Cover not available
Article published In:
Transitivity and Valency: From theory to acquisition
Edited by Georgia Fotiadou and Hélène Vassiliadou
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 40:1] 2017
► pp. 1–24

Transitivity and valency: from theory to acquisition

An overview

 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
 | University of Strasbourg
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Voice
  • 2.Valency and argument structure
  • 3.Transitivity alternations
    • 3.1Projectionist models
    • 3.2Some ‘constructional’ accounts
  • 4.Transitivity and acquisition
  • 5.Frequency-based vs Universal Grammar-based language acquisition
  • 6.The papers in this collection
  • 7.Some final points
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.40.1.01geo
References (128)
References
Abbot-Smith, K. & Serratrice, L. (2015). Word order, referential expression, and case cues to the acquisition of transitive sentences in Italian. Journal of Child Language, 421, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2001). Adjective syntax and noun raising: word order asymmetries in the DP as the result of adjective distribution. Studia Linguistica, 551, 148–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2004). Voice morphology in the causative – inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp. 114–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M. (Eds) (2004). The Unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Shäfer, F. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Grammar Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 231, 459–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Hamann, C. (2004). On the L2/bilingual acquisition of French by two young children with different source languages. In P. Prévost & J. Paradis (Eds), The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts (pp. 147–174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, E. & Unsworth, S. (Eds) (2010). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional Projections (pp. 19–47). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 171.Google Scholar
(1998). Deriving passives without theta-grids. In S. Lapointe, D. Brentari & P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax (pp. 60–99). Stanford: California, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2004). The Grammar Machine. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp. 288–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, J. (2005). Structuring Sense: Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J. (2002). Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 331, 283–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M. & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A1, 664–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1995). Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10 (5), 425–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds) (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, A. & Sarda, L. (2010). Le complément de la localisation spatiale : entre argument et adjoint. In F. Neveu, Toke V. Muni, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2010 (pp. 2057–2073). DOI logo.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J. -C. (1968). Histoire de la syntaxe. Naissance de la notion de complément dans la grammaire française (1530–1750), Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1989). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. Ms., Cornell University.Google Scholar
(2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou et al. (Eds), The Unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1969). Linguistics and Philosophy. In S. Hook (Ed.), Language and Philosophy. NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Combettes, B. (2014). Evolutions dans le domaine de la transitivité en français. In A. Gautier et al., (Eds), ComplémentationS (pp. 41–57). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (2006). Transitivity pairs, Markedness and Diachronic stability. Linguistics, 44(2), 303–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D. (1995). Eléments de syntaxe générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(2006). Syntaxe Générale, une introduction typologique 1 : catégories et constructions. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
(2016). Tendances actuelles en typologie linguistique. Communication aux Journées d’études Jeux et enjeux de la linguistique au début de ce XXIe siècle. Strasbourg 8–9 juin 2016, Journées Usias organisée par la chaire d’excellence Sciences du langage.Google Scholar
(2017). Transitivity, Valency and Voice. European Summer School in Linguisstic Typology. Porquerolles, September 2016, [URL], consulted on March 2017.
Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y. (2005). A Modular Account of Null Objects in French. Syntax, 8(1), 44–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desclès, J-P. (1998). Transitivité sémantique, transitivité syntaxique. In A. Rousseau (Ed.), La transitivité (pp. 161–180). Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Eguzkitza, A. & Kaiser, G. A. (1999). Postverbal Subjects in Romance and German. Some notes on the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Lingua, 1091, 195–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. (2004). Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp.137–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 251, 348–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Henderson, JM. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 301, 725–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Zangl, R., Portillo, A. L. & Marchman, V. A. (2008). Looking while listening: Using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children. In I. A. Sekerina, E. M. Fernandez & H. Clahsen (Eds), Developmental Psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing (pp. 97–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotiadou, G. (2010). Voice morphology and transitivity alternations in Greek: evidence from corpora and psycholinguistic experiments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Fotiadou, G. & Tsimpli, I. M. (2010). The acquisition of transitivity alternations in Greek: Does frequency count? Lingua, 120 (11), 2605–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotiadou, G. & Vassiliadou, H. (2011). Interprétation(s) des verbes anticausatifs en grec et en français : liens entre fréquence et données empiriques. Travaux de linguistique, 11(1), 99–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, J. (2006). Le continuum de transitivité en français et la dimension universelle de la <participation>. ZFSL, 116 (1), 1–20.Google Scholar
(2016). Le débat sur la place de la sémantique dans l’acquisition des structures grammaticales. Langages, 2011, 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism. In D. A. Balota, G. B. F. D’Arcais & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading (pp. 301–331). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc..Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 141, 178–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, G., Taranto, L., Shapiro, P. & Swinney, D. (2008). The Leaf Fell (the Leaf): The Online Processing of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(3), 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meaning. Language Acquisition, 11, 3–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1981). Form, function and the language acquisition device. In C. L. Baker & J. M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition (pp. 165–182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamelin, L. & Legallois, D. (2016). Une approche sémantique non prototypique de la construction transitive. Faits de langue, 451, 149–158.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B., Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds), Causatives and Transitivity (pp. 87–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86(1), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. MS. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & Leipzig University. Available at: [URL]
Heidinger, S. (2008). French anticausatives in a diachronic perspective, Thèse de doctorat Université de Stuttgart / Université Paris-8.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herslund, M. (2000), Les deux passifs du français. In L. Schøsler (Ed.), Le passif (pp. 71–81). University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. (1993/1994). Input and learnability: direct-object omissibility in English. Language Acquisition, 31, 95–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (2003). Hypothèses psycholinguistiques sur la nature du déficit dysphasique. In C. Gérard & V. Brun (Eds), Les dysphasies. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., N. Müller, B. Riemer & Rigaut, C. (1997). The Case of Subject and Object Omission in French and German. In E. Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (Eds), BUCLD 21 (pp. 331–342). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. (2006a). Unaccusative with dative Causers and Experiencers: A unified account. In D. Hole, A. Meinunger & W. Abraham (Eds.), Datives and Similar Cases (pp. 271–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b). A unified analysis of passives and anticausatives. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo-Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 61, (201–222), CSSP, Paris, Available at [URL].Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: an experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 391, 57–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1989). The position of subjects. Lingua, 851, 211–258.Google Scholar
(1994). The event argument and the semantics of voice. MS. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
(1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1968). Ordering of transformational rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(1970). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. (1992). Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics, 281, 375–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. & Doron, E. (2010). Anticausative derivations (and other valency alternations) in French. Probus, 22 (2), 303–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (1993). Pourquoi il y a deux passifs? Langages, 1091, 53–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larjavaara, M. (2000). Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain, Annales Academiae Sacientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora, 3121, Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (1994). L’actance [Linguistique Nouvelle]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Le Bellec, Ch. (2009). La diathèse verbale dans trois langues romanes : vers une description dans le cadre de la Grammaire Fonctionnelle Discursive. Thèse, Université de Toulouse.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. & Smolensky, P. (2010). French inchoatives and the unaccusativity hypothesis. In D. Gerdts, J. Moore, and M. Polinsky (Eds), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter (pp. 229–246). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., M. Putnam, H. De Swart & E. Zaroukian. (2016). Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax – Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events. Proceedings of SALT, 91, 199–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Argument Realization. Research Surveys in Linguistics Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp.178–269). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, F. & Schäfer, F. (2014). Anticausatives compete but do not differ in meaning: a French case study. In F. Neveu, P. Blumenthal, L. Hriba, A. Gerstenberg, J. Meinschaefer & S. Prévost (Eds), 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. SHS Web of Conferences, 81, 2485–2500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melis, L. (1990). La voiE pronominale. Paris-Louvain: Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004a). Convergent outcomes in second language acquisition and first language loss. In M. Schmid, B. Kӧpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers. A case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 71, 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muller, C. (2002). Les bases de la syntaxe. Syntaxe contrastive français-langues voisines. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Nichols, J., Peterson, D. & Barnes, J. (2004). Transitivising and Detransitivising Languages, Linguistic Typology, 8(2), 149–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perez-Leroux, A. T. (2014). How children learn to detect and interpret agreement morphology: A cross-linguistic perspective. Lingua, 1441, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perez-Leroux, A. T., Pirvulescu, M. & Roberge, Y. (2006). Early Object Omission in Child French and English. In N. Chiyo & J. -P. Y. Montreuil (eds), New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics, Vol. I. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Austin, Texas, February 20051, 213–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pino Serrano, L. (2010). Limites fonctionnelles et transitivité. Travaux de linguistique, 601, 11–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prévost, P. (2009). The acquisition of French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Randall, J., Van Hout, A., Weissenborn, J. & Baayen, H. (2004). Acquiring Unaccusativity: A cross-linguistic look. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle (pp. 332–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1996). Syntactic Effects of lexical Operations: Reflexives and Unaccusatives. OTS, Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2003). The Theta System – An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 281, 229–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Siloni, T. (2004). Against an unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Εds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle (pp. 159–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 389–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y. (2002). Transitivity Requirement Effects and the EPP. Paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) . November 2002, Vancouver. [URL]
Rothman, J. (2013). Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingulism: Language and Cognition. Published online by Cambridge University Press, November 2013.Google Scholar
Schmitz, K. (2012). Passivierung und Unakkusativität in den romanischen Sprachen Spanisch, Italienisch und Französisch. Tübingen: Narr. [Veröffentlichung der Habilitationsschrift].Google Scholar
Schmitz, K. & Müller, N. (2008). Strong and clitic pronouns in monolingual and bilingual acquisition of French and Italian. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, (1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Unaccusativity and auxiliary choice in non-native grammars of Italian and French: asymmetries and predictable indeterminacy. Journal of French Language Studies, 31, 71–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Gradience at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Evidence from Auxiliary Selection and Implications for Unaccusativity. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp. 243–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 281, 127–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. & Gil, M. (1999). Pragmatic constraints on the interpretation of complex noun phrases in Spanish and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1347–1365.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 741, 209–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2006). The acquisition of voice and transitivity alternations in Greek as native and second language. In S. Unsworth, T. Parodi, A. Sorace & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Paths of Development in L1 and L2 acquisition: In honor of Bonnie D. Scwartz. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 391 (pp. 15–55). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuller, L., Delage, H., Monjauz, C. & Piller, A-G. (2011). Clitic pronoun production as a measure of atypical language development in French. Lingua, 121(3), 423–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 331, 285–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspective in Sentence Processing (pp. 155–179). Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, E. (2011). Valency changes in the history of English, Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(1), 106–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hout, A. (1992). Linking and projection based on event structure. MS. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
(1996). Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternation: A Case Study of Dutch and its Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
(2000). Event semantics in the lexicon- syntax interface: Verb frame alternation in Dutch and their acquisition. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects (pp. 239–282). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2004). Unaccusativity as Telicity checking. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp. 60–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verrips, M. (2000). Passives and implicit arguments in child language. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 749–760). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vernice, M. & Guasti, M. T. (2015). The acquisition of SV order in unaccusatives: manipulating the definiteness of the NP argument. Journal of Child Language, 421, 210–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). Argument Structure and Morphology, The Linguistic Review, 11, 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2008). Le médiopassif à accord riche en français : pour une approche multifactorielle. In J. Durand, B. Habert & B. Laks (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF ’08 (pp. 2645–2662). DOI logo.Google Scholar