Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-30T00:29:08.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

I - Syntax–Lexicon Interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2019

Edited by
Mónica Cabrera  and
José Camacho
Mónica Cabrera
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, California
José Camacho
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Transfer, i.e. the influence of the first language (L1) in the interlanguage (IL), is a characteristic phenomenon of the process of second language (L2) acquisition. In the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), different theories have been proposed to predict how and in which stages the grammatical properties for the L1 are manifested in the IL. According to the theory of Full Transfer / Full Access (Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996), the grammar of the L1 in its entirety is the initial state of the IL. Afterwards, depending on the properties of the L1 and L2, the linguistic input to which the learner is exposed acts as a triggering factor in the reconstruction of the IL grammar. This restructuring process is conditioned by Universal Grammar (UG); for the most part, the IL complies with the restrictions imposed by UG during this whole process.

Type
Chapter
Information
Exploring Interfaces , pp. 13 - 108
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Braine, M. D., Brody, R. E., Fisch, S. M., Weisberger, M. J., & Blum, M. (1990). Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language, 17(2), 313–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruhn de Garavito, J. (1999). The se constructions in Spanish and near-native competence. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3, 247–95.Google Scholar
Cabrera, M. (2008). The L2 Acquisition of English and Spanish Causative Structures: A Bidirectional Study. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Cabrera, M. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2003). On the acquisition of Spanish causative structures by L1 speakers of English. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H., eds., Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002): L2 Links. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 24–33.Google Scholar
Cabrera, M. & Zubizarreta, M. L.(2006). Transfer in periphrastic causatives in L2 English and L2 Spanish. In Baauw., S., Drijkoningen, F., & Pinto, M., eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2002). Induction in a modular learner. Second Language Research, 18(3), 224–49.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–73.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2004). Romance se as an aspectual element. In Auger, J., Clements, J. C., & Vance, B., eds., Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers From the 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 239–56.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the Syntax–Semantics Interface, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2001). First language constrained variability in the second language acquisition of argument structure changing morphology with causative verbs. Second Language Research, 17(2), 144–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.(2003). Language processing capacity. In Doughty, C. & Long, M., eds., The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 679–714.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B., eds., Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 317–68.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A.(1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer / Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1978). Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. In Hatch, E. M., ed., Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 101–17.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1980). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30(1), 43–57.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. & Oh, E. (2007). On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

References

Arche, M. (2006). Individuals in time: tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arche, M., Fábregas, A., & Marín, R. (2014). Argument structure and aspect in adjectives and participles: where are we? Lingua, 149, Special Issue, 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H. (2000). Adjectives and argument structure. In Coopmans, P., Everaert, M., & Grimshaw, J., eds., Lexical specification and lexical insertion. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 27–69.Google Scholar
Bennis, H.(2004). Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In Alexiadou, A. & Everaert, M., eds., Studies in unaccusativity: the syntax–lexicon interface. Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense: in name only, vol. I. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Ergative adjectives and the lexicalist hypothesis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 8, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demonte, V. & Fernández-Soriano, O. (2014). Evidentiality and illocutionary force: Spanish matrix “que” at the syntax–semantics interface. In Dufter, A. & Octavio de Toledo, Á. S., eds., Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: diachronic, variationist, and typological perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 217–52.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A., Leferman, B., & Marín, R. (2013). Evaluative adjectives are Davidsonian states. In Chemla, E., Homer, V., & Winterstein, G., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 17. Retrieved fromhttp://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012, pp. 237–53.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. (1988). On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 27–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gumiel-Molina, S., Moreno-Quibén, N., & Pérez-Jiménez, I. (2015). Comparison classes and the relative/absolute distinction: a degree-based compositional account of the ser/estar alternation in Spanish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33(3), 955–1001.Google Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–93.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N.(2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kertz, L. (2006). Evaluative adjectives: an adjunct control analysis. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., & Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 229–35.Google Scholar
Kertz, L.(2010). The argument structure of evaluative adjectives: a case of pseudo-raising. In Hornstein, N. & Polinsky, M., eds., Movement theory of control. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 269–98.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J., eds., The generic book. University of Chicago Press, pp. 125–75.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Introduction to genericity. In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J., eds., The generic book. University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–124.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (1999). Elements of control (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Landau, I.(2007). Movement-resistant aspects of control. In Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S., eds., New horizons in the analysis of control and raising. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 293–325.Google Scholar
Landau, I.(2009). Saturation and reification in adjectival diathesis. Journal of Linguistics, 45(2), 315–61.Google Scholar
Léger, C. (2010). Sentential complementation of adjectives in French. In Cabredo-Hofherr, P. & Matushansky, O., eds., Adjectives: formal analyses in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 265–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1991). Wiping the slate clean: a lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41, 123–51.Google Scholar
Martin, F. (2015). Relative stupidity and past tenses. Cahiers Chronos, 27, 79–100.Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2012). The subject of adjectives: syntactic position and semantic interpretation. The Linguistic Review, 29(2), 149–90.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. (1995). The copy theory of movement and linearization of chain in the MP (unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Nunes, J.(2001). Sideward Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 431–52.Google Scholar
Oshima, D. (2009). Between being wise and acting wise: a hidden condition in some constructions with propensity adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 363–93.Google Scholar
Piñón, C. (2015). Generous behavior. Paper presented at Dispositions Workshop 2015, University of Stuttgart, 25–27 June.Google Scholar
Rákosi, G. (2006). Dative experiencer predicates in Hungarian (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. (2001). Configurations of sentential complementation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J.(2007). Control via selection. In Dubinsky, S. & Davies, W., eds., New horizons in the grammar of raising and control. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 281–92.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1991). The alignment of arguments in adjective phrases. In Rothstein, S., ed., Perspectives on phrase structure: heads and licensing, Syntax and Semantics, 25. New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–35.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. (1970). Factive complements and action complements. In Campbell, M., Lindholm, J., Davidson, A., et al., eds., Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 16–18 April. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 425–44.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R.(1976). Modes of predication and implied adverbial complements. Foundations of Language, 14, 153–94.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1985). The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 247–89.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L.(1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

