1887
Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Several syntactic properties of verbal heads are accounted for through their semantic properties. Verbal features such as agentivity, volitionality, stativity etc. have been proven a useful tool for predicting several aspects of their syntactic behavior such as passivization, auxiliary selection etc. In the context of the empirical turn in current linguistics, the assumption of discrete features is questioned by studies based on corpora or speakers’ intuitions showing that the diagnostics of semantic features involve gradience. These findings are challenging for grammatical theory: are we justified to assume the existence of discrete verb classes or do the established properties indicate scalar dimensions of meaning? Based on two empirical studies – an acceptability study and a corpus study – the present article examines the role of in distinguishing verb classes and in predicting the syntactic behavior of verbs in German. Acceptability data show that the diagnostics of agentivity involve gradience, which cannot be reduced to random sources of variation. However, a comparison of scalar vs. categorical models of agentivity based on these diagnostics reveals that the syntactic variation in word order found in written corpus data is best accounted for through a model that assumes a binary division into a ±agentive and a non-agentive verb class.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00007.ver
2018-04-23
2019-12-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agresti, Alan
    2007An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New Jersey: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/0470114754
    https://doi.org/10.1002/0470114754 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arad, Maya
    1998VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. PhD dissertation. London: University College of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bader, Markus , and Jana Häussler
    2010 “Word Order in German: A Corpus Study.” Lingua120: 717–762. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayer, Joseph
    2004 “Non-nominative Subjects in Comparison.” InNon-nominative Subjectsvol.1, ed. by Peri Bhaskararao , and Karumuri V. Subbarao , 49–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.60.05bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.60.05bay [Google Scholar]
  5. Belletti, Adriana , and Luigi Rizzi
    1988 “Psych-verbs and θ – theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6: 291–352. doi: 10.1007/BF00133902
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bornkessel, Ina , Stefan Zysset , Angela D. Friederici , D. Yves von Cramon , and Matthias Schlewewsky
    2005 “‘Who Does What to Whom?’ The Neural Basis of Argument Hierarchies during Language Comprehension.” NeuroImage26: 221–233. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.032
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.032 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, Joan
    2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation.” InRoots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, ed. by Sam Featherston , and Wolfgang Sternefeld , 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunetti, Lisa
    2009 “On the Semantic and Contextual Factors that Determine Topic Selection in Italian and Spanish.” The Linguistic Review26: 261–289. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2009.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.010 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” InSubject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li , 27–55. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dowty, David
    1991 “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection.” Language67: 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  11. Engelberg, Stefan
    2015 “Gespaltene Stimulus-Argumente bei Psych-Verben. Quantitative Verteilungsdaten als Indikator für die Dynamik sprachlichen Wissens über Argumentstrukturen.” InArgumentstruktur – Valenz – Konstruktionen, ed. by S. Engelberg , Meike Meliss , Kristel Proost , and Edeltraut Winkler , 469–492. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fanselow, Gisbert
    2000 “Optimal Exceptions.” InLexicon in Focus, ed. by Barbara Stiebels , and Dieter Wunderlich , 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grafmiller, Jason
    2013The Semantics of Syntactic Choice, an Analysis of English Emotion Verbs. PhD dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grewendorf, Günther
    1989Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110859256
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859256 [Google Scholar]
  15. Grimshaw, Jane
    1990Argument Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hartigan, John A. , and Pamela M. Hartigan
    1985 “The Dip Test of Unimodality.” Annals of Statistics13.1: 70–84. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346577
    https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176346577 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haspelmath, Martin
    2001 “Non-canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages.” InNon-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald , Robert M. W. Dixon , and Masayuki Onishi , 53–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.46.04has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46.04has [Google Scholar]
  18. Haupt, Friederike S. , Matthias Schlesewsky , Dietmar Roehm , Angela D. Friederici , and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2008 “The Status of Subject-Object Reanalyses in Language Comprehension Architecture.” Journal of Memory and Language59: 54–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoberg, Ursula
    1981Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwarts-sprache. München: Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Holisky, Dee A.
