View More View Less
  • 1 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
  • 2 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Full access

In this paper we claim that location and locatum verbs are grammatically different, contrary to some recent analyses (Mateu 2001; 2008; Harley 2005). While aspectual tests are known to distinguish both classes, we adduce new evidence from degree quantification tests pointing in the same direction. In particular, location verbs seem to be change-of-state verbs, and locatum verbs behave rather like degree achievements and unergative verbs of variable telicity. We claim that these differences must be accounted for in the syntactic representation of locative verbs. While location verbs involve an abstract bounded path, articulated through the combination of a Path preposition and a Place preposition, locatum verbs involve an abstract predicative preposition that allows for degree quantification of the root and contextually determined (a)telicity.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abusch, Dorit. 1986. Verbs of change, causation, and time Report CSLI-86-50. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

  • Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2006. Una aproximació sintàctica als verbs prefixats en català. Estudios Catalanes 4. 4178.

  • Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2010. Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat de Barcelona.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bassani, Indaiá. 2012. Morphology-syntax interface: The relation between prefixes of Brazilian Portuguese and argument structure. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18. 1120.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Mario Squartini. 1995. An attempt at defining the class of ‘Gradual Completion’ verbs. In P. M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham and M. Squartini (eds.) Temporal reference aspect and actionality. Vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. 1126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Binnick, Robert. 1969. Studies in the derivation of predicative structures. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.

  • Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bosque, Ignacio and Pascual J. Masullo. 1998. On verbal quantification in Spanish. In O. Fullana and F. Roca (eds.) Studies on the syntax of central Romance languages. Girona: Universitat de Girona. 963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 767811.

  • Declerck, Renaat. 1979. Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics 17. 761794.

  • Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 1996. Prefixes and suffixes. In C. C. Parodi, M. S. Quicoli and M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Aspects of Romance linguistics. Revised versions of papers presented at the XXIV Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, held in Los Angeles, California, March 10–13, 1994. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 177194.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative syntax and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley. 2006. On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica 60. 121155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gallego, Ángel and Aritz Irurtzun. 2010. Verbal quantification in Romance revisited: An l-syntax approach. Paper presented at the Workshop on Verb Meaning, Event Semantics and Argument Structure, December 2–3, 2010, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In P. Muysken and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) Features and projections. Dodrecht: Foris. 233254.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure (Lexicon Project Working Paper 34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993a. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale & Keyser (1993b, 53109).

    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). 1993b. The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1994a. Constraints on argument structure. In B. Lust, M. Suñer and J. Whitman (eds.) Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Vol. 1: Heads, projections and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. 5371.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1994b. On the complex nature of simple predicators. Manuscript. MIT.

  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997. The limits of argument structure. In A. M. Mendikoetxea and M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.) Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface. Bilbao/Donostia-San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco and Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa. 203230.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale & Keyser (1993b, 111176).

  • Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir and T. Rapoport (eds.) The syntax of aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4264.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harley, Heidi and Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed morphology. GLOT International 4. 39.

  • Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘Degree Achievements’. In T. Mathews and D. Strolovitch (eds.) Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) IX. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University. 12744.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117. 2666.

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.) Complex predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 473499.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In W. Greuder and M. Butt (eds.) The projection of arguments. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 265307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kopecka, Anetta. 2006. The semantic structure of motion verbs in French. In M. Hickmann and S. Robert (eds.) Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26. 385399.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas (eds.) Semantics and contextual expression. Dordrecht: Foris. 75115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. A. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (eds.) Lexical matters: From cognitive structures to syntactic structures. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 2953.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.) Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 187235.

  • Labelle, Marie. 2000. The semantic representation of denominal verbs. In P. Coopmans, M. Everaert and J. Grimshaw (eds.) Lexical specification and insertion. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 215240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MacDonald, Jonathan. 2008. The syntax of inner aspect. A Minimalist perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201225.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130. 152168.

  • Mateu, Jaume. 2001. On the relational semantics of transitive denominal verbs. In M. L. Jungl, O. F. Soriano and M. V. E. Vidal (eds.) Current issues in generative grammar. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá. 143164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. http://seneca.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/index.html

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mateu, Jaume. 2008. Argument structure and denominal verbs. Paper presented at the Workshop on Bare Singulars, Argument Structure, and Their Interpretation, December 11–12, 2008, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnibility and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Real-Puigdollers, Cristina. 2013. Lexicalization by phase: The role of prepositions in argument structure and its cross-linguistic variation. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rosselló, Joana. 2008. El SV I: Verb i arguments verbals. In J. Solà, M. R. Lloret, J. Mascaró and M. P. Saldany (eds.) Gramàtica del Català Contemporani. Vol. 2: Sintaxi. Barcelona: Empúries. 18531949.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stechow, Arnim von. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In U. Egli, P. E. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow and G. Wienold (eds.) Lexical knowledge in the organization of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 81177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stechow, Arnim von. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13. 87138.

  • Tenny, Carol L. 1989. The aspectual interface hypothesis. Lexicon Project Working Papers 31. 247.

  • Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Volpe, Mark. 2004. Affected object unergatives. Snippets 8. 1213.

  • Zwarts, Joost. 1997. Vectors as relative positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics 14. 5786.

  • Zwarts, Joost and Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9. 169211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation