Stoica Irina MA: English Linguistics: Methods and Applications 1st year The Syntax and Semantics of De-transiti

e !er"s

The syntax of De-transiti e er"s - The model proposed "y #ale and $eyser %&''() *

1. Introduction
The model proposed by Hale and Keyser in 2003 for the analysis of de-transitive constructions (both Double Object onstructions and !repositional Object onstructions" is stron#ly connected to the line of analysis they provide for ar#ument structure$ Hale and Keyser put forth the concept of %le&ical synta&'( or %l-synta&'( definin# the relationships )hich occur bet)een the components present in the le&ical confi#urations* These relationships are of t)o types$ (+" Head- ,pecifier relation Head - omplement relations

.ccordin# to Hale and Keyser( all le&ical cate#ories (/( 0( .( !" #ive rise to le&ical ar#ument structures( sho)in# the relationships mentioned above( but only ! and . obli#atorily imply both types of relations( they %project a full le&ical projection'* 1iven that prepositions are %prototypically relational'( namely they sho) the relation bet)een t)o items( a head ! )ill have ta2e both a omplement and a ,pecifier*

2. The analysis of DOC and POC

The analysis proposed by Hale and Keyser (2003" for de-transitive constructions is on a par )ith that of unaccusatives( er#atives and non-transitive verbs*

2. 1 Prepositional Object Constructions (2" 3ohn #ave a boo2 to 4ary .s it happens in the case of location verbs( for e&ample( in order to account for !O ( Hale and Keyser (2003" su##est that the head of the /! should ta2e a !! as a complement* 1iven that prepositions have a dyadic le&ical confi#uration (they re5uire both a specifier and a complement"( the representation for the de-transitive verb in (2" is #iven in (3" belo)$ (3" /!

,pec /6

/7 #ive

!!

,pec

!6

!7 . boo2 To 4ary

8n this e&ample( the overt preposition %to'( sho)s that the theme (a boo2" is transferred to an endpoint( the #oal (4ary"* 9ith respect to case assi#nment( Hale and Keyser state that the verb %#ive' assi#ns .ccusative case to 1oal* 2. 2. Double Object Constructions (:" 3ohn #ave 4ary a boo2* ( the Theme( )hile the preposition %to' assi#ns Obli5ue case to ( the

8f )e )ere to apply the analysis presented in 2*+ to DO

as )ell( meanin# if )e

considered that the main verb ta2es a !! as complement( the result )ould be a !! )ithout an overt head( the 1oal )ould be the in ,pec position of the !! and the Theme in the omplement position* ,uch an analysis is e&planatory in the case of location verbs (%saddle the horse'( )hich rephrase )ould be %fit the horse )ith a saddle'"( )here there is an instance of conflation$ the head of the !! conflates )ith its complement( eliminatin# it* The same process ta2es place in the /!( )here the head position is empty( so it conflates )ith the complement( namely the entire !!* These processes #ive rise to the verb %saddle'* Ho)ever( this analysis cannot hold in the case of DO ( #iven that the theme %a boo2'( cannot incorporate* .nother ar#ument a#ainst this analysis( )ould be the hierarchy 1oal ; Theme( )hich )as rejected in the literature for de-transitive constructions* 8n order to account for DO ( Hale and Keyser propose an analysis similar to that put forth by <arson (+=>>"( namely one in )hich the Theme is placed hi#her in the syntactic structure than the 1oal( on a par )ith !O * 9hat the t)o su##est is a /!-shell ar#ument structure( presented in (?"$ (?" /( v6"

/+

/(

"

/(

"

/ a boo2

1ive

4ary

8n such a construction( the verb %#ive' is base #enerated under /3( but then it moves first to /2( then to /+( conflatin# )ith these projections and thus eliminatin# them* 8n the lo)est layer( the verb %#ive' has both a ,pecifier( the Theme %a boo2' and a omplement( the 1oal %4ary'* Thus( )e can say that it behaves similar to prepositions* Ho)ever( at this level( the verb %#ive' is intransitive( so it cannot assi#n .ccusative case to its complement* The verb needs to move in a position )here case assi#nment is possible* The first step is the movement into v!+* .t this level( the verb conflates )ith the entire v!2 projection (the complement"( eliminatin# it* The 1oal( %4ary' also moves to the ,pec position of v!+* The Theme does not move* The ne&t step is the movement of the verb to the hi#hest verbal projection( )here it conflates )ith /+( eliminatin# the projection /+* 8t is here )here the verb becomes transitive( #ainin# the ability to assi#n case to the 1oal( D!2* %The Theme receives semantic ase as a purely le&ical property of the verb %#ive''* .nother advanta#e brou#ht by Hale and Keyser6s model is the fact that it e&plains %the causative interpretation of double object constructions'* Other than the a#entive interpretation of sentences such as the one in (:"( %3ohn #ave 4ary a boo2' can also be rephrased as % 3ohn caused 4ary to have a boo2'( thus havin# a causative readin#* 8n the case of !O ( only the a#entive readin# is available* Hale and Keyser state that this difference occurs from the different basic ar#ument structure confi#urations the t)o types of constructions have* 3. Conclusions 8n conclusion( Hale and Keyser believe that DO and !O are instances of t)o distinct constructions( )hich are not derived one from the other* They use concepts or l-synta& to e&plain the case of de-transitive constructions and su##est that )hile in the case of !O ( both the verb and the preposition assi#n case to the D!s( in the case of DO ( )here there is no preposition( the most plausible structure )ould be that of a /! shell( )ith the verb assi#nin# .ccusative case to

the 1oal by means of its syntactic features and ,emantic ase to the Theme by means of le&ical features alone*

Bibliography r@iniceanu( 8( Syntactic Alternations in English( Aditura Bundaiei ComDnia de 4Dine( Eucureti( 200F( pp$+:>-+G0 Hale( K* H Keyser( 3* ( The Basic Elements of Argument Structure( 48T 9or2in# !apers in <in#uistics 32( +==>