Unit 2 - 2. Lexical Derivation Through Incorporation

Name: Unit 2 - 2. Lexical Derivation Through Incorporation
Uploaded: 2021-11-12T22:37:18.000Z
Duration: 2 h 26 min 9 s

Incorporation in Linguistic Structures

Overview of Incorporation

The session focuses on how certain structures are derived through a process called incorporation, specifically examining negative constructions, locative constructions, and ergative constructions.

Unaccusative Construal

A brief reminder is provided about unaccusative control, which helps analyze various constructions. It emphasizes the distinction between construal and construction while noting their connection within the theoretical model.

The arrangement of arguments in a construal may not reflect their later syntactic arrangement, highlighting the complexity of linguistic structure analysis.

Key Concepts in Unaccusative Construal

Unaccusative construal relates two entities (figure and ground) in space; their order can vary based on binary values carried by heads or primitive predicates.

Transitional projections exhibit binary alternations between states (e.g., "be" vs. "go") and spatial relations that characterize all unaccusative controls with directional features or possession integration.

Types of Constructions Analyzed

Various constructions analyzed include existential, locative, possessive, and unaccusative constructions; differences are noted between these types and attributive constructions like "these books are boring."

Introduction to Ergative Constructions

Ergative constructions signify changes of state; they inherently involve affectedness—illustrated through examples such as "the tree blossomed" versus activities like "Mary walked." This distinction is crucial for understanding change dynamics in language.

Understanding Change in Ergative Constructions

Examples of Uncaused Change

Examples illustrating uncaused change include phrases like "the tree seemed to blossom overnight" and "he died in 1892," showcasing how these constructs express inherent changes without external causation.

Lexical Decomposition of Ergative Constructions

In analyzing ergative constructions lexically, it’s important to identify the figure (subject) and ground (state), where the ground is not an independent constituent but rather incorporated into the predicate's morphology/phonology. This highlights how verbs convey states directly related to their arguments.

Ground as an Incorporated Element

The ground represents a final figurative location expressed morphologically within verbs; this incorporation illustrates how ergatives relate back to unaccusatives through structural connections involving figures and grounds mediated by terminal coincidence heads.

Incorporation Process Explained

Mechanism of Incorporation

Understanding Ergative Constructions and Their Analysis

Head Complement Relations

The head of the special relation (small r) is in a head-complement relationship with the ground, while the head of T is in a similar relationship with its dominating structure. This indicates that these relationships are local phenomena.

Analyzing Achievements in Grammar

In examples like "the window has broken," it’s noted that there is no agent involved; these events are spontaneous achievements without an agent present in the construal.

Change of State and Computational Systems

Changes of state are significant, as states and locations function similarly within computational systems, allowing them to receive different values based on their construal.

Structure of Ergative Constructions

The primitive predicate's head will be "go," accompanied by a spatial relation for ergative constructions, which always express changes of state. The figure undergoing change occupies the specifier position, while the ground or state serves as a complement.

Roots and Phonological Realization

Brokenness refers to roots—non-linguistic concepts that lack overt realization until they incorporate onto predicates for phonological expression. This incorporation process is crucial for deriving ergative constructions.

External Causes in Ergative Constructions

Some verbs can take an external cause or initiator, leading to what are known as ergatives that enter into causative alternation. This addition introduces an agent into the construal.

Monotransitive Nature Post-Incorporation

Externally caused ergative constructions exhibit a di-transitive nature initially but become monotransitive after incorporating one argument onto the verb.

Comparative Grammar: Initiators and Figures

In comparative grammar, three arguments are typically identified: initiator (agent), figure (entity undergoing change), and ground (location).

Comparing Accusative and Ergative Constructions

Both accusative ("Peter arrived home") and ergative constructions ("the window broke") express change but differ in how they relate entities to space.

Phonological Realization Process

Understanding Ergative and Accusative Constructions

Lexical Decomposition in Syntax

The speaker discusses the ability to lexically decompose sentences in syntax, noting that grammatical correctness is not always necessary. For example, "Peter holmed" is ungrammatical.

The distinction between locations and states is highlighted; while locations cannot be incorporated into accusative constructions (e.g., "Charles hospital"), states can be (e.g., "Mary's cold").

Similarities Between Ergative and Accusative Constructions

The speaker emphasizes the importance of recognizing similarities rather than just differences between ergative and accusative constructions.

An ergative construction is defined as an accusative construction that incorporates the ground into the phonological matrix of the verb.

Comparison of Constructions

A comparison is made between ergative constructions ("the door remained open") and accusative constructions ("the door opened").

Predicatives are introduced as adjectives that require additional elements to complete their meaning, particularly in copulative verbs like "remain."

Relational Semantics Model

Within a relational semantics model, adjectives such as "open" can be decomposed into spatial relations and non-relational elements.

The analysis shows how both types of constructions incorporate roots related to states or changes, with implications for understanding adjective formation.

Differences in Meaning: Central vs. Terminal Coincidence

The discussion shifts to differences in meaning when verbs like "become" combine with various predicates, highlighting individual-level versus stage-level predicates.

Understanding Negative Constructions in Language

Integration of Verbs and Meaning

The discussion begins with the integration of verbs, particularly how they combine with the verb "ser" in Spanish to express meaning related to change or transformation.

Introduction of resultative constructions, which will be analyzed later, focusing on negative constructions that express activities.

Intransitive and Negative Constructions

Examples of intransitive negative constructions are provided, such as "I can never sleep on airplanes," highlighting their argument structure and agent involvement.

The use of figurative language is noted with examples like "make a violin talk," emphasizing the non-agentive nature of certain verbs like "glow."

Characteristics of Negative Verbs

Discussion on specific negative verbs (e.g., glowing, glittering), which reflect properties rather than strong agent features.

Emphasis on how these verbs typically require prepositions due to their intransitive nature.

Argument Structures and Transitivity

A variety of roots expressing diverse concepts are mentioned; all share compatibility with a negative argument structure.

Comparison between transitive and intransitive uses is made, noting that some constructions may take direct objects.

Representation in Syntax Trees

Explanation of how all negative verbs can be represented as transitive at their core despite being traditionally viewed as intransitive.

The role of the initiator and theme within syntactic trees is discussed, illustrating how they contribute to understanding verb structures.

Conceptualizing Motion and Entity Creation

Clarification that all negative constructions relate to participants, indicating a shift from traditional views on transitivity.

Description of how these constructs are visually represented in syntax trees using examples from English and Spanish.

Final Thoughts on Negative Constructions

Summary points out that phonological matrices for negative constructions express non-relational elements tied to event participation.

Understanding Negative Constructions in Linguistics

The Nature of Negative Constructions

Negative constructions are inherently monotransitive but can appear intransitive after derivation, indicating a complex relationship between the specifier and complement positions.

To express more than two arguments, a combination of accusative and unaccusative construals is often necessary, particularly when discussing negative constructions.

Analyzing Argument Structures

Intransitive examples like "the bell rings" illustrate how we can represent actions with different syntactic configurations, highlighting the compatibility of negative roots with various structures.

The sentence "Mary ran the bell" raises questions about argument count and relationships, prompting an exploration into how to conceptualize these connections.

Core Projections and Initiators

Identifying core projections is crucial; for instance, in "the bell that is ringing," the focus remains on the entity producing sound rather than Mary as an initiator.

The representation must account for additional arguments by determining core elements within the projection while recognizing external initiators' roles.

Recursive Structures in Language

A recursive approach allows for expressing alternations within negative constructions by layering additional accusative projections to accommodate external arguments.

This method illustrates how English utilizes externally caused constructions differently from Spanish, which may be less productive in similar contexts.

Paraphrasing Causative Verbs

Examples such as "Mary made the bell ring" demonstrate how causative verbs can merge at the head of external causes to clarify relationships among entities involved.

Comparisons between English and Spanish reveal structural differences; for example, "Mary walked the dog" cannot be directly translated without altering its structure significantly.

Clitics and Ditransitive Constructions

Attention to clitic usage in Spanish highlights their role in expressing structural features while complicating argument representation within sentences.

