Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:30:37.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saturation and reification in adjectival diathesis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2009

IDAN LANDAU
IDAN LANDAU*
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University
*
Author's address: Department of Foreign Literatures & Linguistics, Ben Gurion University, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of adjectival diathesis alternations lags behind the study of verbal diathesis and nominalization. This paper aims to diminish the gap by applying to the adjectival domain theoretical tools with proven success elsewhere. We focus on evaluative adjectives, which display a systematic alternation between a basic variant (John was rude) and a derived one (That was rude of John). The alternation brings about a cluster of syntactic and semantic changes – in the semantic type of the predicate, its valency and the mode of argument projection. We argue that the adjectival variants are related by the joint application of two operators: a lexical saturation operator (also seen in verbal passive) and a syntactic reification operator (also seen in nominalization). The analysis straightforwardly extends to similar alternations with Subject- and Object-Experiencer adjectives (proud, irritating). Among its important implications are (i) lexical saturation is not restricted to external arguments (internal ones may also be saturated), and (ii) ‘referential’ (R) roles are not restricted to nominal predicates (adjectives may assign them as well).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 315 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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]

Material from this paper has been presented in the Syntax, Lexicon and Event Structure Workshop in the Hebrew University (July 2006) and in the NORMS Workshop on Argument Structure in Lund University (February 2008). I thank the audiences at these workshops and two JL referees for their useful feedback. Special thanks to Heidy Harley, who made valuable comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2002. The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2000. Adjectives and argument structure. In Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin & Grimshaw, Jane (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 27–69. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Studies on the syntax–lexicon interface (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), 84–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1999. The forming, the formation and the form of nominals. Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Kanerva, Joni M.. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study in factorization in gammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Ergative adjectives and the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb–particle, triadic and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Jingki. 1994. On deriving Chinese derived nominals: Evidence for Parallel Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingki, Roeper, Thomas & Borer, Hagit. 2001. The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP-anaphor do-so. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 549–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 1991. Verbal nouns: Theta theoretic studies in Hebrew and Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593.Google Scholar
Higgins, Roger F. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1988. Stage level and individual level predicates. In Krifka, Manfred (ed.), Genericity in natural language (SNS-Bericht 88-42), 247–284. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. To appear. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 113–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Semantic and morphological restrictions in experiencer predicates. In Jensen, John T. & Herk, Gerard van (eds.), The 2000 CLA Annual Conference, 245–256. Ottawa: Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1990. Experiencer predicates and universal alignment principles. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2001. Experiencing derivations. In Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan & Zvolenszky, Zsófia (eds.), 11th Conference of Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 229–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon–syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 389–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head–complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 267–310.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1987. The syntactic projection of lexical thematic structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 561–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114, 1465–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard W. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1991. The alignment of arguments in adjective phrases. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Syntax and Semantics 25), 105–135. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valois, Daniel. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Robert. 1970. Factive complements and action complements. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 6, 425–444. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Robert. 1976. Modes of predication and implied adverbial complements. Foundations of Language 14, 153–194.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar