9. The Manner/Result Complementarity Revisited: A Syntactic Approach

Mateu, Jоan; Acedo–Matellán, Víctor

doi:10.1108/s0092-4563(2012)0000038011

Cited by 60 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If complex meanings do not derive from lexical semantic components but are read off the (sub-)event syntactic structure, then semantics must provide systematic means of composing complex events out of simple ones. This idea is at the basis of much recent work in argument structure (Basilico 2012;Borer 2005;H&K 1993Harley 2008;Marantz 2005;Mateu & Acedo-Matell an 2012;Pylkk€ anen 2008;Ramchand 2008;Sch€ afer 2008;among others). If my analyses of direct lexical causatives without CAUSE and lexical inchoatives without BECOME are correct, they argue that a semantic rule that composes a dynamic event and a state has a general application and is, after all, needed and desirable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Causation without acause

Cuervo

2015

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops a constructionalist approach to "lexical" causatives, as in The sun melted the snow. It is argued that causation is a truly configurational meaning, arising as the interpretation of the syntactic combination of two verbal heads, the higher v representing the causing event (an unspecified dynamic v DO ) and the lower v representing the resulting state named by the verbal root (a stative v BE ). This structure contrasts with that of simple transitive activity verbs, which are monoeventive (v DO ). A parallel contrast is established between bieventive inchoatives (v GO -v BE ), as in The snow melted, and simple unaccusatives, as in The guests arrived (v GO ). In this analysis, causatives and inchoatives both comprise two events and have an intersective nonderivational relationship. They share the lower resulting state; the type of the higher event distinguishes between the two. The analysis-developed with attention to Spanish data-can straightforwardly account for observed gaps in the causative alternation, the distribution of bare nouns, and scope ambiguity of adverbials and negation, and it sheds new light on the presence of reflexive morphology in inchoatives. The analysis implies that transitivity, as well as unaccusativity, can arise from two basic syntactic structures, on which distinctive verbal meanings are built. In this theory, no syntactic terminal or lexical verb expresses a relation between events; relations between events-such as causation, change of state, and resultatives-arise via semantic composition rules that interpret complex syntactic structures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Causation without acause

Cuervo

2015

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we have seen that this is not feasible: the movement of the legs does not have to cause the movement of the person, and the movement of the person does not have to cause the movement of the legs, as example (17), repeated here as (32), demonstrates. Another option is to say that the movement of the hand is the only verbal head ('to move'), and that the movement of the fingers is a Manner root ('by moving one's legs') that attaches to the main verb, similar to what is suggested for some manner verbs in English (Mateu and Acedo-Matellán 2012;Acedo-Matellán and Mateu 2015). Note that in (33), there is only one proc head (MOVE), to which a manner root MOVE2 is adjoined.…”

Section: (31)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it has been shown that these verbs in spoken languages do not in fact involve two separate event structures. Argument structure is determined by the motion event structure, and the sound emission verbal root is adjoined to the motion verbal head as manner (Mateu and Acedo-Matellán 2012;Acedo-Matellán and Mateu 2015). Above we have argued that such an analysis cannot account for the RSL data.…”

Section: (42)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language

Kimmelman

Pfau

Aboh

2019

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language (RSL) using a combination of naturalistic corpus and elicited data in order to determine their argument structure, and to test the generalization, based on research on other sign languages, that there is a clear relation between argument structure and classifier type (Benedicto and Brentari 2004). We propose that whole-entity classifier predicates are intransitive unaccusative, and that body-part classifier predicates are optionally transitive. Contrary to previous research on other sign languages, we argue that handling classifier predicates in RSL describe complex events with two subevents: one of handling, and one of movement, which are not necessarily causally connected. We further suggest that the 'moving legs' classifier predicate in RSL also describes a complex event consisting of two subevents. To account for these facts, we develop a formal analysis of classifier predicates in RSL. Specifically, we argue that wholeentity and body-part classifier handshapes are agreement markers, while handling classifier handshapes as well as the 'moving legs' classifier handshape represent an argument in combination with a verbal root. This casts doubt on the observation made in the literature that classifiers straightforwardly determine the argument structure of classifier predicates, since different classifiers in RSL represent different grammatical phenomena. In addition, we show that event structures associated with some classifier predicates are more complex than those associated with monoclausal structures in spoken languages.

show abstract

“…Research has extensively shown that exposure to a syntactic structure influences to different degrees the way we subsequently process a similar structure in comprehension and production in what has been called syntactic priming, structural priming, or structural persistence (e.g., Bock, 1986 ; Bock and Loebell, 1990 ; Bock et al, 1992 , 2007 ; Branigan et al, 1995 , 2000 ; Pickering and Branigan, 1998 , 1999 ; Hare and Goldberg, 1999 ; Pickering et al, 2002 , 2013 ; Loebell and Bock, 2003 ; Ferreira and Bock, 2006 ; Thothathiri and Snedeker, 2006 , 2008a , b ; Carminati et al, 2008 ; Hartsuiker et al, 2008 ; Pickering and Ferreira, 2008 ; Tooley et al, 2009 ; Tooley and Traxler, 2010 ; Segaert et al, 2012 , 2013 ; Tooley and Bock, 2014 ; Traxler et al, 2014 ; Wittenberg et al, 2014 ). The main goal of this paper is to use the process of syntactic priming as a behavioral tool to test two competing theoretical approaches to argument structure, namely (i) Hale and Keyser's ( 1993 ; 1998 ; 2002 ) approach as recently developed in Mateu ( 2002 ), Acedo-Matellán ( 2010 ), Mateu and Acedo-Matellán ( 2012 ), and Acedo-Matellán and Mateu ( 2013 ), what we will refer to as the generative semantics approach to argument structure, and (ii) Marantz ( 2005 ; 2011 ; 2013 ), which we will call interpretive semantics approach. These two theoretical models illustrate two different views of the syntax-semantics mapping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As pointed out in Marantz ( 2005 ) (see also Poeppel and Embick, 2005 ), generative grammar can and should serve as a source of theoretical hypotheses about the representation of language in the mind and brain and how this is processed, to be formally assessed through standard experimental methods. In this paper we take two competing theories of argument structure, (i) Acedo-Matellán ( 2010 ); Mateu and Acedo-Matellán ( 2012 ), and Acedo-Matellán and Mateu ( 2013 ), and (ii) Marantz ( 2005 ; 2011 ; 2013 ) and test their claims and predictions with respect to the representation and processing of syntactic argument structure. Both theories are framed within Chomsky's Minimalist Program, and they both adopt a neoconstructionist view of syntax, whereby argument structure is not lexically projected 2 but created in the syntax by the computational system, a single generative engine for all structure building where minimal units of syntactico-semantic features are combined through the operation of merge to create hierarchical syntactic structures that will then receive a semantic and phonological interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic Priming As a Test of Argument Structure: A Self-paced Reading Experiment

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using data from a behavioral structural priming experiment, we test two competing theoretical approaches to argument structure, which attribute different configurations to (in)transitive structures. These approaches make different claims about the relationship between unergatives and transitive structures selecting either a DP complement or a small clause complement in structurally unambiguous sentences, thus making different predictions about priming relations between them. Using statistical tools that combine a factorial 6 × 6 within subjects ANOVA, a mixed effects ANCOVA and a linear mixed effects regression model, we report syntactic priming effects in comprehension, which suggest a stronger predictive contribution of a model that supports an interpretive semantics view of syntax, whereby syntactic structures do not necessarily reflect argument/event structure in semantically unambiguous configurations. They also contribute novel experimental evidence that correlate representational complexity with language processing in the mind and brain. Our study further upholds the validity of combining quantitative methods and theoretical approaches to linguistics for advancing our knowledge of syntactic phenomena.

show abstract

9. The Manner/Result Complementarity Revisited: A Syntactic Approach

Cited by 60 publications

References 13 publications

Causation without acause

Causation without acause

Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language

Syntactic Priming As a Test of Argument Structure: A Self-paced Reading Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About