Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article presents an aspectual account of the interface between lexicon and syntax. Following Tenny’s AIH (Aspectual Interface Hypothesis), we assume that only the aspectual property of lexical information is sensitive and predictive to argument structure. Based on this assumption, the article claims that aspectual roles associated with measuring-out and delimitedness offer a single and unified account of argument structure. To begin with, a peculiar focus is given to the direct internal argument which serves as the only measuring-out role and participates the measurement constraint in three verb types including the incremental-theme verbs, the change-of-state verbs and route verbs with path objects, Another aspectual property is delimitedenss that functions as the terminus role of event progression in the form of delimiting markers such as verb particles or resultative predicates.To better testify the claim, the article focuses on constructional variations derived from some typical unergatives and unaccusatives, because the semantic distinction between the two verb types is mainly reflected on the syntactic property that urergatives normally require an agent while unaccusatives ask for a compulsory theme or patient. Yet Constructional variations derived from unergatives and unaccusatives consistently instantiate the measuring-out constraint on direct internal argument. For unergatives, an undelimited event is converted into a delimited one by addition of measuring direct argument, while for unaccusatives, semantic differences arise from alternating arguments that go through changes. Hence constructional variations further prove that syntactic structure fundamentally operates over the aspectual roles rather than thematic roles.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, S.
    (1977) Comments on the Paper by Wasow. InP. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp.361–378). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beavers, J.
    (2013) Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics (54): 681–706. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0024 [Google Scholar]
  3. Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L.
    (1988) Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (6): 291–352. 10.1007/BF00133902
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  4. Burzio, L.
    (1986) Italian Syntax, A Government and Binding Approach. Rdidel, Dordrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, W.
    (2012) Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidson, D.
    (1967) The Logical Form of Action sentences. InN. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted inDavidson (1980), Essays on Action and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dirven, R.
    (2001) English particle verbs: Theory and didactic application. InM. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110866254.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866254.3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dowty, D.
    (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, Charles J.
    (1968) The case for case. InEmmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (Eds), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–90). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winson.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gries, S. T.
    (1999) Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2): 105–145. 10.1515/cogl.1999.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grimshaw, J.
    (1990) Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Han, J.
    (2020) On the unaccusativity of the English verb die. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (6): 817–829.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Han, L.
    (2017) English transitive particle verbs: Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, (4): 330–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hay, J.
    (1999) Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. InT. Mathews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), SALT IX (pp.127–144). Ithaca: CLPC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, R.
    (1990) Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kennedy, C., & L. McNally
    (2005) Scale structure, degree modifications, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, (2): 345–381. 10.1353/lan.2005.0071
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071 [Google Scholar]
  17. Krifka, M.
    (1992) Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. InI. Sag & A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexical Matters, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Larson, R.
    (1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, (19): 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Levin, B.
    (1985) Lexical Semantics in Review: An Introduction. InB. Levin (Ed), Lexical Semantics in Review, Lexicon Project Working Papers 1, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1989) English Verbal Diathesis, Lexicon Project Working Papers 32, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Levin, B., & M. Rappaport Hovav
    (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Macfarland, T.
    (1995) Cognate Objects and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.
  24. Merlan, F.
    (1985) Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. InJ. Nichols & A. Woodbury (Eds), Grammar inside and outside the clause; some approaches to theory from the field (pp.324–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Massam, D.
    (1990) Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects, Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 161–190. 10.1017/S0008413100013566
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100013566 [Google Scholar]
  26. Maya, A.
    (1996) A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface, UCL Working papers in Linguistics, (8), 1–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Nakajima, K.
    (2006) Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry371: 674–684. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.674
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.674 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ostler, N.
    (1979) ‘Case Linking: A Theory of Case and Verb Diathesis Applied to Classical Sanskrit’, Ph.D. dissertation.
  29. Paradis, C.
    (2001) Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1): 47–65. 10.1515/cogl.12.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  30. Perlmutter, D.
    (1983) Studies in Relational Grammar I, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Perlmutter, D., & Postal, P.
    (1984) ‘The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law’. InD. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp.81–125). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1991) The Syntax of Event Structure, Cognition, 41(1–3): 47–81. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90032‑Y
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-Y [Google Scholar]
  33. Rothstein, S.
    (1979) The Syntactic Forms of Predication, PhD. Dissertation, MIT.
  34. Quirk
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rappaport, M., & Levin, B.
    (1988) ‘What to do with Theta-roles’. InW. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics211 (pp.7–36), New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosen, C.
    (1984) ‘The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations’. InD. M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp.38–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Simpson, J.
    (1983) Aspects of Warlpiri Morphology and Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
  38. Ter Meulen, A. G. B.
    (1995) Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5897.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5897.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tenny, C.
    (1994) Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1150‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Vendler, Z.
    (1967) Verbs and times. InZ. Vendler (Ed), Linguistics in Philosophy (pp.199–220). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726
    https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wechsler, S.
    (2005) Resultatives under the “Event-Argument Homomorphism”. InN. Erteschitshir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect (255–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wertheimer, Max
    (1923/1950) Laws of organization in perceptual forms. InW. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp.71–88). New York: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Zubinarreta, M. L.
    (1987) Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. 10.1515/9783110859928
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859928 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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