Введение
Лексическая семантика (также известная как лексикосемантика) как подраздел лингвистической семантики изучает значения слов. Она включает в себя исследование того, как слова структурируют своё значение, как они функционируют в грамматике и композициональности.
Subfield of linguistic semantics
Lexical semantics (also known as lexicosemantics), as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality,
Lexical semantics (also known as lexicosemantics), as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality,
Предметом изучения лексической семантики являются:
классификация и декомпозиция лексических элементов;
различия и сходства в лексической семантической структуре в разных языках;
взаимосвязь между лексическим значением и значением предложения, а также синтаксисом. Лексические единицы, также называемые синтаксическими атомами, могут быть самостоятельными, как в случае с корнями слов или частями сложных слов, либо требовать сочетания с другими единицами, как это делают приставки и суффиксы. Первые называются свободными морфемами, а вторые – связанными. Они охватывают узкий спектр значений (семантические поля) и могут комбинироваться друг с другом для создания новых денотатов. Когнитивная семантика – это лингвистическая парадигма/подход, который с 1980-х годов стимулировал наибольшее количество исследований в области лексической семантики, внедрив такие инновации, как теория прототипов, концептуальные метафоры и фреймовая семантика.
The study of lexical semantics concerns:
the classification and decomposition of lexical items
the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure cross linguistically
the relationship of lexical meaning to sentence meaning and syntax. Lexical units, also referred to as syntactic atoms, can be independent such as in the case of root words or parts of compound words or they require association with other units, as prefixes and suffixes do. The former are termed free morphemes and the latter bound morphemes. They fall into a narrow range of meanings (semantic fields) and can combine with each other to generate new denotations. Cognitive semantics is the linguistic paradigm/framework that since the 1980s has generated the most studies in lexical semantics, introducing innovations like prototype theory, conceptual metaphors, and frame semantics.
the classification and decomposition of lexical items
the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure cross linguistically
the relationship of lexical meaning to sentence meaning and syntax. Lexical units, also referred to as syntactic atoms, can be independent such as in the case of root words or parts of compound words or they require association with other units, as prefixes and suffixes do. The former are termed free morphemes and the latter bound morphemes. They fall into a narrow range of meanings (semantic fields) and can combine with each other to generate new denotations. Cognitive semantics is the linguistic paradigm/framework that since the 1980s has generated the most studies in lexical semantics, introducing innovations like prototype theory, conceptual metaphors, and frame semantics.
Лексические отношения
Лексические элементы содержат информацию о категории (лексической и синтаксической), форме и значении. Семантика, относящаяся к этим категориям, затем связывается с каждым лексическим элементом в лексиконе.
Lexical items contain information about category (lexical and syntactic), form and meaning. The semantics related to these categories then relate to each lexical item in the lexicon.
Маркированные инициативы
Некоторые языки (например, немецкий, итальянский и французский) имеют несколько морфологических классов инчоативных глаголов. В общем, эти языки разделяют свои инчоативные глаголы на три класса: глаголы, которые обязательно не маркируются (они не маркируются рефлексивным местоимением, клитикой или аффиксом), глаголы, которые маркируются опционально, и глаголы, которые обязательно маркируются. Причинные глаголы в этих языках остаются немаркированными. Хаспелмат называет это антикаузативной альтернацией. Например, инчоативные глаголы в немецком языке классифицируются в три морфологических класса. Глаголы класса А обязательно образуют инчоатив с рефлексивным местоимением *sich*, глаголы класса B обязательно образуют инчоатив без рефлексивного местоимения, а глаголы класса C образуют инчоатив опционально с рефлексивным местоимением или без него. В примере (5) глагол *zerbrach* является немаркированным инчоативным глаголом из класса B, который также остается немаркированным в своей каузативной форме. Применяя эту гипотезу к дитранзитивным глаголам, вводится структура, представленная на диаграмме (8a). В этой древовидной структуре можно увидеть, что от любого DP к глаголу можно проследить один и тот же путь. Древовидная диаграмма (7b) иллюстрирует эту структуру на примере из английского языка. Этот анализ стал шагом к бинарно-разветвленным деревьям, что было теоретическим изменением, развитым в анализе VP-оболочки Ларсона. Предложения с двойными дополнениями встречаются с дитранзитивными глаголами, как видно из следующего примера:
Some languages (e. g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs. 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. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation. For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun 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 zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form. 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. Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. Джон послал Мэри посылку. b. Джон послал посылку Мэри. Похоже, что глагол *send* имеет два объекта, или дополнения (аргументы): Мэри, получателя, и посылку, тему. Аргументная структура дитранзитивных глагольных фраз сложна и подвергалась различным структурным гипотезам. Изначальной структурной гипотезой была гипотеза о тройном разветвлении, представленная в (9a) и (9b), но, следуя анализу Кейна 1981 года, Ларсон утверждал, что каждое дополнение вводится глаголом. Ниже приведены примеры тестов Ларсона, демонстрирующие, что иерархический (вышестоящий) порядок любых двух объектов соответствует линейному порядку, так что второй объект управляется (c-командуется) первым. Таким образом, это также предоставляет дополнительные доказательства наличия двух VP, где глагол присоединяется к каузативному глаголу. В примерах (14a) и (b) каждое из построений с двойными дополнениями чередуется с конструкциями NP + PP.
Some languages (e. g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs. 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. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation. For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun 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 zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form. 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. Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(14) a. Сатоси отправил руководство Дамрона в Тюбинген. b. Сатоси отправил руководство Дамрона в Тюбинген. Бек и Джонсон показывают, что объект в (15a) имеет другое отношение к глаголу движения, поскольку он не может выражать значение ‘ВЛАДЕНИЯ’, которое может выражать обладатель в (9a) и (15a). В (15a) Сатоши является одушевленным обладателем и, следовательно, получает *kisimen*. PP для Сатоши в (15b) носит благотворительный характер и также не обязательно выражает значение ‘ВЛАДЕНИЯ’.
Some languages (e. g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs. 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. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation. For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun 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 zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form. 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. Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(15) a. Тило приготовил Сатоши *kisimen*. b. Тило приготовил *kisimen* для Сатоши. Таким образом, базовые структуры не совпадают. Различия заключаются в семантике и синтаксисе предложений, в отличие от трансформационной теории Ларсона. Дополнительные доказательства структурного существования VP-оболочек с невидимой вербальной единицей приводятся в применении наречия или модификатора “опять”. Предложение (16) неоднозначно, и анализ двух различных значений выявляет разницу в структуре.
Some languages (e. g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs. 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. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation. For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun 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 zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form. 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. Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(16) Салли снова открыла дверь. Однако в (17a) ясно, что именно Салли повторила действие открытия двери. В (17b) событие заключается в открытии двери, и Салли могла или не могла открывать ее ранее. Чтобы передать эти два разных значения, “опять” присоединяется к VP в двух разных местах, тем самым описывая два события с чисто структурным изменением.
Some languages (e. g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs. 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. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation. For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun 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 zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form. 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. Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(17) a. Салли была так добра, что вышла из себя, чтобы снова открыть дверь. b. Двери только что закрыли, чтобы не пускать жуков, но Салли снова открыла дверь.
Some languages (e. g., German, Italian, and French), have multiple morphological classes of inchoative verbs. 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. Haspelmath refers to this as the anticausative alternation. For example, inchoative verbs in German are classified into three morphological classes. Class A verbs necessarily form inchoatives with the reflexive pronoun 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 zerbrach is an unmarked inchoative verb from Class B, which also remains unmarked in its causative form. 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. Sentences with double objects occur with ditransitive verbs, as we can see in the following example:
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.
(9) a. John sent Mary a package. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. b. The doors had just been shut to keep out the bugs but Sally opened
the door again.