This monograph studies issues of current minimalist concern, such as whether differences in the expression of argument and syntactic structure can all be attributed to the parameterization of specific functional heads. In particular, this book studies in-depth the extent to which variation in the expression of causation, available both intra- and crosslinguistically, can be accounted for by appealing only to the microparameterization of the causative head, Cause, as previously argued for by linguists such as Pylkkänen. It concludes that the microparameterization of Cause may explain some major characteristics associated with causatives, but it cannot be regarded as the only explanation behind variation in these structures. The book includes relevant discussion on argument structure and looks in detail at languages, such as the Uto-Aztecan Hiaki, that have not received much attention before. It is mostly intended for an audience interested in theoretical approaches to argument structure and variation.

1xxIntroductionThe analysis of arbitrary morphological classes has a number of architectural implications in Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). There is no central repository of Saussurean 'words' in the framework-no sound-meaning pairings that are the building blocks for both phonological and semantic sentence-level representations. Instead, there are separate lists. One list contains all syntactic and semantic information necessary for the derivation of a well-formed LF representation, and forms the input to the syntactic derivation. A second list, the Vocabulary, describes the phonological realizations that are inserted as exponents of particular syntactic terminal nodes, following all syntactic operations. This raises the question of where class features are located. What elements do rules which are sensitive to class membership refer to? Are they sensitive to properties of the abstract syntacticosemantic formatives of the first list?

En este artículo se hace una aproximación tipológico-descritptiva al fenómeno del cambio de valencia sintáctica como ejemplo de la relación entre morfología y sintaxis observada en lenguas aglutinantes como el yaqui (yutoazteca). En particular se trata de dos casos en que los cambios de valencia  aprecen simultáneamente manifestados en la sintaxis (i.e., mediante la alteración del número de argumentos del verbo ) en la morfología (i.e., mediante alteraciones en la sufijación verbal). Se estudia alguna operación entre los argumentos de valencia, como la  alternativa causativa, así como operaciones de redución de valencia, como el caso de la incorporación, y se concluye que la morfología verbal es un buen diagnóstico para identificar la valencia de los verbos yaqui.

In this paper we discuss the argument structure of psych verbs in connection with information structure, particularly object experiencer psych verbs (OEPVs), which select an accusative and/or dative argument. We propose that the natural order available in all-focus sentences for dative OEPVs is OVS, whereas the order for accusative OEPVs is SVO. Any rearrangement of these two patterns is caused by a different information structure interpretation.

The analysis of arbitrary morphological classes has a number of architectural implications in Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). There is no central repository of Saussurean 'words' in the framework-no sound-meaning pairings that are the building blocks for both phonological and semantic sentence-level representations. Instead, there are separate lists. One list contains all syntactic and semantic information necessary for the derivation of a well-formed LF representation, and forms the input to the syntactic derivation. A second list, the Vocabulary, describes the phonological realizations that are inserted as exponents of particular syntactic terminal nodes, following all syntactic operations. This raises the question of where class features are located. What elements do rules which are sensitive to class membership refer to? Are they sensitive to properties of the abstract syntacticosemantic formatives of the first list? 'bring(sg)' 'soak'