Verbal argument structure: Events and participants

Lingua

Volumn 130, Issue , 2013, Pages 152-168

  Marantz, Alec ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ABU DHABI   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

Argument structure; Event structure; Theta roles

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877060838     PISSN: 00243841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Albright A., Hayes B. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 2003, 90:119-161.
2. Alexiadou A. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity 2001, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
3. Alexiadou A., Anagnostopoulou E. Non-active morphology and the direction of transitivity alternations. NELS 29 2000, 27-40. P. Tamanji, M. Hirotani, N. Hall (Eds.).
4. Alexiadou A., Anagnostopoulou E., Schäfer F. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. Phases of Interpretation 2006, 187-212. Mouton, Berlin. M. Frascarelli (Ed.).
5. Arad M. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2003, 21:737-778.
6. Aronoff M. Word Formation in Generative Grammar 1976, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
7. Baker M.C. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing 1988, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
8. Belletti A., Rizzi L. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1988, 6:291-352.
9. Bloomfield L. Language 1933, Allen Unwin, London.
10. Borer H. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexicon. The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory 2003, 31-67. CSLI/University of Chicago Press, Chicago. J. Moore, M. Polinsky (Eds.).
11. Borer H. In Name Only. Structuring Sense 2005, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Bruening B. QR obeys superiority: frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 2001, 32:233-273.
13. Bruening B. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 2010, 41:287-305.
14. Burzio L. Italian Syntax: A Government-binding Approach 1986, Reidel, Dordrecht.
15. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax 1965, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
16. Chomsky N. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English Transformational Grammar 1970, 184-221. Ginn and Company, Waltham, MA. R. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum (Eds.).
17. Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding 1981, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
18. Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program 1995, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Cuervo M.C. Datives at Large 2003, Department of Linguistics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
20. Doron E. Agency and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 2003, 11:1-67.
21. Dowty D.R. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ 1979, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
22. Embick D. Features, syntx and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 2000, 31:185-230.
23. Embick D. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 2004, 35:355-392.
24. Embick D. Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology 2010, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
25. Embick D., Marantz A. Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense: comments on the paper by Ullman et al. Brain and Language 2005, 93:243-247.
26. Embick D., Marantz A. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 2008, 39:1-53.
27. Embick D., Noyer R. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 2001, 32:555-595.
28. Fillmore C.J. The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory 1967, 1-88. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. E. Bach, R. Harms (Eds.).
29. Fodor J.A. Three reasons for not deriving " kill" from " cause to die" Linguistic Inquiry 1970, 1:429-438.
30. Folli R., Harley H. Flavors of v. Aspectual Inquiries 2005, 95-120. Springer, Dordrecht. P. Kempchinsky, R. Slabakova (Eds.).
31. Folli R., Harley H. The syntax of argument structure: evidence from Italian complex predicates. Journal of Linguistics 2012, 1-33.
32. Friedmann N., Taranto G., Shapiro L.P., Swinney D. The leaf fell (the leaf): the online processing of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 2008, 39:355-377.
33. Gibson E., Fedorenko E. The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 10.1080/01690965.2010.515080.
34. Gibson E., Fedorenko E. Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2010, 14:233-234.
35. Goldberg A.E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure 1995, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
36. Grimshaw J. Argument Structure 1990, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
37. Grimshaw J., Mester A. Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 1988, 19:205-232.
38. Hale K.L., Keyser S.J. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The View from Building 20 1993, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. K. Hale, S.J. Keyser (Eds.).
39. Hale K.L., Keyser S.J. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure 2002, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Halle M., Marantz A. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The View From Building 20 1993, 111-176. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. K. Hale, S.J. Keyser (Eds.).
41. Harley H. Subjects, events and licensing 1995, Department of Linguistics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
42. Harley H. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation 2005, 42-64. Oxford University Press, Oxford. N. Erteschik-Shir, T. Rapoport (Eds.).
43. Harves S., Kayne R. Having Need and needing Have. Linguistic Inquiry 2012, 43:120-132.
44. Hyman L. Suffix ordering in Bantu: a morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 2002:245-281.
45. Irwin P. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces 2012, New York University, New York City.
46. Jackendoff R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar 1972, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
47. Jackendoff R. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 1987, 18:369-412.
48. Jackendoff R. A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 2007, 1146:2-22.
49. Johnson S.P. Neoconstructivism: The New Science of Cognitive Development 2010, Oxford University Press, New York.
50. Kallulli D. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 2007, 38:770-780.
51. Koopman H. Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 2005, 36:601-633.
52. Kratzer A. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon 1996, 109-137. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. J. Rooryck, L. Zaring (Eds.).
53. Kratzer A. Building statives. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 2000, 385-399. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley. L. Conathan (Ed.).
54. Landau I. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers 2009, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
55. Larson R.K. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 1988, 19:335-391.
56. Levin B. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation 1993, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
57. Levin B., Rappaport M. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 1986, 17:623-661.
58. Levin B., Rappaport M. Approaches to unaccusative mismatches. 19th Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 1989, 314-328.
59. Levin B., Rappaport Hovav M. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface 1995, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
60. Levin B., Rappaport Hovav M. Argument Realization 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York.
61. Levinson L. The Roots of Verbs 2007, ProQuest Information and Learning Company, Ann Arbor, MI.
62. Levinson L. Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2010, 28:135-182.
63. Marantz A. No escape from syntax: don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 1997, 4:201-225.
64. Marantz A. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review 2005, 22:429-445.
65. Mateu J. Argument Structure: Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface 2002, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.
66. Matushansky O. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 2006, 37:69-109.
67. McGinnis M. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2001, 1:105-146.
68. McIntyre A. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells. Linguistics 2004, 42:523-571.
69. Miyagawa S. (S)ase as an elsewhere causative and the syntactic nature of words. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 1998, 16:67-110.
70. Miyagawa S. Causatives. The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics 1999, 236-268. Blackwell, Oxford. N. Tujimura (Ed.).
71. Moro A. Dynamic antisymmetry: movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 1997, 51:50-76.
72. Morris J., Stockall L. Early, equivalent ERP masked priming effects for regular and irregular morphology. Brain and Language 2012, 123:81-93.
73. Pensalfini R.J. Jingulu Grammar, Dictionary, and Texts 1997, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
74. Perlmutter D.M. Studies in Relational Grammar 1983, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
75. Pesetsky D. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades 1996, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
76. Pinker S. Rules of language. Science 1991, 253:530-535.
77. Postal P.M. On the surface verb 'remind'. Linguistic Inquiry 1970, 1:37-120.
78. Postal P.M. Edge-based Clausal Syntax: A Study of (mostly) English Object Structure 2011, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
79. Pylkkänen L. Introducing Arguments 2008, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
80. Ramchand G. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-phase Syntax 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York.
81. Roark B., Bachrach A., Cardenas C., Pallier C. Deriving lexical and syntactic expectation-based measures for psycholinguistic modeling via incremental top-down parsing. 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2009, 324-333. Association for Computational Linguistics.
82. Rosen C. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. Studies in Relational Grammar 1984, vol. 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
83. Sapir E. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech 1921, Harcourt Brace, New York.
84. Schäfer F. The Syntax of (anti-) Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts 2008, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
85. Shetreet E., Friedmann N., Hadar U. The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:2306-2315.
86. Solomyak O., Marantz A. Evidence for early morphological decomposition in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:2042-2057.
87. Sorace A. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface 2004, 243-268. Oxford University Press, Oxford. A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, M. Everaert (Eds.).
88. Sprouse J., Almeida D. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger's Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 2012, 48:609-652.
89. Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., Almeida, D., 2011. Assessing the reliability of journal data in syntax: Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010. lingBuzz/001352.
90. Stockall L., Marantz A. A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 2006, 1:85-123.
91. Svenonius P. Adpositions particles and the arguments they introduce. Argument Structure 2007, 63-103. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. E.J. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya, G. Spathas (Eds.).
92. Thompson C.K. Unaccusative verb production in agrammatic aphasia: the argument structure complexity hypothesis. Journal of Neurolinguistics 2003, 16:151-167.
93. Thompson C.K., Shapiro L.P. Complexity in treatment of syntactic deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2007, 16:30-42.
94. von Stechow A. The different readings of wieder 'again': a structural account. Journal of Semantics 1996, 13:87-138.
95. Wood J. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure 2012, New York University, New York City.