1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 1, 2015
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 1, 2015

Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations

Abstract

After setting out the challenges posed by argument alternations for linguistic theory, this article reviews the development of accounts of argument alternations over the past 50 years, documenting a shift from accounts that are primarily syntactic in nature to accounts with semantic and pragmatic components. The remainder of this review consists of case studies of the developing understanding of the semantics and pragmatics of the dative alternation and the causative alternation. Each case study stresses the interplay of semantic and contextual factors in characterizing the relation between the two variants that make up the alternation and in determining the choice of variant in a given context.

Keyword(s): argument realization, causative alternation, dative alternation
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141
2015-01-14
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/1/1/annurev-linguist-030514-125141.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alexiadou A, Anagnostopoulou E. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative–inchoative alternation: evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface Alexiadou A, Anagnostopoulou E, Everaert M. 114–36 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou A, Anagnostopoulou E, Schäfer F. 2006. The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. Phases of Interpretation Frascarelli M. 187–211 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  3. Allerton DJ. 2006. Valency grammar. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Brown EK. 301–14 Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anttila A, Adams M, Speriosu M. 2010. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25:946–81 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold JE, Wasow T, Losongco A, Ginstrom R. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76:28–55 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker MC. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax Haegeman L. 73–137 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  7. Barss A, Lasnik H. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguist. Inq. 17:347–54 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beavers J. 2011. On affectedness. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29:335–70 [Google Scholar]
  9. Billings LA. 2007. Maranao, voice, and diathesis. Piakandatu ami Dr. Howard P. McKaughan Billings L, Goudswaard N. 30–35 Manila: Linguist. Soc. Philipp./SIL [Google Scholar]
  10. Bley-Vroman R, Yoshinaga N. 1992. Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. ESL 11:157–99 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boas HC. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  12. Boas HC. 2010. Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions. Lingua 120:22–34 [Google Scholar]
  13. Borer H. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexicon. The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory Moore J, Polinsky M. 31–67 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  14. Borer H. 2005a. Structuring Sense, Vol. I: In Name Only. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  15. Borer H. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Vol. II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  16. Bowerman M. 1996. Argument structure and learnability: Is a solution in sight?. Proceedings of the 22nd Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Johnson J, Juge ML, Moxley JL. 454–68 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowerman M, Croft W. 2007. Does meaning predict syntactic frames? The acquisition of the English causative alternation. Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability Bowerman M, Brown P. 279–307 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  18. Bresnan J. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations3–86 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Bresnan J, Cueni A, Nikitina T, Baayen H. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation Bouma G, Krämer I, Zwarts J. 69–94 Amsterdam: R. Neth. Acad. Sci. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bresnan J, Ford M. 2010. Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86:168–213 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bresnan J, Nikitina T. 2009. On the gradience of the dative alternation. Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life Wee LH, Uyechi L. 161–84 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bruening B. 2010a. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguist. Inq. 41:519–62 [Google Scholar]
  23. Bruening B. 2010b. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguist. Inq. 41:287–305 [Google Scholar]
  24. Burzio L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
  25. Campbell AL, Tomasello M. 2001. The acquisition of English dative constructions. Appl. Psycholinguist. 22:253–67 [Google Scholar]
  26. Chierchia G. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface Alexiadou A, Anagnostopoulou E, Everaert M. 22–59 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  28. Collins P. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: an informational approach. Linguistics 33:35–49 [Google Scholar]
  29. Colleman T, De Clerck B. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: on semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cogn. Linguist. 22:183–209 [Google Scholar]
  30. Croft W. 1994. The semantics of subjecthood. Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory Yaguello M. 29–75 Paris: Ophrys [Google Scholar]
  31. Cuervo MC, Roberge Y. 2012. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 38: The End of Argument Structure Bingley, UK: Emerald [Google Scholar]
  32. Davidse K. 1996. Functional dimensions of the dative in English. The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies van Belle W, van Langendonck W. 289–338 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  33. De Clerck B, Verroens F, Willems D, Colleman T. 2011. The syntactic flexibility of (new) verbs of instrument of communication: a corpus-based study. Funct. Lang. 18:57–86 [Google Scholar]
  34. DeLancey S. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Stud. Lang. 8:181–213 [Google Scholar]
  35. Doron E. 2003. Agent and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates. Nat. Lang. Semant. 11:1–67 [Google Scholar]
  36. Dowty DR. 1978. Lexically governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague Grammar. Linguist. Inq. 9:393–426 [Google Scholar]
