Unit 2 - 1. Unaccusative and Ditransitive Construals

Accusative Construal and Unaccusative Verbs

Introduction to Accusative Construal

• The session focuses on the accusative construal, which represents the basic meaning of unaccusative verbs, both telic and atelic.

• According to Mateo Fontanas, different primitive predicates can be combined to represent fundamental semantic relations.

Semantic Relations and Argument Structures

• Key questions include whether constructions relate entities in space (concrete or figurative) and if events are states or changes.

• Some constructions allow for the introduction of an agent or cause, projected by a causal relation. Relational semantics assumes a relevant semantic structure connected to syntax, represented through meaningful tree diagrams.

Eventive Projection and Spatial Relations

• The accusative construal combines two argument structures: eventive projection (expressing change/state) and spatial relation (expressed through a head labeled little r). This relates two arguments: one in the specifier position and another in the complement position.

• Meaning is layered; it is not solely based on phonological associations but also on how argument structures are configured meaningfully.

Examples of Unaccusative Construal

• An example includes using a basic tree diagram to express changes of location or permanence within contexts, such as "Pedro troila cocina" indicating state versus change.

• Adjectives are decomposed into prepositions representing spatial relations; locations can be interpreted as states or figurative locations. For instance, "Mary is beautiful" translates to "Mary is with beauty."

Directionality in Relational Semantics

• The spatial relation has two values: central coincidence (integration) where figure and ground become integrated, versus direction without integration (e.g., "Pedro troila cocina"). Direction can be dynamic or static depending on context.

• Understanding these constructs helps internalize arrangements for unaccusative verbs; every unaccusative construal relates two entities through spatial relations—typically a theme and a location/ground.

State vs Change Representation

Understanding Unaccusative Verbs and Spatial Relations

The Nature of Unaccusative Constructions

• The discussion begins with the concept of binary values in relation to central coincidence, expressed through spatial relations involving a figure (the subject) and its complement (the location).

• An example illustrates the difference between existential sentences, which are static, and dynamic constructions that express change, particularly in location.

• The head of the transitional relation is identified as "go," indicating a change in position for the entity involved (e.g., students moving towards a library).

Examples of Change and Location

• Another example provided is "a ghostly face has appeared at the window," where the face (figure) relates to the window (ground), emphasizing how unaccusative verbs convey changes.

• The verb merges directly into the head node, taking on a spatial relation that expresses terminal coincidence between figures and grounds.

Movement and Case Features

• It is noted that subjects do not raise to check case features within these constructions; instead, they remain in situ due to a focus on thematic domains rather than functional categories.

• The speaker emphasizes that their analysis will not involve movement but will utilize primitive predicates like merge, incorporation, and conflation.

Lexical-Syntactic Interface Focus

• A hypothetical scenario discusses how an unaccusative construction might involve raising to subject position for case checking while leaving traces behind.

• The emphasis remains on studying lexical elements without delving into functional categories such as tense or transformations occurring post-syntax.

State vs. Change: Understanding Permanence

• An example highlights permanence using "the document sat on the desk," illustrating how certain verbs can express states rather than changes.

Understanding Spatial Relations and Predicates in Linguistics

Integration and Possession in Spatial Relations

• The head of the spatial relation expresses integration, indicating an inherent quality or state. This concept is often contrasted with possession, which represents a binary opposition.

Adjectives and Figure-Ground Relationships

• In the formation of adjectives, such as "that wrestler with Ruslan ruthlessness," the relationship between figure (ruthlessness) and ground (the wrestler) is reversed. Here, ruthlessness serves as the figure while the wrestler acts as the ground.

Central Coincidence vs. Terminal Coincidence

• When discussing central coincidence, the specifier position is occupied by the ground while the figure complements this head. This contrasts with terminal coincidence where roles are reversed, leading to different predicate types: individual level predicates versus stage level predicates.

Individual Level Predicates Explained

• Individual level predicates express inalienably possessed qualities; for example, "she's beautiful" indicates an inherent quality that cannot be changed. These constructions combine 'be' with a central coincidence relating two elements: a figure and a ground.

