Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments
1st Edition
Published on 26. February 2009
314 pages
978-3-11-021396-6 (ISBN)
Description
This is the first volume dedicated to the study of formal features and the expression of arguments within Phase Theory, the latest model of syntactic theorizing within the Minimalist Program. The collection addresses the nature of formal features and their role in the syntactic computation as well as checking mechanisms and configurations. It also investigates theoretical issues underlying the nature of syntactic arguments and their licensing (argument structure at large) and specific grammatical operations involving arguments (abstract and morphological case, empty elements, passivization, negation, and aspect).
The chapters presented in this volume provide case studies from several, typologically unrelated languages. Apart from novel analyses of new as well as well-known facts, the contributions also provide interesting aspects of and challenges for Phase Theory in general, by critically exploring a number of theoretical extensions, proposing new syntactic mechanisms, and sharpening our tools for linguistic analysis.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions
Kleanthes K. Grohmann
Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments
Book
03/2009
1st Edition
De Gruyter Mouton
€189.95
Shipment within 7-9 days
Person
Kleanthes K. Grohmann, University of Cyprus, Cyprus.
Content
1 - Contents [Seite 5]
2 - Exploring features and arguments [Seite 7]
3 - Remarks on features [Seite 27]
4 - Feature valuation by sideward movement [Seite 59]
5 - On Incrementality, overt agreement, theta-roles and Spec,Head relations in the phase-based framework [Seite 93]
6 - Structural case, locality and cyclicity [Seite 113]
7 - PRO, pro and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations [Seite 137]
8 - Movement of arguments and negative feature [Seite 187]
9 - Inner aspect and phases [Seite 213]
10 - How to become passive [Seite 237]
11 - Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree [Seite 275]
12 - Contributors [Seite 315]
13 - Index [Seite 317]
2 - Exploring features and arguments [Seite 7]
3 - Remarks on features [Seite 27]
4 - Feature valuation by sideward movement [Seite 59]
5 - On Incrementality, overt agreement, theta-roles and Spec,Head relations in the phase-based framework [Seite 93]
6 - Structural case, locality and cyclicity [Seite 113]
7 - PRO, pro and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations [Seite 137]
8 - Movement of arguments and negative feature [Seite 187]
9 - Inner aspect and phases [Seite 213]
10 - How to become passive [Seite 237]
11 - Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree [Seite 275]
12 - Contributors [Seite 315]
13 - Index [Seite 317]
How to become passive (S. 231-232)
Berit Gehrke and Nino Grillo
In this paper, we propose that movement of a stative subevent of a structurally complex event to a discourse-related position at the edge of the verb phrase is the fundamental characteristics of passive constructions. This assumption is supported not only by the semantics of passives but also by the fact that it provides a natural account of many of their syntactic properties some of which are left unaccounted for in previous approaches. More generally we give a principled explanation, based on the availability of a consequent state reading, of why some predicates do not form good passives. Psycholinguistic data provide further arguments to support our hypothesis.
1. Introduction
Since early works in generative syntax (see Chomsky 1957) passivisation has been analysed as an operation on argument structure. Such analyses single out the most typical property of this construction, namely the inversion in the mapping of argument type and syntactic relation in actives and passives. The internal argument (the understood object) appears in the (syntactic) subject position, whereas the logical subject is demoted and (optionally) surfaces in a by-phrase.
In this paper, we will defend a different perspective on passives. It places the complex structure of events at the centre of this transformation and takes it to be responsible for determining not only core properties of passive formation but also its availability in general. This change in perspective allows us to distinguish predicates that can form good passives from those that cannot. In particular, we argue that passivisation is an operation on event structure, more precisely a secondary predication referring to a transition into a consequent (result or inchoative) state.
We propose that a semantic requirement, some kind of topicalisation, singles out this consequent state and assigns it a feature that will determine its movement to Spec, VoiceP, projected by by at the edge of the verb phase, which we take to be endowed with discourse-related properties reminiscent of the low focal projection proposed by Belletti (2004a). We support this claim with evidence from the syntactic and semantic properties of passives, some of which are unaccounted for in previous approaches.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses previous NPbased approaches to passive formation that treat it as an operation on argument structure and points out some of their disadvantages. Section 3 outlines our own proposal, according to which a stative subevent moves to a position above VP in passive constructions. To support this analysis, empirical data and psycholinguistic data from comprehension patterns in agrammatic Broca's aphasics are provided in section 4. In section 5, we propose that the position which the stative subevent moves to in passives, is needed independently also for actives, since it allows the creation of a link between the genuinely atemporal event structure and the temporal and discourse domains of the clause. Finally, section 6 concludes.
Berit Gehrke and Nino Grillo
In this paper, we propose that movement of a stative subevent of a structurally complex event to a discourse-related position at the edge of the verb phrase is the fundamental characteristics of passive constructions. This assumption is supported not only by the semantics of passives but also by the fact that it provides a natural account of many of their syntactic properties some of which are left unaccounted for in previous approaches. More generally we give a principled explanation, based on the availability of a consequent state reading, of why some predicates do not form good passives. Psycholinguistic data provide further arguments to support our hypothesis.
1. Introduction
Since early works in generative syntax (see Chomsky 1957) passivisation has been analysed as an operation on argument structure. Such analyses single out the most typical property of this construction, namely the inversion in the mapping of argument type and syntactic relation in actives and passives. The internal argument (the understood object) appears in the (syntactic) subject position, whereas the logical subject is demoted and (optionally) surfaces in a by-phrase.
In this paper, we will defend a different perspective on passives. It places the complex structure of events at the centre of this transformation and takes it to be responsible for determining not only core properties of passive formation but also its availability in general. This change in perspective allows us to distinguish predicates that can form good passives from those that cannot. In particular, we argue that passivisation is an operation on event structure, more precisely a secondary predication referring to a transition into a consequent (result or inchoative) state.
We propose that a semantic requirement, some kind of topicalisation, singles out this consequent state and assigns it a feature that will determine its movement to Spec, VoiceP, projected by by at the edge of the verb phase, which we take to be endowed with discourse-related properties reminiscent of the low focal projection proposed by Belletti (2004a). We support this claim with evidence from the syntactic and semantic properties of passives, some of which are unaccounted for in previous approaches.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses previous NPbased approaches to passive formation that treat it as an operation on argument structure and points out some of their disadvantages. Section 3 outlines our own proposal, according to which a stative subevent moves to a position above VP in passive constructions. To support this analysis, empirical data and psycholinguistic data from comprehension patterns in agrammatic Broca's aphasics are provided in section 4. In section 5, we propose that the position which the stative subevent moves to in passives, is needed independently also for actives, since it allows the creation of a link between the genuinely atemporal event structure and the temporal and discourse domains of the clause. Finally, section 6 concludes.
