Doctoral Dissertation Research: Argument Realization and (Non-)agreement

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is assumed to be a universal distinction made by languages and is specifically built into the architecture of many modern syntactic theories. Broadly speaking, arguments are phrases that the verb requires to form a complete meaning, while adjuncts add in optional extra information. Recent linguistic investigation has identified a language that challenges the argument-adjunct distinction as a linguistic universal in two ways. First, while most arguments are weakly distinguished from adjuncts by being marked on the verb, certain typical arguments lack even this as a distinguishing feature. Second, the processes for reducing a verb’s arguments seem to operate through generalized mechanisms that may ignore the verb’s specific meaning, unlike in other languages. The documentation here will form a core component of the doctoral dissertation of the Co-PI. Broader impacts include a publicly available deposit of recordings and transcriptions at a digital repository housed at the University of Texas at Austin. This project examines secondary objects and middles within a larger investigation of argument realization in a language that allows at most one object to be indexed on the verb; thus there is currently no distinction between secondary objects and unindexable adjuncts. This project explores three questions about secondary objects: (a) do secondary objects introduce new participants or realize those already in the predicate's meaning; (b) what is the grammatical function of secondary objects and are they distinct from other dependents; and (c) what factors govern which dependent is indexed on the verb? Finally, this project aims for a fuller description of middle constructions, with a focus on how the lexical semantics of the verb affects its behavior in middle contexts, and how such argument suppression interacts with argument realization properties.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.