Cover not available

In:Atypical predicate-argument relations
Edited by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33] 2016
► pp. 115–130

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

The argument-structure configuration of English middle and related structures

 | University of the Basque Country UPV | EHU
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.05gar
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.
References (59)
References
Ackema, Peter & Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1994. The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93. 59–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Proceedings from the Panels of the Chicago linguistic society’s meeting 34. 421–435.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. The middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 18–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Sara Geyskens. 1998. Have you walked the dog yet? The ergative causativization of intransitives. Word 49(2). 155–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M. 1988. The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 181–203.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
García de la Maza, Casilda. 2008. Intransitivity, ergatives and middles. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 16. 31–50.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The conventionalisation of contextual effects in middle structures. International Journal of English Studies 13(1). 111–131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Affectedness revisited. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 30(1). 53–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 427–441. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, Michael. 1965. The mediopassive voice in modern English. Word 21. 270–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk. 1990. A student’s grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Look and see. Language 43(4). 937–947. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and Theme in English. Part I. Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English mediopassive constructions. A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread and current status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay, & Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 381–416.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lekakou, Maria. 2002. Middle semantics and its realization in English and Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 399–416.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua 92. 35–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1987. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue