Cover not available
Part of
Morphology and Meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012
Edited by Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327] 2014
► pp. 315–330

Mismatch verbs

A unified account of unaccusatives and deponents

 | University of Leipzig
The term ‘deponent’ traditionally refers to a class of verbs in Latin or Greek which is characterized by a mismatch between their morphological form and their syntactic and semantic context. Deponent verbs appear in passive form but in active syntax/semantics. In this paper, I argue that this mismatch between form and function is not as uncommon as one might expect. In particular, I show that we find the same kind of mismatch with unaccusative verbs in many languages amongst which are English or the Romance languages. The argumentation will be based on a detailed investigation of how deponent and unaccusative verbs behave in all modules of the grammar. Based on the findings of this discussion, I propose a unified morphosyntactic analysis for deponents and unaccusatives. The analysis elegantly captures the particular behavior of these verbs by invoking two principles: Identity Avoidance and Lexical Override.
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.22wei
References (27)
References
Ackema, Paul. 2001. “Colliding Complementizers in Dutch: Another Syntactic OCP”. Linguistic Inquiry 32:4.717–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1999. “Tests for Unaccusativity in a Language without Tests for Unaccusativity”. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Greek Linguistics, 23–31. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2007. “Morphological Typology of Deponency”. Baerman, Corbett, Brown & Hippisley, eds. 2007, 1–19.
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley, eds. 2007. Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldi, Philip. 1976. “Remarks on Latin r-Form Verbs”. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 90.222–257.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”. Ken Hale. A life in language ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. “A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English”. Syntax 8:2.81–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2000. “Features, Syntax and Categories in Latin Perfect”. Linguistic Inquiry 31.185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Unaccusative Syntax and Verbal Alternations”. The Unaccusativity Puzzle ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopolou, & Martin Everaert, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew. 2007. “Declarative Deponency: A Network Morphology Account of Morphological Mismatches”. Baerman, Corbett, Brown & Hippisley, eds. 2007, 145–173.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1993. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb”. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon ed. by Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The Event Argument and the Semantics of Verbs”. Ms., Univ. of Massachusetts. [URL]
Lavidas, Nikolaos & Dimitra Papangeli. 2007. “Deponency in the Diachrony of Greek”. Baerman, Corbett, Brown & Hippisley, eds. 2007, 97–126.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. “Some Interface Properties of the Phase”. Linguistic Inquiry 34:3. 506–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1986. “OCP effects: Gemination and Antigemination”. Linguistic Inquiry 17:2.207–263.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Filomena Sandalo. 2011. “Markedness and Morphotactics in Kadiweu [+Participant] Agreement”. Morphology 21.351–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1992. “The Latin Impersonal Passive”. Mnemosyne XLV:2.159–177.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. RuCCS Technical Report 2. Piscataway: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Sciences, Rutgers University, and Boulder: Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Ramge, Birgitta. 2002. Praktische Grammatik der schwedischen Sprache. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert.Google Scholar
Schulz, Patrick. 2010. The Form, Function and Meaning of Morphological Features. B.A. Thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2008. “Identity Avoidance: OCP-Effects in Swiss Relatives”. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 227–250. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisser, Philipp. 2010. Another View on Deponency. M.A Thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng, Mark Aronoff & Frank Anshen. 2007. “Deponency in Latin”. Baerman, Corbett, Brown & Hippisley, eds. 2007, 127–143.
Yip, Moira. 1998. “Identity Avoidance in Morphology and Phonology”. Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax ed. by Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell, 216–246. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Grestenberger, Laura
2023. Deponency. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.