Syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of English transitive resultative constructions

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 37
10 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of English transitive resultative constructions
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation ofEnglish transitive resultative constructions Maryse Grˆone and Philip Miller Universit´e Paris Diderot, marysegrone@gmail.com, philip.miller@univ-paris-diderot.fr ISLE Conference, Universit¨at Z¨urich, August 24-27 2014 1  Introduction Two types of interpretations for resultatives (1) a. He hammered the metal flat. (cf. He hammered the metal.) [Control]b. I broke the piggy bank open. (cf. I broke the piggy bank.) [Control](2) a. The joggers ran the pavement thin. (cf. *The joggers ran the pavement.)[Raising]b. He shouted himself hoarse. (cf. *He shouted himself.) [Raising](1) are “control resultatives” or “subcategorized resultatives”(2) are “raising resultatives” or “nonsubcategorized resultatives” or “ECM resulta-tives”2  Uniform vs. Nonuniform analyses of resultatives Doresultativeswithcontrolandraisinginterpretationshavedifferentsyntacticand/orsemantic structures? Nonuniform analyses  (Carrier and Randall (1992), Rappaport Hovav and Levin(1998), Wechsler (1997) ...)(3) a. He hammered the metal flat. ≈ [he hammered the metal]  CAUSE  [the metal  BECOME  flat]b. The joggers ran the pavement thin. ≈ [the joggers ran]  CAUSE  [the pavement  BECOME  thin]3  Uniform vs. Nonuniform analyses of resultatives Uniform analyses  (Kayne (1985), Hoekstra (1988), M¨uller (2002) ...)(4) a. He hammered the metal flat. ≈ [he hammered]  CAUSE  [the metal  BECOME  flat]4  Goals of this talk •  We will provide new corpus data that show that constraints on control andraising resultatives proposed by current theories run into empirical problems. •  We will suggest that apparent control semantics results from gricean implica-tures based on world knowledge. •  We support this position using acceptability experiments on na¨ıve subjects •  We support a “Simpler Syntax” / HPSG approach: reduce complexity of syn-tax and increase explanatory burden on semantics and pragmatics5
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks