Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:Resultative Constructions in English and Romanian

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
accompanied the soldiers, but he also controlled their path of motion (into the town).

Figure 25 accompanied the soldiers, but he also controlled their path of motion (into the town).

Related Figures (65)

(27c) is for an SOV language, like Dutch where the predicate remains in situ (Neeleman 1994): English, where the non-verbal predicate is subject to rightward extraposition (Neeleman 1994) and
(27c) is for an SOV language, like Dutch where the predicate remains in situ (Neeleman 1994): English, where the non-verbal predicate is subject to rightward extraposition (Neeleman 1994) and
Table 1: The Typology of English and Romanian Resultative Constructions (‘?’ = restriction)
Table 1: The Typology of English and Romanian Resultative Constructions (‘?’ = restriction)
INFL, the INFL of small clauses can be copulative just as the INFL of matrix clauses can be.
INFL, the INFL of small clauses can be copulative just as the INFL of matrix clauses can be.
then transmitted to the predicate.
then transmitted to the predicate.
be either an NP, a PP or an AP, but not a VP. the postverbal DP/small clause subject to receive (Accusative) case, Aarts (1992) considers that in which case the complement XP is a VP or it can be empty, in which case the complement can
be either an NP, a PP or an AP, but not a VP. the postverbal DP/small clause subject to receive (Accusative) case, Aarts (1992) considers that in which case the complement XP is a VP or it can be empty, in which case the complement can
specification of Case Filter), leaving a coindexed trace in the [Spec, PrP] position, as in (19
specification of Case Filter), leaving a coindexed trace in the [Spec, PrP] position, as in (19
The resultative in both cases is a small clause complement of the verb, the difference
The resultative in both cases is a small clause complement of the verb, the difference
this proposal. First, Ramchand’s (2008) l-syntactic approach embraces the fundamental syntactic
this proposal. First, Ramchand’s (2008) l-syntactic approach embraces the fundamental syntactic
internal argument of the transitive verb (UNDERGOER in [Spec, VP]). object acquires new entailments because of the licensing and identification of resP in the structure. by movement both with the subject of the nonverbal predicate (RESULTEE in [Spec, RP]) and t For a similar kind of situation, where the postverbal DP is not the internal argument of the
internal argument of the transitive verb (UNDERGOER in [Spec, VP]). object acquires new entailments because of the licensing and identification of resP in the structure. by movement both with the subject of the nonverbal predicate (RESULTEE in [Spec, RP]) and t For a similar kind of situation, where the postverbal DP is not the internal argument of the
vhich they are generated and from which they move to higher (this time Specifier) positions is
vhich they are generated and from which they move to higher (this time Specifier) positions is
represented within the first-phase syntax, as in (29): 'S Ramchand (2008) is in favour of the causativizing approach by proposing that English has a null init head which can be built on top of [proc] and [proc, res] verbs. Thus, the transitive verbs melt and break are actually listed as [proc] and [proc, res] verbs respectively, both with a null init head. However, throughout the monograph the author neglects the null init head of these and similar verbs. Another option proposed by Harley (1999) is that in the inchoative version the vP (without a [Spec, vP]) has a BECOME meaning which in the causative version is replaced by CAUSE which selects an external argument in its Specifier. As a more detailed analysis of the derivation of transitive-intransitive verbs is outside the scope of our research, we do not pursue the matter further.
represented within the first-phase syntax, as in (29): 'S Ramchand (2008) is in favour of the causativizing approach by proposing that English has a null init head which can be built on top of [proc] and [proc, res] verbs. Thus, the transitive verbs melt and break are actually listed as [proc] and [proc, res] verbs respectively, both with a null init head. However, throughout the monograph the author neglects the null init head of these and similar verbs. Another option proposed by Harley (1999) is that in the inchoative version the vP (without a [Spec, vP]) has a BECOME meaning which in the causative version is replaced by CAUSE which selects an external argument in its Specifier. As a more detailed analysis of the derivation of transitive-intransitive verbs is outside the scope of our research, we do not pursue the matter further.
Fourth, due to the fact that (1) semantic roles can be composite, (11) all Specifier positions external argument is more than the Specifier of the functional v head taking the VP as an
Fourth, due to the fact that (1) semantic roles can be composite, (11) all Specifier positions external argument is more than the Specifier of the functional v head taking the VP as an
Clearly, we have to admit that in these and similar cases the formal details of the proposal
Clearly, we have to admit that in these and similar cases the formal details of the proposal
Although the syntactic complexities of such and similar constructions are treated at discontinuous lexical item, as illustrated in (84) for the sentence in (83). Likewise, Bolinger (1971) suggested that the verb and the predicate/particle form a single
Although the syntactic complexities of such and similar constructions are treated at discontinuous lexical item, as illustrated in (84) for the sentence in (83). Likewise, Bolinger (1971) suggested that the verb and the predicate/particle form a single
Moreover, in her approach causatives and argument small clauses involve a direct ©-relatior as shown in the D-structure below in (88) for the sentence from (87):
Moreover, in her approach causatives and argument small clauses involve a direct ©-relatior as shown in the D-structure below in (88) for the sentence from (87):
b. John danced Mary tired. Rothstein’s (1985) predication structure differs from Williams’ approach in that her notion following tree diagram, which is the same for the depictive (117a) and the resultative (117b):
b. John danced Mary tired. Rothstein’s (1985) predication structure differs from Williams’ approach in that her notion following tree diagram, which is the same for the depictive (117a) and the resultative (117b):
(122) John hammered the metal flat. elements. This relation is not reflected in terms of a clausal constituent in the syntax; rather, tl VP, mutually c-commanding the postverbal DP, as sketched in the diagram in (123):
(122) John hammered the metal flat. elements. This relation is not reflected in terms of a clausal constituent in the syntax; rather, tl VP, mutually c-commanding the postverbal DP, as sketched in the diagram in (123):
As far as the argument structure is concerned, although in both cases the result predicate is b. The tourists walked their feet sore.
As far as the argument structure is concerned, although in both cases the result predicate is b. The tourists walked their feet sore.
(138) The men followed the star out of Bethlehem. out of Bethlehem would not be and could not be represented in terms of a clausal constituent.
(138) The men followed the star out of Bethlehem. out of Bethlehem would not be and could not be represented in terms of a clausal constituent.
Although the representation in (140) looks much more straightforward than that in (139) the sentence in (138) would by no means be acceptable:
Although the representation in (140) looks much more straightforward than that in (139) the sentence in (138) would by no means be acceptable:
These assertions follow from the interaction of different GB principles, like Exceptiona predicate. All these are illustrated in (144b), adapted after Carrier & Randall (1992: 210). verb. Therefore, as the subject of the small clause, it is not @-marked by the verb, but only by the
These assertions follow from the interaction of different GB principles, like Exceptiona predicate. All these are illustrated in (144b), adapted after Carrier & Randall (1992: 210). verb. Therefore, as the subject of the small clause, it is not @-marked by the verb, but only by the
Table 2: Mapping of the Caused-Motion Construction to the Resultative if it is not selected by the verb in isolation: state in resultatives is an extension of the Path from the caused-motion construction, then, for a
Table 2: Mapping of the Caused-Motion Construction to the Resultative if it is not selected by the verb in isolation: state in resultatives is an extension of the Path from the caused-motion construction, then, for a
This is the maximal possible decomposition of the VP into these three projections which Ramchand’s (2008) analysis, as depicted below in (11); cf. also subsection 3.2.4.
This is the maximal possible decomposition of the VP into these three projections which Ramchand’s (2008) analysis, as depicted below in (11); cf. also subsection 3.2.4.
To, into and onto are unambiguous bounded PathPs, also called ‘accomplishmen structure is intransitive and no causational initiation is implied, we assume that no vP projection
To, into and onto are unambiguous bounded PathPs, also called ‘accomplishmen structure is intransitive and no causational initiation is implied, we assume that no vP projection
abstract AT. This is depicted in the right periphery of the structure from (17):
abstract AT. This is depicted in the right periphery of the structure from (17):
there are no other elements to identify that functional head, then there is a null res head:
there are no other elements to identify that functional head, then there is a null res head:
the other kinds of resultative constructions: one of these is the famous phenomenon of particle
the other kinds of resultative constructions: one of these is the famous phenomenon of particle
This tree diagram shows how res in English resultatives is identified neither by the finite
This tree diagram shows how res in English resultatives is identified neither by the finite
In fact, the English verb jump is special in that it can appear in three configurations. First, if
In fact, the English verb jump is special in that it can appear in three configurations. First, if
incorporation of in- into -to: res feature of the verb is shown in square brackets. Again, the word order in-to is achieved by the
incorporation of in- into -to: res feature of the verb is shown in square brackets. Again, the word order in-to is achieved by the
This is in contradiction to what is assumed in Folli (2002), Folli & Ramchand (2005) and construction arises because the AP is closed scale, in the sense of Wechsler (2005). As far as the latter type is concerned, an unselected postverbal DP is attached to an otherwise atelic VP. That the VP is indeed atelic without the result small clause is supported by its
This is in contradiction to what is assumed in Folli (2002), Folli & Ramchand (2005) and construction arises because the AP is closed scale, in the sense of Wechsler (2005). As far as the latter type is concerned, an unselected postverbal DP is attached to an otherwise atelic VP. That the VP is indeed atelic without the result small clause is supported by its
The natural question to ask is what licenses the RP projection in such a structure, as the verb in isolation could not license it. Ramchand (2008) proposes that the AP is predicated of the
The natural question to ask is what licenses the RP projection in such a structure, as the verb in isolation could not license it. Ramchand (2008) proposes that the AP is predicated of the
with the meaning of the abstract AT.
with the meaning of the abstract AT.
