The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
|Full Title:||Little v|
|Start Date:||25-Oct-2013 - 26-Oct-2013|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||Little v
LUCL, Leiden, 25-26 October 2013
Lisa Cheng, Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, Laura Migliori and Giuseppe Torcolacci
Little v (or simply v) is one of the most discussed heads in the history of syntax. Since Larson’s (1988) analysis of ditransitive verbs involving a layered V, the idea of an extra head in the V domain, in addition to V, has taken many different forms. The v head was first proposed by Chomsky (1995), following an idea by Kratzer (1996) on (v-)Voice as the head whose specifier hosts the external argument of a verb. For transitive verbs, v was taken to be the locus of Burzio’s generalization. From this definition, it follows that v needs not be present in unaccusatives and it can be in unergatives, if they are analyzed following Hale & Keyser (1993) et seq.
Soon after, within Distributed Morphology, v was assumed to be a ‘verbalizer’, i.e. the head that transforms a root into a verb. Both Harley (1995) and Marantz (1997) maintain that, given this formulation, v must be present in unaccusatives and unergatives as well as in transitives.
As for passives, while the Baker, Johnson & Roberts’s (1989) GB analysis of passives was pretty much accepted by everyone, the introduction of a Numeration and of a derivational syntax made the relation between passive and active transitives blur. Passives were either assumed not to feature a v, or to feature a defective one (Chomsky 1995 ff.), or to be derived through the presence of a (dedicated) Voice head (Kratzer 1996, Marantz 2001, Arad 2003) by virtue of merging an argument in this head alone or by accompanying merge with some sort of operation (e.g. Collins 2005’s smuggling).
Along another line, v has been thought of as encoding all sorts of inner aspectual/Aktionsart information (Folli & Harley 2004 et seq., Ramchand 2008). Lastly, v has been analysed as the locus of anticausative constructions, middles, and impersonals (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2004 et seq., Schäfer 2007 et seq., Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2006 et seq., D’Alessandro 2004), and as being involved in the creation of ergativity patterns (Bittner & Hale 1986, Paul & Travis 2003, Aldridge 2004).
A lot of debate has followed since these first formulations, and many different roles have been attributed to v. This workshop aims at surveying all uses of v, and at finding a common denominator between them.
|Calls and Conferences main page|