    1987 “The Case of the Intransitive Subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi).” Lingua71:103–132. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(87)90069‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Horvath, Julia , and Tal Siloni
    2011 “Causatives across Components.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29: 657–704. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9135‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9135-3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Institut für Deutsche Sprache
    Institut für Deutsche Sprache 1991–2017COSMAS I/II Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. www. ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2/.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Institut für Deutsche Sprache
    Institut für Deutsche Sprache 2010Deutsches Referenzkorpus / Archiv der Korpora geschriebener Gegenwartssprache 2010-I (Release vom 02.03.2010). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. www.ids-mannheim.de/DeReKo.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Keller, Frank , and Antonella Sorace
    2003 “Gradient Auxiliary Aelection and Impersonal Passivization in German: an Experimental Investigation.” Journal of Linguistics39.1: 57–108. doi: 10.1017/S0022226702001676
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001676 [Google Scholar]
  25. Klein Katharina , and Silvia Kutscher
    2002 “Psych-verbs and Lexical Economy.” Theorie des Lexikons 122. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lambrecht, Knut
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  27. Landau, Idan
    2010The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lehmann, Christian
    1991 “Predicate Classes and participation .” InPartizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, Hansjakob Seiler , and Waldfried Premper , 183–239. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lenerz, Jürgen
    1977 “Zum Einfluß von ‘Agens’ auf die Wortstellung des Deutschen.” InGrammatik und interdisziplinäre Bereiche der Linguistik. Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Aachen 1976, ed. by Hans W. Viethen , Wolf-Dietrich Bald , and Konrad Sprengel , 133–142. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111353289.133
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111353289.133 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levin, Beth , and Malka Rappaport Hovav
    1995Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin, Fabienne
    2015 “Explaining the Link between Agentivity and Non-culminating Causation.” Proceedings of SALT25: 246–266. doi: 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3060
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3060 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, Fabienne , and Florian Schäfer
    2017 Sublexical modality in defeasable causative verbs. InModality across Syntactic Categories, Ana Arregui , María Luisa Rivero , and Andrés Salanova , 87–108. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718208.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718208.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pesetsky, David
    1995Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pijpops, Dirk , and Dirk Speelman
    2015 “Argument Alternations of the Dutch Psych Verbs. A Corpus Investigation.” Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Primus, Beatrice
    2004 “Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariaton bei psychischen Verben.” InSemantische Rollen, ed. by Rolf Kailuweit , and Martin Hummel , 377–401. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2012 “Animacy, Generalized Semantic Roles, and Differential Object Marking.” InCase, Word Order, and Prominence. Interacting Cues in Language Production and Comprehension, ed. by Monique Lamers , Peter de Swart , 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1463‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Reinhart, Tanya , and Tal Siloni
    2005 “The Lexicon-syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other arity Operations.” Linguistic Inquiry36: 389–436. doi: 10.1162/0024389054396881
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396881 [Google Scholar]
  38. Reinhart, Tanya
    2001Experiencing Derivations. SALT lecture, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2002 “The Theta System – an Overview.” Theoretical Linguistics28: 229–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Roeper, Tom
    1987 “Implicit Arguments and the Head-complement Relation.” Linguistic Inquiry18: 267–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Scheepers, Christoph , Barbara Hemforth , and Lars Konieczny
    2000 “Linking Syntactic Functions with Thematic Roles: Psych Verbs and the Resolution of Subject-Object Ambiguity.” InGerman Sentence Processing, ed. by Barbara. Hemforth , and Lars Konieczny , 95–135. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9618‑3_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9618-3_4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sorace, Antonella
    2004 “Gradience at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Evidence from Auxiliary Selection and Implications for Unaccusativity.” InThe Unaccusativity Puzzle, ed. by A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou , and M. Everaert , 243–268. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Talmy, Leonard
    1976 “Semantic Causative Types.” InThe Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by M. Shibatani , 43–116. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Temme, Anne , and Elisabeth Verhoeven
    2016 “Verb Class, Case, and Order: A Cross-linguistic Experiment on Non-nominative Experiencers.” Linguistcs54.4: 769–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. , and Randy LaPolla
    1997 “Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799
  46. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. , and David P. Wilkins
    1996 “The Case for ‘Effector’: Case Roles, Agents, and Agency Revisited.” InGrammatical Constructions: their Form and Meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani , and Sandra A. Thompson , 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Verhoeven, Elisabeth
    2009 “Subjects, Agents, Experiencers, and Animates in Competition: Modern Greek Argument Order.” Linguistische Berichte219: 355–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2010 “Agentivity and Stativity in Experiencer Verbs: Implications for a Typology of Predicate Classes.” Linguistic Typology14: 213–251. doi: 10.1515/lity.2010.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2010.009 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2014 “Thematic Prominence and Animacy Asymmetries. Evidence from a Cross-linguistic Production Study.” Lingua143:129–161. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2015 “Thematic Asymmetries Do Matter! A Corpus Study of Word Order in German.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics27.1: 45–104. doi: 10.1017/S147054271400021X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271400021X [Google Scholar]
  51. Wunderlich, Dieter
    1997 “Cause and the Structure of Verbs.” Linguistic Inquiry28: 27–68.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00007.ver
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00007.ver
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error