  37. Dowty DR. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
  38. Dowty DR. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547–619 [Google Scholar]
  39. Dryer MS. 1986. On primary objects, secondary objects and antidative. Language 62:808–45 [Google Scholar]
  40. Emonds J. 1972. Evidence that indirect-object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Found. Lang. 8:546–61 [Google Scholar]
  41. Erteschik-Shir N. 1979. Discourse constraints on dative movement. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax Givón T. 441–67 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  42. Fiengo RW. 1980. Surface Structure: The Interface of Autonomous Components Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  43. Fillmore CJ. 1965. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations The Hague: Mouton
  44. Fillmore CJ. 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory Bach E, Harms RT. 1–88 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston [Google Scholar]
  45. Fodor J. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die. Linguist. Inq. 1:429–38 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gawron JM. 2008. The lexical semantics of extent verbs. Work. pap San Diego State Univ. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ghomeshi J, Massam D. 1995. Lexical/syntactic relations without projection. Linguist. Anal. 24:175–217 [Google Scholar]
  48. Goldberg AE. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cogn. Linguist. 3:37–74 [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldberg AE. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  50. Goldberg AE. 2002. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cogn. Linguist. 13:327–56 [Google Scholar]
  51. Goldsmith J. 1980. Meaning and mechanism in grammar. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics Kuno S. 423–49 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Green G. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
  53. Gries ST. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annu. Rev. Cogn. Linguist. 1:1–28 [Google Scholar]
  54. Gundel JK. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. Studies in Syntactic Typology Hammond M, Moravcsik E, Wirth J. 209–39 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  55. Hale KL, Keyser SJ. 1986. Some transitivity alternations in English. Lexicon Proj. work. pap. 7, Cent. Cogn. Sci., MIT, Cambridge, MA
  56. Hale K, Keyser SJ. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  57. Hall B. 1965. Subject and object in English. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 95 pp.
  58. Haspelmath M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and Transitivity Comrie B, Polinsky M. 87–120 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  59. Haspelmath M. 2015. Ditransitive constructions. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 1:19–41 [Google Scholar]
  60. Haspelmath M, Calude A, Spagnol M, Narrog H, Bamyaci E. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: a form–frequency correspondence explanation. J. Linguist. 50:587–625 [Google Scholar]
  61. Harley H. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook Pica P, Rooryck J. 2:31–70 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  62. Inagaki S. 1997. Japanese and Chinese learners’ acquisition of the narrow-range rules for the dative alternation in English. Lang. Learn. 47:637–69 [Google Scholar]
  63. Iwata S. 2005. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cogn. Linguist. 16:355–407 [Google Scholar]
  64. Iwata S. 2008. Locative Alternation: A Lexical–Constructional Approach Amsterdam: Benjamins
  65. Jackendoff RS. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51:639–71 [Google Scholar]
  66. Jackendoff RS. 1990. Semantic Structures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  67. Juffs A. 2000. An overview of the second language acquisition of links between verb semantics and morpho-syntax. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory Archibald J. 187–227 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  68. Kahtouni P. 2010. City gives war memorial quick facelift; Brantwood Place Gates get temporary fix. Ottawa Citizen, April 15, p. C7
  69. Katz JJ, Postal PM. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  70. Kemmer S. 1993. The Middle Voice Amsterdam: Benjamins
  71. Kim M. 1999. A cross-linguistic perspective on the acquisition of locative verbs. PhD thesis, Univ. Del., Newark. 235 pp.
  72. Koontz-Garboden A. 2007. States, changes of state, and the Monotonicity Hypothesis. PhD thesis, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA. 331 pp.
  73. Koontz-Garboden A. 2009. Anticausativization. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 27:77–138 [Google Scholar]
  74. Koontz-Garboden A. 2010. The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguist. Philos. 33:285–324 [Google Scholar]
  75. Koontz-Garboden A. 2012. The Monotonicity Hypothesis. Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure Demonte V, McNally LE. 139–61 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  76. Krifka M. 1999. Manner in dative alternation. Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics Bird S, Carnie A, Haugen JD, Norquest P. 260–71 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  77. Krifka M. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean J. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 4:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  78. Kulikov L. 2011. Voice typology. The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology Song JJ. 368–98 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Lakoff G. 1968. Some verbs of change and causation. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation Kuno S. Rep. NSF-20, Aiken Comput. Lab., Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  80. Larson RK. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguist. Inq. 19:335–91 [Google Scholar]
  81. Larson RK. 1990. Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff. Linguist. Inq. 21:589–632 [Google Scholar]
  82. Levin B, Rappaport Hovav M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  83. Levin B, Rappaport Hovav M. 2005. Argument Realization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  84. Malchukov A, Haspelmath M, Comrie B. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions Malchukov A, Haspelmath M, Comrie B. 1–64 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  85. Mannion AM. 1991. Global Environmental Change Harlow, UK: Longman Sci. Tech.
