LINGUIST List 23.557 Fri Feb 03 2012 Review: Morphology; Syntax (LF): Lomashvili (2011) Editor for this issue: Monica Macaulay <monicalinguistlist.org> New! Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:             http://multitree.linguistlist.org/ This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly. Directory         1.     Aroldo Andrade , Complex Predicates Message 1: Complex Predicates Date: 03-Feb-2012 From: Aroldo Andrade <aroldo.andradegmail.com> Subject: Complex Predicates E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-1734.html AUTHOR: Lomashvili, Leila TITLE: Complex Predicates SUBTITLE: The syntax-morphology interface SERIES: Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 174 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins YEAR: 2011 Aroldo Andrade, State University of Campinas, Brazil INTRODUCTION This book explores the morphosyntax of a subset of complex predicates, involving causative and applicative constructions in three polysynthetic languages of the South Caucasian (Kartvelian) language family. Lomashvili’s monograph applies the Distributed Morphology framework in order to explain the different possibilities of complex predicate formation in these languages. SUMMARY The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 is intended to familiarize the reader with the preliminaries to the study (introduction, basic theoretical assumptions and specific grammatical information). Chapter 2 presents the types of causative constructions and their derivations, with focus on the possibility of causative alternation by syntactic-semantic verb class. Chapter 3, named “Applicatives as complex predicates,” discusses different applicative constructions, their derivations and productivity restrictions. Finally, chapter 4 includes the conclusions of the study. Chapter 1 begins by enumerating the research goals. The main objective of the book, the discussion of different causative and applicative predicates, understood as complex predicates (in the sense of Baker 1996, i.e., verbal structures containing at least two morphemes, each marking a phrasal argument in the theta-grid) is framed by the author’s interest in the mismatches that arise between the syntax-semantics and the morphology of these constructions. Theoretical assumptions are presented from section 1.2 to 1.6. First, Distributed Morphology is contrasted with the lexical-semantic approach, in that the syntax of word and sentence derivations is treated in the same syntactic structure in the first approach. The assumptions concerning the argument structure of causative and applicative constructions are then presented: the projection of a Cause head which adds an event argument to the structure (but only increases the valency of the verb upon its bundling with a Voice feature); and the projection of an Applicative head, either below the VP (when the argument expresses a static possession, recipient, or source), or above it (when the argument undergoes the effects of an event expressed by the verb). Apart from these assumptions, driven from Pylkkännen’s (2002) work, the author also considers Cuervo’s (2003) additional idea that psychological verb constructions may be interpreted as high applicatives. Another facet of Pylkkännen’s (2002) work, the variation regarding the type of complement that Cause takes (root, VP and vP), is also assumed. The mentioned configurations vary regarding the creation of mono- or bi-eventive structures, which can be verified by checking the scope of VP-modifying adverbials; and the same reasoning is then applied to low and high applicatives. Other more basic theoretical assumptions are then presented, such as the Distributed Morphology framework, the notion of syntactic phases, the connection between contextual allomorphy and phasehood (Embick 2010), and the different flavors of little vs (v-do, v-be and v-go, Cuervo 2003). Sections 1.6 and 1.7 present specific grammatical information about Kartvelian syntax: the status of templates and Case and agreement. This presentation is centered on Georgian, a language with three positions for morphemes before the verbal root and up to eight positions after it. In order to account for its order, Lomashvili rejects Baker’s Mirror Principle, which would be too restrictive to account for the data, especially with respect to the post-verbal morphemes, with some of these recurring for no obvious semantic reason (cf. ‘-eb’ and ‘-in’): (1) The perfective series verb ga-m-e-ket-eb-in-eb-in-o-s preverbal.affix-1s-voice-make-thematic.marker-cause-thematic.marker-cause-tam-3o ‘I would have caused X to make Y.’ Discontinuous bleeding (Noyer 1997), a central theme of the book, proposes that a single terminal node may be associated with two positions of exponence. This can also be observed in (1), where the subject-person morpheme occurs in the second slot, whereas the object-person morpheme occurs in the final slot. The author then discusses the functioning of the screeve system (conjugation pattern for one specific combination of Tense, Aspect, and Mood), the possibilities of case marking and the properties of the aspectually-conditioned split ergativity. The contexts where the inverse agreement pattern shows up are relevant, i.e., all those where subjects are assigned dative case (the perfective series, adversity causatives, causatives of internally-changed verbs, some applicatives etc.). Finally, section 1.8 includes an outline of the following chapters. Chapter 2, “The morphosyntax of causative alternations,” begins with the enumeration of assumptions already outlined in chapter 1. Lomashvili adopts Pylkkännen’s (2002) approach in that the Cause and Voice heads may project separately, with the external argument being realized in the SpecVoiceP. This separation permits one to dissociate the presence of a Cause head from the projection of an external argument, as happens with adversity causatives. At this point the text describes the main types of verbs (sections 2.3 to 2.5). First, causatives of inchoative verbs are formed by either an ‘a-’ or zero morpheme inserted in the Cause head. The insertion of such a Vocabulary Item is root-conditioned. The ‘a-’ morpheme co-occurs with non-syllabic roots, a fact that indicates the Cause head is attached at a low position in the clause. Second, in causatives of unergative verbs the Cause head is cyclic due to its phase-selecting attachment and therefore shows only the ‘a-’ morpheme, selected by a transitive v. In this sense, Lomashvili adopts Hale & Keyser’s (2002) theory of conflation in order to explain unergatives formed by noun or adjective incorporation. For iterated causatives, a second Cause head is inserted in the structure, realized as ‘-in’, which co-occurs with ditransitive verbs. These adjective-incorporated causatives with the reading “make X do V” are bi-eventive, as the tests with VP-adverbials and depictive modifiers attest. Third, with causatives of transitive verbs, two causative morphemes are realized (‘a-’ and ‘-(ev)in’), but only in the perfective series (“make X do V” sequences do not normally show an additional causative morpheme). The occurrence of ‘-evin’ instead of ‘-in’ is attributed to an erstwhile thematic marker ‘-eb’ turned into ‘-ev’ due to root-conditioned allomorphy, i.e., with non-syllabic roots. The presentation then turns to the discussion of specific constructions (sections 2.6 to 2.8). First, the discussion on adversity causatives is important to illustrate that a causative does not necessarily involve a new argument, its main feature being the expression of a causing event: in this construction, the Voice head marked [nonactive] feeds the first Cause head to be zero, and the second to be expressed as ‘-(ev)in’. Due to the fact that the causer (external argument) is not projected, the corresponding sentences behave as mono-eventive. Second, constructions with the meaning “make X pretend to be Adj/N” are taken up. These include the grammaticalized item “pretend” (realized as ‘-un’ or zero, depending on the number of syllables) and involve the incorporation of a noun or an adjective, with a derivational affix and a reflexive morpheme. The two causative heads are merged over the vP corresponding to the “pretend” morpheme, implying a bi-eventive interpretation. Third, the behavior of psych verbs is analyzed. These are classified into three types, according to the expression of a state, dynamic passive, or activity. Only this last class can alternate with both causatives and passives. In the causative of activity psych verbs, only one or two Cause heads may show up, the first option indicating a reflexive causative (“make X love …self”). Finally, there is a section with the basic facts on causative predicates in the related languages Mengrelian and Svan, with data collected from grammars and dictionaries. Chapter 3 explores the morphosyntactic properties of applicative constructions. The morphological realization of the Appl head may not be uniform due to contextual allomorphy. In 3.1 the author presents the theoretical goals and assumptions, together with an outline of the chapter. From sections 3.2 to 3.6, low applicatives are analyzed in their manifold cases. First, recipient and source applicatives are presented in terms of allomorphy among ‘i-’, ‘u-’ and zero, according to substantive features, except when the verbs are basic ditransitives. The third semantic type, low applicatives of stative possession, is presented as being derived from activity state verbs, where a dative can be replaced by a genitive argument. Second, applicatives occurring with unaccusative and inchoative verbs are set apart due to their novelty with regard to previous accounts in the literature. For instance, Cuervo (2003) mentions affected applicatives formed from inchoatives, which are higher than v-be. For Lomashvili, Georgian has examples of true low applicatives with inchoatives, where the nominative DP is not projected as an external argument, but as a theme, and the applied argument occurs in SpecApplP, as usual. In these structures, the Voice head is realized as ‘e-’, and the Appl head is realized as zero. The best solution for this would be a dependency between the [nonactive] feature in the former, and Vocabulary Insertion in the latter. Third, Noun- and Adjective-Incorporated predicates also realize low applicatives with a dative benefactee subject and a nominative theme argument. Both the Appl head (‘i-’ or ‘u-’, according to the person feature) and the Voice head (‘-d’) are realized. Fourth, reflexive applicatives show a benefactive relation between the theme and an external argument. This expected relation is solved by means of the postulation of a PRO in SpecApplP, coindexed with the external argument. An ‘i-’ reflexive morpheme is inserted in the same preverbal slot used for Voice and Appl. Fifth, a section is devoted to possessor datives, in which a verbal root is inserted under v-do, v-be or v-go. It is noticeable that some stative verbs do not accept a dative, and allow instead a genitive. The explanation for this restriction is that only predicates in the form of activity psychological verbs allow the dativization. In section 3.7, four-place predicates are analyzed, either as a combination of high and low applicatives in the same structure, or as a high applicative together with a PP. A correlation between case marking (or selection of postposition) and semantic interpretation is put forward: inanimate datives are marked with ‘-ze’, indicating a location, whereas animate datives are marked with ‘-tan’, indicating a recipient. In section 3.8, high applicatives, i.e., applicative arguments that relate to the event expressed by the verb, are discussed under three types: state unaccusatives, other unaccusatives (denoting a change of state, and therefore under v-go) and dynamic activity verbs. However, not only high applicatives are described, but also the very distinction between high and low applicatives. A last section includes comparative data about applicatives on the related languages Mengrelian and Svan. Chapter 4 presents the main conclusions, where the complex predicate status of the constructions is reaffirmed, and the main theoretical solutions of the book are summarized. EVALUATION This is a valuable book, for it includes a rich discussion on data from different Caucasian languages. The analysis of under-represented languages is always very welcome in generative linguistics, for it broadens the scope of the theories and at the same time it permits us to test these in typologically diverse systems. Another very interesting aspect of the book is the questioning of previous proposals, necessary to accomplish the challenge taken up by the author: to give a coherent formal account of complex predicates in Georgian, and to apply these ideas to Mengrelian and Svan, whenever possible. Therefore the following criticisms are not intended to invalidate the bulk of the proposals, but to point out some weaknesses arising from the lack of clarity and completeness of the presentation. Although the author does introduce theoretical background to her readers, in some points the presentation lacks clarity. First, in the literature review, some works are presented as assumptions; but in fact they are theoretical background that is still worked out during the proposal, such as in the presentation of case valuation of low applicatives on page 116, without having presented the proposal based on Lomashvili and Harley (2011) before. Second, there are contradictions between some parts of the presentation, at least at first glance: “High and low applicatives show a distinction in terms of mono-/bi-eventiveness” (page 13) and “The simpler event structure of high and low applicatives and the size of the complement that both Appl heads take means that the resulting structure will always show mono-eventive properties with respect to adverbial scope” (page 14). Third, there are minor typing and numbering errors (mismatches between the examples and the references to them) that may also render the text less straightforward for those less familiar with the latest theoretical developments. In some cases, as on page 151, correlations between features and exponents are switched (in the case of the morphemes ‘-ze’ and ‘-tan’). The argumentation could also be more complete and stronger. First, although expressly dismissed by the author as a task outside the scope of the book, the reader feels as a relevant gap that no postsyntactic rule is presented in order to explain the correct linearization of the morphemes. Second, some other aspects of the book should be better explored, such as decisions regarding the projection of arguments. For instance, in the representation of the causative of an unergative (“X makes Y scream”) on page 50, the only argument of ‘scream’ is projected as a theme sister of RootP, although it would usually be projected as the external argument in SpecvP. In the same vein, no explanation is given for why the dative causer argument is included under a supplementary SpecApplP together with the genitive argument marked with a postposition ‘Gias-tvis’ (“for Gia”), on page 116. Third, more explanation should be given with respect to the minimalist framework assumed, as for page 17. One example is the apparent violation of the Inclusiveness Condition deriving from the adoption of the Principle of Phi-activation in Lomashvili and Harley (2011), according to which “a probe acquires an active phi-feature bundle when it is merged into a domain which contains a Case-active DP with marked phi-features” (page 118). Other examples relate to the use of coindexation of PRO to the external argument in order to account for reflexive applicatives in section 3.7, and restriction to the projection of multiple specifiers, used to explain why stative verbs would disallow the projection of applied arguments. In conclusion, the problems pointed out above make this book more difficult to read and also give a feeling of an unfinished task. Nevertheless, I consider these observations to be mitigated in face of the difficulties related to the application of this formal approach to under-represented languages. I recommend it to all linguists interested in either polysynthetic languages or in causative constructions. REFERENCES Baker, M. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. Cuervo, M. 2003. Datives at Large. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Embick, D. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lomashvili, L. & Harley, H. 2011. Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica 65:3, p. 233-267. Noyer, R. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland. Pylkkännen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Aroldo Andrade is a postdoctoral fellow at the State University of Campinas. His research focus is the relation between morphosyntactic change and information structure. For his PhD he studied complex predicates formed by raising/control and Exceptional Case Marking verbs, in connection with the realization of clitic climbing in the history of Portuguese. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 03-Feb-2012       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.