Cover not available
Part of
Atypical predicate-argument relations
Edited by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33] 2016
► pp. 115–130

The argument-structure configuration of English middle and related structures

| University of the Basque Country UPV | EHU

This paper assesses the place of middle structures in relation to transitivity and intransitivity in English. Unlike some accounts that have questioned the grammatical status of middles as a self-standing category, this research justifies the recognition of middles as a structural category that constitutes an independent class of intransitive sentences. It does so through an analysis of the underlying thematic structure of middles themselves, as compared to structures which deviate from the middle prototype and other non-canonical structures. A discussion of these issues highlights the great fluidity shown by English verbs entering diathesis alternations, as well as the intransitivisation process exhibited by the English verbal paradigm. The paper concludes with some theoretical considerations regarding the notion of argument structure.

Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.05gar
References
Ackema, Peter & Maaike Schoorlemmer
1994 The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93. 59–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C
1988 Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1997 Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook of generative syntax, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
British national corpus
compiled by the British National Corpus Consortium. [URL]
Brousseau, Anne-Marie & Elizabeth Ritter
1991 A non-unified analysis of agentive verbs. In Proceedings of the Tenth west coast conference on formal linguistics , 53–65. Stanford, CA: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985 Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 The emergent lexicon. Proceedings from the Panels of the Chicago linguistic society’s meeting 34. 421–435.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Liesbet Heyvaert
2003 On the so-called ‘middle’ construction in English and Dutch. In Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds.), Empirical approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies, 57–73. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo
1989 The middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 18–30.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan
1973 Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Sara Geyskens
1998 Have you walked the dog yet? The ergative causativization of intransitives. Word 49(2). 155–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
1991 A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Doron, Edith & Malka Rappaport Hovav
1991 Affectedness and externalization. Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the north eastern linguistic society 21. 81–94.
Erades, P.A
1975 Points of modern English syntax. Contributions to English studies by P.A. Erades. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M
1988 The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 181–203.Google Scholar
1992 The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane
1985 Adverbs in agentless actives and passives. Papers from Parasession on causatives and agentivity. Chicago linguistic society 21(2). 21–31.
1989 On the reflexive middle in English. Papers from the Annual regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society 25(1). 123–132.
Fillmore, Charles J
1968 The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
García de la Maza, Casilda
2008 Intransitivity, ergatives and middles. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 16. 31–50.Google Scholar
2011 The semantics of English middles and pseudo-middles. In Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.) Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives, 161–181. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2013 The conventionalisation of contextual effects in middle structures. International Journal of English Studies 13(1). 111–131.Google Scholar
2014 Affectedness revisited. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 30(1). 53–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
2001 Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23. 503–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Pragmatics and argument structure. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 427–441. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grady, Michael
1965 The mediopassive voice in modern English. Word 21. 270–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk
1990 A student’s grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S
1967 Look and see. Language 43(4). 937–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K
1967 Notes on transitivity and Theme in English. Part I. Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Ian Roberts
1993 Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In Eric 
Reuland & Werner Abraham (eds.), Knowledge and language, Volume II, lexical and conceptual structure, 183–220. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1984 Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne
2007 English mediopassive constructions. A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread and current status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S
1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1992 Babe Ruth homered his way into the hearts of America. In Timothy Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and the lexicon, 155–178. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1909–49 A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 7 Heidelberg: Carl Winters (volumes I–IV); Copenhagen: Munksgaard (volumes V–VII).Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay, & Thomas Roeper
1984 On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 381–416.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lekakou, Maria
2002 Middle semantics and its realization in English and Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 399–416.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
1994 A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua 92. 35–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1968 Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín Arrese, Juana I
2011 Spontaneous and facilitative events revisited. In Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives, 137–160. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya
2000 Relaciones de Interficie: los Verbos de Cambio de Estado. In Ana Bravo, Carlos Luján, & Isabel Pérez (eds.), Cuadernos de Lingüística VII, 125–144. Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P
1969 Nekotorye verojatnostnye universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii. In Ivan F. Vardul (ed.), Jazykovye universalii I lingvisticeskaja tipologija, 106–114. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E
1997 Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M
1978 Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society 21. 157–189.
Rapoport, Tova R
1999 The middle, agents, and for-phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1). 147–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin
2012 Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, & Tal Siloni (eds.), The theta system: Argument structure at the Interface, 150–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian G
1987 The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosta, Andrew
1995 The semantics of English mediopassives. In Bas Aarts & Charles F. 
Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 123–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul Hopper
2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Oosten, Jeanne
1977 Subjects and agenthood in English. Papers from the Annual regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society 13. 459–471.
Vendler, Zeno
1984 Adverbs of action. Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics. Chicago linguistic society 20(2). 297–305.
Williams, Edwin
1981 Argument structure and morphology. The linguistic review 1. 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar