search

langsci / 163

A lexicalist account of argument structure
2 stars 0 forks source link

@PASSIVE! (p. 26) [via PaperHive@docloop] #304

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

in passives has to be taken care of by c-structure rules that are specific to the benefactive construction

Ash Asudeh wrote:

I'm afraid that I think that it's simply not true that in our system 'the assignment of grammatical functions in passives has to be taken care of by c-structure rules that are specific to the benefactive construction'. It's true that in AGT (2014) we only discuss this very briefly in section 4.5, and never show the lexical entry for passive 'sung', but essentially it would just add @PASSIVE. This would then be inserted in the phrase structure and could get @BENEFACTIVE from the V node. Or, if you prefer (and you do, I think), rather than having the optional @BENEFACTIVE on V in the double-object c-structure rule, we could move the optional template call also to the lexical entry for 'sung'. It would then interact with @PASSIVE as required. See also the material on passive and its interaction with object-dropping verbs in Asudeh & Giorgolo (2012).

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

You should read the discussion there. If your c-structures are assumed to be specific to the benefactive construction than you have to have a specific version for passives as well. If you don't you do not need c-structure and can go lexical. > Or, if you prefer (and you do, I think), rather than having the optional @BENEFACTIVE on V in the double-object c-structure rule, we could move the optional template call also to the lexical entry for 'sung'. Yes, this is the point of the book. If you do this everything is fine. (I hope. =:-)

Link to original comment. About docloop.