Cover not available

In:Atypical predicate-argument relations
Edited by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33] 2016
► pp. 3–26

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Verbs of pain and accusative subjects in Romanian

 | Ghent University x Contragram
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.01van
Verbs of pain in Romanian such as durea ‘ache’, ustura ‘burn’, and furnica ‘itch’ assign the accusative to their experiencer arguments, unlike other Romance languages, where the experiencer is dative-marked. The use of the accusative raises interesting problems in that it gives rise to a mismatch between the hypothesis on the syntax of inalienability in Romance in Generative Grammar (Guéron 1985) on the one hand and Burzio’s (1986) Generalization on the other hand. This article shows that the inversed nominative NP denoting the body part does not show subject properties, and that the accusative experiencer in sentence initial position does not show object properties, but instead displays subject properties, just like the dative in similar constructions. However, the difference between accusative and dative subjects in this construction is that the accusative is assigned to verb arguments and is a lexical case, whereas the dative is assigned to external possessors and is an inherent case. Surprisingly, the argument status of the accusative experiencer makes it even more subject-like than the dative experiencer, which is an adjunct and is dependent on the presence of an internal argument triggering verb agreement, whereas the accusative subject can also occur without an internal argument or with a locative PP.
References (36)
References
Barnes, Michael. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in faroese. Scripta Islandica 37. 13–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych verbs. In A. Artemis, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 84–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonch-Osmolovskaya, Anastassia, Ekaterina V. Rakhilina & Tatiana I. Reznikova. 2007. Conceptualization of pain: A database for lexical typology. In P. Bosch, D. Gabelaia, & J. Lang (eds.), TbiLLC 2007, LNAI, 110–123. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues de l’Europe. In J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 259–294. Berlin/New York: Mouton/de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and italian auxiliaries. Ph.D. diss. MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Anatomy of a generalization. In E. Reuland Eric (ed.), Arguments and case. Explaining burzio’s generalization, 195–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cilianu-Lascu, Corina. 2006. O mănâncă limba/la langue lui démange. Quelques remarques sur la place du sujet dans les structures possessives en roumain et en français, Enonciation et syntaxe. Recherches ACLIF: Actes du Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, Association des Chercheurs en Linguistique Française 3. 51–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1983. L’emploi possessif de l’article français. Langue française 58. 23–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Inalienable possession, pro-inclusion and lexical chains. In J. Guéron, H. Obenauer, & J.-Y. Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation, 43–86. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Inalienable possession and the interpretation of determiners. In M. Coene Martine & Y. D’hulst (eds.), The expression of possession in noun phrases. From NP to DP, Vol. II, 189–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Inalienable possession. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The blackwell companion to syntax, 589–638. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2000. The license to license: Licensing of structural case plus economy yields burzio’s generalization. In E. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case. Explaining burzio’s generalization, 31–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In A. Aikhenvald, Y. Alexandra, R.M.W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herschensohn, Julia. 1992. French inalienable binding. In C. Laeufer & T.A. Morgan (eds.), Theoretical analyses in romance linguistics, 367–384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Junker, Marie-Odile, & France Martineau. 1987. Les possessions inaliénables dans les constructions objet. Revue romane 22. 194–209.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiber, Georges. 1999. Anaphore associative et relation partie-tout: condition d’aliénation et principe de congruence ontologique. Langue française 122. 70–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, & Martin Haspelmath. 1998. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (éd.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 525–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Reuland Eric (ed.), Arguments and case. Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 11–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passive and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 4) , 159–189.
Perlmutter, David M. & John Moore. 2002. Language-Internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78. 373–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000b. Explaining Burzio’s generalization: Exploring the issues. In E. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case. Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin. 1994. Article défini, anaphore intra-phrastique et relations partie-tout. In C. Schnedecker, et al. (eds.), L’anaphore associative (Aspects linguistiques, psycholinguistiques et automatiques), 233–250. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schnedecker, Catherine, Charolles Michel, Kleiber Georges & David Jean (eds.). 1994. L’anaphore associatiave (Aspects linguistiques, psycholinguistiques et automatiques). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Şerbănescu, Andra. 1999. Dativ posesiv, dativ experimentator. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice L, 1. 19–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. Rise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic Linguistics 4. 187–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1994. “Dative sickness” in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 675–736. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spanoghe, Anne-Marie. 1995. La syntaxe de l’appartenance inaliénable en français, en espagnol et en portugais. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Peteghem, Marleen. 2006a. Le datif en français: un cas structural. Journal of French Languages Studies 16. 93–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006b. Anaphores associatives intra-phrastiques et inaliénabilité. In M. Riegel, C. Schnedecker, P. Swiggers, & I. Tamba (eds.), Aux carrefours du sens. Hommages offerts à Georges Kleiber pour son 60e anniversaire, 441–456. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & María Luisa Zubizaretta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable construction in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 595–652.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Burzio’s generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects. In E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (eds.), New perspectives on case theory, 299–327. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 111–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue