Article published in:
Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure
Edited by Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy and Linnaea Stockall
[Language Faculty and Beyond 10] 2014
► pp. 1–19

Introduction

Argumenting the structure

| CNRS
| CNRS | Université Paris 8
| Queen Mary University of London
Published online: 24 July 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.10.01bac
References
Alexiadou, A
2011 Statives and nominalization. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 40, 25–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arad, M
2003 Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 737–778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.C
1985 Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Number v. 1 in Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
1997 Thematic roles and syntactic structures, in: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 73–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barner, D., Bale, A.C
2005 No nouns, no verbs? A rejoinder to Panagiotidis. Lingua 115, 1169–1179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., Koontz-Garboden, A
2012 Manner and Result in the Roots of Verbal Meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 331–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., Rizzi, L
1988 Psych verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H
2004 Unergative adjectives and psych verbs, in: Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Everaert, M. (Eds.), The Unaccusative Puzzle: Explorations at the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Number 5 in Oxford Studies in Theoretical Syntax, pp. 84–114.Google Scholar
Borer, H
1994 The projection of arguments, in: Benedicto, E., Runner, J. (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17. UMOPL, Amherst, MA: GLSA, U. Massachusetts, pp. 19–47.Google Scholar
1998 Passive without theta grids, in: Lapointe, S., Brentari, D., Farrell, P. (Eds.), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 60–99.Google Scholar
2003 Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexicon, in: Polinsky, M., Moore, J. (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
2005 Structuring sense. Vol. 2, The normal course of events. Oxford University Press, Oxford. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M., Brown, P
2008 Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.Google Scholar
Burzio, L
1986 Italian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D
2009 Experimental design and interpretation of functional neuroimaging studies of cognitive processes. Human Brain Mapping 30, 59–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N
1970 Remarks on nominalization, in: Roderick, A., Rosenbaum, P. (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn, Waltham, MA, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory, in: Hale, K., Keyser, S. (Eds.), The View from Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
1999 Derivation by phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Dowty, D
1991 Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., Madariaga, N
2010 Argument structure and syntactic relations: a cross-linguistic perspective. John Benjamins Pub. Co., Amsterdam; Philadelphia, Pa. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., Noyer, R
2007 Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface, in: The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press, pp. 289–324.Google Scholar
Everaert, M., Marijana, M., Siloni, T
2012 The Theta system: argument structure at the interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Bach, E., Harms, R.T
1968 The case for case. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Folli, R., Harley, H
2006 On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica 60, 121–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., Shapiro, L.P., Swinney, D
2008 The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 355–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K., Keyser, S
1993 On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations, in: The View from Building 20, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar
Halle, M., Marantz, A
1993 Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, in: Hale, K., Keyser, S. (Eds.), The View from Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar
Harley, H
1995 Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
1999 Denominal verbs and aktionsart. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35, 73–85.Google Scholar
2010 A Minimalist Approach to Argument Structure, in: The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford University Press, pp. 426–447.Google Scholar
Harley, H., Noyer, R
1999 Distributed morphology. Glot International 4.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T., Sybesma, R., Barbiers, S., Den Dikken, M., Postma, G., Vanden Wyngaerd, G
2008 Arguments and Structure Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence. Walter De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R
1990 Semantic structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
2009 Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P
2002 On the architecture of pānini’s grammar, in: Three lectures delivered at the Hyderabad Conference on the Architecture of Grammar, pp. 1–59.
Koontz-Garboden, A
2005 On the typology of state/change of state alternations, in: Booij, G., Marle, J. v. (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A
1996 Severing the External Argument from Its Verb, in: Rooryck, J., Zaring, L. (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 109–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I
2010 The locative syntax of experiencers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lee, M., Thompson, C.K
2004 Agrammatic aphasic production and comprehension of unaccusative verbs in sentence contexts. Journal of Neurolinguistics 17, 315–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., Rappaport Hovav, M
1995 Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
2005 Argument realization. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge: U.K. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics 4, 201–225.Google Scholar
2007 Phases and words. Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222.
2011 Syntactic approaches to argument structure without incorporation: Doing the (anti-lexicalist) dance without doing the dance, in: Structuring the Argument: A multidisciplinary workshop on the mental representation of verbal argument structure, Paris.
Martínez-Ferreiro, S., Bachrach, A., Sánchez, A., Picallo, C
2012 Violating canonicity in spanish agrammatism, in: Congreso de lingüística clínica de Málaga. Málaga, 15–17 Novembre 2011.
Pesetsky, D
1995 Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J
1995 The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L
2008 Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. March, Cambridge Univ. Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J.H
2010 Linking: the geometry of argument structure. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y., Cuervo, M.C
2012 The end of argument structure? Emerald Group Pub., Bingley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., Hadar, U
2009 The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, 2306–2315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010a Cortical representation of verbs with optional complements: the theoretical contribution of fMRI. Human Brain Mapping 31, 770–785. PMID: 19890846. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, 2306–2315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, E., Palti, D., Friedmann, N., Hadar, U
2007 Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cerebral Cortex 17, 1958–1969. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suihkonen, P., Comrie, B., Solovyev, V.D
2012 Argument structure and grammatical relations a crosslinguistic typology.
Tenny, C
1994 Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Boston. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walenski, M
2002 Relating parsers and grammars: On the structure and real-time comprehension of English infinitival complements. Ph.D. thesis. UCSD.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Husband, E. Matthew & Linnaea Stockall
2015.  In Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing, ► pp. 157 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 april 2022. 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.