References

Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2015). External arguments in transitivity alternations: a layering approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Basilico, D. (2010). The se clitic and its relationship to paths. Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics, 22, 271–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bello, A. (1847). Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Buenos Aires: Losada.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. (1997). Preposición tras preposición. In Almeida, M., ed., Contribuciones al estudio de la lingüística hispánica: homenaje a Ramón Trujillo, vol. I. Tenerife: Montesinos, pp. 13–145.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J., eds., The view from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.(1995). The minimalist program. Current Studies in Linguistics, 28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Cuyper, G. (2006). La estructura léxica de la resultatividad y su expresión en las lenguas germánicas y románicas. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (2002). Preliminares de una clasificación léxico-sintáctica de los predicados verbales del español. In Grosse, S. & Schönberger, A., eds., Ex oriente lux: Festchrift für Eberhard Gärtner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Valentia, pp. 121–44.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. (2003). On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases. Unpublished ms. City University of New York.Google Scholar
Folli, R. (2001). Constructing telicity in English and in Italian (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oxford University.Google Scholar
Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2006). On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica, 60(2), 121–55.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure, Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J., eds., The view from Building 20. Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–110.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. & Keyser, S. J.(2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.(1996). The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 305–54.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2004). Romance SE as an aspectual element. In Auger, J., Clements, Clancy, & Vance, Barbara, eds., Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 239–56.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J., & van Emde Boas, P., eds., Semantics and contextual expression. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 75–115.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. (1997). Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: the structure of Dutch PPs. Ms., University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: at the syntax – lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayoral Hernández, R. (2008). The locative alternation: unaccusative constructions and subject position (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mayoral Hernández, R.(2010). The locative alternation: on the symmetry between verbal and prepositional locative paradigms. Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics, 22(2), 211–39.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, A. (1999). Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V., eds., Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa, pp. 1575–630.Google Scholar
Nishida, C. (1994). The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker. Linguistics, 32, 425–58.Google Scholar
Pérez Jiménez, I. & Moreno Quibén, N. (2007). ¿Son todos los verbos inacusativos aspectualmente télicos en español? El papel de la telicidad en la interficie léxico-sintaxis. In Cano López, Pablo, ed., Actas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General. Madrid: Arco-Libros, pp. 1807–20.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española: CREA Corpus [online]. Corpus de referencia del español actual. www.rae.es.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2008). The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–90.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structures in lexical forms. In Shopen, T., ed., Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III:grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L.(1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L.(1995). How motion verbs are special: the interaction of semantic and pragmatic information in aspectual verb meanings. Pragmatics and Cognition, 3, 31–7.Google Scholar
Tortora, C. (2005). The preposition’s preposition in Italian: evidence for boundedness of space. In Gess, R. & Rubin, E., eds., Current issues in linguistic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 307–27.Google Scholar
Tortora, C.(2006). On the aspect of space: the case of PLACE in Italian and Spanish. In Penello, N. & Pescarini, D., eds., Atti dell’undicesima giornata di dialettologia, Quaderni di lavoro ASIS, 5. Padua: CNR, pp. 50–69.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–60.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (1996). Compositionality of aspect: evidence from Spanish aspectual se. In Parodi, C., Quicoli, C., Saltarelli, M., and Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Aspects of Romance linguistics: selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 475–88.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. & Oh, E. (2007). On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

