rblight@mail.utexas.edu
Return to main program
(i) languages with virtually no (syntactic) resultatives (e.g. Irish, Japanese)We argue that the Case resources of a given language impose constraints on the possible resultatives, producing the mixed patterns. However, locality conditions on Case assignment and predication relations cannot account for the rigid syntax of the construction in English. We show that the English resultative construction is not compatible with verbs that require more than one internal argument. A principled explanation for this generalization can only be provided if Resultative Formation in English involves a radical restructuring of the theta-grid of the matrix verb that turns it into a monotransitive verb that subcategorizes for a single object position, possibly in the form of a complex predicate. In effect, the fixed argument structure of the English resultative construction prevents any extra internal argument from co-occurring with the resultative as well as requiring a "fake object" for unergative intransitives.
(ii) languages where resultatives are productive and have no fixed syntax (e.g. Korean, Tamil)
(iii) languages where resultatives are productive, but have a fixed syntax (e.g. English)
iv. languages with productive resultatives and are constrained but not fixed syntax (e.g. Finnish, German)
|
|
Last updated July 20, 1997 by rblight@mail.utexas.edu Return to main program |