Argument Realization Patterns in Spanish

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

Canterbury

Congreso; 2017 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain; 2017

Linguistics Association of Great Britain-University of Kent

Argument realization patterns in Spanish: should we add a third variant to the causative-inchoative alternation? M. Eugenia Mangialavori Rasia (CONICET)The causative-inchoative alternation has been subject to extensive research in Romance languages (e.g. Labelle 1992, Folli 2002). Yet, a fact which is not commonly discussed is that the variability in the syntactic frame can be argued to extend to a third alternative, also related through the notion of cause. This overlooked variant features only one argument, a subject DP, which is interpreted by default as the entity with the relevant properties to instigate the change (i.e., the initiator), as in ((1)c).(1) a. La comida chatarra engorda a los niños. ?Junk food fattens the kids? CAUSATIVE/TRANSITIVEb. Los niños engordan. ?The kids fatten [up]? INCHOATIVE/UNACCUSATIVEc. La comida chatarra engorda. [Junk food fattens] ?Junk food is fattening? SCC/UNERGATIVEThis construction (called here stative causative construction [SCC]) creates a problem for the structural characterization of change-of-state verbs in at least two respects. (i) It raises the question as to whether the internal argument, which appears as a constant if the analysis is limited to the better-known frames ((1)a/b)), is a default constituent in the argument structure configuration of these verbs, as commonly assumed in lexicalist and constructional approaches (cf.(2)b). (ii) By suggesting that the causative component may be realized independently, SCCs challenge a basic rule of event composition, whereby the event structure of change-of-state verbs combines two basic components in a hierarchical relation, cause and process, and that the former, if present, implicates the latter (Hale & Keyser 1993:69, Ramchand 2008). Analysis. We argue that the possibility to derive SCCs can be explained by a (null) causative vo freely available for derivation. Romance languages like Spanish would diverge from languages like English by allowing this causative vo to combine directly with the (category-neutral) root, producing a simpler event and argument structure than the one seen in (a), but at the same time crucially different from the monoargumental frame in (b). Regardless of the specific implementation (e.g. v flavors: VINIT, Ramchand 2008, McIntyre 2004; vCAUS, Folli & Harley 2007), we work under the general hypothesis that the semantic properties of the verb heads (vo) combined determine event interpretation and consequent argument structure realization, in line with earlier constructionist work going back to Hale & Keyser (1993). In this way, the transparent relation between event and argument structure is centrally preserved. In the discussion, three facts stand out:?No Null/implicit objects [NO]. NO constructions offer a more traditional explanation for SCCs. Note, however, that NOs (2) generally allow (a) secondary predication, (b) subject-oriented depictives, and (c) AP modification, but SCCs do not (4). Unlike NOs, which arguably bind reflexive pronouns (Rizzi 1986 i.a.), SCCs do not allow reflexives (5). (6) shows that NO quantification is not possible in SCCs either. If the assumption that bare quantifiers (?Bare molti?, Cattaneo 2008) behave as NOs is correct, (7) adds another relevant contrast. Importantly, verbs productively yielding SCCs like enfurecer/infuriare are unpassivizable. Data also discourages an explanation building on generic (null) internal arguments (available in Romance, Bhatt & Pancheva 2006, Dobrovie-Sorin 1994). Note that a generic internal argument shifts the interpretation to the eventive (change-of-state) type, yielding telicity, independently of object quantification (measure-out) (8); conversely, unergative frames remain invariably atelic, as suggested by the incompatibility with perfect tenses and endpoint modifiers (Dowty 1979, Borer 2003:35). This is consistent with (7): in both cases, the realization of the internal argument (even NO) strictly correlates with eventivity (and variable telicity). Resultative constructions, which are generally allowed by unaccusatives/transitives (Levin & Rappaport 1995:14), are not possible with SCCs (9). Also in this case, (9)a is only allowed under an undergoer (i.e., inchoative) reading of the sole DP or else if the internal argument is grammatically realized, namely, by an unaccusative (ergative) pronominal clitic like se (9)b. Ultimately, this helps to explain the patterns discussed above concerning secondary