Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Emotions in Language: Psychological verbs at the interfaces
Edited by Bożena Rozwadowska and Anna Bondaruk
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 263] 2020
► pp. 1–22

Chapter 1
Psych verbs

Setting the scene

| University of Wrocław
| University of Wrocław
| John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
The main reason why this book is important for current linguistic debates is the fact that the puzzle of psychological verbs, dating back to the seminal paper by Belletti and Rizzi (1988) (henceforth B&R) is far from being settled. Recently it has been gaining even more attention, with research on typologically different languages bringing new empirical data and new insights (e.g., Marín & McNally, 2011; Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia, 2014; Fábregas & Marín, 2015, 2017; Fábregas et al., 2017; Temme & Verhoeven, 2016; García-Pardo, 2018; Hirsch, 2018). There is a whole variety of approaches to the “psych phenomenon” or “psych properties” (see Landau, 2010 for a list of the puzzling psych properties attested cross-linguistically), each looking at the problem from a different angle, depending on the language and the specific puzzle. The purpose of the present book is to focus on issues that were not central to the previous debate or which still remain very controversial. The collection of chapters in this volume focuses on Polish and Spanish psychological verbs, two typologically different languages, in comparison with English, which bring to light new overt contrasts that remain covert in other languages (e.g., overt aspectual distinctions, the peculiarities of dative structures, including the constructivist account of some stative Experiencer eventualities, the role of information structure in word-order phenomena with psych verbs). This makes it possible to discover new relations at the interfaces of language subsystems.
Article outline
  • 1.The state of the art in synchronic studies
  • 2.Psych verbs from diachronic perspective
    • 2.1Case selection in English psych verbs from diachronic perspective
    • 2.2Impersonal/personal shift in English
    • 2.3OE/SE shift
    • 2.4The rise of the progressive with psych verbs
    • 2.5Causativity and inchoativity of psych verbs
  • 3.An overview of the chapters
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.263.01roz
References (108)
References
Ackema, P., & Schoorlemmer, M. (2006). Middles. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax III (pp. 131–203). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2010). On the morphosyntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 177–203). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Active, middle, and passive: The morphosyntax of voice. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 13, 19–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Iordăchioaia, G. (2014). The psych causative alternation. Lingua, 148, 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, C. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1986). A note on Old English impersonals. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 167–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, M. (1998a). VP structure and the syntax-lexicon interface (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London.
(1998b). Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 203–223.Google Scholar
(1999). What counts as a class? The case of psych verbs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 1–23.Google Scholar
Bar-el, L. (2005). Aspectual distinctions in Squamish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia.
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H. (2000). Adjectives and argument structure. In P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, & J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Lexical specification and insertion (pp. 27–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 84–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biały, A. (2005). Polish psychological verbs at the lexicon-syntax interface in cross-linguistic perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A., & Szymanek, B. (2007). Polish nominativeless constructions with dative experiencers: Form, meaning and structure. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 4, 61–99.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1995). The semantics of syntax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Corver, N. (2015). Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and verb phrases, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylinina, L. (2017). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 34, 291–331.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue, 229–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, S. (2010). The chain of being and having in Slavic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at large (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Doron, E. (2003). Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics, 11(1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Thematic Proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drijkoningen, F. (2000). Experiencer objects: Two types of ergativity. In P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, & J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Lexical specification and insertion (pp. 69–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elmer, W. (1981). Diachronic grammar: The history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions. Tubingen: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A., & Marín, R. (2015). Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 32, 227–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish. Linguistics, 55, 451–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A., Jiménez Fernández, Á. L., & Tubino, M. (2017). What’s up with dative Experiencers? In R. E. V. Lopes, J. Ornelas de Avelar, & S. M. L. Cyrino (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 12: Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Campinas, Brazil (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., & van der Leek, F. (1983). The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 337–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1976). Subjectless sentences in Middle English. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny, 23, 263–270.Google Scholar
van der Gaaf, W. (1904). The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
García-Pardo, A. (2018). The morphosyntax of states. Deriving aspect and event roles from argument structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.
van Gelderen, E. (2000). A history of English reflexive pronouns: Person, self, and interpretability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Changes in psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 13, 99–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guidi, L. G. (2011). Old English psych verbs and quirky experiencers. York Papers in Linguistics, 2, 30–46.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J. (2013). The semantics of syntactic choice. An analysis of English emotion verbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, events, and licensing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 52–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, N. (2018). German psych verbs – Insights from a decompositional perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
(1927). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (Vol. 3). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
(1909–1949). Modern English grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L., & Rozwadowska, B. (2016). The information structure of dative experiencer psych verbs. In B. Cetnarowska, M. Kuczok, & M. Zabawa (Eds.), Various dimensions of contrastive studies (pp. 100–121). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
(2017). On subject properties of datives in psych predicates. A comparative approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica/Academica, 64(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
Kastner, I. (2016). Nonactive voice in Hebrew and elsewhere: Between unaccusativity and agentivity. UPENN Working Papers in Linguistics, 22(1), 167–176.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. (1995). Emphatic and reflexive – self: Expectations, viewpoint, and subjectivity. In D. Stein, S. Wright, & E. Finegan (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 55–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiyota, M. (2005). Aspectual classification and properties of verbs in Sənčáqən (Unpublished manuscript). University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Klein, K., & Kutscher, S. (2002). Psych-verbs and lexical economy. Theorie des Lexikons Nr. 122. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs, 282, 1–48.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from the verb. In J. Rooryck, & L. Zaring (Eds), Phrase structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzek, M. (2013). The syntax of impersonal constructions in Polish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, UK.
Kulikov, L., & Lavidas, N. (2015). Reconstructing passive and voice in Proto-Indo-European. In L. Kulikov, & N. Lavidas (Eds.), Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2002). A typology of psych passives. In M. Hirotani, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32 NELS (pp. 271–286). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
(2010). The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lavidas, N. (2007). The diachrony of the Greek anticausative morphology. In A. Alexiadou (Ed.), Studies in the morpho-syntax of Modern Greek (pp. 106–138). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1999). Two structures for compositionally derived events. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 9 (pp. 199–223). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malak, J. (2008). The demise of subjectless clauses in English. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., & Siewierska, A. (2011). Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín, R., & McNally, L. (2005). The Aktionsart of Spanish reflexive psychological verbs and their English counterparts. In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9 (pp. 212–225). Nijmegen: NCS.Google Scholar
(2011). Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 467–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, N. A. (1976). From OE/ME “impersonal” to “personal” constructions: What is a “subject-less” S? In S. B. Steever, C. A. Walker, & S. S. Mufwene (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax (pp. 192–204). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. (2006). The interpretation of German datives and English ‘have’. In D. P. Hole, W. Abraham, & A. Meinunger (Eds.), Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure (pp. 185–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miura, A. 2015. Middle English verbs of emotion and impersonal constructions: Verb meaning and syntax in diachrony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Möhlig-Falke, R. (2012). The Early English impersonal construction: An analysis of verbal and constructional meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). A Middle English syntax: Part one – parts of speech. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñón, C. (1997). Achievements in an event semantics. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory VII (pp. 273–296). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2000a). On stativity and causation. In C. L. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspective of lexical semantics and syntax (pp. 417–444). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2000b). Representing causatives. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 10 (pp. 132–148). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
(2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2004). Time and the event: the semantics of Russian prefixes. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Nordlyd, 32(2), 323-361.Google Scholar
(2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2001). Experiencing derivations. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11 (pp. 417–444). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
(2002). The Theta System – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229–290.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (2003). Reflexive clitic constructions with datives: Syntax and semantics. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic (Eds.), Proceedings of FASL 12 (pp. 469–494). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2007). Diachronic syntax. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Romanova, E. (2004). Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Nordlyd, 32(2), 255-278.Google Scholar
Rothmayr, A. (2009). The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Two puzzles of lexical aspect: Semelfactives and degree achievements. In J. Dolling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, & M. Schäfer (Eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, (pp. 175–198). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, B. (1989). Are thematic relations discrete? In R. Corrigan, F. Eckman, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Linguistic categorization (pp. 115–130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Towards a unified theory of nominalizations: External and internal eventualities. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
(2003). Initial boundary and telicity in the semantics of perfectivity. In P. Kosta, J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist, & M. Żygis (Eds.), Investigations into formal Slavic linguistics, (pp. 859–872). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012). On the onset of psych eventualities. In E. Cyran, H. Kardela, & B. Szymanek (Eds.), Sound, structure and sense. Studies in memory of Edmund Gussmann (pp. 533–554). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, B., & Bondaruk, A. (2019). Against the psych causative alternation in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 1, 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schein, B. (1993). Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2004). Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Nordlyd, 32(2), 205-253.Google Scholar
Tajsner, P. (2008). Aspects of the grammar of focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Temme, A., & Verhoeven, E. (2016). Verb class, case, and order: A crosslinguistic experiment on non-nominative experiencers. Linguistics, 54(4), 769–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vera-Diaz, J. (2000). The development of causation in Old English and its interaction with lexical and diachronic processes. Cuadernos de Investigacion Filológia, XXVI, 17–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. H. T. (1970). An historical syntax of the English language. Part one: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
van Voorst, J. (1988). Event structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(1), 65–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). A localist model of event semantics. Journal of Semantics, 10, 65–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whaley, L. (1997). An introduction to language typology. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Wiland, B. (2016). Le charme discret of remnant movement: Crossing and nesting in Polish OVS sentences. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 11(3), 133–165.Google Scholar
Witkoś, J., Paulina Ł., & Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, D. (2017). Positioning the dative and accusative arguments through binding. Paper presented at Linguistics Beyond and Within Conference, 18–19 October, 2017, Lublin.
Witkoś, J., Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, D., Łęska, P., Gogłoza, A., & Meyer, R. (2018). Datives and accusatives as binders in a grammar of subject-oriented reflexives. Paper presented at the SLE conference in Tallinn, 29 August–1 September 2018.
Żychliński, S. (2016). On some aspects of the syntax of object experiencers in Polish and English. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Willim, Ewa
2021. On Scalarity in the Verbal Domain. The Case of Polish Psych Verbs. Part 2: The Aspectual Classes of Polish Psych Verbs, Perfectivity, and Scales. Studies in Polish Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.