An aspectual account of constructions headed by unergatives and unaccusatives
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 outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Aspectual roles and thematic roles
- i.The measure aspectual role
- ii.The terminus aspectual role
- iii.The path aspectual role
- 2.2Aspectual structure and argument structure
- 2.3Delimitedness and its specification
- 2.4Event delimiting image and delimiting markers
- 3.Syntactic and semantic attributes of unergatives and unaccusatives
- 3.1Constructions derived from unergatives
- 3.1.1The cognate object construction
- 3.1.2The his/her way construction
- 3.1.3Reflexive object construction
- 3.1.4Expletive body parts construction
- 3.2Constructions derived from unaccusatives
- 3.2.1Syntactic contrast between agents and themes/patients
- 3.2.2Location/theme alternation construction
- 3.2.3
There-be construction
- 3.2.4Unaccuative verb die in cognate object construction
- 4.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (43)
References
Anderson, S. (1977). Comments on the Paper by Wasow. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 361–378). New York: Academic Press.
Beavers, J. (2013). Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics (54): 681–706. 

Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (6): 291–352. 

Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax, A Government and Binding Approach. Rdidel, Dordrecht.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Davidson, D. (1967). The Logical Form of Action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson (1980), Essays on Action and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dirven, R. (2001). English particle verbs: Theory and didactic application. In M. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht. 

Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (Eds), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–90). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winson.
Gries, S. T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics,
10
(2): 105–145. 

Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Han, J. (2020). On the unaccusativity of the English verb die
. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (6): 817–829.
Han, L. (2017). English transitive particle verbs: Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, (4): 330–354.
Hay, J. et al. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In T. Mathews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), SALT IX (pp. 127–144). Ithaca: CLPC Publications. 

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kennedy, C., & L. McNally. (2005). Scale structure, degree modifications, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, (2): 345–381. 

Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexical Matters, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford.
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, (19): 335–391.
Levin, B. (1985). Lexical Semantics in Review: An Introduction. In B. Levin (Ed), Lexical Semantics in Review, Lexicon Project Working Papers 1, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.
Levin, B. (1989). English Verbal Diathesis, Lexicon Project Working Papers 32, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Levin, B., & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
Macfarland, T. (1995). Cognate Objects and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.
Merlan, F. (1985). Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In J. Nichols & A. Woodbury (Eds), Grammar inside and outside the clause; some approaches to theory from the field (pp. 324–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Massam, D. (1990). Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects, Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 161–190. 

Maya, A. (1996). A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface, UCL Working papers in Linguistics, (8), 1–30.
Nakajima, K. (2006). Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry
37
1: 674–684. 

Ostler, N. (1979). ‘Case Linking: A Theory of Case and Verb Diathesis Applied to Classical Sanskrit’, Ph.D. dissertation.
Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1): 47–65. 

Perlmutter, D. (1983). Studies in Relational Grammar I, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Perlmutter, D., & Postal, P. (1984). ‘The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law’. In D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 81–125). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The Syntax of Event Structure, Cognition,
41
(1–3): 47–81. 

Rothstein, S. (1979). The Syntactic Forms of Predication, PhD. Dissertation, MIT.
Quirk et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1988). ‘What to do with Theta-roles’. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics 211 (pp. 7–36), New York: Academic Press.
Rosen, C. (1984). ‘The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations’. In D. M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 38–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Simpson, J. (1983). Aspects of Warlpiri Morphology and Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 

Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed), Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 199–220). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 

Wechsler, S. (2005). Resultatives under the “Event-Argument Homomorphism”. In N. Erteschitshir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect (255–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Wertheimer, Max. (1923/1950). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–88). New York: Humanities Press.
Zubinarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. 
