Editing Lexical semantics (section)

== Classification of event types ==

=== Intransitive verbs: unaccusative versus unergative ===
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 100

| image1 = Unaccusativeexample.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (2a)

| image2 = Unergativeexample.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (2b)

}}

The unaccusative hypothesis was put forward by David Perlmutter in 1987, and describes how two classes of intransitive verbs have two different syntactic structures. These are [[unaccusative verb]]s and [[unergative verb]]s.<ref name="Lappin">Lappin, S. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.</ref> These classes of verbs are defined by Perlmutter only in syntactic terms. They have the following structures underlyingly:

* unaccusative verb: __ [<sub>VP</sub> V NP]<ref name="Lappin" />
* unergative verb: NP [<sub>VP</sub> V]

The following is an example from English:

{|
|-
|  
 (2) '''Unaccusative'''
     a. ''Mary fell.''<ref>Loporcaro, M. (2003). The Unaccusative Hypothesis and participial absolutes in Italian: Perlmutter’s generalization revised. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 199-263.</ref>
     '''Unergative'''
     b. ''Mary worked.''
|}

In (2a) the verb underlyingly takes a direct object, while in (2b) the verb underlyingly takes a subject.

=== Transitivity alternations: the inchoative/causative alternation ===
{{main article|Causative alternation}}
The change-of-state property of Verb Phrases (VP) is a significant observation for the syntax of lexical semantics because it provides evidence that subunits are embedded in the VP structure, and that the meaning of the entire VP is influenced by this internal grammatical structure. (For example, the VP ''the vase broke'' carries a change-of-state meaning of the vase becoming broken, and thus has a silent BECOME subunit within its underlying structure.) There are two types of change-of-state predicates: [[inchoative]] and [[causative]].

Inchoative verbs are [[Intransitive verb|intransitive]], meaning that they occur without a direct object, and these verbs express that their subject has undergone a certain change of state. Inchoative verbs are also known as [[anticausative]] verbs.<ref name="An Overview of Lexical Semantics">{{cite journal|last1=Johnson|first1=Kent|title=An Overview of Lexical Semantics|journal=Philosophy Compass|date=2008|volume=3 |pages=119–134|doi=10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00101.x |url=http://www.lps.uci.edu/~johnsonk/Publications/Johnson.AnOverviewOfLexicalSemantics.pdf}}</ref> Causative verbs are transitive, meaning that they occur with a direct object, and they express that the subject causes a change of state in the object.

Linguist [[Martin Haspelmath]] classifies inchoative/causative verb pairs under three main categories: causative, anticausative, and non-directed alternations.<ref name="Haspelmath1">{{cite book|last1=Haspelmath|first1=Martin|title=Causatives and transitivity, edited by Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky|chapter=More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations|journal=Causatives and Transitivity|date=1993|volume=23|pages=87–121|chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/3452966|doi=10.1075/slcs.23.05has|series=Studies in Language Companion Series|publisher=Benjamins|isbn=978-90-272-3026-3|url=https://zenodo.org/record/227093}}</ref> Non-directed alternations are further subdivided into labile, equipollent, and suppletive alternations.
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 160

| image1 = Vasebreak.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (3a)

| image2 = Johnbrokevase.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (3b)

}}
[[English language|English]] tends to favour [[Ambitransitive verb|labile alternations]],<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Piñón|first1=Christopher|title=A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation|date=2001|pages=346–364|url=http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/viewFile/11.346/1719}}</ref> meaning that the same verb is used in the inchoative and causative forms.<ref name="Haspelmath1" /> This can be seen in the following example: ''broke'' is an intransitive inchoative verb in (3a) and a transitive causative verb in (3b).
{|
|-
| 
 (3) '''English'''<ref name="An Overview of Lexical Semantics" />
     a. ''The vase '''broke'''.''
     b. ''John '''broke''' the vase''.
|}
As seen in the underlying tree structure for (3a), the silent subunit BECOME is embedded within the Verb Phrase (VP), resulting in the inchoative change-of-state meaning (y become z). In the underlying tree structure for (3b), the silent subunits CAUS and BECOME are both embedded within the VP, resulting in the causative change-of-state meaning (x cause y become z).<ref name="WILEY Blackwell" />

