.
.
Applicatives
Pylkkänen 2002/8: Introducing Arguments
.
.
.
..
Part I
Luise Dorenbusch
Semantik-Kolloquium
Institut für Linguistik
Universität Leipzig
Sommersemester 2010
22. April 2010
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
1 / 25
Non-core arguments I
(1) English
a. The ice melted.
b. John melted the ice.
c. John melted me some ice.
(2) Venda
a. Mahada
snow
o-nok-a
3SG.PAST-melt-FV
‘The snow melted.’
b. Mukasa o-nok-is-a
Mukasa
3SG.PAST-melt-CAUSE-FV
mahada
snow
‘Mukasa melted the snow.’
c. Mukasa o-nok-is-el-a
Mukasa
3SG.PAST-melt-CAUSE-APPL-FV
Katonga
mahada
Katonga
snow
‘Mukasa melted Katonga the snow.’
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
2 / 25
Non-core arguments II
(3) Venda
a. Mukasa
Mukasa
o-se-is-a
Katonga
3SG.PAST-laugh-CAUSE-FV
Katonga
‘Mukasa made Katonga laugh.’
b. Mukasa o-amb-el-a
Mukasa
3SG.PAST-speak-APPL-FV
Katonga
Katonga
‘Mukasa spoke for Katonga.’
(4) English
a. *Mary laughed Sue.
‘Mary made Sue laugh.’
b. *Mary spoke Sue.
‘Mary spoke for Sue.’
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
3 / 25
Non-core arguments III
main question: reason for these differences?
I
explanation A: different elements with different distribution
I
explanation B: same elements, other reason for different distribution
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
4 / 25
Theoretical Preliminaries
neo-Davidsonian decompositional verb representations
.
.
.
.
Functional Application
.
..
If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s daugther’s, and ⟦β⟧ is a
.function whose domain contains ⟦γ⟧, then ⟦α⟧ = ⟦β⟧(⟦γ⟧)
..
.
.
Predicate Modification
.
..
If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s daugther’s, and ⟦β⟧ and
.⟦γ⟧ are both in D<e,t> , then ⟦α⟧ = λx ∈ De ⟦β⟧(x) = ⟦γ⟧(x) = 1
..
.
.
Event Identification
.
..
<e,<s,t>>
◦
<s,t>
→
<e,<s,t>>
.
..
.
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
5 / 25
Event Identification: An example
.
(5) Brutus stabbed Caesar.
.
Voice P
λe.[stabbing(e) & agent(e, Brutus) & theme(e, Caesar)]
Brutus
Voice’
λxλe.[stabbing(e) & agent(e, Brutus) & theme(e, Caesar)]
<e,<s,t>> (by event identification)
Voiceagent
λxλe.[agent(e, x)]
<e,<s,t>>
λe.[stabbing(e) & theme(e, Caesar)]
<s,t>
stab
λxλe.[stabbing(e) & theme(e, x)]
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
Caesar
22. April 2010
6 / 25
The seven Argument Introducers
High Applicative
Low Recipient Applicative
Low Source Applicative
Root-selecting CAUSE
Verb-selecting CAUSE
Phase-selecting CAUSE
Voice
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
7 / 25
Unergative Applicatives
(6) English
a. I ran.
b. *I ran him.
(7) Chaga
a. N-a̋-i-zrìc-í-à
mbùyà.
FOC-1SG-PRES-run-APPL-FV
9.Friend
‘He is running for a friend.’
English: *unergative applicative
Chaga: Xunergative applicative
English: applicative head relates individual to direct object
Chaga: applicative head relates individual to to event described in VP
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
8 / 25
High and Low Applicatives
English and Chaga:
two different types of constructions,
two different applicative heads
English: Low applicative
Chaga: High applicative
“applicative constructions crosslinguistically split into these two
different types”
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
9 / 25
High Applicatives I
e.g. Chaga
relation between event and individual
similar to Voice (external argument introducer)
add another participant to event described in VP
.
High Applicative (e.g. Chaga: He is eating food for his wife.)
.
..
VoiceP
He
Voice
wife
APPLben
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
eat
food
.
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
.
.
..
10 / 25
High Applicatives II
.
High APPL
..
λxλe[APPL(e,x)]
(APPL
BEN , APPLINSTR , APPLLOC …)
.
..
.
.
.
high applicative head combines with VP (Event Identification)
thus additional individual is related to event of VP
several different applicative heads: benefactive, instrumental, locative,
malefactive, …
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
11 / 25
High Applicatives III
.
He is eating food for his wife.
.
he
VoiceP
λxλe[eating(e) & agent(e, x)
& theme(e, food) & benefactive(e, wife)]
Voice
λxλe[agent(e,x)]
λe[eating(e) & theme(e, food)
& benefactive(e, wife)]
wife
λxλe[eating(e) & theme(e, food)
& benefactive(e,x)]
APPLBEN
λxλe[benefactive(e,x)]
λe[eating(e) & theme(e, food)]
eat
λxλe[eating(e) & theme(e, x)]
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
food
22. April 2010
12 / 25
Low Applicatives I
e.g. English
relation between two individuals
no relation to verb
transfer of possession to direct object
.
Low Applicative (e.g. English: I baked him a cake.)
.
..
VoiceP
I
Voice
bake
him
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
APPL
cake
.
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
.
.
..
