Advertisement

The Athlete Tore a Muscle: English Locative Subjects in the Extra Argument Construction

  • Katherine FraserEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11456)

Abstract

This paper investigates a special class of English change-of-state verbs exhibiting unexpected argument structure when the change-of-state is interpreted as unintentional and the subject is a location: e.g., the skier tore a muscle or the boat broke a rudder. This construction provides evidence for a change-of-state construction beyond the uniform class of anti-causatives (reflexively marked or not) and their inchoative alternants. I argue that there is a necessary part-whole relation between the extra argument subject and the object. This paper describes the semantic constraints of the construction, both how the subject’s unexpected semantic role restricts the interpretation, and how changing the part-whole relationship can have implications for the event structure. Finally, I argue that in this configuration, the extra argument subject is the Perspectival Center, like in the Genitive of Negation in Russian.

References

  1. Ahn, B., Sailor, C.: The emerging middle class. In: The Proceedings of CLS, vol. 46 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Schäfer, F.: The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In: Frascarelli, M. (ed.) Phases of Interpretation. Mouton, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Armon-Lotem, S., Crain, S., Varlokosta, S.: Interface conditions in child language: a crosslinguistic look at some aspects of possession. Lang. Acq. 12, 171–217 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, M. : Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. University of Chicago Press (1988)Google Scholar
  5. Barker, C.: Possessive Descriptions. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1995)Google Scholar
  6. Barker, C. : Possessives and relational nouns. In: Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2, pp. 1109–1130. De Gruyter, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, B.: A functional explanation of French non-lexical datives. Stud. Lang. 9, 159–195 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beavers, J.: Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In: Dölling, J., Heyde-Zybatow, T., Schäfer, M. (eds.) Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, pp. 245–265. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  9. Beavers, J.: The structure of lexical meaning: why semantics really matters. Language 86, 821–864 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beavers, J.: Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 51, 681–706 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhatt, R.: Obligation and possession. Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, MITWPL 32, 21–40 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. Bhatt, R., Pancheva, R.: Implicit arguments. In: Everaert, M., van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2, pp. 554–584. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Collins, C.: A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8, 81–120 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coppock, E., Beaver, D.: Definiteness and determinacy. L&P 38, 377–435 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. Cuervo, M.C. : Datives at Large. Doctoral dissertation. MIT (2003)Google Scholar
  16. Deal, A.: External possession and possessor raising. In: Everaert, M., van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) The Wiley Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Wiley, Boca Raton (2017)Google Scholar
  17. Dowty, D.: Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Springer, Dordrecht (1979).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Embick, D.: Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In: Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Everaert, M. (eds.) The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, pp. 137–158. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guéron, J.: On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. LI 11(4), 637–678 (1980)Google Scholar
  20. Harley, H.: Possession and the double object construction. In: Pica, P., Rooryck, J. (eds.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook, vol. 2, pp. 31–70. Benjamins, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  21. Hay, J., Kennedy, C., Levin, B.: Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In: Proceedings of SALT IX, pp. 127–144 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hole, D.: Extra argumentality - affectees landmarks and voice. Linguistics 44, 383–424 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hole, D.: Dativ, Bindung und Diathese. Studia grammatica, vol. 78. De Gruyter (2014)Google Scholar
  24. Irwin, P.: Unaccusativity at the interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation. NYU (2012)Google Scholar
  25. Irwin, P.: Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa 3(1), 24 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kayne, R.: Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Stud. Linguist. 47, 3–31 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennedy, C., Levin, B.: Measure of change: the adjectival core of verbs of variable telicity. In: McNally, L., Kennedy, C. (eds.) Adjectives and Adverbs in Semantics and Discourse, pp. 156–182. OUP, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, C., McNally, L.: Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81, 345–381 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langacker, R.: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Band I. Stanford (1987)Google Scholar
  30. Langacker, R.: Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In: Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., Cornillie, B. (eds.) Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity, pp. 17–40. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  31. Le Bruyn, B., de Swart, H., Zwarts, J.: Have’, ‘with’ and ‘without. Semant. Linguist. Theory 23, 535–548 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, B. : English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation (1993)Google Scholar
  33. Löbner, S.: Definites. J. Semant. 4, 279–326 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Löbner, S. : Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. L&P 23, 213–308 (2000)Google Scholar
  35. McCawley, J.: Remarks on what can cause what. In: Shibatani, M. (ed.) The Grammar of Causative Constructions, pp. 117–129. Academic Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  36. Partee, B., Borschev, V.: The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In: Young, R.B. (ed.) Proceedings from SALT XIV, pp. 212–234. CLC Publications (2004)Google Scholar
  37. Partee, B., Borschev, V., Paducheva, E.V., Testelets, Y., Yanovich, I.: Russian genitive of negation alternations: the role of verb semantics. Scando-Slavica 52(1), 135–159 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pesetsky, D.: Paths and Categories. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT (1982)Google Scholar
  39. Pylkkänen, L. : Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT (2002)Google Scholar
  40. Rappaport Hovav, M.: Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In: Rothstein, S. (ed.) Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, pp. 13–41. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rappaport Hovav, M., Levin, B.: Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. In: Erteschik-Shir, N., Rapoport, T. (eds.) The Syntax of Aspect, pp. 274–286. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ritter, E., Rosen, S.T.: Possessors as external arguments: Evidence from Blackfoot. In: Papers of the Forty-Second Algonquian Conference: Actes du Congrés des Algonquinistes. SUNY Press (2014)Google Scholar
  43. Rohdenburg, G.: Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. PAKS-Arbeitsbericht 8 (1974)Google Scholar
  44. Schäfer, F.: The causative alternation. Lang. Ling. Compass 3, 641–681 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schäfer, F., Vivanco, M.: Reflexively marked anticausatives are not semantically reflexive. The causative alternation. In: Aboh, E.O., Schaeffer, J., Sleeman, P. (eds.) Romance Language and Linguistic Theory 2013, pp. 203–220, Benjamins (2015)Google Scholar
  46. Slobin, I. Cross-linguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In: Slobin, D. (ed.) The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, vol. 2: Theoretical issues, pp. 1157–1256. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1985)Google Scholar
  47. von Stechow, A.: Lexical decomposition in syntax. In: Egli, U., Pause, P.E., Schwarze, C., von Stechow, A., Wienold, G. (eds.) Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language, pp. 81–117. Benjamins, Amsterdam (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. von Stechow, A.: The different readings of wieder: a structural account. J. Semant. 13, 87–138 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vikner, C., Jensen, P.: A semantic analysis of the English genitive: interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Stud. Linguist. 56, 191–226 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Szabolcsi, A.: The noun phrase: the syntactic structure of Hungarian. In: Kiefer, F., Kiss, K. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 27, pp. 179–274. Academic Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  51. Williams, E.: PRO and the subject of NP. NLLT 3, 297–315 (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)Vitoria-GasteizSpain

Personalised recommendations