English change of state verbs are often de-adjectival, meaning that they are derived from adjectives. We can see this in the following example:
{|
|-
| 
 (4) a. ''The knot is loose.''<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tham | first1 = S | year = 2013 | title = Change of state verbs and result state adjectives in Mandarin Chinese | journal = Journal of Linguistics | volume = 49 | issue = 3| pages = 647–701 | doi=10.1017/s0022226713000261}}</ref>
     b. ''The knot loosened.''
     c. ''Sandy loosened the knot.''
|}
In example (4a) we start with a stative intransitive adjective, and derive (4b) where we see an intransitive inchoative verb. In (4c) we see a transitive causative verb.

==== Marked inchoatives ====
Some languages (e.g., [[German language|German]], [[Italian language|Italian]], and [[French language|French]]), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs.<ref name="Schafer">{{cite book|last1=Schafer|first1=Florian|title=The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|isbn=9789027255099|page=1|year=2008}}</ref> Generally speaking, these languages separate their inchoative verbs into three classes: verbs that are obligatorily unmarked (they are not marked with a [[reflexive pronoun]], [[clitic]], or [[affix]]), verbs that are optionally marked, and verbs that are obligatorily marked. The causative verbs in these languages remain unmarked. [[Martin Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] refers to this as the [[anticausative]] alternation.
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 170

| image1 = Zerbrach.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (4a)

| image2 = Hanszerbrach.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (4b)

}}
For example, inchoative verbs in [[German language|German]] are classified into three morphological classes. ''Class A'' verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun ''{{lang|de|sich}}'', ''Class B'' verbs form inchoatives necessarily without the reflexive pronoun, and ''Class C'' verbs form inchoatives optionally with or without the reflexive pronoun. In example (5), the verb ''{{lang|de|zerbrach}}'' is an unmarked inchoative verb from ''Class B'', which also remains unmarked in its causative form.<ref name="Schafer" />

: '''German'''<ref name="Schafer" />
{{interlinear |lang=de |number=(5) a.
|Die Vase '''zerbrach'''.
|the  vase  '''broke'''
|'The vase broke.'
}}
{{interlinear |lang=de |number={{hidden text|(5)}} b.
|Hans '''zerbrach''' die Vase.
|John  '''broke'''   the vase
|'John broke the vase.'
}}

{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 170

| image1 = offnete.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (5a)

| image2 = Hansoffnete.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (5b)

}}

In contrast, the verb ''öffnete'' is a ''Class A'' verb which necessarily takes the reflexive pronoun ''sich'' in its inchoative form, but remains unmarked in its causative form.

: '''German'''<ref name="Schafer" />
{{interlinear |lang=de |number=(6) a.
|Die Tür öffnete '''sich'''.
|the door opened '''REFL'''
|'The door opened.'
}}
{{interlinear |lang=de |number={{hidden text|(6)}} b.
|Hans '''öffnete''' die Tür.
|John opened the door
|'John opened the door.'
}}

There has been some debate as to whether the different classes of inchoative verbs are purely based in morphology, or whether the differentiation is derived from the lexical-semantic properties of each individual verb. While this debate is still unresolved in languages such as [[Italian language|Italian]], [[French language|French]], and [[Greek language|Greek]], it has been suggested by linguist Florian Schäfer that there are semantic differences between marked and unmarked inchoatives in [[German language|German]]. Specifically, that only unmarked inchoative verbs allow an unintentional causer reading (meaning that they can take on an "''x unintentionally caused y''" reading).<ref name="Schafer" />

==== Marked causatives ====
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 190

| image1 = angbata.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (7a)

| image2 = sirosa2.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (7b)

}}
Causative morphemes are present in the verbs of many languages (e.g., [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]], [[Malagasy language|Malagasy]], [[Turkish language|Turkish]], etc.), usually appearing in the form of an affix on the verb.<ref name="An Overview of Lexical Semantics" /> This can be seen in the following examples from [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]], where the causative prefix ''pag-'' (realized here as ''nag'') attaches to the verb ''tumba'' to derive a causative transitive verb in (7b), but the prefix does not appear in the inchoative intransitive verb in (7a). [[Martin Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] refers to this as the [[causative]] alternation.

: '''Tagalog'''<ref name="An Overview of Lexical Semantics" />
{{interlinear |lang=tl |number=(7) a.
|Tumumba ang bata.
|fell    the child
|'The child fell.'
}}
{{interlinear |lang=tl |number={{hidden text|(7)}} b.
|'''Nag'''tumba ng bata si Rosa.
|'''CAUS'''-fall of child DET Rosa
|'Rosa knocked the child down.'
}}

=== Ditransitive verbs ===

==== Kayne's 1981 unambiguous path analysis ====
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 110

| image1 = Unambiguouspathstree.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Tree diagram (8a)

| image2 = Unambiguouspathtree.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Tree diagram (8b)

}}
Richard Kayne proposed the idea of unambiguous paths as an alternative to c-commanding relationships, which is the type of structure seen in examples (8). The idea of unambiguous paths stated that an antecedent and an anaphor should be connected via an unambiguous path. This means that the line connecting an antecedent and an anaphor cannot be broken by another argument.<ref name="Kayne">Kayne, R. (1981). Unambiguous paths. In R. May & F. Koster (Eds.), Levels of syntactic representation (143-184). Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.</ref> When applied to ditransitive verbs, this hypothesis introduces the structure in diagram (8a). In this tree structure it can be seen that the same path can be traced from either DP to the verb. Tree diagram (7b) illustrates this structure with an example from English. This analysis was a step toward binary branching trees, which was a theoretical change that was furthered by Larson's VP-shell analysis.<ref name="Larson" />

==== Larson's 1988 "VP-shell" analysis ====
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 170

| image1 = LexicalSemanticsDOCtree.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Tree diagram for (9a)

| image2 = Lexicalsemantics7btree.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Tree diagram for (9b)

}}
Larson posited his Single Complement Hypothesis in which he stated that every complement is introduced with one verb. The Double Object Construction presented in 1988 gave clear evidence of a hierarchical structure using asymmetrical binary branching.<ref name=Larson>{{cite journal|last1=Larson|first1=Richard|title=On the Double Object Construction|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|date=1988|volume=19|issue=3|pages=589–632|jstor=25164901}}</ref> Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
[[File:Vpshelltree.png|thumb|Larson's proposed binary-branching VP-shell structure for (9)]]
{|
|
| 
 (9) a. ''John sent Mary a package.''<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Miyagawa|first1=Shigeru|last2=Tsujioka|first2=Takae|title=Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese|journal=Journal of East Asian Linguistics|date=2004|volume=13|issue=1|pages=1–38|doi=10.1023/b:jeal.0000007345.64336.84|citeseerx=10.1.1.207.6553|s2cid=122993837}}</ref>
     b. ''John sent a package to Mary.''
|}
It appears as if the verb ''send'' has two objects, or complements (arguments): both ''Mary'', the recipient and ''parcel'', the theme. The argument structure of ditransitive verb phrases is complex and has undergone different structural hypothesis.

The original structural hypothesis was that of ternary branching seen in (9a) and (9b), but following from Kayne's 1981 analysis, Larson maintained that each complement is introduced by a verb.<ref name="Kayne" /><ref name="Larson" />

Their hypothesis shows that there is a lower verb embedded within a VP shell that combines with an upper verb (can be invisible), thus creating a VP shell (as seen in the tree diagram to the right). Most current theories no longer allow the ternary tree structure of (9a) and (9b), so the theme and the goal/recipient are seen in a hierarchical relationship within a [[Branching (linguistics)#Binary vs. n-ary branching|binary branching]] structure.<ref name="Bruening">{{cite journal|last1=Bruening|first1=Benjamin|title=Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|date=November 2010|volume=41|issue=4|pages=519–562|doi=10.1162/LING_a_00012|s2cid=57567192}}</ref>

Following are examples of Larson's tests to show that the hierarchical (superior) order of any two objects aligns with a linear order, so that the second is governed (c-commanded) by the first.<ref name="Larson"/> This is in keeping with X'Bar Theory of Phrase Structure Grammar, with Larson's tree structure using the empty Verb to which the V is raised.

Reflexives and reciprocals (anaphors) show this relationship in which they must be c-commanded by their antecedents, such that the (10a) is grammatical but (10b) is not:
{|
|-
| 
 (10) a. ''I showed Mary herself.''<ref name="Larson"/>
     b. ''*I showed herself Mary.''
|}
A pronoun must have a quantifier as its antecedent:
{|
|-
| 
 (11) a. '' I gave every worker his paycheck.''<ref name="Larson"/>
      b. ''*I gave its owner every paycheck.''
|}
Question words follow this order:
{|
|-
| 
 (12) a. ''Who did you give which paycheck?''<ref name="Larson"/>
      b. ''*Which paycheck did you give who?''
|}

The effect of negative polarity means that "any" must have a negative quantifier as an antecedent:
[[File:Larsoncausative.png|thumb|General tree diagram for Larson's proposed underlying structure of a sentence with causative meaning]]
{|
|-
| 
 (13) a. ''I showed no one anything.''<ref name="Larson"/>
      b. ''*I showed anyone nothing.''
|}
These tests with ditransitive verbs that confirm c-command also confirm the presence of underlying or invisible causative verbs. In ditransitive verbs such as ''give someone something'', ''send someone something'', ''show someone something'' etc. there is an underlying causative meaning that is represented in the underlying structure. As seen in example in (9a) above, ''John sent Mary a package'', there is the underlying meaning that 'John "caused" Mary to have a package'.

Larson proposed that both sentences in (9a) and (9b) share the same underlying structure and the difference on the surface lies in that the double object construction "John sent Mary a package" is derived by transformation from a NP plus PP construction "John sent a package to Mary".

==== Beck & Johnson's 2004 double object construction ====

Beck and Johnson, however, give evidence that the two underlying structures are not the same.<ref name=beck>{{cite journal|last1=Sigrid|first1=Beck|last2=Johnson|first2=Kyle|title=Double Objects Again|journal=Linguistic Inquiry|date=2004|volume=35|issue=1|pages=97–124|url=http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/Beck_and_Johnson_2004.pdf|doi=10.1162/002438904322793356|s2cid=18749803}}</ref> In so doing, they also give further evidence of the presence of two VPs where the verb attaches to a causative verb. In examples (14a) and (b), each of the double object constructions are alternated with NP + PP constructions.
{|
|-
| 
 (14) a. ''Satoshi sent Tubingen the Damron Guide.''<ref name="beck" />
      b. ''Satoshi sent the Damron Guide to Tübingen''.
|}
Beck and Johnson show that the object in (15a) has a different relation to the motion verb as it is not able to carry the meaning of HAVING which the possessor (9a) and (15a) can. In (15a), Satoshi is an animate possessor and so is caused to HAVE kisimen. The PP ''for Satoshi'' in (15b) is of a benefactive nature and does not necessarily carry this meaning of HAVE either.
{|
|-
| 
 (15) a. ''Thilo cooked Satoshi kisimen.''<ref name="beck" />
      b. ''Thilo cooked kisimen for Satoshi''.
|}
The underlying structures are therefore not the same. The differences lie in the semantics and the syntax of the sentences, in contrast to the transformational theory of Larson. Further evidence for the structural existence of VP shells with an invisible verbal unit is given in the application of the adjunct or modifier "again". Sentence (16) is ambiguous and looking into the two different meanings reveals a difference in structure.
{|
|-
| 
 (16) ''Sally opened the door again''.<ref name="beck" />
|}
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| header =
| width = 150

| image1 = Larson3.png
|thumb
| caption1 = Underlying tree structure for (17a)

| image2 = Larson1.png
|thumb
| caption2 = Underlying tree structure for (17b)

}}
However, in (17a), it is clear that it was Sally who repeated the action of opening the door. In (17b), the event is in the door being opened and Sally may or may not have opened it previously. To render these two different meanings, "again" attaches to VPs in two different places, and thus describes two events with a purely structural change.
{|
|-
| 
 (17) a. ''Sally was so kind that she went out of her way to open the door''
         ''once again.''<ref name="beck" />
      b. ''The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened''
         ''the door again''.
|}