The Unergative-Unaccusative Distinction: A Study of the Verb DIE
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study tries to diagnose the unergative-unaccusative distinction with respect to the verb die, which often displays differing behaviours because it can appear in many different syntactic constructions. Particularly, the study seeks to establish whether die is an unergative or an unaccusative verb, using eight diagnostics for unaccusativity (e.g. the one’s way construction, the pseudo-passive construction, the cognate object construction) Results of the study have shown that the verb die stands astride the border between an unergative verb and an unaccusative verb. There is no single reliable diagnostic test for the unergative/unaccusative contrast, which can dictate whether die is either unergative or unaccusative. It is more likely to depend on which diagnostic test is adopted.
Article Details
Copyright by the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
Photocopying is allowed for internal, non-commercial use only. Photocopying for other uses or for purposes other than indicated must be permitted in writing from the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
All views or conclusion are those of the authors of the articles and not necessarily those of the publisher or the editorial staff.References
Burzio, L. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing, 1986. Print.
Dowty, D. R. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
---. “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection.” Language 67 (1991): 547-619.
Fagen, S. M. B. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Construction: A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
Goldberg, A. E. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
Haegeman, L. English Grammar: A Generative Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
---. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Iwata, S. “Argument Resultatives and Adjunct Resultatives in a Lexical Constructional Account: The Case of Resultatives with Adjectival Result Phrases.” Language Sciences 28 (2006): 449-496.
Jackendoff, R. “A Deep Structure Projection Rule.” Linguistic Inquiry 5 (1974): 481-505.
---. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. Print.
Jones, M.A. “Cognate Objects and the Case Filter.” Journal of Linguistics 24 (1988): 89-110.
Kishimoto, H. “Split Intransitivity in Japanese and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.” Language 72 (1996): 248-286.
Kuno, S, and K. Takami. Functional Constraints in Grammar: On the Unergative-unaccusative Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2004.
Lasnik, H, and J. Uriagereka. A Course in GB Syntax. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1988.
Levin, B, and M. H. Rappaport. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge: The M.I.T Press, 1995.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 2004.
Macfarland, T. Cognate Objects and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction in English. PhD Dissertation. Northwestern University, 1995.
Oshita, H. “The Unaccusative Trap in Second Language Acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23 (2001): 279-304.
Perlmutter, D. “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative ypothesis.”
Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 4 (1978): 157-189.
Rosen, S. T. “Events and Verb Classification.” Linguistics 34 (1996): 191-223.
Ryu, B. R. “Argument Structure and Unaccusativity in the Constraint-based Lexicon.” Language Information and Computation 11 (1996): 327-336.
Sorace, A. “Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs.” Language 76 (2000): 859-890.
Tenny, C.L. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. “Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity.” Language 66 (1990): 221-260.
Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1968.