As an intermediary summary, we can say that in all the four cases we have seen so far Path
As an intermediary summary, we can say that in all the four cases we have seen so far Path
In this tree diagram the underassociated res feature is given, again, in square brackets.
In this tree diagram the underassociated res feature is given, again, in square brackets.
head and the AP predicate is the complement of the RP projection, as in (68). without the intervening RP projection, as in (69):
head and the AP predicate is the complement of the RP projection, as in (68). without the intervening RP projection, as in (69):
PlaceP is indeed similar to the decomposition of the English in-to is sketched below for (73a): However, the existence of such and similar examples in Romanian is not problematic at all. as, in order to derive a telic sentence, the same complex PP can virtually be adjoined to any type
PlaceP is indeed similar to the decomposition of the English in-to is sketched below for (73a): However, the existence of such and similar examples in Romanian is not problematic at all. as, in order to derive a telic sentence, the same complex PP can virtually be adjoined to any type
complements attaching to the intermediate V’ projection is depicted below for (73a): Also, there are syntactic and cross-linguistic arguments that until-markers are adjuncts; cf.
complements attaching to the intermediate V’ projection is depicted below for (73a): Also, there are syntactic and cross-linguistic arguments that until-markers are adjuncts; cf.
subject occupies the [Spec, vP] position, as illustrated in (80): ract causative light verb (vP) which makes the verb to rise to adjoin to it and the surfac In the derivation of (79b) the VP of the intransitive alternative (79a) is merged with the
subject occupies the [Spec, vP] position, as illustrated in (80): ract causative light verb (vP) which makes the verb to rise to adjoin to it and the surfac In the derivation of (79b) the VP of the intransitive alternative (79a) is merged with the
“! Contrast in this sense the ungrammaticality of (Ia) where the postverbal DP denotes the material removed, with the grammaticality of (Ib) where the postverbal DP denotes the surface (from which a material is removed): Then, the structure of (81a) would be as given in the following: dropped, the sentence becomes ungrammatical.”!
“! Contrast in this sense the ungrammaticality of (Ia) where the postverbal DP denotes the material removed, with the grammaticality of (Ib) where the postverbal DP denotes the surface (from which a material is removed): Then, the structure of (81a) would be as given in the following: dropped, the sentence becomes ungrammatical.”!
Table 3: Configurations of the Verbs jump in English and a sari in Romanian
Table 3: Configurations of the Verbs jump in English and a sari in Romanian
Now, turning back to the goal of motion (87), in (89) we give its syntactic representation:
Now, turning back to the goal of motion (87), in (89) we give its syntactic representation:
This time the basic difference between English and Romanian is not related to the tree diagram for (94a), where, again, res is identified by the verb: >xistence/non-existence of a given resultative structure in the two languages, but to the way i1 hence, the verb does not have to underassociate its res feature. This is sketched in the following
This time the basic difference between English and Romanian is not related to the tree diagram for (94a), where, again, res is identified by the verb: >xistence/non-existence of a given resultative structure in the two languages, but to the way i1 hence, the verb does not have to underassociate its res feature. This is sketched in the following
“’ However, even here some native speakers judge that the verb is in fact an ambiguous [init, proc, (res)]-type of verb. NP predicate is the complement of the RP projection is schematized in the following: “* As the predicate is an NP and not an AP - which can be closed scale giving rise to telicity even in the absence of resP - we assume that in (100), even if the postverbal DP is selected by the verb in isolation, RP must be projected and it cannot be left out; as the property of being closed scale is restricted to APs. ‘Mother has beaten the egg whites (until) foamy *for/in ten minutes.’
“’ However, even here some native speakers judge that the verb is in fact an ambiguous [init, proc, (res)]-type of verb. NP predicate is the complement of the RP projection is schematized in the following: “* As the predicate is an NP and not an AP - which can be closed scale giving rise to telicity even in the absence of resP - we assume that in (100), even if the postverbal DP is selected by the verb in isolation, RP must be projected and it cannot be left out; as the property of being closed scale is restricted to APs. ‘Mother has beaten the egg whites (until) foamy *for/in ten minutes.’
until/up to in/at’, in this case the predicate is an adjunct and not the complement of RP; cf. (103): However, similarly to those motion constructions where the predicate is headed by pana in/la
until/up to in/at’, in this case the predicate is an adjunct and not the complement of RP; cf. (103): However, similarly to those motion constructions where the predicate is headed by pana in/la
does not denote the resulting state of the subject DP. are surely not result small clauses.
does not denote the resulting state of the subject DP. are surely not result small clauses.
We discuss these and similar Romanian cases in the section about verb-framed examples. diagram, where the NP bocna ‘bone’ is the complement of RP: That in (110b) resP is indeed indentified by the verb is shown in the following tree
We discuss these and similar Romanian cases in the section about verb-framed examples. diagram, where the NP bocna ‘bone’ is the complement of RP: That in (110b) resP is indeed indentified by the verb is shown in the following tree
Before turning to verb-framed resultative constructions, let us briefly sum up the major
Before turning to verb-framed resultative constructions, let us briefly sum up the major
its structure and that the AP predicate is the complement of the RP functional projection: upward’, the Romanian (118a) is not perceived as redundant as its Italian counterpart *E’ cresciutc the literature calls a false/weak resultative is clearly illustrated in the tree diagram above.
its structure and that the AP predicate is the complement of the RP functional projection: upward’, the Romanian (118a) is not perceived as redundant as its Italian counterpart *E’ cresciutc the literature calls a false/weak resultative is clearly illustrated in the tree diagram above.
However, it is not clear to us whether this is a case of Underassociation of a category feature VP]), as sketched below for the Romanian (120b), adapted after Folli (2002: 164). similar to what we have discussed for the English verb break followed by a particle or a PP
However, it is not clear to us whether this is a case of Underassociation of a category feature VP]), as sketched below for the Romanian (120b), adapted after Folli (2002: 164). similar to what we have discussed for the English verb break followed by a particle or a PP
in ‘in’ is locative; res must be identified by the verb, as schematized in the following: relationship between the constituents of the small clause. We further state that as the preposition
in ‘in’ is locative; res must be identified by the verb, as schematized in the following: relationship between the constituents of the small clause. We further state that as the preposition
Patient argument (128a) or to further specify the result of the action of the verb (128b).
Patient argument (128a) or to further specify the result of the action of the verb (128b).
As shown by these examples and illustrations, in Ramchand’s (2008) theory deadjectival and denominal verbs are the result of rhematic material moved from the complement position and incorporated into the head. In the same way, both the deadjectival verb a (se) imbata ‘get drunk’ and the denominal verb a (se) indragosti ‘fall in love’ are cases of movement from complement
As shown by these examples and illustrations, in Ramchand’s (2008) theory deadjectival and denominal verbs are the result of rhematic material moved from the complement position and incorporated into the head. In the same way, both the deadjectival verb a (se) imbata ‘get drunk’ and the denominal verb a (se) indragosti ‘fall in love’ are cases of movement from complement
In this interpretation, this denominal verb behaves like a location verb where the locational (in intransitive sentences), it further raises to higher Specifier positions.
In this interpretation, this denominal verb behaves like a location verb where the locational (in intransitive sentences), it further raises to higher Specifier positions.
They illustrate their argument with pairs of examples, like: XP (their PP); cf. the structure they propose for the Spanish deadjectival verb engordar ‘fatten’:
They illustrate their argument with pairs of examples, like: XP (their PP); cf. the structure they propose for the Spanish deadjectival verb engordar ‘fatten’:
the action of the verb is the complement of the RP projection, as illustrated below:”* As expected, in (138b), the verb identifies res and the NP /ulea ‘pipe’, as the intensifier of (The girl has fallen so deeply in love that smoke came out of her ears like from a pipe.)
the action of the verb is the complement of the RP projection, as illustrated below:”* As expected, in (138b), the verb identifies res and the NP /ulea ‘pipe’, as the intensifier of (The girl has fallen so deeply in love that smoke came out of her ears like from a pipe.)
Also, as Jund ‘moon’ is an NP and not an AP, the possibility of this predicate to be the
Also, as Jund ‘moon’ is an NP and not an AP, the possibility of this predicate to be the
Table 5: State Resultatives in English and Romanian (‘?’ = restriction)
Table 5: State Resultatives in English and Romanian (‘?’ = restriction)
to leftward movement, as in (4): predicate structure where the verb and the predicate underlyingly form a unit, but the verb is subje«
to leftward movement, as in (4): predicate structure where the verb and the predicate underlyingly form a unit, but the verb is subje«