Understanding Locative and Ditransitive Constructions

Overview of Constructions

The discussion introduces two types of constructions: the prepositional indirect objective construction and the double object construction, also referred to in Spanish as the indirect object lytic doubling construction.

Locative constructions are defined as those articulated around light verbs like "put," "locate," or "place," which lack a non-relational element in their phonological matrix.

Characteristics of Locative Constructions

These constructions consistently exhibit three arguments: an initiator (e.g., Juan), a figure (e.g., books), and a ground (e.g., table).

All locative constructions express caused change of location, incorporating an initiator, figure, and ground into their structure.

Incorporation in Verb Types

The analysis shifts to location constructions derived from ditransitive structures that indicate final locations or goals.

Examples illustrate passive constructions where the initiator is implied but not overtly stated; semantic expression remains intact even if not explicitly mentioned.

Semantic Elements in Constructions

Three primitives underpin these constructions: cause primitive, change primitive (goal), and direction primitive. Each construction involves an agent initiating a change of location.

The relationship between figures and grounds is emphasized, with grounds expressed within the verb's phonological matrix.

Structural Representation

Location constructions are described as prepositional with incorporation processes that render the verb visible through its arguments.

Despite being inherently ditransitive, these constructions can appear monotransitive after derivation due to structural changes during incorporation.

Examples and Applications

Illustrations include sentences like "she shelved the books" highlighting spatial relations; attention is drawn to how Spanish incorporates prepositions into verbs.

The importance of terminal coincidence relations at the head of spatial relations is noted, indicating how changes take place through initiation processes leading to non-transitivity.

Additional Construction Types

Locatum locating constructions are introduced as another type derived from ditransitive structures; they express one participant's action on another entity.

Understanding Spatial Constructions

The Structure of Spatial Constructions

Spatial constructions consist of an initiator projected by the head of the cause projection, indicating a change, which is why they utilize "go." The order of figure and ground differs from location constructions.

Location constructions derive from prepositional indirect object constructions, while spatial relations in these contexts involve a direct object as the ground and a figure expressed through phonological matrices.

A change in the value of the head of spatial relations (from "to" to "with") reverses the order of figure and ground. Here, the ground occupies the specifier position while the figure is in the complement position.

Examples and Applications

Examples illustrate how spatial relations connect entities (figure and ground). Some constructions may show weak felicity or be interpreted narratively (e.g., activities like painting).

When stating "he painted the shelf," it implies that paint was applied to an existing shelf rather than creating an artwork depicting it. This distinction leads into discussions on alternation processes not covered yet.

Incorporation vs. Calculation

All discussed constructions are derived through incorporation, emphasizing that they represent caused locations with agents or initiators involved.

Differentiating between locating and location constructions requires understanding Halen Kaiser's proposal regarding argument structure configurations for both types.

Coincidence Relations

In location constructions, direct objects correspond to locations expressed by verbs; conversely, central coincidence relations integrate non-relational entities with direct objects.

Location constructions exhibit terminal coincidence relation heads while locating constructions articulate spatial relations around central coincidence values.

Summary of Key Concepts

Today's analysis focused on various construction types derived through incorporation: negative planar constructions, ergative structures, location constructs, and externally caused actions.

A classification system for lexical verbs was introduced: transitive versus intransitive divisions. Intransitive verbs further split into plain/negative verbs and unaccusative forms.

Further Classifications

Transitive lexical verbs can be categorized into mono-transitive (like location constructs), externally caused ergative/negative forms seen today, plus another type to be explored next week involving specified cognate objects.

Understanding Verb Topology and Argument Structure

The Nature of Lexical Verbs

The typology of lexical verbs emphasizes that the meaning of verb roots in isolation does not convey the argument structure inherent to constructions.

Argument structure is defined as a feature of syntactic structures rather than isolated items, indicating that it emerges from how arguments are related within syntax.

There exists a fundamental semantic layer expressed through syntax, which highlights a disconnect between root meanings and their syntactic roles, leading to potential ambiguities.

Ambiguity arises from marked combinations of syntactic argument structures and specific phonological matrices associated with particular roots.