1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 21, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Based mostly on the Romance languages, we provide evidence for the conclusion that oblique adpositions involved in the encoding of location and direction do not contribute a specific, fixed spatial meaning. On the contrary, they are general relators, relating a complement to an event by establishing an inclusion relation between them. Locatives are specializations of the basic relational inclusion content. State-in, motion-to and motion-from interpretations depend on the interaction of these simple relators with the structure of the event. Specifically, the relator may attach at the level of the Result phrase (goal, motion-to) or at the level of the Cause layer (source, motion-from). Furthermore, the Romance languages provide evidence for differential encoding of non-animate . animate location, which we refer to as locative DOM, presenting and discussing various instances of it.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00035.fra
2020-09-08
2024-10-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.00035.fra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arsenijević, B.
    2006 Inner Aspect and Telicity: The Decompositional and the Quantificational Nature of Eventualities at the Syntax-semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    1988 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck, S. & K. Johnson
    2004 Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry35. 97–124. 10.1162/002438904322793356
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793356 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belletti, A.
    2017 Labeling (Romance) causatives. Manuscript. Universities of Geneva & Siena. 10.1515/9781501504037‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504037-002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellucci, G.
    2017 Oblique Arguments: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives. PhD Dissertation. University of Florence.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Belvin, R. S.
    1996 Inside Events: The Non-Possessive Meanings of Possession Predicates and the Semantic Conceptualization of Events. PhD Thesis, University of Southern California.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Belvin, R., & M. den Dikken
    1997 “There, happens, to, be, have”, Lingua101. 151–183. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00049‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00049-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benveniste, É.
    1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale 1. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruening, Benjamin
    2013 By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax16. 1–41. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2012.00171.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed
    2011 The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology21. 545–572. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9175‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9175-0 [Google Scholar]
  11. Caha, P.
    2009 The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D. Dissertation. CASTL, Tromsø.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, N.
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2001 Derivation by Phase. InM. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N., A. Gallego & D. Ott
    2019 Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. special issue: 229–261Catalan Journal of Linguistics. 10.5565/rev/catjl.288
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cinque, G.
    2010 Mapping Spatial PPs: an Introduction. InG. Cinque & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Collins, C.
    2005 A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax8: 81–120. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00076.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Creissels, D.
    2006 Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination. InM. Hickmann & S. Robert (eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, 19–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.03cre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.03cre [Google Scholar]
  18. Crowley, T.
    2004 Bislama Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. 10.1515/9780824850074
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824850074 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dikken, M. den
    1995 Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 1998 Predicate inversion in DP. InA. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.22.08dik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.22.08dik [Google Scholar]
  21. Dikken, Marcel den
    2010 On the Functional Structure of Locative and Directional PPs. InG. Cinque & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs, 74–126. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fábregas, A.
    2007 (Axial) parts and wholes. Nordlyd34: 1–32. 10.7557/12.109
     https://doi.org/10.7557/12.109 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2015 Direccionales con con y Marcado Diferencial de Objeto. Revue Romane50.163–190. 10.1075/rro.50.2.01fab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.2.01fab [Google Scholar]
  24. Filip, H.
    2003 Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics11. 55–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, C. J.
    1968 The Case for Case. InE. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Folli, R.
    2008 Complex PPs in Italian. InA. Asbury, J. Dotlačil, B. Gehrke, R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, 197–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.10fol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.10fol [Google Scholar]
  27. Folli, R. & G. Ramchand
    2005 Prepositions and results in Italian and English: an analysis from event decomposition. InH. J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart and A. van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on Aspect. Dordrecht: Springer. 81–105. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3232‑3_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Franco, L.
    2016 Axial Parts, phi-features and degrammaticalization. Transactions of the Philological Society114: 149–170. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12067
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12067 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018 ‘Oblique’ serial verbs in Pidgin and Creole languages. QULSO4. 73–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Franco, L., & P. Lorusso
    2019 The expression of proper location and beyond: motion-to and state-in in Italian spatial adpositions. InM. Baird and J. Pesetsky. NELS 49: Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society: Volume 1, 279–290GLSA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Franco, L., & M. R. Manzini
    2017 Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa2(1). 1–47. 10.5334/gjgl.111
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.111 [Google Scholar]
  32. Freeze, R.
    1992 Existentials and other locatives. Language68. 553–595. 10.2307/415794
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415794 [Google Scholar]
  33. Garzonio, J., & S. Rossi
    2016 Case in Italian Complex PPs. InE. Carrilho, A. Fiéis, M. Lobo & S. Pereira (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, Lisbon, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/rllt.10.07gar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.10.07gar [Google Scholar]
  34. Gehrke, B.
    2008 Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P Elements and Motion Events. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gehrke, B. & N. Grillo
    2009 How to become passive. InExplorations of Phase Theory: Features, Arguments, and Interpretation at the Interfaces, ed.Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Interface Explorations, 231–268. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213966.231
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213966.231 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hale, K., & S. J. Keyser
    1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. InK. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Harley, H.
    2002 Possession and the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook2: 29–68. 10.1075/livy.2.04har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har [Google Scholar]
  38. 2013 External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua125: 34–57. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  39. Higginbotham, J.
    2009 Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239313.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239313.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoekstra, T.
    1999 Auxiliary selection in Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17: 67–84. 10.1023/A:1006186109813
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006186109813 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jackendoff, R.
    1996 The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space, 1–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Johns, Alana
    1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry23: 57–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kayne, R.
    1975 French Syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 1984 Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783111682228
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1994 The Antisimmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2010 Comparisons and contrasts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Keenan, E. L.
    1985 Passive in the world’s languages. InT. Shopen, (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1, Clause structure, 243–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Koopman, H.
    2000 Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions, and Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs. InH. Koopman (ed.), The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203171608
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ledgeway, Adam
    2018 The Causative Construction in the Dialects of Southern Italy and the Phonology Syntax Interface. InL. Franco, & P. Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation. In honor of Rita Manzini. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Legate, J. A.
    2014 Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Levinson, L.
    2011 Possessive with in Germanic: Have and the role of P. Syntax14: 355–393. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00159.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00159.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Longobardi, G.
    2001 Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry32: 275–302. 10.1162/00243890152001771
     https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001771 [Google Scholar]
  53. Luraghi, S.
    2011 Human landmarks in spatial expressions: from Latin to Romance. InS. Kittilä, K. Västi and J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case, Animacy, and Semantic Roles, 209–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.08lur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.08lur [Google Scholar]
  54. Manzini, M. R.
    2017 Passive, smuggling and the by-phrase. InN. LaCara, Keir Moulton & A.-M. Tessier (eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, 233–244. University of Massachusets – Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Manzini, M. R., & L. Franco
    2016 Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34: 197–240. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9303‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y [Google Scholar]
  56. Manzini, M. R., & L. M. Savoia
    2005 I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3volumes) Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2007 A Unification of Morphology and Syntax. Routledge: London. 10.4324/9780203968154
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203968154 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2011a Grammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511974489
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974489 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2011b Reducing ‘case’ to denotational primitives: Nominal inflections in Albanian. Linguistic Variation11: 76–120. 10.1075/lv.11.1.03man
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.11.1.03man [Google Scholar]
  60. Manzini, M. R., L. M. Savoia, & L. Franco
    2015 Ergative case, Aspect and Person splits: Two case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica62. 297–351. 10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2020 DOM and Dative in Italo-Romance. InA. Bárány & L. Kalin (eds.), Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on Differential Object Marking. 219–268. (pages for Manzini, Savoia and Franco 2020) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Matushansky, O.
    2016 The definite article in proper places. Paper presented atWorkshop on the semantic contribution of Det and Num. (In)definiteness, genericity and referentiality, UAB, May 27–28, 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & M. Huber
    (eds.) 2013 Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. apics-online.info
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Myler, N.
    2013 On coming the pub in the North West of England: accusative unaccusatives, dependent case, and preposition incorporation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics16:189–207. 10.1007/s10828‑013‑9055‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-013-9055-1 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2016 Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  66. Nam, S.
    1995 The Semantics of Locative Prepositional Phrases in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 2005 Directional locatives in event structure: asymmetry between goal and source. Eoneohag (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea)43: 85–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Palancar, E.
    2001 The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie. (Studia Typologica 5). 10.1524/9783050081410
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050081410 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pantcheva, M.
    2010 The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics48: 1043–1081. 10.1515/ling.2010.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.034 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2011 Decomposing Path: The Nanosyntax of Directional Expressions. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Pesetsky, D.
    1995 Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Pineda, A.
    2014 (In)transitivity borders. A study of applicatives in Romance language es and Basque. PhD Dissertation, UAB.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Ramchand, G.
    2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  74. Real Puigdollers, C.
    2010 A microparametric approach on goal of motion constructions: properties of adpositional systems in Romance and Germanic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics9: 125–150. 10.5565/rev/catjl.97
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.97 [Google Scholar]
  75. Reinhart, T.
    2003 The theta-system – an overview. Theoretical Linguistics28. 229–290. 10.1515/thli.28.3.229
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.28.3.229 [Google Scholar]
  76. Renzi, L. & Salvi, G.
    1988 Grande Grammatical Italiana di Consultazione, Volume II. Bologna: Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Rizzi, L.
    1988 Il sintagma preposizionale. InL. Renzi, G. P. Salvi, & A. Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, 507–531. Bologna: Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Rohlfs, G.
    1969 [1954] Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Rothstein, S.
    2004 Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470759127
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127 [Google Scholar]
  80. Rouveret, A. & Vergnaud, J-R.
    1980 Specifying Reference to the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representations. Linguistic Inquiry11. 97–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Saeed, S. T.
    2016 Space and Events. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Starke, M.
    2017 Resolving (DAT = ACC) ̸= GEN. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 10.5334/gjgl.408
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.408 [Google Scholar]
  83. Svenonius, P.
    2006 The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd33: 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2010 Spatial P in English. InGuglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzieds., Mapping Spatial PPs, vol. 6 of The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 127–60. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  85. Talmy, Leonard
    2000 Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Torrego, E.
    2009 Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in Romance and Its Implications. Linguistic Inquiry41: 445–470. 10.1162/LING_a_00004
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00004 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tortora, C.
    2005 The Preposition’s Preposition in Italian: Evidence for Boundedness of Space. InR. Gess, & E. Rubin (eds), Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics, 307–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.272.19tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.272.19tor [Google Scholar]
  88. van Riemsdijk, H.
    1990 Functional prepositions. InH. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in diversity, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110847420.229
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.229 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wälchli, B. & F. Zúñiga
    2006 Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. Sprachtypologie & Universalienforschung59: 284–303.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wunderlich, Dieter
    1991 How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics?Linguistics29: 591–621. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591 [Google Scholar]
  91. Zribi-Hertz, A. & Jean-Louis, L.
    2018 General Locative Marking in Martinican Creole (Matinitjè): A case study in grammatical economy. QULSO4.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Zubizarreta, M. L. & E. Oh
    2007 On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5132.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5132.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  93. Zwarts, J.
    1997 Vectors as Relative Positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics14: 57–86. 10.1093/jos/14.1.57
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.1.57 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00035.fra
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Adposition; Differential Object Marking; Locative; Oblique; Passive

Most Cited

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