13 / 25
Low Applicatives II
structure is more complicated
syntax: indirect object must c-command direct object:
John
APPL
a letter
semantics: APPL and indirect object should combine with N of direct
object
a
letter
APPL
John
solution:
I
APPL is a higher order predicate
I
APPL takes three arguments: direct object, indirect object and verb
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
14 / 25
Low Applicatives III
.
Low APPL-FROM (Source applicative)
(8) Totuk-i
thief-NOM
Mary-hanthey
panci-lul
humchi-ess-ta
Mary-DAT
ring-ACC
steal-PAST-PLAIN
.
.
.
..
λxλyλf
<e,<s,t>> λe[f(e,x) & theme(e,x) & from-the-possession(x,y)]
.
..
‘The thief stole a ring from Mary.’ (lit: The thief stole Mary a ring.)
.
Low APPL-TO (Recipient applicative)
.
.
.
..
λxλyλf
<e,<s,t>> λe[f(e,x) & theme(e,x) & to-the-possession(x,y)]
.
..
(9) Mary bought John the book.
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
15 / 25
.
Mary bought John the book.
.
Mary
VoiceP
λxλe[buying(e) & agent(e,x) & theme(e,the_book)
& to-the-possession(the_book, John)]
Voice
λxλe[agent(e,x)]
λe[buying(e) & theme(e,the_book)
& to-the-possession(the_book, John)]
buy
λxλe[buying(e) & theme(e,x)]
λf<e,<s,t>> λe[f(e,the_book) & theme(e,the_book)
& to-the-possession(the_book,John)]
John
λyλf<e,<s,t>> λe[f(e,the_book) & theme(e,the_book)
& to-the-possession(the_book,y)]
APPL
λxλyλf<e,<s,t>> λe[f(e,x)
& theme(e,x) & from-the-possession(x,y)]
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
the book
22. April 2010
16 / 25
High and Low Applicatives: Predictions
Transitivity Restrictions:
I
with unergative verbs only high APPL
I
low APPL: relation between direct and indirect object
I
unergative verbs: no direct object
Verb Semantics:
I
with static verbs only high APPL
I
low APPL: transfer of possession
I
static verbs: no movement
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
17 / 25
Unergative and Static Applicatives: Examples
.
(10)
unergative verb
a. English
*I ran him.
b. Albanian
I
vrapova
him(DAT.CL)
English: LOW
ran.1SG
‘I ran for him.’
(11)
Albanian: HIGH
static verb
a. Japanese
*John-i Mary-hanthey
John-NOM
Mary-DAT
kabang-ul
cap-ass-ta
bag-ACC
hold-PAST-PLAIN
‘John held Mary her bag.’
b. Venda
Nd-o-far-el-a
Mukasa
1SG-PAST-hold-APPL-FV
.
Mukasa
Japanese: LOW
khali
pot
‘I held the pot for Mukasa.’
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
Venda: HIGH
22. April 2010
18 / 25
Depictive Secondary Predication
depictive secondary predicates (DSPs) describe the state that holds
for one of the participants of an event during this event
(12)
Examples
a. Object with DSP
John ate the meati rawi .
b. Subject with DSP
Johni wrote this letter drunki .
c. Implicit Internal Argument with DSP
*This letter was written drunk.
d. DP inside PP with DSP
*I talked to Suei drunki .
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
19 / 25
Depictive Secondary Predication: Indirect Objects
(13)
Indirect Object DSP
a. I gave Mary the meati rawi .
b. *I gave Maryi the meat hungryi .
claim 1: this property is predicted for low applicatives
claim 2: opposite prediction is made for high applicatives
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
20 / 25
Depictive Secondary Predication: Syntax and Semantics I
possible analyses:
I
small clause + control
I
complex predicate
or
indirect objects can control, but cannot be modified by a DSP:
(14)
a. I wrote himi a letter to PROi show h is mother.
b. Ii told himj the news drunki,∗j .
chosen analyses: complex predicate
I
depictive describes a state that holds during an event:
overlap relation
I
DEP: λf<e,<s,t>> λxλe∃s[f(s,x) & e ◦ s]
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
21 / 25
Depictive Secondary Predication: Syntax and Semantics II
We had eaten tired.
DEP-P
λxλe∃s[tired(s) & in(x, s) & e ◦ s]
<e,<s,t>>
tired
λxλs[tired(s) & in(x, s)]
<e,<s,t>>
DEP
λf<e,<s,t>> λxλe∃s[f(s,x) & e ◦ s]
<<e,<s,t>>,<e,<s,t>>>
depictive phrases are of type <e,<s,t>>
→ they can combine (via PM) with transitive verbs and Voice’
subject and object depictives derivable
VoicePASS of type <s,t>
→ implicit external argument unavailable for DSP
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
22 / 25
Depictive Secondary Predication and Applicatives
low applied argument with DSP: APPL’ combines with DEP-P
but: <e,<<e,s>,<s,t>>> + <e,<s,t>> = ??
low applied arguments are therefore unavailable for depictation
claim 1 X
but direct object can still be modified by a DSP (see next slide)
high applied arguments, on the other hand, are available for depictive
modification:
I
they are, like external arguments, of type <e,<s,t>>
I
<e,<s,t>> + <e,<s,t>> = <e,<s,t>> (via PM)
claim 2 X
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
23 / 25
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
24 / 25
Bibliography
Pylkkänen, Liina 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Pylkkänen, Liina 2008. Introducing Arguments, Linguistics Inquiry
Monograph, vol. 49. The MIT Press.
Luise Dorenbusch (Semantik-Kolloquium)
Pylkkänen 2008: Introducing Arguments
22. April 2010
25 / 25