Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:16:32.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argument structure licensing and English have1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2011

KYUMIN KIM
KYUMIN KIM*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 4th Floor, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5S 3G3[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides a unified syntactic account of the distribution of English have in causative constructions (e.g. John had Mary read a book) and experiencer constructions (e.g. John had the student walk out of his classroom). It is argued that have is realized in the context of an applicative head (Appl) and an event-introducer v, regardless of the type of v. Have is spelled out in the causative when Appl merges under vCAUSE, and in the experiencer construction when Appl merges under vBE. This proposal is extended to have in possessive constructions (e.g. John has a hat/a brother): have is realized in the context of vBE and Appl. The proposed account provides empirical evidence for expanding the distribution of Appl: (i) a causative can take ApplP as a complement, which was absent in Pylkkänen's (2008) typological classification, and (ii) Appl can merge above Voice, contrary to Pylkkänen's analysis in which Appl is argued to always merge below VoiceP, never above. Moreover, the proposed account supports the theoretical claim that argument structure is licensed by functional syntactic structure; in particular, it shows that the relevant functional heads are not aspectual heads, but Appl and v.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 71 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am grateful to Diane Massam and Elizabeth Cowper for their valuable comments on this work. I thank Cristina Cuervo for comments on various stages of this work. I also thank Sarah Clarke for her helpful suggestions on this paper and two anonymous JL referees for insightful comments and suggestions that helped me improve the paper. All errors are of course mine alone. This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral fellowship 752-2009-2346 to the author, and was also partially supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grant 410-2005-1112 to Diane Massam.

The following annotations are used in the glosses of non-English examples in this paper: 1, 3=first, third person; appl=applicative; aro=aroist; asp=aspect; c=common; cause=causative; dat=dative; erg=ergative; fv=final vowel; gedn=gerund; inst=instrument; nom=nominative; p=preposition; perf=perfect; pl=plural; pre=present; prev=preverb; pst=past; sb=subject; sg=singular; v=verbalizing head v.

References

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–212. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2007. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. WCCFL 25, 40–48.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew & Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
Belvin, Robert Stallings. 1993. The two causative haves are the two possessive haves. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 20, 19–34.Google Scholar
Belvin, Robert Stallings. 1996. Inside events: The non-possessive meanings of possession predicates and semantic conceptualization of events. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Belvin, Robert Stallings & Dikken, Marcel den. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua 101, 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, 19–47.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba. 1993. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. In Mchombo, (ed.), 50–93.Google Scholar
Brunson, Barbara A. & Cowper, Elizabeth. 1992. On the topic of HAVE. In Dick, Carrie, Gomesh, Jila & Wilson, Tom (eds.), Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference (Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics), 43–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1989. Thematic underspecification: The case of have. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 85–93.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1998. Voice system and the syntax/morphology interface. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 41–72.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. In Kempchinsky, Paula & Slabakova, Roumyana (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68, 553–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Cause and control: On the semantics of interpersonal manipulation. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4, 59–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Issac, Massam, Diane & Patchin, Philip. 2009. Faka-Niue: Understanding cause in Niuean. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 31, 1–21.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993a. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, & Keyser, (eds.), 53–109.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.). 1993b. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, & Keyser, (eds.), 111–176.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 275–288.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1998. You're having me on: Aspects of have. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.), La grammaire de la possession, 195–226. Paris: Universiti Paris X – Nanterre.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2004. Wanting, having, and getting: A note on Fodor and Lepore 1998. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2007. External arguments: On the independence of Voice and v. Presented at GLOW, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, Blanco, Mercedes Tubino & Haugen, Jason. 2009. Applicative constructions and suppletive verbs in Hiaki. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 42–51.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2011. High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua 121, 487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. To appear. External argument introducers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1976. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Serving the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, (ed.), 113–150.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 21, 201–225.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax–morphology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1995. Projection and position: Evidence from Georgian. In Costa, João, Goedemans, Rob & van der Vijver, Reuben (eds.), ConSole IV, 203–220. Leiden: Holland Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1997. Case and locality in L-syntax: Evidence from Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 1–20.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001a. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 31, 333–349.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001b. Object asymmetries in a phase theory of syntax. In Jensen, John T. & Herk, Gerard van (eds.), Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, 133–144. Ottawa: Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2005. Perspectives on Phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 183–200.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha & Gerdts, Donna B.. 2004. A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. In Burelle, Sophie & Somesfalean, Stanca (eds.), Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, 154–165. Montréal: Département de linguistique et de didactique des langues, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Mchombo, Sam (ed.). 1984. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. In Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, Andre & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Datives and others cases, 185–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, Léa. 1994. On BE and HAVE in Georgian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 155–171.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Don Lee Fred. 1973. The instrumental case in English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study of subatomic semantis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, David. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1993. Deriving causation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11, 519–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1997. The function of have. Lingua 101, 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In Butt, Myriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projections of arguments, 135–164. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2009. Intentionality, high applicatives, and aspect: Involuntary state constructions in Bulgarian and Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27.1, 151–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1976. The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simango, Silvester Ron. 1995. The syntax of Bantu double object constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South California.Google Scholar
Simango, Silvester Ron. 2004. Bantu complex predicates, grammatical functions and the thematic hierarchy. In Githiora, Chege, Littlefield, Heather & Manfredi, Victor (eds.), Trends in African linguistics 6, 201–215. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative type. In Shibatani, (ed.), 43–116.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1994. Event Phrase and a theory of functional categories. Presented at the Canadian Linguistics Association meeting, 1994, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Tenny, Carol & Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 145–185. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar