The Morphosyntax of Transitions OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS GENERAL EDITORS DavidAdgerandHagitBorer,QueenMary,UniversityofLondon ADVISORY EDITORS Stephen Anderson,YaleUniversity; DanielBüring,University ofCalifornia,LosAngeles; NomiErteschik-Shir,Ben-GurionUniversity;DonkaFarkas,UniversityofCalifornia,Santa Cruz;AngelikaKratzer,UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst;AndrewNevins,University CollegeLondon;ChristopherPotts,StanfordUniversity;BarrySchein,UniversityofSouthern California;PeterSvenonius,UniversityofTroms(cid:1);MoiraYip,UniversityCollegeLondon RECENT TITLES DiagnosingSyntax editedbyLisaLai-ShenChengandNorbertCorver PseudogappingandEllipsis byKirstenGengel SyntaxanditsLimits editedbyRaffaellaFolli,ChristinaSevdali,andRobertTruswell PhraseStructureandArgumentStructure ACaseStudyoftheSyntax-SemanticsInterface byTerjeLohndal EdgesinSyntax ScramblingandCyclicLinearization byHeejeongKo TheSyntaxofRootsandtheRootsofSyntax editedbyArtemisAlexiadou,HagitBorer,andFlorianSchäfer CausationinGrammaticalStructures editedbyBridgetCopleyandFabienneMartin ContinuationsandNaturalLanguage byChrisBarkerandChung-chiehShan TheSemanticsofEvaluativity byJessicaRett ExternalArgumentsinTransitivityAlternations byArtemisAlexiadou,ElenaAnagnostopoulou,andFlorianSchäfer ControlandRestructuring byThomasGrano TheInteractionofFocus,Givenness,andProsody AStudyofItalianClauseStructure byVieriSamek-Lodovici TheMorphosyntaxofGender byRuthKramer TheMorphosyntaxofImperatives byDanielaIsac SentenceandDiscourse editedbyJacquelineGuéron Optimality-TheoreticSyntax,Semantics,andPragmatics FromUni-toBidirectionalOptimization editedbyGéraldineLegendre,MichaelT.Putnam,HenriëttedeSwart,andErinZaroukian TheMorphosyntaxofTransitions ACaseStudyinLatinandOtherLanguages byVíctorAcedo-Matellán Foracompletelistoftitlespublishedandinpreparationfortheseries,seepp. The Morphosyntax of Transitions A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages VÍCTOR ACEDO-MATELLÁN 1 3 GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OXDP, UnitedKingdom OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©VíctorAcedo-Matellán Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin Impression: Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY,UnitedStatesofAmerica BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable LibraryofCongressControlNumber: ISBN ––––(Hbk) ––––(Pbk) PrintedinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,StIvesplc LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork. Contents Generalpreface ix Acknowledgements x Listofabbreviations xi  Introduction  . Aimandproposal  . Methodology  .. Theadvantagesofatheoreticalapproachtothe grammarofunspokenlanguages  .. Dataandcorpus  . Structure   Aneo-constructionistperspectiveonargumentstructure  . Endo-skeletalversusexo-skeletalapproachestothelexicon- syntaxinterface  . Threeneo-constructionisttheoriesandapredecessor  .. HaleandKeyser’stheoryoflexicalsyntax  .. Mateu()  .. Borer(b)  .. DistributedMorphology  . Thepresentframework  .. Argumentstructureissyntax  ... Nol-/s-syntaxdistinction  ... Relationalandnon-relationalelements  ... Argumentstructureconfigurations  ... Adjunctionofrootstofunctionalheads  .. Thesemanticsofargumentstructure:alocalist-aspectual approach  ... Structuralandencyclopaedicsemantics  ... Interpretationoffunctionalheadsandarguments  ... Againstrootontologies  ... Aspectandargumentstructure  ... Localitydomainsforspecialmeaning  . Summary  vi Contents  Thesyntax-morphologyinterface  . Wordsandstructure  . Lateinsertionandthenatureofroots  . CyclicSpell-Out  . OperationsatPF  .. MorphologicalMerger  .. LinearizationandVocabularyInsertion.Exponent- defectivenessandPFcrash  .. InteractionbetweenRaisingandVocabularyInsertion. Cross-linguisticvariation  . Summary   Latinasasatellite-framedlanguage  . Talmy’s()theoryofchangeeventsanditsadaptationtothe presentframework  .. Talmy’stheoryof(motion)events  .. Beyondeventsofmotion  .. Anasymmetricdifference  .. Non-dynamiceventsandthes-/v-frameddistinction  .. AsyntacticinterpretationofTalmy’stheory  ... Syntacticstructuringofeventsofchange  ... Amorphologicalaccountofthes-/v-frameddifference  . ThesurfaceshapeofPathPinLatin  .. Verbalprefixes  .. DirectionalPPs  .. VerbalprefixesincombinationwithdirectionalPPs  .. VerbalprefixesincombinationwithDPs  .. DirectionalDPs  .. APs  .. CaseanddirectionalPPsandDPs  . S-framedconstructionsinLatin  .. ComplexDirectedMotionConstructions  ... CDMCsandsituationaspect  ... CDMCsandnon-directedmotionconstructionsinLatin  ... TheunaccusativenatureofCDMCs  .. FigureUnselectedObjectConstructions  ... Thesyntaxandsemanticsofprefixedvsunprefixedverbs  ... Conditionsonthelicensingofnullobjects:bibo‘drink’ vsebibo‘drinkup’  ... Casealternations,situationaspect,andthemerging ofroots  Contents vii ... Scopalrelationsbetweenprefixandverb  .. GroundUnselectedObjectConstructions  ... CaseandsituationaspectwhentheobjectisaGround  ... TransitiveGroundUOCsinLatin  ... UnaccusativeGroundUOCs  .. TheLocativeAlternation  ... ApproachestotheLA  ... TheLAandthes-/v-frameddistinction  ... TheLAandprefixation.TheheterogeneityoftheLA  .. Pseudoreversatives  . Summary   Weaksatellite-framedlanguages  . Thenon-existenceofcomplexadjectivalresultativesinLatinandSlavic  .. Resultativeconstructions:initialclarifications  ... Complexandsimpleresultativeconstructions  ... Strongandweakresultativeconstructions  ... Situationaspectincomplexresultativeconstructions. TheAPasaresultpredicate  .. NocomplexAPresultativesinLatin  .. NocomplexAPresultativesinSlavic  .. NocomplexPPresultativeswithoutaprefix.Internal andexternalprefixes  . LatinandSlaviccomplexresultativeswithaninternalprefix  .. Latincomplexresultativeconstructions  .. Slaviccomplexresultativeconstructions  .. Therelationbetweenresultativityandprefixation  ... Resultativitywithoutaninternalprefix  ... Atelicpredicatesandprefixation  ... AcontrastbetweenLatinandSlavic.Theroleof viewpointaspect  . Theroleofmorphologyintheanalysisofresultativeconstructions  .. ThemorphologicalpropertiesofPath.TheSplitS-framedness Hypothesis  .. ThelackofcomplexAPresultativesinLatinandSlavic  .. SimpleadjectivalresultativesinLatin  . Summary   ArevisionofTalmy’stypology  . Anotherweaks-framedlanguage:AncientGreek  . Strongs-framedlanguages  viii Contents .. GermanandDutch  .. English  .. Icelandic  .. Finno-Ugric  . AtypologyoflanguagesbasedonthemorphologyofPath. Mandarinasaweaks-framedlanguage  . Previousapproachesandpossiblecounterexamples  .. Snyder(,),BeckandSnyder(a)  .. HorrocksandStavrou(,)andHorrocks()  .. Kratzer()  .. Svenonius()  .. Son()andSonandSvenonius()  ... Korean:presenceofcomplexadjectivalresultatives, absenceofCDMCs  ... HebrewandJavanese:presenceofCDMCs,absence ofcomplexadjectivalresultatives  . Summary   Challengesandprospects  . Thelocusofcross-linguisticvariation:TalmyorSnyder?  .. ComplexEffectedObjectConstructionsinEnglishandLatin  .. AbsenceofCEOCsinv-framedlanguages.Theoretical implications  . Reducingcross-linguisticvariationtoPFproperties  Appendix:Latintelicpredicateswithprefixedmanner-of-motionverbs (section..)  References  Index  General preface Thetheoreticalfocusofthisseriesisontheinterfacesbetweensubcomponentsofthe humangrammaticalsystemandthecloselyrelatedareaoftheinterfacesbetweenthe differentsubdisciplinesoflinguistics.Thenotionof‘interface’hasbecomecentralin grammaticaltheory(forinstance,inChomsky’sMinimalistProgram)andinlinguis- tic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc. has led to a deeper understanding of particularlinguisticphenomenaandofthearchitectureofthelinguisticcomponent ofthemind/brain. The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics, morph- ology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/ pragmatics,andintonation/discoursestructure,aswellasquestionsofhowthesystems ofgrammarinvolvingtheseinterfaceareasareacquiredanddeployedinuse(including languageacquisition,languagedysfunction,andlanguageprocessing).Itdemonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena, languages, languagegroups,orinter-languagevariationsallrequirereferencetointerfaces. Theseriesisopentoworkbylinguistsofalltheoreticalpersuasionsandschoolsof thought.Amajorrequirementisthatauthorsshouldwritesoastobeunderstoodby colleaguesinrelatedsubfieldsoflinguisticsandbyscholarsincognatedisciplines. In the current volume, Acedo-Matellán proposes a new theory of the difference betweenverb-framedandsatellite-framedlanguages.Thisdistinctionisusuallytaken tobeonethatcentresonhowthesemanticsoflexicalitemsisstructured,butAcedo- Matellán argues that the difference is fundamentally one of the morphological exponence of syntactically present functional heads. He develops a theory of this, constrained by adjacency and shows how cross-linguistic variation in argument structure turns upon the different ways in which the systems of phonological and phonetic form interpret the structures delivered by syntax to the interfaces. This proposalleadstoanew,morenuancedtypologyoftherelationshipbetweenwords, broadlyconstrued,andargumentstructures. DavidAdger HagitBorer