View
6
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Argument Structure: typological perspectiveBMA-ANGD-A2 Linguistic Theory
Irina Burukina
irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu
Part I
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 1 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Overview
The lectures aim to provide an overview of various syntactic phenomena re-lated to argument structure and argument structure transformations from atypological perspective.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 2 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Today we will talk about
1. IntroductionArgument structureGrammatical functionsNominative vs. ergative languagesChanges in Lexicon vs. in SyntaxVoice
2. Demotion of argumentsPassiveAntipassive I, II
3. Reflexive
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 3 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
We will not talk about
Non-verbal predicatesAll existing approaches to particular Voice transformations
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 4 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction
Argument structure. Argument vs. Predicate
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 5 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Argument structure
Predicates and arguments: one-place, two-place, three-place predicates.Arguments denote participants. They receive / are assigned thematic roles:theme, patient, agent, experiencer, instrument, etc.Example:
run <Agent>injure <Agent, Theme>drop <Theme, Location>drop <Agent, Theme, Location>
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 6 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Argument structure
Sub-categorization of verbs:intransitive (unaccusative vs. unergative), transitive, ditransitive.
run <Agent> ← ITVinjure <Agent, Theme> ← TVdrop <Theme, Location> ← TVdrop <Agent, Theme, Location> ← DTV
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 7 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Argument structure
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 8 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction
Grammatical functions
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 9 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Grammatical functions
Thematic roles vs. grammatical functions:subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique(← Relational Hierarchy)
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 10 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Grammatical functions
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 11 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Grammatical functions
In English:Subject – structurally higher, controls agreement, nominative (assigned by T).Direct object – structurally lower, accusative (assigned by v).
(1) a. She likes them.b. *Her likes they.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 12 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Grammatical functions
In English:Subject – structurally higher, controls agreement, nominative (assigned by T).Direct object – structurally lower, accusative (assigned by v).
(2) a. They like each other. ← Subject binds Objectb. *Each other like them. ← Object cannot bind Subjectc. Ii want [ PROi to like them].← PRO occupies the Subject position
d. *Ii want [ they to like PROi.← PRO cannot occupy the Object position
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 13 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction
Nominative vs. Ergative
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 14 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Nominative vs. Ergative
If there are two nominal phrases in a clause, it would be good to indicate whichone is the subject (structurally higher, more prominent) and which one is theobject (structurally lower, less prominent) → We can mark one of them (andleave the second one unmarked, default, for instance).First option – to mark the Object← Nominative-Accusative languages
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 15 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Nominative vs. Ergative
Second option – to mark the Subject← Ergative-Absolutive languages
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 16 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Nominative vs. Ergative
Hunzib (Nakh-Daghestanian; eastern Caucasus):
(3) a. kidgirl
y-ut’-ur.cl2-sleep-pst
‘The girl slept.’b. oždi-l
boy-ergkidgirl
hehe-r.hit-pst
‘The boy hit the girl.’
Source for case: ergative – inherent, by v; absolutive – structural, by T or v.[Aldridge 2004; Legate 2008]
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 17 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Nominative vs. Ergative
Note: We can mark the nominals themselves (Case marking alignment) or wecan add special agreement markers to the main verb that correspond to subject/ object (verbal person marking alignment).Kaqchikel (Mayan, spoken in Guatemala):
(4) a. (Röj)1pl
y-at-q-oyojicmp-abs.2sg-erg.1pl-call
(rat)
‘We call you.’b. (Rat)
2sgy-oj-aw-oyojicmp-abs.1pl-erg.2sg-call
(röj)1pl
‘You call us.’
(5) y-oj-okicmp-abs.1pl-enter‘We enter.’
(6) y-at-okicmp-abs.2sg-enter‘You enter.’
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 18 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Nominative vs. Ergative
Case marking alignment – nominative (blue, 52) vs. ergative (red, 32) – accord-ing to WALS (190 languages in total).
Link: https://wals.info/feature/98A#2/25.5/148.9
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 19 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction
Changes in Lexicon vs. in Syntax
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 20 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Changes in Lexicon vs. in Syntax
Reinhart and Siloni (2005):Arity operations – operations that affect the arity (valency) of a predicate (sup-press the syntactic realization of one of the thematic roles of the verb). Arityoperations are universal, but the level at which they apply is a parametric choice.The lex-syn parameter:Universal Grammar allows thematic arity operations to apply in the lexicon orin the syntax.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 21 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Changes in Lexicon vs. in Syntax
Some hints:A lexical setting allows ’changed’ nominalizations while a syntacticsetting seems to disallow them.In syntax languages, a change is a productive operation; In lexiconlanguages, the change is limited.Syntactic changes can be less restricted (apply to a broader range ofarguments).
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 22 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction
Voice
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 23 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Voice
Originally, Voice – particular alternations in the assignments of grammaticalfunctions to the verb’s arguments.Voice (1) – change in the grammatical functions of the arguments.Voice (2) – valence alternation (decrease or increase of the number of arguments;see Levin and Rappaport 1995, Haspelmath and Müller-Bardey 2005, Reinhartand Siloni 2005, a.o.)
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 24 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Voice
In English: active Voice vs. passive Voice
(7) a. Mary wrote this book.← active
b. This book was written by Mary.← passive
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 25 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Voice
VoiceP (Kratzer 1996) / vP (Chomsky 1995; Marantz 1997) in the structure →Often interpreted as identical; a single projection for verbalizing and introducingthe external argument.
VoiceP/vP
Voice′/v′
VP
Johnsee
Voice0/v0
Mary
Harley (2005): vP verbalizes, VoiceP introduces the external argument.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 26 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
What can we do with arguments?
1 Reduce the number of arguments:Demotion of argumentspassive, antipassiveReflexiveDeletion of argumentsmiddle, antipassive
2 Increase the number of argumentscausative, applicative
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 27 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Demotion of arguments
Passive
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 28 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive
Passive – (1) the external argument is demoted, (2) an internal argument ispromoted.
(8) a. Mary wrote this book.b. This book was written (by Mary).
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 29 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive
The external argument is not deleted completely!
(9) a. This book was written (by Mary).b. This book was written to impress everyone.c. This book was written drunk.
(10) a. The ship was sunk with a torpedo.b. *The ship sank with a torpedo.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 30 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive
Any thematic role of the external argument:
(11) a. The porcupine cage was welded by Elmer. (agent)b. Elmer was moved by the porcupine’s reaction. (cause)c. The porcupine crate was received by Elmer’s firm. (goal/recipient)d. Elmer was seen by everyone who entered. (experiencer)
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 31 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive: (a) structural representationJaeggli (1986), Baker (1988), Baker, Johnson, Roberts (1989):
TP
T′
vP
PP
Maryby
vP
v′
VP
tisee
v0
-en
T0
Johni
Problems: incorporation of an external argument, theta-criterion (Bruening(2013) for an update).
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 32 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive: (a) structural representation
Problems with the external argument being an adjunct (Collins 2018) – binding:
(12) a. The packages were sent by the children to themselves.b. *The packages were sent for the children to themselves.
Collins 2018, structure:
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 33 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive in ergative languages
Passive in ergative languages – Labrador Inuit (Smith 1982):
(13) a. Anguti-upman-erg
annakwoman.abs
taku-janga.see-3sg.subj:3sg.obj.prs
‘The man sees the woman.’b. Annak
woman.abs(anguti-mut)man-dat
taku-jau-juk.see-pass-3subj.prs
‘The woman is seen (by the man).’
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 34 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive in the world’s languages
WALS: 373 languages, + passive (red, 162), no passive (white, 211)
Link: https://wals.info/feature/107A#2/16.6/148.9
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 35 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive: puzzles
Impersonal Passive – German (Steinbach 2002):
(14) Esit
wirdaux
hierhere
getanzt.danced
‘People are dancing here.’Literally: ‘There is dancing here.’
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 36 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Passive: puzzles
In some languages it is possible to passivize intransitive verbs (Bolinger 1977,Bresnan 1982, Alsina 2009).
(15) a. The bed was slept in by George Washington.b. George Washington slept in the bed.c. The bed has been thoroughly rolled around on.d. Someone has rolled around on the bed.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 37 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Demotion of arguments
Antipassive I, II
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 38 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive I
Antipassive – an internal argument is demoted. See Polinsky (2017) for anoverview.Conative constructions in English:
(16) a. He ate the meat.b. He shot the bear (#but he missed)c. He ate at the meat.d. He shot at the bear (but he missed)
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 39 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive I
Antipassive in other nominative languages – Russian:
(17) a. Mal’čikboy.nom
brosalthrew
kamni.stones.acc
‘The boy threw stones.’b. Mal’čik
boy.nombrosal-sjathrew-SJA
kamnjami.stones.inst
Literally: ‘The boy threw with stones.’
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 40 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive I
Antipassive is better recognized in ergative languages.An antipassivized predicate becomes intransitive → the ERG marker often dis-appears.Active:External argument = Subject, ERGInternal argument = Object, ABSAntipassive I:External argument = Subject, ABSInternal argument = case-less bare nominal phrase or an oblique phrase.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 41 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive I
Antipassive in Kaqchikel (Mayan):
(18) a. Ridet
alaboniman.pl
x-Ø-ki-tïkcmp-abs.3sg-erg.3pl-plant
ridet
ützgood
ixim.corn
← Active
‘The men planted good corn.’b. Ri
detalaboniman.pl
x-e-tik-oncmp-abs.3pl-plant-ap
(ixim).corn
‘The men planted (corn).’c. Röj
wex-e-qa-tz’ëtcmp-abs.3pl-erg.1pl-see
ri oxi tz’i.det three dog
We saw three dogs.’d. Röj
wex-oj-tz’et-oncmp-abs.1pl-see-ap
r-chingen.3sg-of
ridet
oxithree
tz’i.dog
‘We saw three dogs.’Literally: ‘We saw at three dogs.’
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 42 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive I: (a) structural representation
VoiceP
Voice′
VP
PP
IntAP0
V0
VoiceAP
ExtA
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 43 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive II
In some languages (for instance, Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut)), demotion of an internalargument is connected to Aktionsart.Active:External argument = Subject, ERGInternal argument = Object, ABSAktionsart (for affecting verbs): TelicAntipassive II:External argument = Subject, ERGInternal argument = an oblique phrase.Aktionsart (for affecting verbs): Atelic
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 44 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive II
Warlpiri (Pama–Nyungan; Australia) (Polinsky 2017):
(19) a. njuntu-lu2sg-erg
npa-tju2sg-1sg
pantu-nuspear-pst
ngatju.1sg.abs
‘you speared me’successfully; complete event with a result
b. njuntu-lu2sg-erg
npa-tju-la2sg-1sg-ap
pantu-nuspear-pst
ngatju-ku1sg-dat
‘you speared at me’you tried; incomplete event without a result
This is somewhat similar to English! Recall that in Kaqchikel there was nocorrelation between antipassive and aktionsart.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 45 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Antipassive II: analyses
The trend: Different object-licensing positionsSpreng (2012); Alexiadou (1999), a.o. – ‘extra projection’ analyses.The functional head v/Asp [-Telic] selects the verbal root and licenses eitherinherent case or accusative case on the internal object.
*The tree from Polinsky (2017).Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 46 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Reflexive
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 47 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Reflexive Voice
Reflexivity – internal / external arguments have identical reference; one parti-cipant receives two thematic roles.English vs. Romance languages: English reflexives – independent DPs, Spanish/ French reflexives – clitics.Spanish:
(20) a. I see not myself in the mirror.b. #Yo no me veo en el espejo.
Only: ‘I do not see myself in the mirror.’c. I see myself and my friend.d. *Yo veo me y (a) mi amigo.e. I see a snake near myself.f. *Yo veo una serpiente cerca de me.
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 48 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Reflexive Voice
The passive thematic role is not deleted.Spanish:
(21) Yo me veo a mi mismo.‘I see myself.’
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 49 / 50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Reflexive Voice
Labelle (2008)VoiceP
Voice′
VP
variableV0
VoiceREFL
ExtA
Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part I 50 / 50
Recommended