Unergative predicates

The fact that intransitive verbs do not constitute a homogeneous class is a well-studied matter in the linguistic literature (Perlmutter 1978 1989, Burzio 1981, 1986, Belletti 1988 1999, Sorace 1993, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995 and subsequent works). According to the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978 1989), intransitive verbs can be classified in two groups, depending on the nature of the only argument of the verb: in unergative verbs, the only argument corresponds to the initial subject, whereas in unaccusatives, it corresponds to the direct object. These two types of intransitive verbs are differentiated on the grounds of several linguistic contexts across languages, such as auxiliary selection, prenominal passive participles, ne-cliticization in Italian, post-verbal subject position, resultative modification, floating quantifiers, etc.

Semantically, unergative verbs have been related to internal causation (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995), or to lack of telicity (Tenny 1987). In contrast, in unaccusative verbs, the sole argument has been associated with the role of undergoer of a directed change or of holder of a state whose existence is asserted or denied (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995). Regarding the syntactic nature of unergatives, the sole argument of unergative verbs is standardly considered to be an external argument, introduced by Voice (Kratzer 1996) or little v (Chomsky 1995), contrary to the subject of unaccusative verbs, which is considered to be introduced internally in VP.

Another relevant aspect of the syntactic analysis of unergative verbs that has been put forth in the literature is that they are underlying transitive verbs, involving a(n) (incorporated) N in complement position (Hale & Keyser 1993). This line of analysis was followed in a number of works, especially of the 90’s, dealing with the case-marking pattern in unergative verbs, particularly in ergative languages (Bobaljik 1993, Laka 1993, Bittner & Hale 1996, Fernández 1997 etc.). Nonetheless, in some more recent works, the transitive analysis of unergatives has been abandoned, in favor of an approach where roots are directly merged with a verbalizer (Marantz 1997) having a DO flavor (Harley 2005, Cuervo 2003, among many others). As for the event decomposition of unergatives, in other approaches like Ramchand’s (2008), unergative verbs are proposed to consist of two subevents: Initiation and Process. 

                This workshop aims at gathering researchers working on the (morpho)syntax and semantics of unergative verbs, as well as on any topic related to the consequences that the nature of unergative verbs may have for linguistic typology, diachrony, processing or acquisition. We therefore invite original contributions related to any of the following topics:

• The syntactic decomposition of unergative verbs and their semantic interpretation.

• Different aspectual classes of unergatives: dynamic vs. static, durative vs. semelfactive, eventive vs. stative etc. Are these differences syntactically represented?

• Factors influencing the architecture of a verb as unergative or unaccusative: internal causation, telicity, cumulativity etc.

• Formation of unergative predicates: the interaction between Roots and functional projections, complex V-N predicates.

• The (semantic) contribution of Roots in the formation of unergative (and unaccusative) verbs.

• Typological asymmetries in unergative and unaccusative divide. Which verbs constitute core cases of unergative predicates typologically and which verbs display hybrid unaccusative-unergative behavior and why.

• The morphosyntactic correlates of unergativity: case, auxiliary alternation, presence of certain light verbs etc.

• Relation between unergatives/unaccusatives and lexical categories. Do unergatives involve a silent N in complement position?

• The role of the unergative/unaccusative verb classes in the diachronic evolution of different phenomena: auxiliary selection, resultative/perfect constructions etc.

• Processing and acquisition contrasts between unergative and unaccusative predicates.

 

References:

Belleti, A. 1988. The case of unaccusatives, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.

Belleti, A. 1999.  “Inversion” as focalization and related questions, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 9-45.

Bittner, M. & K. Hale. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1-68.

Bobaljik, J.D. 1993. On Ergativity and Ergative Unergatives. In C.Phillips (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case and Agreement II. Cambridge: MIT. 45-88.

Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT Press.

Cuervo, M.C. Datives at Large. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Fernández, B. 1997. Egiturazko kasuaren erkaketa euskaraz. Doctoral dissertation. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).

Hale, K. & S.J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. 53-109.

Harley, H. 2005. How Do Verbs Get Their Names? Denominal Verbs, Manner Incorporation and the Ontology of Roots in English. In N.Erteschik-Shir & T.Rapoport (eds.), The Syntax of Aspect. New York: Oxford University Press. 42-64.

Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In J.Roorych & L.Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, vol.33. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 109-137.

Laka, I. 1993. Unergatives that Assign Ergative, Unaccusatives that Assign Accusative. In J.D.Bobaljik & C.Phillips (eds.), Papers on Case and Agreement I, MITWPL 18. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 149-172.

Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Marantz, A. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4-2.

Perlmutter, D.M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 157-190.

Perlmutter, D.M. 1989. Multiattachment and the unaccusative hypothesis: the Perfect Auxiliary in Italian. Probus 1-1: 63-119.

Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sorace, A. 1993. Unaccusativity and auxiliary choice in non-native grammars of Italian and French: asymmetries and predictable indeterminacy. Journal of French Language Studies 3: 71-93.

Tenny, C.L. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

 

 

 

abstract submission:

We invite abstracts (in English) for 20-minute talks (plus 10 minutes for discussion) and a poster session.  Abstracts should be submitted online via Easy Chair conference system, using the following link: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=unergpred18

They should not exceed one page, with an optional additional page for examples, tables, graphs and references. They should have 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins on all sides, set in Times New Roman with a font size no smaller than 12pt. 

Submissions should be anonymous. Please, indicate whether you would be willing to present your work as an oral presentation, a poster or both.

 

​