Cover not available
Article published In:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 44:2 (2021) ► pp.153–203

Locatum and location verbs in Italian

A Lexicon-grammar analysis

| Università di Salerno
In this paper I claim that Italian location and locatum verbs constitute two syntactically distinct classes of verbs. Location verbs are derived from a noun corresponding to a location, and behave similarly to standard verbs of caused motion. Locatum verbs are derived from a noun corresponding to the located entity, and behave similarly to croisés verbs. Despite these similarities, the derivational structure of locatum and location verbs has an impact on their syntactic structure. For this reason locatum and location verbs cannot be included in the classes of croisés and standard verbs, respectively. They deserve a separate classification.
Keywords: denominal verbs, locatum verbs, location verbs, standard verbs, croisés verbs
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Main hypotheses on locative denominal verbs
  • 2.Locatum verbs
    • 2.1Locatum subject alternation
    • 2.2Causative alternation and reflexivization
    • 2.3Locatum verbs: Results
    • 2.4Anomalous locatum verbs
      • Sellare ‘saddle’
      • Denocciolare ‘pit’
  • 3.Location verbs
    • 3.1Location subject alternation
    • 3.2Causative alternation and reflexive constructions
    • 3.3Location verbs: Results
    • 3.4Anomalous location verbs
      • Depositare ‘store, deposit’
      • Basare ‘base, place’
      • Imbracciare ‘hold’
  • Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00061.vie
References (55)
References
Acedo-Matellán, V. & Real-Puigdollers, C. 2015. Location and locatum verbs revisited: Evidence from aspect and quantification. Acta Linguistica Humgarica, 62 : 2, 111–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, P. 2008. Roots and lexicality in distributed morphology. Ms., UC Dublin.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations. A Layering Approach. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7 1, 387–396.Google Scholar
Boons, J-P. 1971. Métaphore et baisse de la redondance. Langue française, 11 1, 15–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984. Sceller un piton dans le mur, desceller un piton du mur. Pour une syntaxe de la prefixation negative. Langue française, 62 1, 95–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Des verbes ou compléments locatifs « Hamlet » à l’effet du même nom. Revue québécoise de Linguistique, 15 : 12, 57–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusative puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 22–59. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. & Clark, H. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 551, 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, R. 2001. Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.
Gilbert Sotelo, E. 2018. Deriving ablative, privative, and reversative meanings in Catalan and Spanish. Borealis, 7 : 2, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. 1975. Méthodes en syntaxe. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
1995. La notion de lieu argument du verbe. In Tendances récentes en linguistique française et générale, volume dédié à David Gaatone, 173–200. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, M. & Rainer, F. 2004. La formazione delle parole in italiano. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, M. 1994. Opposizioni direzionali e prefissazione: analisi morfologica e semantica dei verbi egressivi prefissati con des- e es- in catalano. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Guillet, A. & Leclère, C. 1992. La structure des phrases simples en français. Les constructions transitives locatives. Genève/Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. 1997. The limits of argument structure. In A. M. Mendikoetxea & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (Eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, 203–230. Bilbao/Donostia-San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco and Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.Google Scholar
2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and projections, 233–254. Dodrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., Calude, A., Spagnol, M., Narrog, H. & Bamyack, E. 2014. Coding casual-noncasual verb alternations: a from-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics, 50 : 3, 587–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, S. 2015. Causalness and the encoding of the causative-anticausative alternation in French and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics, 51 : 3, 562–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C. 2004. Parasintesi. In M. Grossmann & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 166–188. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y. 1987. ‘Source’ and ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concept of Case, 122–146. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, M. 2012. The expressions of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The asymmetry of Source and Goal revisited. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of Putting and Taking. A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41 1, 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1997. Remarks on Denominal Verbs. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates, 473–499. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. & Narasimhan, B. 2012. Events of Putting and Taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. 1992. La structure argumentale des verbes locatifs à base nominale. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, XV : 1, 267–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. The semantic representation of denominal verbs. In P. Coopmans, M. Everaert & J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 215–240. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L. & Landau, B. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language, Cognition, 96 1, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, B. 2010. Paths in language and cognition: Universal asymmetries and their cause. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language, 73–94. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. 2001. On the relational semantics of transitive denominal verbs. In M. L. Jungl, O. F. Soriano & M. V. E. Vidal (Eds.), Current issues in generative grammar, 143–164. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.Google Scholar
2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Doctoral dissertation. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. [URL]
2008. Argument structure and denominal verbs. Paper presented at the Workshop on Bare Singulars, Argument Structure, and Their Interpretation , December 11–12, 2008, Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Nam, S. 2004. Goal and Source: Their Syntactic and Semantic Asymmetry, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1–29. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedyalkov, V. P. & Silnitsky, G. G. 1973. The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, 18 1, 1–32. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnibility and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rapaport, T. 2012. Central coincidence: The Preposition With . In J.-M. Merle & A. Steuckardt (Eds.), Prépositions & Aspectualité, 159–173. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. 2014. Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 1411, 8–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2002. The Theta System – An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 281, 229–90.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. 2009. The Causative Alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3 : 2, 641–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, F. & Vivanco, M. 2015. Reflexively marked anticausatives are not semantically reflexive. In E. O. Aboh, J. C. Schaeffer & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2013, 203–220. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 171, 480–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vietri, S. 2017. Usi verbali dell’italiano: le frasi anticausative. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
2020. The Lexicon of Transitive Verbs of Motion and the Asymmetry Between Goal and Source PPs, International Journal of Linguistics, 12 : 6, 81–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar