Article published in:
The Lexicon–Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages
Edited by Pritha Chandra and Richa Srishti
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 209] 2014
► pp. 71–100

Rich results

| The English & Foreign Languages University
The first-phase event structure of two verbs typical of the Kannada dative experiencer construction, bar- ‘come’ and aag- ‘happen, become,’ suggests (differently from Ramchand 2008) that stative verbs may project “rich” results and “poor” processes. The properties of bar- are explored vis-à-vis English ‘come.’ Bar- and aag- allow telicity by “classifying events that are themselves already results” (Higginbotham 1999). The result event is a small clause with experiencer and experience in a possession relation, as in the English double object construction; with the difference that Kannada encodes possession with dative case, whereas possessional to in English incorporates into be to yield have (Kayne 1993 [2000]). The dative argument occupies the resultee position; arguments in higher event structure positions (undergoer or initiator) are nominative in Kannada.
Keywords: dative of possession, event structure, experiencer, stativity, telicity
Published online: 25 March 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.209.04amr
References

References

Amritavalli, Raghavachari & Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
2003 The genesis of syntactic categories and parametric variation. In Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW in Asia 2003 , Hang-Jin Yoon (ed.), 19–41. Hankook: KGGC and Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkat
(eds) 2004  Non-nominative Subjects , vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1989 A Semantics for Unaccusatives and its Syntactic Consequences. Ms., Cornell University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995  The Minimalist Program . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1979  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar . Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray
1992 Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.
1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2002 Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1999 Accomplishments. In Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW, the Second GLOW Meeting in Asia , Mamoru Saito et al.. (eds), 131–139. Nanzan University: Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
1990 The dative subject construction and the pro-drop parameter. In Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages , M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (eds), 269–283. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2004 The possessor-experiencer dative in Malayalam. In Non-nominative Subjects , vol. 1, P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (eds), 227–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994  The Antisymmetry of Syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. In Parameters and Universals , R. Kayne (ed.), 107–130. New York: Oxford University Press, and Studia Linguistica [1993] 47: 3–31.Google Scholar
2010 The DP-internal origin of Datives. Paper at the 4th European Dialect Syntax Workshop in Donostia/San Sebastian.
Klaiman, Miriam
1986 Semantic parameters and the South Asian linguistic area. In South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia , Bh. Krishnamurthy, C. P. Masica & A. K. Sinha (eds), 179–194. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon , J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard
1988 On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappoport-Hovav, Malka
1995  Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop
2004 On the origin of non-nominative subjects. In Non-nominative Subjects , vol. 1, P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (eds), 283–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995  Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008  Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-phase Syntax . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin
2001 An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 183–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1999 Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2): 45–76.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1983 The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol
1987 Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tortora, C.M.
1998 Verbs of inherently directed motion are compatible with resultative phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 29(2): 338–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin
1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957/1967 Verbs and times. In Linguistics in Philosophy , Z. Vendler, 97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. & Mohanan, Karuvannur P.
1990  Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages . Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Sengupta, Gautam, Shruti Sircar, Madhavi Gayathri Raman & Rahul Balusu
2017.  In Perspectives on the Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.