On the division of labor between roots and functional structure
Artemis Alexiadou (Universität Stuttgart) and Terje Lohndal (NTNU Trondheim)
[email protected], [email protected]
Workshop on little v
Leiden University
October 25, 2013
1.
Introduction
It is assumed that Merge combines two syntactic objects α and β into the unordered
set {α, β}.
Typically one of them projects and provides the label for the phrasal element
(Chomsky 1995).
(1)
a.
{α, {α, β}}
b.
{β, {α, β}}
As this example demonstrates, either α or β projects, there are no phrase structure
constraints on which element can project.
In frameworks such as Distributed Morphology (henceforth, DM), and exoskeletal
approaches in general (e.g. Borer 2005a, b, 2013), it is assumed that the lexicon
consists of roots and that these roots are categorized by functional elements (Marantz
1997, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2010).
(2)
a.
[v v √ROOT ]
b.
[n n √ROOT ]
The leading idea is that word formation is syntactic and that there are atomic, nondecomposable elements that are called roots (see also Pesetsky 1995, Borer 2005a, b,
2013).
Importantly, in this theory, roots are category neutral. They enter the syntactic
derivation without a category and are only categorized by combining with categorydefining functional heads/labels.
When roots merge with a categorizer, the categorizer always projects; the root never
seems to project. That is, we always have (3a), never (3b) (see De Belder and van
Craenenbroeck 2011 for discussion).
(3)
a.
[v v √ROOT ]
b.
[√ROOT v √ROOT ]
An implicit assumption here is that the categorizer is always a head. What blocks
(3b)?
The phrase-structure domains of categorization still have not been properly defined,
though for discussion see Harley (2005), Embick (2010), De Belder and van
Craenenbroeck (2011), Anagnostopoulou & Samioti (to appear) and to some extent
Acquaviva (2008).
1
Questions for this talk:
 Do roots have independent meaning of their own, that is, do roots have
substantial meaning independent of their syntactic configuration?
 How are roots introduced into morphosyntactic structures?
Our proposal:
 A typology of languages based on the division of labor between little v and
roots, building on Arad (2005), Anagnostopoulou & Samioti (to appear).
 Roots are introduced in a unified way into morphosyntactic representations,
namely as modifiers of their categorizers.
Overview of the paper:
 Roots across languages: an introduction
 Causativization in English
 Roots in Greek
 Idiomatic expressions
 Roots across languages: a typology
 The locus of Root-Merger
 Conclusions
2.
Roots across languages: an introduction
Arad (2003, 2005) shows that some languages have more roots than others. She
compares English to Hebrew.
In Hebrew, the number of roots is highly limited. These morphemes have little
meaning outside of a template that assigns interpretation to them.
The following examples are all taken from Arad (2003: 743-744).
(4)
(5)
√šmn
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
CeCeC (n)
CaCCeCet (n)
CuCaC (n)
CaCeC (adj.)
hiCCiC (v)
CiCCeC (n)
semen
šamenet
šuman
šamen
hišmin
šimen
‘oil, grease’
‘cream’
‘fat’
‘fat’
‘grow fat/fatten’
‘grease’
√bxn
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
CaCaC (v)
hiCCiC (v)
miCCaC (n)
CoCaC (n)
maCCeCa (n)
aCCaCa (n)
baxan
hivxin
mivxan
boxan
mavxena
avxana
‘test, examine’
‘discern’
‘an exam’
‘a quiz’
‘a test-tube’
‘a diagnosis’
2
(6)
(7)
√xšb
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
CaCaC (v)
CiCCeC (v)
hiCCiC (v)
hitCaCCeC (v)
maCCeC (n)
maCCaCa (n)
CCiCut (n)
CiCCon (n)
taCCiC (n)
xašav
xišev
hexšiv
hitxašev
maxšev
maxšava
xašivut
xešbon
taxšiv
‘think’
‘calculate’
‘consider’
‘be considerate’
‘a computer/calculator’
‘a thought’
‘importance’
‘arithmetic/bill’
‘calculus’
√qlt
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
CaCaC (v)
hiCCiC (v)
miCCaC (n)
maCCeC (n)
taCCiC (n)
CaCCeCet (n)
CeCeC (n)
qalat
hiqlit
miqlat
maqlet
taqlit
qaletet
qeletet
‘absorb, receive’
‘record’
‘a shelter’
‘a receiver’
‘a record’
‘a cassette’
‘input’
English is different: in this language, roots seem to have some substantial meaning
which is rather independent of the syntactic configuration in which they occur (Harley
2005, Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer 2006, and Levin and Rappaport
Hovav 2008). Latinate bound roots such as √fer, √ceive are exceptional, cf. Arad
(2003: 743).
There are roots that can appear in different syntactic contexts. However, this is far
more restricted than in Hebrew.
(8)
(9)
√run
a.
b.
c.
to run (v)
a run (n)
a runny nose (a)
√run
a.
b.
c.
*to run very fast (v)
*a walk (n)
*a runny nose (a)
Furthermore, unlike Hebrew, English does not have a rich functional vocabulary that
is responsible for fixing the interpretation of roots.
Thus we have two languages on each side of the scale: Hebrew with little root
independent meaning and several functional morphemes, and English with root
independent meaning and few functional morphemes.
 Are we dealing with a binary opposition or a scale along which languages can be
placed?
3
3.
Causativization in English
van Gelderen (2011) documents a series of verbal valency changes in the history of
the English language.
She notes that there is a causativizing affix –j in early Germanic, which becomes –i in
Old English. Lass (1994: 166) argues that by Old English, only a small group of verbs
shows the presence of this –i causativizer. Thus it does not appear to be very
productive.
The example in (10) is analyzed as in (11) in van Gelderen (2011: 124).
(10)
Ac utan glad-i-an georne God ælmihtigne.
But let.we glad-caus-inf eargerly God almighty
But let us make God the almighty glad eagerly.’ (Wulfstan Homilies)
(11)
vP
v’
DP
(he)
v
-i
VP
V’
DP
God
V
glad
AP
glad
In the Middle English period, a new causativizer is introduced, namely –en. This
causativizer is very productive. Examples are provided in (12) from van Gelderen
(2011: 125).
(12)
awaken, blacken, brighten, broaden, cheapen, coarsen, dampen, darken,
deafen, deepen, fasten, fatten, flatten, freshen, frighten, gladden, harden,
hasten, hearten, heighten, lengthen, lessen, lighten, loosen, madden, moisten,
neaten, quicken, quieten, redden, ripen, roughen, sadden, sharpen, shorten,
sicken, slacken, smarten, soften, stiffen, straighten, strengthen, sweeten,
tauten, tighten, toughen, waken, weaken, whiten, widen, worsen.
She also points out that there are three other causative suffixes: -ize, -(i)fy, -ate (e.g.,
advertize, abdicate, beautify). These are not fully productive and were loaned from
Greek and Latin.
van Gelderen argues that in Modern English, -en and zero derivations derive a
causative from an unaccusative.
van Gelderen analyzes –en as an instance (a ‘flavor’, cf. Folli and Harley 2005, 2007,
Embick 2009) of little v, though with a clear causative semantics.
We argue that this causative semantics is not encoded in the head per se, but rather
emerges as a property of the entire syntactic configuration (Hale and Keyser 1993,
4
Higginbotham 2000, Marantz 2006, Ramchand 2008). The other ‘causative’ suffixes
are pure verbalizers, realizing little v in the sense of Borer (2013).
(13)
vP<e -> s>
v<e>
√/x
xP<s>
v<e>
(Schäfer 2012: 172)
The main argument for the differentiation among the suffixes is that the non-en
suffixes are not productive and do not provide real causative semantics.
The history of causativization in English demonstrates that little v can be
morphologically realized even in English, and that English at earlier stages looked a
bit more like Hebrew since it had visible morphological realizations of syntactic
heads.
4.
Roots in Greek
In this section, we will look at a language that seems to be placed somewhere in the
middle between English and Hebrew, namely Greek.
In Greek, there are two participles that attach to verbs: –tos and –menos.
Anagnostopoulou (2003) and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2008) argue that –tos
participles lack event implications, indicating that these participles attach to the root
below the category-defining head. –menos participles are different, these denote states
resulting from prior events. They also attach above the category-defining head.
Assuming what Anagnostopoulou and Samioti (in press) identify as the Marantz/Arad
Hypothesis (Marantz 2001, 2007, Arad 2003, 2005),
(14)
The Marantz/Arad Hypothesis
Roots are assigned an interpretation in the context of the first category
assigning head/phase head merged with them, which is then fixed throughout
the derivation
this means that –menos participles are expected to have a predictable meaning
whereas –tos participles will be highly idiosyncratic (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003,
Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2008).
Anagnostopoulou and Samioti (in press) show that this picture is simplified in the
sense that –tos participles often behave as if they were attached outside the categorydefining head.
This is relevant, because their analysis shows dissociation among roots: Some roots
have substantial meaning; others have a meaning that depends on the syntactic
environment.
5
Greek has suffixes that serve to verbalize a root (Giannakidou and Merchant 1999,
Alexiadou 2001, 2009, Ralli 2001).
(15)
-iz, -on, -en/an, -ev, -az, -a
(16)
a.
c.
e.
aspr-iz-o,
whiten
diaplat-en-o,
widen,
diav-az-o,
read
(Alexiadou 2001, 2009)
kathar-iz-o
cleaned
arost-en-o
become sick
mir-az-o
split, share
b.
pag-on-o
ler-on-o
freeze
dirty
d.
sten-ev-o,
berd-ev-o
tighten ,
confuse
f.
pul-a-o
xal-a-o
sell
destroy
(Anagnostopoulou and Samioti in press)
The –menos participle can attach outside of the verbalizing suffix.
(17)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
aspr-iz-menos,
whitened,
pag-o-menos,
frozen,
diaplat-i-menos,
widened,
sten-e-menos,
tightened,
diav-az-menos,
read
pul-i-menos
sold
kathar-iz-menos
cleaned
ler-o-menos
dirtied
arost-i-menos
sickened
berd-e-menos
confused
mir-az-menos
split, shared
xal-az-menos
destroyed
Typically, root verbalizers cannot occur together with –tos participles (Alexiadou and
Anagnostopoulou 2008).
(18)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
*aspr-is-tos,
whitened,
*pag-o-tos,
frozen,
*diaplat-i-tos,
widened,
*sten-ef-tos,
tightened,
*diav-as-tos,
read
*kathar-is-tos
cleaned
*ler-o-tos
dirtied
*arost-i-tos
sickened
*berd-ef-tos
confused
*mir-as-tos
split, shared
However, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti (in press) show that there is a range of cases
where –tos participles can occur.
(19)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
axn-is-tos
‘steaming hot’
koudoun-is-tos ‘ringing’
vathoul-o-tos ‘hollow’
vid-o-tos
‘screwed’
if-an-tos
‘woven’
axn-iz-o
koudoun-iz-o
vathoul-on-o
vid-on-o
if-en-o
‘steam’
‘ring (a bell)’
‘hollow out’
‘screw’
‘weave’
6
f.
g.
h.
i.
magir-ef-tos
fit-ef-tos
angali-as-tos
evodi-as-tos
‘cooked’
‘planted’
‘embraced’
‘fragrant’
magir-ev-o
fit-ev-o
angali-az-o
evodi-az-o
‘cook’
‘plant’
‘embrase’
‘be fragrant’
Importantly, these –tos participles do not have event implications (they denote
characteristic states), and they do not license manner modification, agent PPs or
instruments (Anagnostopoulou and Samioti in press).
(20)
a.
b.
c.
*To fagito
The food
*To fagito
The food
*Ta fita
The plants
ine kala/ prosektika
is well/ carefully
ine
magir-ef-t-o
is
cooked
ine
fit-ef-t-a
are
planted
magir-ef-t-o
cooked
apo tin Maria
by the Mary
me diaforetika ergalia
with different instruments
Anagnostopoulou and Samioti (in press) take these facts to show that little v, which
typically introduces event interpretations (e.g., Embick 2004, Alexiadou,
Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer 2006, Marantz 2001, 2007, Harley 2012) has to be
dissociated from verbalizers that are realized morphologically. See also Alexiadou
(2009) for result nominals in Greek. We endorse this position.
Now, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti (in press) show that roots fall into different
ontological categories, impacting their syntactic realization. They follow Harley
(2005) in assuming that the basic ontological types are as listed in (21).
(21)
a.
b.
c.
events
things
states
They provide a set of generalizations:
(22)
a.
b.
c.
d.
–tos directly attaches to roots which can be characterized as Rootevent.
–tos does not combine with Rootthing. It combines with Rootthing +
verbalizer.
–tos does not combine with Rootstate + verbalizer because an adjective
blocks the –tos form.
verbalizers turn undefined roots into Constructevent and then –tos
attaches to the Rootundefined + verbalizer. (Cf. Arad 2003, 2005)
Greek thus seems to be somewhere in between Hebrew and English.
5.
A note on idiomatic expressions
Lately, little v has been related to interpretation, and in particular Arad (2003, 2005)
and Marantz (2001, 2007, 2012) have argued that the first categorizer determines the
interpretation of a root.
7
Anagnostopoulou & Samioti (in press) show that Greek complicates this picture and
does not conform to the Arad/Marantz view (see also Harley 2010). They argue that
the relevant head that determines idiomaticity is Voice (cf. Marantz 1997, 2013).
However, if Arad and one version of Marantz were right, it would obscure the claim
that English is different from Hebrew: the categorizer should be important for
determining the meaning in both languages.
Instead, what we see is that in English, the interpretation of the root is to a greater
extent determined by the root itself, cf. Harley’s (2005) ontology.
6.
Roots across languages: a typology
We argue that it is possible to devise a typology of roots and functional morphemes
where languages are sorted on a scale from Hebrew to English.
(23)
A scale from ‘empty’ roots to ‘contentful’ roots
Hebrew
>
Greek
>
Old English
>
English
It follows that in Hebrew, functional morphemes and especially verbalizers are crucial
in determining the interpretation of a root. In contemporary English, this is not the
case, and the interpretation of the root is to a greater extent determined by the
meaning of the root itself. In cases of idiomatic dependencies, we argue that it is not
little v but Voice that is the crucial head.
This suggests that little v plays different roles in different languages: in Hebrew it is
crucial for determining interpretation of roots, whereas in English it only categorizes
roots. In English, and partly in Greek, it is Voice that is the more important head for
determining (idiomatic) interpretation.
We argue that little v is always a verbalizer in all languages. It can also take on
additional roles, such as in Hebrew where it is strongly linked to determining the
interpretation of roots.
These roles have to be acquired – Universal Grammar only specifies that little v is
always a categorizer. This means that little v cannot be the locus of accusative Case,
but that this has to be relegated to Voice or Aspect heads.
Little v does not play a role in argument structure, contrary to work by Chomsky
(1995, 2001, 2008) and others. But where do little v and a root merge in the structure?
7.
The locus of Root-Merger
Three views have been pursued with respect to the question how roots are merged in
morphosyntactic representations:
1) Roots are always merged as complements of v (e.g. de Belder &
Craenenbroek 2011).
2) Roots are merged as v modifiers (Marantz 2013).
3) Some roots are merged as v's modifier while others as v's complement
(Embick 2004, 2010, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2013).
8
We will address this question by looking at a basic configuration, illustrating two
possibilities.
(24)
a.
[v v √ROOT ]
b.
[√ROOT v √ROOT ]
The empirical evidence suggests that the categorizer projects, providing the correct
headedness to the structure (e.g., vP versus nP). If roots do not contain category
information, there is no way they can serve as labels.
The question is how to ensure that the grammar does not generate (24b).
Technically, the only way to ensure that we never get (24b) is to propose that roots
merge always as modifiers of/adjuncts to their categorizing head.
Chomsky (2004) distinguishes between Set Merge and Pair Merge. The former is
ordinary merge, which creates an unordered set, whereas the latter is a type of merge
that creates an ordered pair. Chomsky claims that adjunction corresponds to Pair
Merge.
(25)
a.
{α, β}
b.
<α, β>
In cases of adjunction, the adjoined phrase γP combines with another phrase δP.
Normally, δP projects the label (though see Donati 2006). In that sense, roots interact
with categorizers in a similar way that adjuncts interact with the non-adjoined part of
the structure.
Recently, Marantz (2013) puts forth several arguments in favor of the view that in
English, roots always merge as modifiers of v.
One such argument relates to the observation made in Embick (2010) that within a
spell-out domain, morphologically triggered allomorphy (e.g., in irregular past tense)
is conditioned by linear adjacency, e.g.. √TEACH + ø + Pst = taught (irregular /t/ or
null allomorph of Pst). According to Marantz, if roots were merged low we would
expect them not to show irregular past tenses, contrary to fact: several putative low
roots of predicates undergoing the causative alternation show irregular past tenses:
bend-bent, break-broke.
Another set of arguments in favor of Marantz’s view comes from re-prefixation.
a) Re- only has a restitutive reading, unlike again, which can have both a repetitive
and a restitutive reading:
(26)
•
John re-opened the door
(26) has only the restitutive reading, i.e. it presupposes that a direct object (or
underlying direct object) has been before in the end state that the verb phase
asserts that the direct object is being brought into (again)
b) Re-prefixation is licit only with verbs that take direct objects:
9
(27)
a.
b.
*John re-laughed
John re-sang the aria
c) Re-prefixation is subject to the sole complement generalization:
(28)
a.
b.
John re-positioned the display
*John reput the display on the table
d) Restitutive re- always scopes over the end state of a change of state predicate
Marantz’s proposal: re merges in the complement domain of little v and can move to
the v-Root complex.
If categorizers always project, then the root must always be a modifier. √ROOT
cannot project into a phrase and it cannot take part in labeling.
This requires a different analysis of phenomena where it has been argued that roots
are able to take complements. Kratzer (1996) argues that the verb takes a complement
but that the subject is severed from the verb both syntactically and semantically. We
will assume that full thematic separation is on the right track and that the theme is
introduced by way of a functional projection, as in Lin (2001), Borer (2005, 2013),
Marantz (2005), and Lohndal (in press).
In the area of nominalizations, the Theme cannot be the complement of the root, as in
Alexiadou (2001) and Embick (2009, 2010). Rather, we argue that the Theme is
introduced as the specifier of a functional projection, in line with e.g. Lin (2001),
Borer (2005a, b, 2013), Marantz (2005).
The root is introduced at the bottom of the structure, adjoined to a categorizer, e.g., as
in (29), or in (30a-b) for different types of nominalizations (the structures are
simplified for expository convenience).
(29)
[FP DPtheme [F F [v v √ROOT]
(30)
a.
b.
[FP DPtheme [F F [n n √ROOT]
[ n [FP DPtheme [F F [v v √ROOT]]
8.
Conclusions
We argue that it is possible to devise a typology of roots and functional morphemes
where languages are sorted on a scale from Hebrew to English.
(31)
A scale from ‘empty’ roots to ‘contentful’ roots
Hebrew
>
Greek
>
Old English
>
English
In Hebrew, functional morphemes and especially verbalizers are crucial in
determining the interpretation of a root. In contemporary English, this is not the case,
and the interpretation of the root is to a greater extent determined by the meaning of
the root itself.
10
This suggests that little v plays different roles in different languages:
 in Hebrew it is crucial for determining interpretation of roots, whereas in
English it only categorizes roots.
 In English, and partly in Greek, it is Voice that is the more important head for
determining (idiomatic) interpretation.
 Little v is always a verbalizer in all languages. It can also take on additional roles,
such as in Hebrew where it is strongly linked to determining the interpretation of
roots.
We mentioned above that there is evidence from the literature that v can be of two
types even in languages such as English and Greek, and discussed the distinction
between a v head in the context of causative semantics, and pure verbalizers. Clearly,
this departs from the view of v as being the head introducing the external argument, in
e.g., Chomsky (1995), Embick (2004), Collins (2005), Folli & Harley (2008),
Merchant (2013). External arguments are introduced by Voice, cf. Kratzer (1996),
Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer (2006).
The question is: do we need to encode semantics on little v heads?
Ramchand (2008) and Schäfer (2012) among others have shown that the grammar
does not make reference to annotated v head, or flavors of v.
All v heads are verbalizers. The semantics of the constructions result from the
combination of v heads and different types of roots (unlike, e.g., Pylkkänen 2008). In
particular, the combination of v with a particular type of root (result) and small clause
gives rise to causative semantics. Most –en roots combines with states/result in
English.
References
Acquaviva, P. 2008. Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. Paper presented at the Fifth York-Essex
Morphology Meeting.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalisation and ergativity. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: the case of (Greek) nominals.
Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (eds.), 253-280. Oxford
University Press.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 2008. Structuring participles. Proceedings of WCCFL 26: 33-41.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 2013. Manner vs. result complementarity in verbal
alternations: a view from the clear alternation. Proceedings of NELS 42: 39-52.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou & F. Schäfer. 2006. The Properties of Anticausatives Cross-linguistically. In
M. Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 187-212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. Participles and Voice. Perfect Explorations, A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert & A. von
Stechow (eds.), 1-36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, E. and Y. Samioti. In press. Domains within Words and their meanings: a case study. The
Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (eds.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Arad, M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778.
Arad, M. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Borer, H. 2005a. Structuring Sense: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. 2005b. Structuring Sense: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures, A. Belletti (ed.), 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, C. P. Otero, R. Freidin, & M.-L. Zubizarreta (eds.), 133-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81-120.
De Belder, M. and J. v. Craenenbroeck. 2011. How to merge a root. Ms., CRISSP/HUB/UiL-OTS/Utrecht &
CRISSP/HUB/FUSL/KUL.
Donati, C. 2006. On wh head movement. Wh-Moving On, L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.), 21-46. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Embick, D. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355-392.
Embick, D. 2009. Roots, States, and Stative Passives. Paper presented at the Roots workshop,
University of Stuttgart, June.
Embick, D. 2010. Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Embick, D. and A. Marantz. 2008. Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 1-53.
Folli, R. and H. Harley. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English.
Aspectual inquiries, P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (eds.), 95-120. Dordrecht: Springer.
Folli, R. and H. Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of
little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197-238.
Folli, R. and H. Harley. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118: 190-202.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical
Linguistics 1: 106-143.
Giannakidou, A. & J. Merchant. 1999. Why Giannis can’t scrub his plate clean: On the
absence of resultative secondary predication in Greek. Greek Linguistics’ 97: Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Greek Linguistics, A. Mozer (ed.), 93-103. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The View
from Building 20, K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), 53-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. The View From Building 20,
K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, H. 2005. How do verbs take their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of
roots in English. The Syntax of Aspect, N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds), 42-64. Oxford University
Press.
Harley, H. 2007. External arguments: On the independence of voice and v. Talk presented at the 30th GLOW
colloquium, University of Tromsø.
Harley, H. 2010. The ‘No Agent Idioms’ Hypothesis. Talk given at On Linguistic Interfaces II, University of
Ulster, Belfast.
Harley, H. 2012. Lexical decomposition in modern generative grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of
Compositionality, W. Hinzen, M. Werning & E. Machery (eds.), 328-350. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harley. H. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 3457.
Higginbotham, J. 2000. Accomplishments. Proceedings of GLOW in Asia II, 72-82. Nagoya: Nanzan University.
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, J. Rooryck & L.
Zaring (eds.), 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lass, R. 1994. Old English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, B & M. Rappaport Hovav. 2008. A constraint on verb meanings. Paper presented at Brown University.
Lin, T-H. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. PhD, University of California, Irvine.
Lohndal, T. In press. Phrase Structure and Argument Structure: A case study of the syntax-semantics interface.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from Syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.
University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark &
A. Williams (eds.), 201-225. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia.
Marantz, A. 2001. Words and Things. Ms., MIT & NYU.
Marantz, A. 2005. Objects out of the lexicon: objects as events. Paper presented at the University of Vienna.
Marantz, A. 2006. Morphology and grammatical architecture. Class material at the EALing Fall School, Ecole
Normale Superieure, Paris.
Marantz, A. 2007. Phases and words. Phases in the theory of grammar, S.-H. Choe (eds.), 191-221. Seoul: Dong
In Publisher.
Marantz, A. 2013. Locating the Verbal Root. Talk given at the 25th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics,
University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
Merchant, J. 2013. Voice and Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77-108.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, L. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schäfer, F. 2012. Two types of external argument licensing – the case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66: 128-180.
12