Cover not available
Part of
Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure
Edited by Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy and Linnaea Stockall
[Language Faculty and Beyond 10] 2014
► pp. 1–19

Introduction

Argumenting the structure

| CNRS
| CNRS | Université Paris 8
| Queen Mary University of London
Published online: 24 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.10.01bac
References (59)
References
Alexiadou, A., 2011. Statives and nominalization. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 40, 25–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, M., 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 737–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.C., 1985. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Number v. 1 in Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
., 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structures, in: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 73–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barner, D., Bale, A.C., 2005. No nouns, no verbs? A rejoinder to Panagiotidis. Lingua 115, 1169–1179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., Koontz-Garboden, A., 2012. Manner and Result in the Roots of Verbal Meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 331–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., Rizzi, L., 1988. Psych verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H., 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych verbs, in: Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Everaert, M. (Eds.), The Unaccusative Puzzle: Explorations at the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Number 5 in Oxford Studies in Theoretical Syntax, pp. 84–114.Google Scholar
Borer, H., 1994. The projection of arguments, in: Benedicto, E., Runner, J. (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17. UMOPL, Amherst, MA: GLSA, U. Massachusetts, pp. 19–47.Google Scholar
., 1998. Passive without theta grids, in: Lapointe, S., Brentari, D., Farrell, P. (Eds.), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 60–99.Google Scholar
., 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexicon, in: Polinsky, M., Moore, J. (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
., 2005. Structuring sense. Vol. 2, The normal course of events. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M., Brown, P., 2008. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.Google Scholar
Burzio, L., 1986. Italian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., 2009. Experimental design and interpretation of functional neuroimaging studies of cognitive processes. Human Brain Mapping 30, 59–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., 1970. Remarks on nominalization, in: Roderick, A., Rosenbaum, P. (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn, Waltham, MA, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
., 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory, in: Hale, K., Keyser, S. (Eds.), The View from Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
., 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Dowty, D., 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., Madariaga, N., 2010. Argument structure and syntactic relations: a cross-linguistic perspective. John Benjamins Pub. Co., Amsterdam; Philadelphia, Pa. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., Noyer, R., 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface, in: The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press, pp. 289–324.Google Scholar
Everaert, M., Marijana, M., Siloni, T., 2012. The Theta system: argument structure at the interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Bach, E., Harms, R.T., 1968. The case for case. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Folli, R., Harley, H., 2006. On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica 60, 121–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., Shapiro, L.P., Swinney, D., 2008. The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K., Keyser, S., 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations, in: The View from Building 20, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar
Halle, M., Marantz, A., 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, in: Hale, K., Keyser, S. (Eds.), The View from Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar
Harley, H., 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
., 1999. Denominal verbs and aktionsart. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35, 73–85.Google Scholar
., 2010. A Minimalist Approach to Argument Structure, in: The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford University Press, pp. 426–447.Google Scholar
Harley, H., Noyer, R., 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T., Sybesma, R., Barbiers, S., Den Dikken, M., Postma, G., Vanden Wyngaerd, G., 2008. Arguments and Structure Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence. Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., 1990. Semantic structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
., 2009. Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., 2002. On the architecture of pānini’s grammar, in: Three lectures delivered at the Hyderabad Conference on the Architecture of Grammar, pp. 1–59.
Koontz-Garboden, A., 2005. On the typology of state/change of state alternations, in: Booij, G., Marle, J. v. (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb, in: Rooryck, J., Zaring, L. (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, I., 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lee, M., Thompson, C.K., 2004. Agrammatic aphasic production and comprehension of unaccusative verbs in sentence contexts. Journal of Neurolinguistics 17, 315–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., Rappaport Hovav, M., 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
., 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge: U.K. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 4, 201–225.Google Scholar
., 2007. Phases and words. Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222.
., 2011. Syntactic approaches to argument structure without incorporation: Doing the (anti-lexicalist) dance without doing the dance, in: Structuring the Argument: A multidisciplinary workshop on the mental representation of verbal argument structure, Paris.
Martínez-Ferreiro, S., Bachrach, A., Sánchez, A., Picallo, C., 2012. Violating canonicity in spanish agrammatism, in: Congreso de lingüística clínica de Málaga. Málaga, 15–17 Novembre 2011.
Pesetsky, D., 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., 1995. The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., 2008. Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G., 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. March, Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Randall, J.H., 2010. Linking: the geometry of argument structure. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y., Cuervo, M.C., 2012. The end of argument structure? Emerald Group Pub., Bingley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., Hadar, U., 2009. The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, 2306–2315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
., 2010a. Cortical representation of verbs with optional complements: the theoretical contribution of fMRI. Human Brain Mapping 31, 770–785. PMID: 19890846. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
., 2010b. The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, 2306–2315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, E., Palti, D., Friedmann, N., Hadar, U., 2007. Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cerebral Cortex 17, 1958–1969. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suihkonen, P., Comrie, B., Solovyev, V.D., 2012. Argument structure and grammatical relations a crosslinguistic typology.
Tenny, C., 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Boston. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walenski, M., 2002. Relating parsers and grammars: On the structure and real-time comprehension of English infinitival complements. Ph.D. thesis. UCSD.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Husband, E. Matthew & Linnaea Stockall
2015. Building Aspectual Interpretations Online. In Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing, ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.