Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T19:01:11.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causation, Event Structure and Process Specifying Adverbials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Tavs Bjerre
Tavs Bjerre
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark, Engstien 1, DK-6000 Kolding, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Based on data from Danish, this article examines various linguistic means of expressing causation. It is argued that inchoatives, causatives and accomplishments all denote situations in which one situation – subevent1, is construed as causing another – subevent2. Inchoatives and causatives are described as having different kinds of underspecified subevent1. The bulk of the article is concerned with an analysis of prepositional phrases of a type termed Process Specifying Adverbials, (PSAs). It is argued that PSAs serve to specify subevent1, and their behaviour is seen as corroborating the proposed analysis for inchoatives and causatives. The analysis is formalized within the framework of HPSG.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2001 , pp. 29 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Carrier, J. & Randall, J. 1992. The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 173–234.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1989. A Semantics for Unaccusatives and Its Syntactic Consequences. Ms., Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. 1988. Small Clause Results. Lingua 74, 101–139.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Hovav, M. R. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax– Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1971. Pre-Lexical Syntax. In O'Brien, R. (ed.), Report of the 22nd Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, pp. 19–33.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Sub-atomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1988. The Geometry of Events. In Tenny, C. (ed.), Studies in Generative Approaches to Aspect. Lexicon Working Papers 24, Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition 41, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and Times. In Vendler, Z. (ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Verspoor, C. 1997. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics. Ph.D. thesis. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar