Cover not available
Part of
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 199–222

Unaccusativity and theticity

| Swarthmore College,
This chapter examines theticity in intransitive sentences. Starting with the assumption that the function of a thetic sentence is to introduce a referent into a discourse (without predicating anything of it), two requirements are proposed to characterize thetic intransitives: (A) the sole argument of the sentence must be vP-internal; and (B) the sole argument must be interpreted as a property. Both requirements have precedents in previous work: (A) incorporates Guéron’s (1980) observations on what she called the Presentation LF; and (B) builds on McNally’s (1998a) work on the semantics and discourse function of existential sentences. These requirements show that theticity cannot be explained by lexical verb or verb class; what matters for theticity is syntactic structure and semantic interpretation. It is then shown that the thetic/categorical distinction cuts across a commonly-accepted distinction in intransitive sentences, the unergative-unaccusative distinction. Specifically, only a subtype of unaccusative sentence, those with the “existential unaccusative” structure (Irwin 2018a), satisfies (A) and (B). By contrast, change-of-state unaccusatives pattern with unergative sentences in not being thetic.
Keywords: thetic sentences, intransitive predicates, argument structure, unaccusative, unergative, presentational sentences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2Proposal: Two requirements for intransitive thetic sentences
    • 2.Two unaccusative structures
      • 2.1Change-of-state unaccusatives
    • 2.2Existential unaccusatives
    • 2.3Summary
  • 3.Intransitive sentences, presentation, and PP extraposition
    • 3.1PP extraposition: Existential unaccusatives vs. unergatives
    • 3.2PP extraposition: Change-of-state intransitives pattern like unergatives
    • 3.3Summary: PP extraposition
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.08irw
References (55)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1975. Presentational there-insertion: A cyclic root transformation. In Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Robin E. Grossman, James L. San & Timothy J. Vance (eds), 1–14. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 55]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2009. There down in Spec,vP: An argument. Presented at Generative Grammitik des Südens, 22–24 May, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 1998. Object position and predication forms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 541–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1995. Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua 97: 233–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2011. Topic and comment. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, Patrick Colm Hogan (ed.). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Haviland, Susan E. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Discourse Production and Comprehension, Roy O. Freedle (ed.), 1–40. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from selection. Syntax 12: 285–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 137–158. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential Propositions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 637–678.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1986. Presupposition, theme and variations. In Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory [CLS 22, Part 2], Anne M. Farley, Peter T. Farley & Karl-Erik McCullough (eds), 168–192. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
. 2018a. Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Testing differences in discourse referent establishment from indefinite subjects: The case of intransitives. Paper presented at the workshop, Preverbal Indefinite Subjects, held at the 51st annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Tallinn University, Estonia, August.
Jäger, Gerhard. 2001. Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18: 83–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurka, Johannes. 2010. The Importance of Being a Complement: CED Effects Revisited. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2019. Notes on expletive there. The Linguistic Review. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johann Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6: The Notions of Information Structure, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Link, Godehard & Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds). Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment (evidence from Japanese). Foundations of Language 2: 153–185.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1992. Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings from SALT 4, Mandy Harvey & Lynn Santelmann, 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Vol. 4(2), Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams (eds), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2005. Objects out of the lexicon: Objects as events. Paper presented at the University of Vienna.
. 2013. Verbal Argument Structure: Events and Participants. Lingua 130: 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2014. Irish existentials in context. Syntax 17: 343–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1992. An Interpretation for the English Existential Construction. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
. 1997. A Semantics for the English Existential Construction. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
. 1998a. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. Stativity and theticity. In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 293–307. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Testelets, Yakov & Yanovich, Igor. 2011. Russian genitive of negation alternations: The role of verb semantics. Scando-Slavica 57: 135–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2015. Embedded wa-phrases, predication, and judgment theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 267–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2012. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. How roots do and don’t constrain the interpretation of voice. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Nava, Emily. 2011. Encoding discourse-based meaning: Prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua 121: 652–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar