Abstract
In this paper I use the feature [+/–animate] to distinguish unaccusative [verb+preposition] structures where the verb projects the internal argument from structures where the preposition projects the internal argument. On the proposed approach, which aims to be a refinement on the original work by Hoekstra (1988), the preposition selects for the internal argument whenever the latter is [–animate]. The analysis is supported by the observation that unaccusative prepositional structures are typically [–animate], by contrast with their non-prepositional counterparts, and by a principled analysis of the differences existing between sequences with march-type verbs vs. sequences with verbs like whistle or eat. By contrast with current works in the literature, the preposition is argued to project two Spec positions in eat-type sequences, and a pP-shell configuration is proposed to match the derivation of unaccusative [verb+preposition] structures that feature one or two arguments internal to the prepositional projection.
Highlights
This paper argues that an analysis of the animacy property can be used to construct an approach to unaccusative [verb+preposition] structures – that is, [verb+preposition] structures lacking an external argument – that distinguishes whether it is the verb or otherwise the preposition that selects for the argument in surface subject position, that is the internal argument
The hypothesis is based on two observational facts
The aim of the paper has been to argue that the internal argument of unaccusative [verb+preposition] structures is projected by the preposition whenever the latter is [–animate]
Summary
This paper argues that an analysis of the animacy property can be used to construct an approach to unaccusative [verb+preposition] structures – that is, [verb+preposition] structures lacking an external argument – that distinguishes whether it is the verb or otherwise the preposition that selects for the argument in surface subject position, that is the internal argument. (6) is considered to be an argument of the preposition, though Hale and Keyser’s approach does not rely on the idea of result, but on the more general capacity or property of prepositions to put in connection two entities, which arguably correlates with their structural capacity to project both a complement and a specifier It is the locative meaning of prepositions that is at the base of both accounts: as mentioned earlier, Hoekstra (1988) focuses on structures with prepositions meaning direction (which is a locative meaning) since the end position of the entity moving once the movement has been realised is seen in a logical way as a resulting state; on the other hand, though Hale and Keyser (2002:8) observe that the relation that prepositions specify between two entities is of a locative type, or temporal, or other, it can be safely assumed that prepositions are all inherently or originally locative elements, though their locative meaning can be or has been subject to metaphorical extensions in manifold cases.. - experience verbs [+animate], except for stimulus/experiencer verbs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