Stage Level Predicates vs. Individual Level Predicates

Understanding Internal Argument Structures in English and Spanish

The Arrangement of Internal Arguments

• The discussion begins with the concept of internal arguments in sentences, highlighting that in English, there can be alternate arrangements. For example, "Juan sent a card to Mary" shows "a card" as the direct object and "Mary" as the indirect object.

• In contrast, Spanish does not allow for this alternation; the order of internal arguments remains fixed in verbs of transmission. An example provided is "Rupert gave some money to us last Friday," illustrating how both languages handle direct and indirect objects differently.

Types of Constructions

• The speaker introduces two types of constructions: prepositional indirect object construction (where the direct object comes first) and double object construction (without an overt preposition). This distinction is crucial for understanding sentence structure variations.

• In English, the prepositional indirect object construction is identified by its use of a preposition before the direct object. Conversely, Spanish employs a similar structure but includes clitic doubling for indirect objects.

Semantic Implications

• According to Tonya Blin, the equivalent construction in Spanish expresses meanings similar to those found in English's double object construction. This highlights how different languages convey similar semantic relationships through varied syntactic structures.

• The speaker explains that while one type (prepositional indirect object construction - PIOC) indicates direction or location, another (double object arrangement) conveys possession or integration between entities involved.

Examples and Clarifications

• Further examples illustrate how these constructions function semantically. For instance, “Maria gives money to the poor” demonstrates goal expression versus possession indicated by “Mary’s given Pablo quite a lot of money.”

• The distinction between these constructions emphasizes their differing implications: PIOC focuses on directionality while double objects express relational integration between entities.

Restrictions on Indirect Objects

• Tonya Blin notes specific restrictions on indirect objects within these constructions. Unlike PIOC which only denotes directionality, double objects imply deeper semantic connections such as integration or possession.

Understanding Double Object Constructions in English and Spanish

The Concept of Possession in Double Object Constructions

• The double object construction requires the indirect object to denote a possessor of the direct object. For example, "I sent the book to New York" is acceptable, but "I sent New York the book" is not.

• Cities or inanimate objects cannot possess entities like books; however, if "New York" referred to a person, it could work. This highlights that possession must be logically applicable.

Restrictions on Recipients and Existence

• In double object constructions, the recipient (indirect object) must be capable of possessing the direct object. For instance, saying "John baked Jill a cake" implies Jill possesses the cake.

• According to Tonya Blimp's theory, this presupposition creates an impossibility to cancel out possession when using double object constructions.

Non-Factual Interpretations and Future Intentions

• When using double object constructions, recipients must exist at the time of speaking. For example, "Javier bought a house for his grandchildren" assumes he has grandchildren now.

• In contrast, prepositional indirect object constructions can imply future intentions without necessitating actual existence.

Scope Freezing and Semantic Ambiguity

• Scope freezing differentiates between how direct objects are interpreted based on their construction type—double vs. prepositional indirect objects.

• An example illustrates ambiguity: "John sent every book to a relative" can mean different relatives received different books or all were sent to one relative.

Idiomatic Expressions and Their Configurations

• Certain idiomatic expressions do not easily fit into both construction types (double vs. prepositional). They often have fixed configurations that maintain their meanings only within specific contexts.

• Examples include phrases like “giving someone a hand,” which lose meaning if altered from their standard usage.

Representing Transitive Constructions Semantically

• To represent transitive constructions semantically involves understanding both configurations—the double object construction and its Spanish equivalent with clitic pronouns.

• The agent role projects causation while expressing changes in location or integration through spatial relations.

Understanding Coincidence Relations in Linguistics

The Distinction Between Terminal and Double Object Constructions

• The discussion centers on the difference between terminal coincidence relations and double object constructions, highlighting that the latter expresses a central coincidence relation.

• The key distinction lies at the head of the spatial relation, which is crucial for understanding these linguistic structures.

• Tonya Blind's perspective is introduced, emphasizing her contention that these two constructions are not derivationally related.

• This assertion challenges existing assumptions about the relationship between different linguistic constructions in terms of their derivation.