Argument Structure and Argument Realization

doi:10.1017/9781108580410.020

16 - Argument Structure and Argument Realization

from Part Four - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2022

Víctor Acedo-Matellán ,

Jaume Mateu and

Anna Pineda

Edited by

Adam Ledgeway and

Martin Maiden

Show author details

Adam Ledgeway: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Martin Maiden: Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter provides a critical survey of some of the most significant phenomena that show how the study of Romance languages can make a strong contribution to our current theoretical understanding of the principles and empirical generalizations relevant to argument structure and its realization. After defining the notion of argument structure, two different current theoretical approaches to the lexicon–syntax interface are briefly presented: the projectionist one, which is typically adopted in lexicalist frameworks, and the constructivist/neo-constructionist one, which is assumed in non-lexicalist frameworks. The selection of empirical phenomena made in this chapter includes a discussion of the well-known distinction among intransitive verbal predicates (unaccusatives vs unergatives) in the context of Romance linguistics, a review of the crucial role of the Romance clitic se in argument structure and argument realization, a survey of some relevant explorations of events of transferal based on the grammar of dative clitics as well as other aspects of dative-marked arguments in Romance languages, and, finally, a discussion of the prominent place that these languages occupy in the huge literature on Talmy’s lexicalization patterns together with an overview of several refinements made to his initial typology of motion events.

Keywords

argument structure argument realization argument structure alternations event structure unaccusativity clitic SE alternations dative arguments lexicalization patterns

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics , pp. 491 - 518

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580410.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

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

Selected References

Acedo-Matellán, V. and Mateu, J. (2013). ‘Satellite-framed Latin vs verb-framed Romance: a syntactic approach’, Probus 25: 227–65.CrossRef Google Scholar

Acedo-Matellán, V. and Pineda, A. (2019). ‘Light verb constructions in Basque and Romance’. In Ortiz de Urbina, J., Fernández, B., and Berro, A. (eds), Basque and Romance. Aligning Grammars. Leiden: Brill, 176–220.CrossRef Google Scholar

Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L. (1988). ‘Psych-verbs and θ-theory’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRef Google Scholar

Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 2: the Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001.Google Scholar

Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mateu, J. and Rigau, G. (2010). ‘Verb-particle constructions in Romance: a lexical-syntactic account’, Probus 22: 241–69.Google Scholar

Pineda, A. (2016). Les fronteres de la (in)transitivitat. Estudi dels aplicatius en llengües romàniques i basc. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc.Google Scholar

Real-Puigdollers, C. (2013). Lexicalization by Phase: The Role of Prepositions in Argument Structure and Its Cross-linguistic Variation. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar

Rigau, G. (1997). ‘Locative sentences and related constructions in Catalan: ésser/haver alternation’. In Mendikoetxea, A. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds), Theoretical Issues at the Morphology–Syntax Interface. Bilbao/Donosti/San Sebastián: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Gipuzkoa Foru Aldundia, 395–421.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (2004). ‘Gradience at the lexicon–syntax interface: evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity’. In Alexiadou, A. Anagnostopoulou, E., and Everaert, M., (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243–68.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar