Argument Structure: typological perspective BMA-ANGD-A2 Linguistic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Nov 05, 2022 512 likes •896 views

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Argument Structure: typological perspective BMA-ANGD-A2 Linguistic Theory Irina Burukina irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu Part II Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological

SLIDE 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Argument Structure: typological perspective

BMA-ANGD-A2 Linguistic Theory Irina Burukina

irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu

Part II

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 1 / 37

SLIDE 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview

The lectures aim to provide an overview of various syntactic phenomena re- lated to argument structure and argument structure transformations from a typological perspective.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 2 / 37

SLIDE 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Today we will talk about

1. Removal of arguments

Middle Antipassive III

2. Addition of arguments

Causativization Applicatives

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 3 / 37

SLIDE 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Removal (deletion) of arguments

Middle

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 4 / 37

SLIDE 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Middle Voice

Middle – (1) the external argument is removed, (2) an internal argument is promoted. (1)

a. Bad people bribe politicians.
b. Politicians bribe easily.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 5 / 37

SLIDE 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Middle Voice

The external argument is deleted completely! (2)

a. Politicians bribe easily (*by bad people).
b. Politicians bribe easily (*to pressure the offjcials).
c. #Politicians bribe easily drunk.

← the politicians are drunk, not the one who bribes them Compare to passive! (3)

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 II 6 / 37

SLIDE 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Middle: (a) structural representation

VoiceP Voice′ VP book read Voice0

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 7 / 37

SLIDE 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dispositional Middle

Some verbs in the middle voice denote a dispositional property of the internal argument: (4)

a. etot

this xleb bread *(legko) easily rezhet-sja cut.3sg-refm [Russian] ‘This bread cuts easily.’

b. This book reads *(easily).

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 8 / 37

SLIDE 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impersonal Middle

Impersonal middles are dispositional middles constructed from intransitive verbs. (5)

a. Hier

here schläft sleeps es it sich REFL angenehm. comfortable [German] ‘It is comfortable to sleep here’ (Schäfer 2007)

b. Se

REFL duerme sleeps.3S bien well en in los the bancos. benches [Spanish] ‘One sleeps well on benches.’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 9 / 37

SLIDE 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anticausative

(6)

a. The cup broke (*by John).
b. The ship sank (*by the captain).

Russian: (7)

a. rebjonok

child.m.nom razbil broke.m.sg čašk-u. cup.f-acc ‘The child broke the cup.’

b. čašk-a

cup.f-nom razbila-s’. broke.f.sg-refm ‘The cup broke.’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 10 / 37

SLIDE 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reduction (deletion) of arguments

Antipassive III

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 11 / 37

SLIDE 12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antipassive III

Active: External argument (active) = Subject, ERG Internal argument (passive) = Object, ABS Antipassive III: External argument = Subject, ABS Internal argument = deleted.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 12 / 37

SLIDE 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antipassive III

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 13 / 37

SLIDE 14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antipassive III: (a) structural representation

The traditional analysis: antipassive (AP) morpheme as an incorporated object (back to Baker (1988)). VoiceP Voice′ VP AP V0 Voice ExtA

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 14 / 37

SLIDE 15

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Antipassive in the world’s languages

WALS: 146 languages, + antipassive implicit (blue, 18), + antipassive oblique (ref, 30), no antipassive (white, 146). Link: https://wals.info/feature/108A#2/23.2/148.5

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 15 / 37

SLIDE 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Addition of arguments

Causativization

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 16 / 37

SLIDE 17

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Causative construction – increase of the valency of a predicate by adding a Causer or a Cause. Periphrastic causative in English: (8)

a. The baby slept.
b. The mother made the baby sleep.
c. His singing made the baby sleep.
d. His singing caused the baby to sleep.

Not only with inherently intransitive predicates: (9)

a. The baby drank milk.
b. The mother made the baby drink milk.
c. Hunger made the baby drink milk.
d. Hunger forced the baby to drink milk.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 17 / 37

SLIDE 18

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Periphrastic causative: Biclausal (note: Song 1996, biclausality as a continuum); The Causer and the predicate of cause must be “foregrounded” (more prominent), while the Causee and the predicate of efgect “backgrounded” (less prominent); The expression of the causer’s action should be without specifjc meaning (e.g. cause but not order).

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 18 / 37

SLIDE 19

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Periphrastic causative: (10) Swahili (Vitale 1981: 152) Ahmed Ahmed a-li-m-fanya he-pst-him-make mbwa dog a-l-e he-eat-sbjv samaki fjsh mkubwa. large ‘Ahmed made the dog eat a large fjsh.’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 19 / 37

SLIDE 20

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Non-periphrastic, morphological causative: (11) Japanese Kanako Kanako ga nom Ziroo Ziro

ik-ase-ta. go-caus-pst ‘Kanako made Ziro go.’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 20 / 37

SLIDE 21

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Non-periphrastic, morphological causative: Monoclausal; The Causer occupies a grammatically more ‘prominent’ position than the Causee; The expression of the causer’s action, be it an affjx or a separate (auxiliary) verb, should be without specifjc meaning.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 21 / 37

SLIDE 22

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Non-periphrastic, morphological causative:

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 22 / 37

SLIDE 23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Non-periphrastic, morphological causative: vP v′ VP V′ V0 Causee vCAUS Causer Additional reference: work by Heidi Harley

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 23 / 37

SLIDE 24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Non-periphrastic, morphological causative: (white, 23 – no morphological causative, red/violet, 278 – morphological caus- ative) Link: https://wals.info/feature/111A#2/16.6/148.5

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 24 / 37

SLIDE 25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Not considered to be non-periphrastic, morphological causative: (12) Tuvaluan (Besnier 2000: 325) te the paala kingfjsh e npst tasi

ne pst sao escape ia Aaifoou because.of Aifou ‘The kingfjsh got away because of Aifou.’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 25 / 37

SLIDE 26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Inchoative-causative alternation in English *inchoative – become, change of state / cf. ’anticausative’ wake up, change, fjnish, break, melt, turn, burn, roll, freeze, open, develop, dissolve, close, connect, begin, boil, improve, dry, gather, spread, stop, sink ... ← anticausativizaton or causativization?

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 26 / 37

SLIDE 27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Causatives

Compare English to the morphological anticausativization in Russian: katat’-sja ‘roll (intr.)’ <Theme> katat’ ‘roll (tr.)’ <Agent, Theme>

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 27 / 37

SLIDE 28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Addition of arguments

Applicatives

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 28 / 37

SLIDE 29

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

Applicative – the number of object arguments selected by the predicate is in- creased by one. Often: introducing a usual adjunct as an argument-like participant. Usually: a Benefactive, a Malefactive, or a Goal (Recepient).

Cf. in English: She baked a cake – She baked Oscar a cake. (Benefactive)

← typically, we call those constructions applicative where the addition of an

bject is overtly marked on the predicate.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 29 / 37

SLIDE 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

Applicatives from a transitive base only – Japanese (13)

a. Taroo-ga

Taro-NOM Hanako-ni Hanako-DAT tegami-o letter-ACC kaita. wrote ‘Taro wrote Hanako a letter’

b. *Taroo-ga

Taroo-NOM Hanako-ni Hanako-DAT hasitta. run-PAST ‘Taro ran for Hanako’

c. *Taroo-ga

Taro-NOM Hanako-ni Hanako-DAT kanojo-no she-GEN kaban-o bag-ACC motta. held ‘Taro held Hanako her bag’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 30 / 37

SLIDE 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

Low applicative analysis (Pylkkänen 2002 for low vs. high applicatives)

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 31 / 37

SLIDE 32

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

Aplicatives from an intransitive base (14) Kichaga: high benefactive applicative

a. Nailyi-i-a

he-eats-APPL mka wife kelya food ‘He is eating food for his wife’

b. Naizric-i-a

he-runs-APPL mbuya friend ‘He is running for a friend’

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 32 / 37

SLIDE 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

High applicative analysis:

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 33 / 37

SLIDE 34

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

“high applicatives” can appear on intransitives no relation between NPs either “object” can be afgected by passive “low applicatives” restricted to transitive verbs relates ApplObj and Theme (often possessive)

nly the applicative object can passivize

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 34 / 37

SLIDE 35

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applicatives

white, 100 – no applicative, others, 83 – applicative Link: https://wals.info/feature/109A#2/21.9/147.8

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 35 / 37

SLIDE 36

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected references

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. PhD diss, Cornell University. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Chan-

ging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16:1– 41. Collins, Chris. 2018. Is the passive by-phrase an adjunct. Ms. NYU. Harley, Heidi. 2005. On the causative construction. Ms. University of Arizona.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 36 / 37

SLIDE 37

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected references

Labelle, Marie. 2008. The French refmexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 833-876. Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101. Polinsky, Maria. 2017. Antipassive. In Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam, and Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 308–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. MIT Press. Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni 2005. The lexicon–syntax parameter: refmexiv- ization and other arity operations, Linguistic Inquiry 36.3, 389–436.

Irina Burukina (irine-bu@caesar.elte.hu)Argument Structure: typological perspective Part II 37 / 37