2018
DOI: 10.7557/1.7.1.4404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psychological verbs and their arguments

Abstract: In this paper it is argued that objects of subject experiencer psychological verbs do not have kind reference, but rather refer to individual object entities: specific individuals, generic plurals, and even entity correlates of a property. We argue that objects of transitive subject experiencer psychological verbs must refer to atoms or sums of atoms, because they presuppose the existence of the Target-of-Emotion. Focusing mainly on data from various Romance languages and Russian, we also argue that the Target… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first one has to do with selection: judging from the clausal domain -as the reader remembers, establishing a parallelism between nominal expressions and clauses was part of the motivation to propose a DP structure-, one property that is directly associated to the fact that C (the complementiser) is a head is that different classes of verbs select different classes of complementisers, such as interrogatives vs. declaratives (222) or indicative vs. subjunctive (223) (Bruening 2009: 27-28 want.1sg that María comes.sbj / comes.ind However, with respect to nominal constituents, there are no clear instances of a parallel situation where for instance a class of verbs selects just possessive determiners, or just definite determiners, etc. We mentioned in §1 that psychological verbs take subjects that must carry a determiner, but this can be explained by semantic or syntactic reasons other than selection: it could be that the predicates force particular readings on their arguments (see Seres & Espinal 2018) or that the syntactic position where the argument is introduced requires a determiner introduced as a modifier of the noun. Even these verbs do not impose a particular type of determiner on their arguments.…”
Section: Against the Dp-hypothesis: N Is The Head Of The Nominal Consmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first one has to do with selection: judging from the clausal domain -as the reader remembers, establishing a parallelism between nominal expressions and clauses was part of the motivation to propose a DP structure-, one property that is directly associated to the fact that C (the complementiser) is a head is that different classes of verbs select different classes of complementisers, such as interrogatives vs. declaratives (222) or indicative vs. subjunctive (223) (Bruening 2009: 27-28 want.1sg that María comes.sbj / comes.ind However, with respect to nominal constituents, there are no clear instances of a parallel situation where for instance a class of verbs selects just possessive determiners, or just definite determiners, etc. We mentioned in §1 that psychological verbs take subjects that must carry a determiner, but this can be explained by semantic or syntactic reasons other than selection: it could be that the predicates force particular readings on their arguments (see Seres & Espinal 2018) or that the syntactic position where the argument is introduced requires a determiner introduced as a modifier of the noun. Even these verbs do not impose a particular type of determiner on their arguments.…”
Section: Against the Dp-hypothesis: N Is The Head Of The Nominal Consmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…tg) corresponds to what is being loved or feared by David, which in this case is 'the hands'. Consequently, we understand the tg in lines of Seres & Espinal (2018): an individual entity, familiar to the exp, with no abstract reference, where the emotion is targeted to. The presence of the sm in ES sentences implies that there is another argument that is not compelled to be realized in the syntax, but it is semantically implied (i.e.…”
Section: Spanishmentioning
confidence: 99%