Download Syntax and semantics of the prefix-scale interplay I argue for

Syntax and semantics of the prefix-scale interplay
I argue for a complex interplay between the decomposed structure of a prefix and the inner
structure of the scale lexicalized by the prefixed verb. Based on cross linguistic evidence, I
argue that the inner argument of a prefixed verb is of a scalar nature, which mirrors the pathlike structure of the prefix. The obligatory structural similarity between the prefix and the
verbal argument leads to the selectional restrictions on prefixation. The variety of the sources
of scales, which are determined partially semantically and partially pragmatically, accounts for
the different interpretations of the same prefix in different configurations. The semantic and
combinatorial properties of a prefix are derived from the different syntactic positions.
I illustrate the main points with the contrasting syntactic behaviour of the English verbal
prefixes out- and over- and outline a syntactic account within Ramchands (2008) first phase
syntax, with some modifications. Both out- and over- prefixes specify the extent of an event as
exceeding a certain standard along a scale related to the verb, but in case of out- the reference
point is provided by another performance of the same event, while in case of over- the reference
is a functional standard on a scale of change.
(1)
a.
The girl outdanced the giant. b. The chemist overheated the solution.
The question arises, why the direct objects have different thematic roles (agent in (1-a) and
patient in (1-b) ), though the syntactic structure looks identical on the surface. I explain this
inconsistency through different syntactic structures for the sentences. In the tripartite event
decomposition suggested by Ramchand (2008) an eventuality may be decomposed into initiation, process and result. The different interpretations of the prefixes arises from their different
positions in this structure, where over- maps the process to a scale, while out- locates the result
state on a scale. Based on result vs. manner tests in Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012),
over- prefixed verbs contain a result, while out- prefixed verbs pattern with manner verbs.
initP
DP
the girl
initP
chemist
init
dance
init
heat
procP
DP
the girl
procP
solution
process
dancei
PP
DP
the girl
process
heat
resP
solution
P
out-
scaleP
DP
scale
the giant
resi
heat
ei
PP
solution
P
over-
scaleP
solution
scale ei
In both cases the relevant eventive phrases (res or proc) take a PP as their complement,
headed by the prefixes under discussion, which in turn takes a scaleP as its complement (which
is a modification of Ramchands original system). ScaleP is used as a broader cover term for all
kinds of scales, including paths, and it takes an event as its complement, which is coindexed
with the event in the head of the next higher eventive phrase (res or proc). The direct object
in Spec of scaleP forms the comparison class for a scale, which, in the case of over- (heading
the PP in complement to a resP) measures the extent of the result state, and in the case of
out- (heading the PP in complement to a procP) the (temporal or qualitative) extent of the
process. In the case of over, the direct object is also in the specifiers of PP, resP, and procP (thus
1
being simultaneously the element that is compared to itself, the resultee, and the undergoer of
the event), whereas in the case of out-, an unselected object is in Spec, scaleP, whereas the
subject is in the specifiers of PP, procP and init(iator)P (thus being simultaneously the element
compared to the other entity in spec, scaleP, the undergoer, and the initiator of the event). This
effectively leads to within- individual comparison in the case of over- and to between-individual
comparison in the case of out- (in the sense of Toledo and Sassoon (2011).
The acceptability of a prefix-verb combination is predictable based on the structure of the
scale lexicalized by the verb: both prefixes require verbs that provide monotonic upper open
scales (thus excluding achievements and accomplishments with upper closed scales, but not
accomplishments with upper open scales). This restriction follows from the central hypothesis
that the complement of the prefix always is (or can be reinterpreted as) a scale, where a scale
is, according to Rappaport Hovav (2008) “an ordered set of values for a particular attribute”.
The contrast between (2) and (3) is thus explained through scale shape: ‘to destroy’ lexicalizes an upper closed scale in terms of Kennedy and McNally (2005), as supported by ungrammaticality of ‘*to slightly destroy Carthage’.
(2)
a. ??Kim outdestroyed the experienced wrecking crew. (Beavers & Koontz-Garboden, 2012)
b. *Romans overdestroyed Carthage. c. *Romans slightly destroyed Carthage.
This contrast with scale of change verbs, lexicalizing a lower closed scale, such as heat, which
are compatible with both prefixes, though also telic:
(3)
a.
b.
My little heater will outperform, outheat, and out-economize any infrared heater
The chemist overheated the solution. c. The chemist slightly heated the solution.
I furthermore suggest that the lexical entries of ‘over’ and ‘out’ remain the same whether they
are used as prefixes, particles or prepositions. In either case they are the P head of a PP phrase,
taking a scale as a complement. The lexical entry specifies an abstract relationship between the
event and the scale, or scale subparts. I describe the conceptual meaning of P through the type
of transition introduced by the P element and show how the different interpretations are derived
from it by combining with different scale types determined by sentence structure. Thus the
conceptual entries for prepositions and prefixes are unified, the interpretation of the prefixed
verbs is derived from structure, and the acceptability variation is predicted by the range of
scales available in a given context.
References
Beavers, J. and A. Koontz-Garboden (2012). Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning.
Linguistic inquiry 43(3), 331–369.
Kennedy, C. and L. McNally (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable
predicates. Language 81(2), 345–381.
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events. In
S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect,
pp. 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Toledo, A. and G. W. Sassoon (2011). Absolute vs. relative adjectives-variance within vs.
between individuals. In Proceedings of SALT, Volume 21, pp. 135–154.
2