* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Syntax and semantics of the prefix-scale interplay I argue for
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive semantics wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Zulu grammar wikipedia , lookup
Antisymmetry wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Sotho verbs wikipedia , lookup
Kagoshima verb conjugations wikipedia , lookup
Preposition and postposition wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Musical syntax wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
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