Lexicalization patterns and change of state predication

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

Paris

Conferencia; Language in Contrast; 2015

University Paris VIII

Ma. Eugenia Mangialavori RasiaCentre of Studies in Theoretical Linguistics (CELT/UNR)National Scientific and Technical Research Council, ArgentinaLexicalization patterns and change of state predication1. Question & GoalTalmy?s (1985, 2000) crosslinguistic typology of lexicalization patternsrepresents a rather influential work in linguistics and especially onewhich has been implemented in different frameworks and problems. Wewill build on these patterns?especially in their attempt to identify andrelate lexically encoded and syntactically construed meaningcomponents?to cast light on some visible divergences between Englishand Romance in the derivation of change-of-state [COS] predicates builton property denoting roots [PD√]. We will focus on the significantproductivity of DV formation in Romance (syntactic realization) incomparison to English tendency towards analytic phrases (V+Adj) andtheir convergence on the aspectual division between DVs. As a secondgoal, will set out to account for the seeming lack of non-resultativeanalytic COS.2. DataCorpus data (of which this is a representative sample, mainly oriented tohits regarding V+Adj/DV+Adv combinations) was obtained fromqueries in American/British English and Spanish corpus resources(COCA, Corpusdelespanol, CORDE, CREA). Experimental data wasobtained from questionnaires presented to native informants of Iberianand American varieties of Spanish and American English, essentiallytargeted to grammaticality judgements over different verb/modifiercombinations, resultative reading/implications, counterfactual/scalarinterpretation under negation, etc.3. AnalysisSpanish and English DVs divide into two natural aspectual/eventiveclasses. Specific aspectual parameters (boundedness, incrementality,gradability, homogeneity) and tests (partiality/totality/intensivemodifiers, negation [scope], in/for X time, resultativity) on corpus andexperimental data converge in a partition that can be argued to ensuefrom the (open/closed) scale yielded by the PD√, although this lexicalspecification can be eventually neutralized constructionally (cf. Author2012,2013 and references therein; cf. Kearns 2005, Hay, Kennedy &Levin 1999 i.a. for a semantic approach on the relation between scaleboundedness and telicity). Interestingly, whereas English synthetic COS(DVs) reflect this split (1), analytic forms ((2)-(5)b) seem confined toresultative/telic predication, even when combining atelic/unboundedverbs like grow (6), unless comparative morphology is added.(1) a. {endulzar/ alargar/ enriquecer/ entibiar} {#completamente/#a medias/ bastante/ demasiado}sweeten/ lengthen/ enrich/ warm{#completely/ #halfway/ enough/ too much}b. {enrojecer/ blanquear/ secar/ ensordecer} {completamente/ amedias/ #bastante/ #demasiado}redden/ whiten/ dry/ deafen{completely/ halfway/ #enough/ #too much}(2) a. {enloquecer/ secar/ impacientar/ silenciar/ agriar/ viralizar/enceguecer/ engordar}.b. go {crazy/ dry/ impatient/ silent/ sour/ viral/ blind/ *fat}.(3) a. {enriquecer/ acercar/ achicar/ enfurecer/ alistar/ empeorar/emborrachar}.b. get {rich/ close/ small/ furious/ ready/ worse/d runk}.(4) a. {enrojecer/ palidecer/ endurecer/ ranciar/ solidificar/transparentar/ empeorar}.b. turn {red/ pale/ tough/ rancid/ solid/ transparent/ worse}.(5) a. {envejecer/ alargar/ fortalecer/ agrandar/ ensanchar/ achicar/cansar/ acostumbrar/ aburrir/ enfriar}.b. grow {old/ large/ strong/ big/ wide/ small/ tired/ accustomed/bored/ cold}.Language in Contrast63(6) a. The gap {widened/ #grew wide} but it isn?t wide [though].b. The sky {darkened/ #{went/ turned/ grew/ got}dark}, but it isn?tdark [though].Under the premise that DVs involve a MOTION+PATH combination,and that APs conform to Talmy?s definition of satellite (2000:102), wewill argue that the (open/close) specification of the PD√ is crucial inDVs, for it translates into a structural difference in the configuration ofthe PATH encoded in V?inherent telicity/resultativity conforming tostructures where the boundedness of the scale translates into a boundedpath involving an endstate (PD√=Goal), as opposed tohomogeneous/non-resultative COS where the unbounded scale mapsinto a Path that is coextensive with the motion event (route/direction; cf.Jackendoff 1996), allowing property degree to correlate with degree ofchange. In turn, when the direction of the transition/COS is notlexicalized in V but realized independently (AP), the property isnecessarily interpreted as Terminal Ground.3. ResultsPath lexicalization patterns naturally accommodate the significantproductivity of DVs in Romance, whereas the lexicalization pattern ofGermanic languages is to be related to the fact that the construction withPath encoded by a satellite (AP) is preferred. Yet, we also argue for thelinguistic relevance of this typology by demonstrating that the aspectualconfiguration of COS predicates and the delivery of two aspectual verbclasses is sensitive to this difference (i.e. whether Path is combined inthe verb or realized independently). Thus, a crucial differentiation isdrawn not only from the formal implications of property scales, but alsofrom the alternative ways in which motion/change can beencoded/construed.ReferencesHay, J., Kennedy, C. & Levin, Beth1999 Scale structure underlies telicity in ?degree achievements?. T.Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds) Semantics and LinguisticTheory 9, Ithaca NY: CLC. 127?144.Jackendoff, Ray1996 The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhapseven quantification in English, NLLT 14: 305-354Kearns, Kate2005 Telic Senses of Deadjectival Verbs. Lingua 117: 26?66.Talmy, Leonard2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.