References

Abusch, D. (1986). Verbs of change, causation and time. Technical report, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2013). Deriving color adjectival nominalizations. Linguistica, 8, 143–58.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, R. & Jayaseelan, K. A. (2005). Finiteness and negation in Dravidian. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R. S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 178–220.Google Scholar
Asher, R. E. & Kumari, T. C. (1997). Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clapp, L. (2012). Indexical color-predicates: truth-conditional semantics vs. truth- conditional pragmatics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 42(2), 71–100.Google Scholar
Deo, A., Francez, I., & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2013). From change to value difference in degree achievements. In Snider, T., ed., Proceedings of the 23rd Semantics and Linguistics Theory Conference. Retrieved from https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/85.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.(1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francez, I. & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2015). Semantic variation and the grammar of property concepts. Language, 91, 533–63.Google Scholar
Hansen, N. (2011). Color adjectives and radical contextualism. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(3), 201–21.Google Scholar
Hansen, N. & Chemla, E. (2017). Color adjectives, standards, and thresholds: an experimental investigation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(3), 239–78.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements.” In Matthews, T. & Strolovitch, D., eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) IX. Retrieved from https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/100, pp. 127–44.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1975). Two theories of adjectives. In Keenan, E., ed., Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–55.Google Scholar
Kang, C. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2017). Degree achievements in across-individuals. In Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M., and Rubin, E., eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 303–10.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 1–45.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. & Levin, B. (2008). Measure of change: the adjectival core of degree achievements. In McNally, L. & Kennedy, C., eds., Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse. Oxford University Press, pp. 156–82.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–8.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. & McNally, L.(2010). Color, Context and Compositionality. Synthese, 174(1), 79–98.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 1–45.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. & Beavers, J. (2017). Change of state verbs and the semantics of roots. In Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M., and Rubin, E., eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 379–86.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. (2003). The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, J. W. (2006). Time in a language without tense: the case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1–53.Google Scholar
Lin, J. W.(2010). A tenseless analysis of Mandarin Chinese revisited: a response to Sybesma 2007. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 305–29.Google Scholar
McNally, L. (2011). Color terms: a case study in natural language ontology. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Nounhood and Adjectivehood, UAB/CSIC, Barcelona, 25 March.Google Scholar
McNally, L. & de Swart, H. (2011). Inflection and derivation: how adjectives and nouns refer to abstract objects. Pre-proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, 425–34.Google Scholar
Menon, M. (2013). The apparent lack of adjectival category in Malayalam and other related languages. In Goto, N., Otaki, K., Sato, A., & Takita, K., eds., Proceedings of Glow-in-Asia IX 2012: The Main Session. Mie University, Japan. Retrieved from http://faculty.human.mie-u.ac.jp/~glow_mie/IX_Proceedings_Oral/GLOWIXProceedings_Final.pdf, pp. 157–71.Google Scholar
Menon, M.(2016). Building adjectival meaning without adjectives (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Menon, M. & Pancheva, R. (2014). The grammatical life of property concept roots in Malayalam. In Etxeberria, U., Fălăuș, A., Irurtzun, A., & Leferman, B., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung. Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013, pp. 289–302.Google Scholar
Menon, M. & Pancheva, R.(2016). Decomposing color expressions in Malayalam. In Sundaresan, S. & Balusu, R., eds., Proceedings of FASAL V. Retrieved from https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/jsal/index.php/fasal/issue/view/14, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Mohanan, T. & Mohanan, K. P. (2009). Multiple tenses in the Malayalam verb. In Hanson, K. & Inkelas, S., eds., The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 359–85.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013). On the distinction between abstract states, concrete states, and tropes. In Mari, A., Beyssade, C., & Del Prete, F., eds., Genericity. Oxford University Press, pp. 292–311.Google Scholar
Pillai, K. (1965). Malayalam Lexicon. Trivandrum: University of Kerala.Google Scholar
Sassoon, G. & Toledo, A. (2011). Absolute and relative adjectives and their comparison classes. Ms., Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Toledo, A. & Sassoon, G. (2011). Absolute vs. relative adjectives – variance within vs. between individuals. In Ashton, N., Chereches, A., & Lutz, D., eds. Proceedings of SALT 21. Retrieved from https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/88, pp. 135–54.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2011). Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 257–303.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. (2006). Closure and telicity across categories. In Gibson, M. & Howell, J., eds., Semantics and Linguistic Theory 16. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, pp. 329–46.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. & Oh, E. (2007). On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (2005). Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 739–79.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×