No abstract.

The relationship between verbs and their arguments is a widely debated topic in linguistics. This comprehensive 2005 survey provides an overview of this important area of research, exploring theories of how a verb's semantics can determine the morphosyntactic realization of its arguments. Assuming a close connection between verb meaning and syntactic structure, it provides a bridge between lexical-semantic and syntactic research, synthesizing the results of work from a range of linguistic subdisciplines and in a variety of theoretical frameworks. The first four chapters survey leading theories about event structure and conceptualization. The fifth and sixth chapters focus on the mapping from lexical semantics to morphosyntax and include a detailed discussion of the thematic hierarchy. The final chapter reviews treatments of multiple argument realization. With useful bibliographic references and clear definitions of relevant terms, this book will be invaluable to students and researchers in syntax and semantics, as well as those in related fields.

This paper provides a new perspective on the options available to languages for encoding directed motion events. Talmy (2000) introduces an influential two-way typology, proposing that languages adopt either verb- or satellite-framed encoding of motion events. This typology is augmented by Slobin (2004b) and Zlatev & Yangklang (2004) with a third class of equipollently-framed languages. We propose that the observed options can instead be attributed to: (i) the motion-independent morphological, lexical, and syntactic resources languages make available for encoding manner and path of motion, (ii) the role of the verb as the single clause-obligatory lexical category that can encode either manner or path, and (iii) extra-grammatical factors that yield preferences for certain options. Our approach accommodates the growing recognition that most languages straddle more than one of the previously proposed typological categories: a language may show both verb- and satellite-framed patterns, or if it allows equipollent-framing, even all three patterns. We further show that even purported verb-framed languages may not only allow but actually prefer satellite-framed patterns when appropriate contextual support is available, a situation unexpected if a two- or three-way typology is assumed. Finally, we explain the appeal of previously proposed two- and three-way typologies: they capture the encoding options predicted to be preferred once certain external factors are recognized, including complexity of expression and biases in lexical inventories.

We challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings : a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant and a caused motion meaning realized by the to variant. Instead, we argue that verbs like give and sell only have a caused possession meaning, while verbs like throw and send have both caused motion and caused possession meanings. We show that the caused possession meaning may be realized by both variants. Concomitantly, we argue that verbs like give, even in the to variant, lack a conceptual path constituent, and instead have a caused possession meaning which can be understood as the bringing about of a ' have' relation. We reassess evidence for alternative approaches adduced from inference patterns and verb-argument combinations and demonstrate how our verb-sensitive analysis, when combined with an account of variant choice, provides a more insightful explanation of this data, while having wider coverage. Our investigation affirms proposals that a verb's own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. To conclude, we consider the crosslinguistic implications of our study, attempting to explain why so many languages lack a true dative alternation. A V E R B -S E N S I T I V E A P P R O A C H T O T H E D A T I V E A L T E R N A T I O NAny analysis of the English dative alternation must address the question of what gives rise to this alternation, particularly as it is not found in all languages. This alternation involves verbs that show two realizations of apparently the same arguments, as illustrated with give and throw in (1) and (2), respectively. We refer to these two argument realization patterns as [1] We have had many opportunities to present this material, and we are grateful to the audiences for their comments and questions. We thank all those who have discussed this paper with us or provided extensive comments on earlier versions, including

Current syntactic accounts of English resultatives are based on the assumption that result XPs are predicated of underlying direct objects. This assumption has helped to explain the presence of reflexive pronouns with some intransitive verbs but not others and the apparent lack of result XPs predicated of subjects of transitive verbs. We present problems for and counterexamples to some of the basic assumptions of the syntactic approach, which undermine its explanatory power. We develop an alternative account that appeals to principles governing the well-formedness of event structure and the event structure-to-syntax mapping. This account covers the data on intransitive verbs and predicts the distribution of subject-predicated result XPs with transitive verbs.* A hallmark of the English resultative construction is the presence of a result XP-an XP denoting a state or location that holds of the referent of an NP in the construction as a result of the action denoted by its verb. Studies of resultatives have often focused on the constraints on the distribution and interpretation of these XPs. These constraints seem to lend themselves to a syntactic explanation, and a number of syntactic accounts have been developed (Bresnan & Zaenen 1990, Hoekstra 1984, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995:33-78, Simpson 1983, with an impressive coverage of the data. Recently, however, Verspoor (1997) and Wechsler (1997) have raised empirical problems for such accounts, and our own investigations have uncovered additional problematic data. These findings call into question the foundation of the syntactic approach to English resultatives. In fact, a number of authors have proposed that the properties of the construction are explained by appeal to semantic notions (e.g. Goldberg 1995: 180-98, Jackendoff 1997, Van Valin 1990:254-55, Wechsler 1997, and in this article we also propose a semantic account. In our semantic account the explanatory burden is borne by event structure representations, well-formedness conditions on these representations, and principles of mapping from event structure to syntactic structure. We show that our event structure account maintains the wide empirical coverage of syntactic accounts, without suffering from their shortcomings. In addition, it illuminates the nature of event structure, as well as its lexical semantic underpinnings.The success of syntactic accounts rests to a large extent on the adoption of the UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS (Burzio 1986, Rosen 1981, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995, Perlmutter 1978. It has been argued that the distinction between unaccusative and unergative intransitive verbs must be syntactically encoded in order for a uniform generalization to be stated governing the different English resultative patterns, and this observation is considered to provide some of the strongest support for the syntactic encoding of unaccusativity in English (Hoekstra 1984, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 33-78, Simpson 1983. Much of the data we consider here involves intransitive verbs in the resultative constru...