predication (2). Finally, Italian SCCs (10) do not allow ne-cliticization, a common test for unaccusatives and NO (Russi 2008:113, Borer 2003:37).?Unergative/Processless variant. Major patterns indicate that telicity and duration are only possible if the internal argument is realized (transitive/unaccusative frames), not in SCCs (11). Progressive tenses and event modifiers are only allowed on an undergoer (conceptually odd) interpretation ofthe DP (12). SCCs are also odd in perfective tenses (El chocolate engordó ?Chocolate fattened?). If allowed, this forces interpretation of the sole argument as undergoer. (A)-(B) support the idea that verbs defined as bona fide unaccusatives (Ramchand 2008:35, Levin&Rappaport 1995:80) or basic transitives (Levin 1993, Levin&Rappaport 1995:25) may appear in unergative frames. Unergativity in SCCs crucially correlates with absence of the corresponding eventive component (PROCP).(2) a. Proposed configuration: [INITvP [INITvo √]] b. Standard: ([V1P) [V2P[V2o,√]]] (Hale & Keyser 2002); VTRANSITIVE=CAUSE to VINTRANSITIVE (Levin 1993:27)(3) a. El chef compra {empaquetado/barato}. ?The chef buys wrapped/cheap [items]?b. El chef cocina {abundante/rico/salado}. ?The chef cooks abundant/tasty/salty [meals].c. El viento arrastró las Ø más bajas. ?The wind cleared out the lowest (ones)?(4) a. El horno calienta (*empaquetado/*abundante). ?The oven heats abundant/compact?b. El viento sur despeja (*las Ø bajas). ?The southern wind clears out (the low [ones])?(5) La injusticia {entristece/enoja} (*consigo mismo). ?Injustice saddens/maddens with oneself?(6) El sol calienta *{todos/algunos}. cf. {Ví/Compré/Calenté} {todos/algunos}?The sun heats up all/some?. ?I saw/bought/heated all/some [of them]?(7) a. Questo ha reso/lasciato molti {infelici/poveri/indignati}. [Italian] BARE MOLTIEsto ha dejado muchos {infelices/pobres/indignados} [Spanish]?This has left many unhappy/poor/outraged?b. Questo {infuria/impoverisce/indigna} *(molti). [Italian] SCCEsto {enfurece/empobrece/indigna} *(muchos). [Spanish]?This infuriates/impoverishes/outrages many?(8) El sol quemó (en un minuto/completamente) *(algo/alguno). UNACC?The sun burned *(some) in a minute/completely?(9) a. El grafito calienta *(hasta quedar incandescente/fundido). SCC?Graphite heats [causes heat] (until becoming incandescent/fluid)?b. El grafito (se) calienta (hasta quedar incandescente/fundido). UNACC?Graphite heats (itself) up until incandescent/fluid?(10) La radiazione infrarossa (*ne) {riscalda/brucia}. ?Infrared radiation produces heat/burn?(11) Estos payasos *(te) asustan (abruptamente/gradualmente/por un tiempo).These clowns (you) scare (suddenly/gradually/for some time) `These clowns are scary?(12) #El chocolate casi engorda/está engordando ?Chocolate almost gets fat/is fattening up?? Causative/Stative: SCCs differ from stative predicates analyzed as the result of a causative vo in previous works (e.g. English Katherine fears nightmares) in two ways. First, in SCCs the subject is interpreted by default as a cause or trigger rather than as holder of a result state (Ramchand 2008:64). Second, unergativity (which follows straightforwardly from the structural properties of causative v heads, characteristically licensing external arguments) is not predicted by the standard analysis, and contrasts with the argument realization patterns seen in English (X fears/annoys Y). SCCs show a configuration with the desired characteristics for a causative vo (unergative, DP=initiator, stative).In sum. SCCs point to a transparent event/argument structure relation (non-eventivity>unergativity), reinforcing the idea of an internal-argument-licensing process component not included by default in the configuration of the verb. This in contrast to an explanation building on implicit arguments and/or unrealized projections, not favored by empirical data, and is consistent with similar observations on atransitivity (cf. McIntyre 2004). Advantages: Stativity in SCCs is consonant with the stative nature of the causative vo (Ramchand 2008). The constructional status of the internal-argument-licensing Vo matches the complexity of Romance unaccusative frames (Haspelmath 1993). Free combination with CAUSvo is consistent with the significantly fewer cases of change-of-state verbs lacking causative variants. The fact that the addition of the causative component seems only constrained by external semantic conditions agrees with observations raised by proponents of rather different views the topic (Harley & Noyer 2000, Hale & Keyser 2005; Rappaport & Levin 2011). If correct, SCCs allow us to test current hypotheses on verb phrase structure, offering a possibility to refine them accordingly.