External argument realization in nominalization

GGS 2007
Konstanz, 18.05.07
On the realization of external arguments in nominalizations
Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer
University of Stuttgart
artemis/[email protected]
1.
Introduction
In this paper we investigate the realization of external arguments in nominalizations. We want
to address the question how syntactic structure in nominalization and encyclopedic
knowledge of roots interact in realizing and projecting external arguments in this domain.
We focus on nominalizations derived from verbs undergoing the causative-anticausative
alternation in mainly German, which we will analyze following the general tenets of syntactic
approaches to nominalization. 1
•
We take the causative-anticausative alternation as our test-case, as
a) a consensus exists concerning the encyclopedic classification of verb
meanings, which predicts which verbs alternate and which do not (Haspelmath
1993, Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995 and others).
b) external arguments of verbs undergoing the alternation can be associated with
two types of thematic roles (Agent, Causer)
c) these thematic roles can be realised as DPs or PPs, whereby different
prepositions are used for the Agent and the Causer argument (in German von
vs. durch respectively).
d) the morphology some verbs bear in German helps to disambiguate them (they
are interpreted as anticausative when they surface with the reflexive pronoun
sich).
e) there is a certain consensus concerning the structural analysis of the verbs
undergoing the alternation.
Questions:
1. In the verbal domain, external argument realization is subject to formal
requirements. Is argument realization in nominalization subject to the same
principles as in the case of verbs?
2. Can we identify systematic patterns?
1
In our discussion we abstract away from the differences between complex event and result nominals, as
discussed in Grimshaw (1990). For our purposes, all the nominals discussed here are complex event or argument
supporting ones in Grimshaw's terms.
2.
2.1
The (anti-)causative alternation
The verbal pattern
(1)
a.
b.
c.
John broke the window
The storm broke the window
The window broke (from the storm)
TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF ARGUMENTS IN GERMAN
Causatives
Passives
Yes (Subject)
Yes (von-phrase)
Agents
Yes (Subject)
Yes (durch-phrase/
Causers
*von-phrase)
(2)
a.
b.
(3)
a.
b.
•
(4)
Anticausatives
No
Yes (durch-phrase/
*von phrase)
Hans / der Erdstoss zerbrach die Vase
Hans / the earth tremor broke the vase
Hans / der Wind öffnete die Tür
Hans / the air opened the door
Die Vase wurde von Peter / durch den Erdstoss zerbrochen
The vase was
by Peter / through the earth tremor broken
Die Tür wurde von Peter / durch einen Windstoss geöffnet
The door was by Peter / through a gust-of-wind opened
There are two morphologically distinct types of anticausatives in German (± reflexive
morphology), they behave alike with respect to argument realization.
a.
b.
2.2
Agent
Causer
Anticausative
Die Vase zerbrach (durch ein Erdbeben)
The vase broke
through an earthquake
Die Tür öffnete sich (durch einen Windstoß)
The door opened REFL through a blast-of-wind
A syntactic analysis of the alternation
•
Following Marantz (1984), Kratzer (1994): external arguments are not arguments of
verbs but of a Voice head.
•
The structure of (anti-)causative verbs: (Alexiadou et. al. 2006) 2
(5)
•
[ (Voice) [ vCAUS(e) [ Root + Theme ]]]
Agentivity and causation are syntactically represented in terms of distinct functional
heads. CAUS is taken to introduce a causal relation between a causing event (the
implicit argument of CAUS) and the resultant state denoted by the Root + Theme
complex. Voice introduces the external argument.
2
Note that CAUS could also simply be seen as an eventive v of the type proposed in Marantz (2005). In this
case the causative semantics would not be directly encoded on any verbal head but would result from the
combination of an activity v and its stative complement (see Ramchand 2006 for related ideas).
2
•
Causatives and Anticausatives have a CAUS head but differ in that only the former
have Voice.
The existence of CAUS in Anticausatives can be detected by the crosslinguistic
licensing of Causer-PPs (German: durch; English: from; Greek: apo; …).
•
•
Roots fall into different classes depending on their Encyclopedic semantics (cf. also
Bhatt & Embick in progress, Harley & Noyer 2000):
1.
2.
3.
4.
√agentive
√internally caused
√externally caused
√cause unspecified
(murder, assassinate)
(blossom, wilt) 3
(destroy, kill)
(break, open)
•
All of the above roots combine with CAUS.
•
‘Internal vs. external causation’ categorization of the root influences the combinations
of roots with particular types of Voice heads.
Agentive roots:
The bringing about of the event requires the presence of an Agent.
They combine with Voice and are necessarily transitive.
Internally caused:
The cause of the change of state event is linked to properties inherent to
the argument undergoing change and cannot be directly caused by an
external argument. They do not alternate and are necessarily
intransitive.
Externally caused:
The change of state is brought about by an external cause. They
combine with Voice and are necessarily transitive.
Cause unspecified:
No specification of internal vs. external cause. They alternate.
•
How can we explain the presence of sich, i.e. the fact that in German anticausative
verbs split into two groups, those that take sich and those that do not?
•
Haspelmath (1993) established a correlation between the presence/absence of extra
morphology in anticausatives and the conceptualization of the change of state event
expressed by the verb. Verbs (roots) are ordered on a ‘spontaneity scale’. The less
likely it is for a change of state event to happen spontaneously the more likely it is that
extra morphology shows up. (To a certain extent this is idiosyncratic).
•
Schäfer (in preparation) argues that roots that necessarily come with extra morphology
have the requirement to appear in the presence of Voice, even if they express an
anticausative event. In this case, a special kind of Voice is involved (expletive Voice
with no semantic content). Non-referential, non-bound sich is located in the Specifier of
this Voice. Other languages (e.g. Greek) use non-active morphology without semantic
impact for this function.
3
For us unergative predicates are not causatives, and hence cannot be classified as internally caused, contra
Levin & Rappaport (1995) and in line with Marantz (1997).
3
(6)
Interpretation:
Syntax:
Spell-out:
anticausative:
anticausative:
causative:
[ V [ RootA + Theme ]]
[DPexpl. [Voice{D, ∅}
[ V [ RootB + Theme ]]]]
[DP
[Voice{D, Agent} [ V [ RootA/B + Theme ]]]]
∅
(4a)
sich
(4b)
transitive
B
•
How do the nominalizations of these different root classes behave?
•
In principle, there are two possible realizations for the external argument in the DP:
possessor or PP.
•
But, German shows restrictions as to the type of elements that can appear in the
possessor position. Only proper names are allowed. Therefore we restrict ourselves to
PPs.
•
Can we find the same PPs in nominalization?
•
What about sich?
3.
3.1
Nominalization patterns
Background: English 4
(7)
a.
b.
John's destroying the manuscript
John's/the destruction of the manuscript
gerund
-ation nominal
Observation 1: the realisation of the external argument is optional for -ation, even though on
the basis of the root meaning, one would necessary expect the presence of an external
argument (externally caused root). The same holds for agentive roots.
(8)
*The manuscript destroyed
•
Why is the root's behavior different in the nominal domain?
•
Kratzer (1994), Marantz (1997 and subsequent work):
'external' arguments are never assigned by the lexical entry, but by Voice. -(at)ion
nominals lack Voice and therefore they never have an 'external' argument. 5
•
When the nominalization structure includes Voice, the external argument is realized
obligatorily.
•
When the nominalization lacks Voice, then the external argument can be realized as a
possessor. In the case of destruction, the possessor can be interpreted as an agent, based
on our encyclopedic knowledge about destroy.
4
Note that here, we take the ing of and the -ation nominalization form to be similar, following Chomsky (1970).
It follows from this that they cannot assign accusative Case to their internal argument, as opposed to the
gerund, which contains Voice, has an external argument and can assign accusative.
5
4
•
Note that in the absence of a possessor the interpretation of these nominalizations is
passive (Alexiadou 2001, Borer 2001).
Observation 2: nominalizations of alternating verbs seem to behave like their verbal
counterparts, 6 with one major difference (ambiguity of the intransitive variant):
(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.
John's breaking of the vase
the breaking of the vase (by John/by the wind)
John's accumulation of wealth
the accumulation of wealth (by John)
•
(9b-d) are ambiguous between two interpretations: a passive and a spontaneous,
anticausative, reading. 7
•
In the verbal domain the two interpretations are morphologically encoded (i.e. the
passive is clearly distinct from the anticausative structure).
3.2
•
(10)
German
Three types of nominalizations to be considered (Ehrich 1991, Ehrich & Rapp 2000):
a.
b.
c.
Das Heilen der Wunde
the healing the wound-gen
Das eine Wunde Heilen
the one wound-acc healing
Die Heilung der Wunde
the healing the wound-gen
Root-en + genitive
Root-en + accusative
Root-ung + genitive
3.2.1 Root+en
These nominalizations show verbal properties.
i) they license lexical case
(11)
das dem Nachbarn helfen
the the-dat neighbor help-en
ii) they can include modal verbs
(12)
das Studieren Wollen
the study-inf want-en
iii) they allow passive auxiliaries and participles
(13)
um
[allzuhäufiges Überfahren
und Verhaftet
Werden] zu vermeiden
in-order-to all-too-often overrun.Pass.Part and arrested.Pass.Part become to prevent
‘in order to prevent that (one) is overrun or arrested too often …’
6
Marantz (1997) and Harley & Noyer (2000) discuss the behavior of grow. Since we do not think that the two
variants belong to the same verb, we do not discuss this here. See Borer (2001) for an alternative analysis:
(i)
a.
John grows tomatoes
b.
Tomatoes grow c.
*John's growth of tomatoes
d.
the growth of tomatoes e.
Mary's growing of the tomatoes
7
Harley & Noyer (2000) note that if roots or even root +theme combinations can never be conceived of as being
externally caused, then they never have a possessor interpreted as an external argument.
(i)
a.
Wealth/Dust accumulated
b.
John accumulated wealth/#dust
c.
John's accumulation of wealth/#John's accumulation of dust
5
iv) they allow active, passive and anticausative realizations with or without extra
morphology.
The transitive pattern A:
the internal argument has accusative, the external argument
appears postnominal and has genitive.
(14)
a.
b.
c.
Das grossartige eine Wunde Heilen des
Medizinmannes
the extraordinary a-acc wound heal-en the-gen medicine-man
das häufige verrostete Türen
Öffnen des
Opas
the often rusted
doors-acc open-en the-gen grandfather
das häufige die Wiesen
Überschwemmen des
Flusses
the often the-acc meadows flood-en
the-gen river
The transitive pattern B:
(15)
a.
b.
c.
the internal argument has accusative and there is no overt
external argument. Since this is the only case nominalizations
where introduction of an external argument via PP is blocked,
we conclude that an external argument is covertly represented.
We take this to be PRO.
Das grossartige eine Wunde Heilen (??durch / ??vom Medizinmann)
the extraordinary a-acc wound healen
through / by the medicine-man
das häufige verrostete Türen Öffnen (??durch / ??von dem Opa)
the often rusted
doors-acc open-en through / by the grandfather
das häufige die Wiesen
Überschwemmen (??durch den Fluß)
the often the-acc meadows flood-en
through the river
The passive pattern: the internal argument has genitive and the agent can be introduced via a
durch-phrase. The von-phrase is ungrammatical. A second genitive is
ungrammatical, too.
(16)
a.
b.
c.
das Heilen der
Wunde durch den Medizinmann
the heal-en the-gen wound through the medicine-man
*das Heilen der
Wunde vom Medizinmann
the heal-en the-gen wound by-the medicine-man
*das Heilen der
Wunde des
Medizinmannes
the heal-en the-gen wound the-gen medicine-man
The anticausative pattern:
(17)
a.
b.
•
the internal argument has genitive and the causer can be
introduced via a durch-phrase and nothing else.
das Heilen der
Wunde durch die Kamille(-ngabe)
the heal-en the-gen wound through the camomile(-giving)
*das Heilen der Wunde von der Kamille(-ngabe)
the heal-en the-gen wound by the camomile(-giving)
Does it make sense to distinguish between the passive and the anticausative pattern?
YES 1: if -en nominals are really nominalizations of verbal structures, we would expect that
this difference is real.
YES 2: nominalizations of verbs that form marked anticausatives make a morphological
distinction between the two patterns.
6
•
(18)
With these verbs we find both patterns (with and without sich). The two differ in
systematic ways. The sich pattern (anticausative) is compatible only with causer PPs,
while the non-sich pattern (passive) is compatible only with agent PPs (both
introduced via durch). (Note that the German verbal passive licenses both theta roles.
This pattern resembles what we found in the verbal syntax of e.g. Hebrew and Greek.)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(19)
a.
b.
c.
d.
•
(20)
??das sich Öffnen der
Türen durch Peter
the REFL open-en the-gen doors through Peter
das Öffnen der
Türen durch Peter
the open-en the-gen doors through Peter
*das Öffnen der Türen von Peter
*das sich Öffnen der Türen von Peter
(?)das sich Öffnen der
Türen durch den Wind
the REFL open-en the-gen doors through the wind
*das Öffnen der
Türen durch den Wind
the open-en the-gen doors through the wind
*das sich Öffnen der Türen vom Wind
*das Öffnen der Türen vom Wind
Adding the adjective spontan (spontaneous) clearly gives two different interpretations:
in the absence of sich it modifies an implicit agent's action; in the presence of sich it
modifies the unfolding of the anticausative event (-en nominalizations of unmarked
verbs are ambiguous between the two readings):
a.
b.
das spontane
Öffnen der
Türen
the spontaneous open-en the-gen doors
das spontane sich Öffnen der
Türen
the spontaneous REFL open-en the-gen doors
TABLE 2. THE DIFFERENT CONSTRUALS OF –EN NOMINALIZATIONS
Verb- Semantics
int. Arg. ext.
Arg. ext.
Arg. Construal
Type
realisation semantics
realisation
causative
acc.
agent/causer gen.
Transitive Voice
∅
Sich
causative
acc.
agent/causer gen.
Transitive Voice
∅
Sich
causative
causative
acc.
acc.
agent/causer
agent/causer
PRO
PRO
Infinitival Voice
Infinitival Voice
∅
Sich
causative
causative
gen.
gen.
agent
agent
(durch)
(durch)
Passive Voice
Passive Voice
∅
Sich
anticausative gen.
anticausative gen.
causer
causer
(durch)
(durch)
Anticausative: no Voice
Expletive Voice 8
8
It seems that some verbs that necessarily use a reflexive to form verbal anticausatives can have an anticausative
reading in –en nominalizations in the absence of the reflexive (Kaufmann 2003). It seems to us that this
phenomenon is restricted to a number of verbs. Even with these verbs the reflexive can be used to disambiguate
the anticausative reading.
(i)
weil *(sich) die Krankheit / das Feuer ausbreitet
because REFL the disease /
the fire spreads
7
3.2.2 Root + ung
•
Nominalizations of externally caused roots can appear without an external argument.
Only a proper name can appear in the possessor position; the interpretation of the
nominalization in (21a) is passive. The same holds for agentive roots.
(21)
a.
b.
d
e.
•
•
die Zerstörung der
Stadt
the destruction the-gen city
Peters Zerstörung der
Stadt
Peter's destruction the-gen city
*des Sturmes Zerstörung der
Stadt
the storm's destruction the-gen city
*Die Stadt zerstörte (sich)
the city destroyed REFL
Is the syntax also passive?
-Ung nominalizations of alternating verbs: the class of verbs with marked morphology
in the anticausative pattern cannot take sich in the -ung nominalization. Does this mean
that an anticausative interpretation is blocked?
(22)
*die sich Öffnung der
Tür
the REFL open-ung the-gen door
NO 1: The nominalization licenses PPs introducing both agents and causers:
(23)
a.
b.
(24)
a.
b.
(25)
a.
b.
(26)
a
b.
die Öffnung der
Tür durch Peter
the open-ung the-gen door through Peter
*die Öffnung der
Tür vom Peter
the open-ung the-gen door by Peter
die Öffnung der
Tür durch den Wind
the open-ung the-gen door through the wind
*die Öffnung der
Tür vom Wind
the open-ung the-gen door by-the wind
die Heilung der Wunde durch Peter
the heal-ung the-gen wound through Peter
*die Heilung der Wunde von Peter
the heal-ung the-gen wound by Peter
die Heilung der
Wunde durch die Kamille
the heal-ung the-gen wound through the camomile
*die Heilung der
Wunde von der Kamille
the heal-ung the-gen wound by the camomile
NO 2: Addition of the adjective spontaneous leads to ambiguity with respect to the presence
of an implicit agent and the unfolding of the anticausative event:
(ii)
das rasche (sich) Ausbreiten der
Krankheit / des Feuers
the fast REFL spread-en the-gen disease /
the fire
8
(27)
a.
b.
die spontane
Veränderung der
Beitragssätze
(passive)
the spontaneous alter-ung
the-gen rates-of-contribution
die spontane Veränderung des
Blutbildes
(anticausative)
the spontaneous alter-ung
the-gen blood-count
•
Are the two interpretations syntactically encoded or not?
•
The same question arises for English -ation nominals, and both perspectives have been
proposed in the literature (No: Grimshaw 1990, Alexiadou 2001, Yes: Borer 2001, van
Hout & Reoper 1998).
•
Intensifying SELBST: the intensifier selbst (itself) in German has two uses; an
adnominal and ad-verbal/agentive use.
•
In the adnominal use it provides a set of (contextually restricted) alternatives to the
modified noun (Eckardt 2001).
(28)
Der König SELBST öffnete die Türe.
the king himself opened the door
{f |f maps king onto someone who might have opened the door instead}
= {butler-of, servant-of, child-of, maid-of, . . .}
•
(29)
Hole (2006) argues that in the agentive use SELBST modifies Voice. It provides us with
a set of (contextually given) alternatives to the way the original agent is thematically
involved in the proposition.
Q: Hat Paul den Kuchen SELBST gebacken?
has Paul the cake
himself baked
‘Did Paul bake the cake himSELF?’
A1: NEIN, jemand hat ihn FÜR ihn gebacken.
no
someone has it for him baked
‘NO, someone baked it FOR him.’
A2: NEIN, er hat ihn jemanden backen LASsen.
no
he has it someone bake let
‘NO, he HAD someone bake it.’
A3: NEIN, er hat ihn in einem LAden geKAUFT [wo er frisch gebacken WORden ist].
no
he has it in a
shop bought
where it had just been baked
‘NO, he BOUGHT it from a SHOP [where it HAD just been baked].’
•
(30)
The licensing of agentive selbst can therefore be used as a test for determine the
presence of Voice in nominalization.
Wir sollten Studierende
besser beraten. Das Studierende-Beraten …
we should students.ACCstrong better counsel. The students.ACCstrong-counseling
‘We should counsel students better. The counseling of students …’
9
(31)
a.
b.
(32)
a.
b.
•
das SELBST-Studierende-Beraten
the self-students-counseling
‘counseling students oneself’
das Studierende-SELBST-Beraten
the students-self-counseling
‘counseling students oneself’
*die (SELBST-)Studierend-en-Beratung
the self-student-LINKER-counseling
*die Studierend-en-(SELBST-)Beratung
the student-LINKER-self-counseling
The test suggests that -ung nominalizations do not contain Voice. The fact that an
anticausative interpretation is possible is not surprising then. However, the passive
interpretation is unexpected.
TABLE 3. THE DIFFERENT CONSTRUALS OF –UNG NOMINALIZATIONS
Verb- Semantics
int. Arg. ext.
Arg. ext.
Arg. Construal
Type
realisation semantics
realisation
causative
gen.
agent/causer (durch)
? no Voice
∅
sich
causative
gen.
agent/causer (durch)
? no Voice
∅
sich
•
(33)
4.
•
(34)
anticausative gen.
anticausative gen.
causer
causer
(durch)
(durch)
no Voice
? no expletive Voice
(33) shows the external argument realization with an externally caused verb and an
internally caused verb. Under a passive reading, agents and causers are licensed, while
under an anticausative reading only causers are licensed:
a.
Die Zerstörung der Stadt durch Caesar/ durch das Erdbeben
The destroy-ung the-gen city through Caesar/the earthquake
b.
Die Verarmung der Bevölkerung durch die jahrelange Dürre/
The impoverish-ung the-gen people through the years-long drought/
*durch die Bundeskanzlerin
through the Chancellor
External Argument implication in the absence of Voice
The structures for different nominalization types:
a.
b.
[DP [ -en [(Voice) [VP ...]]]]
[DP [ -ung [VP ...]]]
The question we wanted to address is how the real-world, i.e. encyclopedic, knowledge
interacts with formal properties underlying well-formedness.
•
-ung/-ation nominals suggest that the transitivity requirement for externally caused
roots can be shut off. That is the external argument need not be projected in the syntax
but its presence is felt because of our encyclopedic knowledge about the roots. Notice
10
that this is impossible in the verbal domain. Otherwise we would expect to find
anticausative syntax with these roots, which we do not find.
There are, however, two other domains in which we find something similar, the domain
of adjectival passive formation and the domain of middle formation (Doron &
Rappaport-Hovav 1991 and references therein).
•
(35)
a.
b.
The carpet is destroyed
This carpet destroys easily
Middle sentences and adjectival passives give us the feeling that an external argument is
present, however this does not manifest itself syntactically.
•
What are the similarities between the three constructions?
They all allow root semantics to be accessible via encyclopedic knowledge without the
syntactic projection of an external argument.
The three constructions are similar in that the event variable is not directly linked to Tense,
but it is linked to a special kind of Aspect: genericity in the case of middles, stative Aspect in
the case of adjectival passives (Embick 2004, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2007). 9
We thus need to search for the counterpart of this special kind of Aspect in the nominal
domain.
•
What is the trigger that allows encyclopedic knowledge to come into linguistic
interpretation without having been represented syntactically in nominalization? We
hypothesize that this relates to the mass noun interpretation these nominalizations
have. Mass noun formation is part of the mechanisms languages can use when a
generic interpretation is intended similarly to middle sentences, as is discussed in the
semantics literature (see e.g. the contributions in Carlson & Pelletier 1995 and the
discussion in the Papafragou's 1996 overview).
5. Further (open) questions
•
•
•
In the nominal domain external arguments introduced by PPs do not make a
distinction as to the preposition introducing them. Languages select for one of the two
possible prepositions. German durch, English by, Greek apo. Why?
How do nominalizations in other languages behave, which have a similar
morphological distinction with anticausatives (e.g. Greek and the Romance
languages)?
What is the reason for the restriction on the external theta role that we find in some
passives (Greek, Hebrew, German –en nominalization)?
9
In middles this violation of the semantic requirement on transitivity (that we find with agentive and externally
caused roots) is rescued in the absence of thematic Voice by the presence of genericity. We are allowed to form
anticausatives of externally caused roots if and only if genericity is present. Schäfer (2006) argues that the
evaluation of genericity together with our world knowledge on externally caused roots brings about the agentive
semantics.
(i)
a.
*Der Präsident ermordet sich
the president murders REFL
b.
Der Präsident ermordet sich nicht so leicht
the president murders REFL not so easily
11
References
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalization and ergativity.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 2007. Structuring participles. To appear in
Proceedings of WCCFL 26.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou & F. Schäfer 2006. The properties of anticausatives
crosslinguistically. In: M. Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton.
Bhatt, R. & D. Embick. In progress. Causative Derivations in Hindi. Ms., University of
Massachusetts at Amherst and University of Pennsylvania.
Borer, H. 2001. The forming, the formation and the form of nominals. Handout USC.
Carlson, G. & F. Pelletier. eds. 1995. The generic book. University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs, & P. Rosenbaum (eds.)
Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham (Mass.): Ginn & Co., 184221.
Doron, E. & M. Rappaport-Hovav. 1991. 'Affectedness and Externalization'. Proceedings of
NELS 21: 81-94.
Eckardt, R. 2001. “Reanalysing selbst” Natural Language Semantics 9: 371 - 412.
Ehrich, V. 1991. Nominalisierungen. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.) Semantik;
Ein Handbuch der internationalen Forschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 441-458.
Ehrich, V. & I. Rapp. 2000. Sortale Bedeutung und Argumentstruktur: ungNominalisierungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 19: 245–303.
Embick, D. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35:
355- 392.
Grimshaw, J. 2000. Argument Structure. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Harley, H. & R. Noyer. 2000. Formal vs. Encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: evidence
from nominalization. In B. Peters (ed.) The Lexicon-Encyclopedia Interface. Elsevier
Press.
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In
Causatives and Transitivity, Bernard Comrie, and Maria Polinsky (eds.), 87-120.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hole, D. 2006. Agentive selbst and the identity function. Ms., University of München.
Kaufmann, I. 2003. Infinitivnominalisierungen von reflexiven Verben: Evidenz gegen
Argumenstrukturvererbung? In C. Maienborn (Hrsg.) Asymmetrien: Festschrift für Ewald
Lang. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 197-226.
Kratzer, A. 1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Levin, B., & M. Rappaport-Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics
Interface. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.
Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press.
Marantz, A., 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of
your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 4.2,
Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams (eds.),
201-225. Philadelphia.
Marantz, A. 2005. Handout: Objects out of the lexicon: objects as event, presented at the
University of Vienna.
Papafragou, A. 1996. On generics. UCL Working papers in Linguistics 8.
Ramchand, G. 2006. First phase syntax. Ms., University of Tromsoe.
Schäfer, F. 2006. Middles as Voiced Anticausatives. In Proceedings of NELS 37, UIUC,
Urbana-Champaign.
Schäfer, F. In preparation. External arguments in change of state contexts: on the nature of
anticausative morphology. Ph.D. diss, Universität Stuttgart.
12