainseveral

languages Noneedformorphologyandsyntaxtocompetewitheachothertodothesamejob—

theyaretreatedbythesamesystem Animacyeffects,hierarchiesofarguments,etc.canbetreatedwellinthiskindofa

system Stilllotsofpuzzlesremaining!