  86. McCawley JD. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics Cole P. 245–59 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  87. McKoon G, Macfarland T. 2000. Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76:833–58 [Google Scholar]
  88. Müller S, Wechsler S. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theor. Linguist. 40:1–76 [Google Scholar]
  89. Nedjalkov VP. 1969. Nekotorye verojatnostnye universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii. Jazykovye universalii i lingvisticˇeskaja tipologija Vardul’ IF. 106–14 Moscow: Nauka [Google Scholar]
  90. Nedyalkov VP, Silnitsky GG. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics Kiefer F. 1–32 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  91. Nemoto N. 2005. Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in Construction Grammar: some observations on the locative alternation. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots Fried M, Boas HC. 119–36 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  92. Nichols J, Peterson DA, Barnes J. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguist. Typol. 8:149–211 [Google Scholar]
  93. Oehrle RT. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 289 pp.
  94. Oehrle RT. 1977. Review of G.M. Green: Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Language 53:198–208 [Google Scholar]
  95. Ormazabal J, Romero J. 2010. The derivation of dative alternations. Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective Duguine M, Huidobro S, Madariaga N. 203–32 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  96. Ormazabal J, Romero J. 2012. PPs without disguises: reply to Bruening. Linguist. Inq. 43:455–74 [Google Scholar]
  97. Pesetsky D. 1995. Zero Syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  98. Pinker S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  99. Piñón C. 2001a. A finer look at the causative–inchoative alternation. Proceedings of the 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 11) Hastings R, Jackson B, Zvolensky Z. 346–64 eLanguage.net: Linguist. Soc. Am http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/294 [Google Scholar]
  100. Piñón C. 2001b. Modelling the causative–inchoative alternation. Linguist. Arb. 76:273–93 [Google Scholar]
  101. Quirk R, Greenbaum S, Leech G, Svartvik J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language London: Longman
  102. Ransom EN. 1979. Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object constructions in English. Glossa 13:215–40 [Google Scholar]
  103. Rappaport M, Levin B. 1988. What to do with theta-roles. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic Relations Wilkins W. 7–36 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  104. Rappaport Hovav M. 2014. Lexical content and context: the causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua 141:8–29 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rappaport Hovav M, Levin B. 1998. Building verb meanings. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors Butt M, Geuder W. 97–134 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  106. Rappaport Hovav M, Levin B. 2008. The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. J. Linguist. 44:129–67 [Google Scholar]
  107. Rappaport Hovav M, Levin B. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface Everaert M, Marelj M, Siloni T. 150–76 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  108. Reinhart T. 2002. The theta system—an overview. Theor. Linguist. 28:229–90 [Google Scholar]
  109. Reinhart T, Siloni T. 2005. The Lexicon–Syntax Parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguist. Inq. 36:389–436 [Google Scholar]
  110. Schäfer F. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  111. Schmidt WE. 1986. South’s farm loss put at $1 billion. New York Times, July 23, p. A1
  112. Shibatani M. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: a conspectus. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions Shibatani M. 1–40 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  113. Siewierska A. 1998. Languages with and without objects: the Functional Grammar approach. Lang. Contrast 1:173–90 [Google Scholar]
  114. Smith CS. 1970. Jespersen’s ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, Vol. II: Descriptive Linguistics Jazayery MA, Polomé EC, Winter W. 101–9 The Hague: Mouton [Google Scholar]
  115. Smyth RH, Prideaux GD, Hogan JT. 1979. The effect of context on dative position. Lingua 47:27–42 [Google Scholar]
  116. Snyder KM. 2003. The relationship between form and function in ditransitive constructions. PhD thesis, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia. 167 pp.
  117. Speas MJ. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
  118. Thompson SA. 1995. The iconicity of ‘dative shift’ in English: considerations from information flow in discourse. Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes Landsberg ME. 155–75 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  119. Wasow T. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. Formal Syntax Culicover P, Wasow T, Akmajian A. 327–60 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  120. Wasow T. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Lang. Var. Change 9:81–105 [Google Scholar]
  121. Wasow T. 2002. Postverbal Behavior Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  122. White L. 1991. Argument structure in second language acquisition. French Lang. Stud. 1:189–207 [Google Scholar]
  123. Whong-Barr M, Schwartz BD. 2002. Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 24:579–616 [Google Scholar]
  124. Wolff P. 2003. Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition 88:1–48 [Google Scholar]
  125. Wright SK. 2001. Internally caused and externally caused change of state verbs. PhD thesis, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL. 289 pp.
  126. Wright SK. 2002. Transitivity and change of state verbs. Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society339–50 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc [Google Scholar]
  127. Year J, Gordon P. 2009. Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: the role of verb prototype, input distribution and frequency. Mod. Lang. J. 93:399–417 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error